It's pretty obvious that aggression can have a genetic component and, as Loki's mum has said, there are dangerous lines but that doesn't extend across entire breeds. We cannot say "That dog is such and such breed. It is therefor aggressive by nature."

It does quite a lot more than that but some is not immediately obvious (for example the proposal includes compulsory registration and 3rd party insurance of all dogs and all breeders and that alone would have several welfare benefits) but before that I would just like to clarify - the DDA (and breed bans) is not about dog fighting. It is a public safety measure that doesn't even deal with dog fighting, doesn't mention it.

Regarding the test for owners it would do two things. Firstly it would, by requiring potential owners to apply for, study for and sit a test, eliminate at a stroke those least commited of owners who buy their dog on an impulse in a pub bar, pet shop or street corner. This, I believe, would have a major impact on irresponsible ownership as I am sure that with dogs, as with life in general, it is the worst 5% of owners who cause 95% of the problems. If we can squeeze out the very worst of owners we can save ourselves a disproportionate amount of grief.

Secondly it requires potential owners to demonstrate a minimum level of competency and awareness of relevent laws and regulations. One of the troubles that plague our dogs is that education is slow to be absorbed because so many people already consider themselves to be expert (some on no more basis than having watched a couple of episodes of Milan). A pub conversation about dogs is sure to produce any number of such experts advocating an equal number of hideously inappropriate ways of handling a dog. I think a comparison with our driving test is appropriate - when studying for our driving tests we learn that parking on a zig-zag is prohibited. After we pass our test some (irresponsible) drivers park on zig-zags anyway but even such as these would not argue that parking on zig-zags was a good thing to do. Compare that with the situation we have with dogs.

And, staying with the driving test analogy for a moment longer, and acknowledging that some people drive without having been tested and some people drive badly even after passing a test still imagine what chaos would ensue if we did away with the driving test altogether - imagine if we said 'Want to drive? Just get a car and have a go! And if you wreck it just come back and get another one'. That's the situation we have with dogs. It is undeniable that the driving test works to raise the average standard of driving. If we want dog owning standards to rise we need competency testing, too.

Lastly the DOT provides a comprehensive framework that incorporates, for the first time, all owners and breeders in such a way that should reduce overproduction, reduce abandonment/surrender and reduce dog attacks but, if it fell short in any regard, is infinitely tweakable to get the result that is needed - if ownerships standards remain low then crank up the ownership test, if breeding remains high then crank up the breeder test, if attacks remain high then crank up the insurance premiums for the demographic responsible, etc.

my motto is if a dog has a mouth full of teeth and a bad owner , then this dog is DANGEROUS! so ban the DEED not the BREED

So what's your point? the last time I was at a dog show a Chesaspeake bay retriever went for me and my dog, doesn't make me think the whole breed is dog aggressive. I am sure many people on this board have had similiar experiences with alot of well known family breeds of dog 'going' for their dog by the ringside.

completly agree.

even if i had to pay £100 i'd still do it.
my dogs are my world and any cost involved is just incidental.

Ban the Deed not the Breed!

Maybe it is time we forget what "we" want and think about the dog. I said I owned one of these large flock guardians whom I loved very much but living with them for 12 years I began to see more and more that being a "pet" was not what they need. Flock guardians can work in places like Australia and America (as well as their countries of origin) where there are great tracks of land that they can work. They would be too dangerous to be left in fields over here to do their job.

Here they are mostly confined - can not be let of the lead. Most breeders desire 1st generation stock with inbuilt temperaments and yes after many selective mating you can get a nice pet but that goes against the breed - so why do it.

My favourite breed - German Shepherds - are banned in some areas I believe. That`s why I could never support breed-specific bans. I do believe owners of dogs involved in attacks get off far too lightly.

Very well said.

My favourite breed and the one I choose to live with is banned in some countries (like Norway).

Until recently it was restricted in the UK under the DWA and I was against this and wrote to various organisations to question it. However when they became unrestricted there was a free for all breeding and cross breeding frenzy by people with no knowledge of these animals or any regard to what they produced. The net result has been far to many dogs being returned to breeders before being a year old, and a surplus of half breed animals. The breed was totally destroyed before it hit the ground.

While I am not keen on legislation that targets breeds, I am unconvinced by the need to un-ban and make freely available those breeds currently restricted.

I think that is a whole other thread, nothing to do with banned breeds exclusively