well i have spent (read that as wasted) most of my Friday night reading through these 35 pages and, what can i say without ending up banned??!!

So i am entitled to post a reply, can i just add that bebe's first post on page one sums up most of my views as does many of Sal and hayleys posts to name a couple.

but some of the rubbish and childishness i have read on here is appalling, i have never come across it before on any forums which i am a member of a good load! Mini as a moderator how can you condone your singling out of HayleySBT so obviously and constantly picking at everything she says? Maybe you should try following the rules you are so quick to preach at everyone else.

i am going to stop there and go back tot he "irish" stafford post as i can see myslef losing it on there aswell.

no i do not think Pitbulls are dangerous - the humans are.

one point that was said which has stuck in my head and i cannot remember who said it somethinga long the lines of "that dog was responsible for ellie Lawrensons death". the dog was not. the idiot owner was. did the dog ask to be treated as it was generally and left unoccupied with a child that didnt normally live with it when it was olso scared by fireworks?? i think not. offtopic i know but then again so is most of these 35 pages.

You are indeed entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. As long as it's given in a courteous manner, respecting other's values, beliefs and opinions.

It is a very emotive subject, I know on both 'sides'. But we should remember that we are all (hopefully) dog lovers here, and while we may have differing opinions about things, there is usually no right or wrong answers, just opinions.

So take a deep breath, and then feel free to rejoin the debate...who knows you may even help to change someones opinion with a calm and rational discussion.

I've come to the conclusion that most people who are for pitbulls being banned know nothing about them! Where as the others (myself included) who don't think they should be banned have done some research or at least know something about them? i.e staffy owners who researched they're dogs before buying and looked into they're history ect. i have about 10 pitbull books as i am very interested in the breed. I enjoy reading about the real pitbull pets rather than the "monsters" that are put in the media.That's just my thought! but as said everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

totally agree with your opinion kristian.

courteous manner, respecting other people etc etc??? maybe others should read that and take heed as i do not think i haev said anything out of line or personal attacke. please correct me if im wrong

SBTlover I don't think I have singled out anyone. I have quoted a number of posts written by a number of people both agreeing and disagreeing with them , if people question my posts I reply. If you think any post breaks the rules please use the report post function.

SBTlover I could say you have singled me out but as an adult posting in a debate I expect to have my opinions questioned, that is the nature of debate, I do not consider having my opinion questioned as being 'singled out'

The integrity of any forum is subject to the people who post and the content of their posts. I believe the content of posts should be factual as well as opinion based and anyone here has a right to question both facts and opinions if they disagree with them. Obviously there are going to be some people one disagrees with more than others.

Maybe the many forums to which you belong do not believe in integrity, that is their choice and yours to belong to them .

I will also watch carefully and question anyone who posts and freely admits to lying, advocates aggression in dogs, behaves in a way that could causes problems to other dog owners or posts in a way that detracts from the integrity of the site ...I do this for the good of us all!

[QUOTE=bigbullz;972833] Unless you have actually met the breed, you cannot really say they are dangerous. The dogs in the recent attacks were probably mongrels. They were not purebred Pitbull Terriers as these dogs were never bred for man aggression, only dog aggression. QUOTE]

it might just be me but isnt dog aggression as bad as human aggression?

the breed was banned because of a series of attacks, clearly they had got into the wrong hands, but all the same they were involved in serious attacks. the other three breeds were banned because they were bred for fighting

how many attacks does it need to take before the general public realise that the authorities took these steps to try and remedy the situation? clearly there havent been enough

in an ideal situation NO dogs would get into the wrong hands but we dont live in an ideal world and until the day that can be guaranteed then i think it is only reasonable that some precautionary measures should be in place

and for all the people that claim to own pitbulls or crosses that are very well behaved and shining examples for the breed, you are breaking a law put in place to protect people, how can you call yourselves "responsible owners"
(sorry that only goes for owners where these breeds are banned)

[QUOTE=gaznweebeasties;984865] Not sure whether there is anybody on here claiming to own a pit bull terrier in the UK.

I understand that we do not live in an ideal world, and everybody will agree that something needed to be done to prevent the attacks that occured back then, however the attacks have not stopped. The dda was introduced 16 years ago following a spate of attacks, not all included pit bulls, rottweillers were also involved, amongst other breeds. Attacks have not stopped as a result of the ban. It cannot be policed properly, and due to the inclusion of the word "type", perfectly legal breeds can very easily fall under this description.

This topic is not to with the dda, however it is very easy to get dragged into a discussion involving pit bulls which then results in the dda being mentioned. Precautionary measures do need to be in place, but I do not believe that banning a breed is the correct solution, as the pit bull is no more dangerous than any other breed in the wrong hands in my opinion.

its true any dog is dangerous but the bigger more powerful dogs are capable of doing more damage

combine that with the pitbulls 100% effort into whatever activity attitude and you can understand why people are quite rightly wary and will impose a ban to try and stop these dogs getting into the wrong hands

People maybe wary, but what about those that are not. What about the responsible experienced people who have the ability to control these dogs, and as such enjoy the tremendous companionship that they offer. A lot of people would find it difficult to part with the breed of their choice, especially knowing that they are more than capable of raising a well behaved, trained, loving dog. Precautionary measures do need to be in place, as dog attacks on humans should not be tolerated, but not to the extent where the responsible majority are punished, which is the case when bans are imposed. Again, add to that the police's innefficiency to impose the law (however ridiculous it is, IMO) and you've got a piece of inneffective and pointless legislation which doesn't achieve its aims.

who would be responsible for making that judgement?

i have heard people say bring back dog licences, the problem with that is some dog owners won't be able to afford one and so you are pricing them out of a companion

plus how many idiots are out there racing cars down quiet streets, most have licences and have passed written as well as practical tests to get them, they drive one way for the exam and once they've got a licence they drive like lunatics, it WILL be the same if there is a dog licence and then we are back to having idiots with highly dangerous dogs again

i would love to see pitbulls given a good press but unfortunately i think that if they were allowed to be owned again it would only be a matter of time before they are in the press for the wrong reason