Thanks JB - I think some of your posts would read like you want all Pits banned which from a fellow Bull breed owners point of view I couldnt understand your standpoint, but when you are talking like that in your posts I am to assume you mean you are happy for the ban to stay in place in the UK, and for it not to be lifted? BUt not that you believe that the breed itself is more dangerous ( worldwide ie : where it is legal) than any other ?

-

Exactly my point Danni, from the first post I posted in this thread, (although it may sound otherwise) no where I don't think I have ever said I hate them ( they are not for me) but given the nature and breeding that goes on here, I think, then yes they could be dangerous, and as such until things change the ban should stay in place, although then you may ask, its rather like the chicken and the egg situation.

Lozzi, where was I rude to you ?? you answered for someone else, and misinterpreted my question, I merely pointed this out to you.

What was your intention, in misquoting me???>>>

Not quite.

If we accept your premise that UK dogs are unstable because of poor breeding and that that poor breeding is because of the ban then removing the ban would yield immediate improvements in breeding and subsequent improvement in the average stability of the breed whilst maintaining the ban maintains the problem.

Why keep a ban that is exacerbating the very issue it is supposed to reduce?

There's only one reason - it's because the government has so comprehensively programmed the wider UK public into believing the nonsense about 'ticking time bombs' and the rest that they fear any attempt to backtrack would be political suicide.

My!!! mind control now

Well basically, at the end of the day, if responsible owners didnt buy/breed Pit Bulls then we wouldnt have them would we? They are, after all, BANNED! Its a society of law breakers that have fuelled threads like this, and at the end of it all, the poor Dog will end up in the wrong.

Do you dispute that this is the message promoted by governments since '91 or that this is the commonly held view of the breed among the majority non-dog owning public?

Besides you've kind of missed the thrust of my post which was it is illogical to keep in place a ban which is causing the problem you are trying to solve. So if your premise is correct (i.e. that the ban is distorting the UK population by eliminating better breeders) we should repeal the ban.

I'm guessing you don't agree with this but I'd like to know why.

What is banned is a 'type'.

Can you tell, by looking at an eight-week old puppy, if it will grow to become 'type' or not?

The "Pit Bull Terrier" is banned as a BREED in this country. Or are you referring to another piece of legislation? See John, I have MUCH respect for you and the knowledge you hold for these dogs, but honestly, the Pit Bull is banned, and seeing the thread is about Pit Bulls thats what I was referring to.

The pit bull terrier is not even recognised as a breed in this country.

The DDA bans pit bull 'types' and I'm not talking semantics - this is critical. The thread is about pit bulls and whether they are dangerous. Even if we take the subject as the breed (and, in this country, it is not a breed but a crossbreed of a certain 'type') we still run into the same problem when we talk about bans. Because it is almost impossible to ban a pure breed as it is so easily sidestepped by outcrossing. That is why the bans (here and elsewhere) are forced to resort to vague language of 'type'.

If you want to talk about temperament or aggression or suchlike then we can choose to focus exclusively on the breed but if you want to talk bans then we must face up to the issue of 'type' and the problems that that presents.

any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;

Which does say the Pit Bull Terrier as a breed also, as it does the type known as the Tosa. I appreciate your point, but the vast majority of seized dogs ARE of that type John, and most are Pit Bulls in reality, the seized fighters Im talking now.


I understand there are genuine pets who are caught up in this, but it appears the law is here to stay, however ineffective it is.