I believe representations were made by the KC to register Pit Bulls when they first came to Britain, as some Pit Bulls/Am Staffs are dual reg in the States, they were told by those who had the Pit Bulls no thank you as you seem to have altered almost every breed that you have become involved with and not for the better.

thats the way it should be as well :smt023 :smt023
better that way round than pitbull owners going on bended knee to the KC to ask for them to give "acceptance" of this epitomy of canine brilliance!
If the pitbull had been reg'd on introduction to the UK with the KC I am pretty sure we would be seeing huge blocky stuffy necked dogs with a reduced working ability by now, it doesnt normally take long for breeds introduced to become this way unless they are kept as dual purpose workers/show dogs

the worst thing to ever happen to the APBT was its introduction into the UK it ended up badly bred ,and bred for the money and it was the bull breed lovers that done this by letting the APBT terrier into the wrong hands .... and there is one man in the UK who has been a leech on the backs of the bull breeds for over 20 years making his living from them he imported every dog he could get his hands on and sold and bred them and sold all the paraphenalia that goes with them ....the UK is the country where DDA started and turned into BSL and has spread around the world thats what the UK lovers of the APBT have done they have destroyed it

Very relevant point Minty.

cant disagree with you there minty, everything you say is true, the APBT was doing fine in the states, til it came here now it has about the worst reputation of all the dog breeds in the world

i have never owned a bull terrier,but have been involved with several pit bull types who no fault of there own,have been snatched from there familys,and put on death row ,for looking like an illegal pit ball.these bogs included labrador crosses,boxer crosses,staffie crosses.all there dogs were loving family pets,there only crimewas there apperance,some of these were lucky and returned to there owners,but made to wear a muzzle in public,others were murderd.if this ever happens to any of your dogs,and dont just say it wont becouse it could,please get streight in touch with me as i have lists of people including solisiters who can help

JULIEKELHAM good for you i raise my hat to you .....you have never had a bull terrier and yet you are fighting against BSL and have probably done more against BSL than the majority of bull terriers owners have done or ever will do in the fight against BSL

I have said this before - Breed Specific Legislation enacted against ANY breed is totally stupid & illogical. All owners of all breeds & crosses should stand together against it. Here in Australia, particularly in Queensland, it is not only pitbulls that can be seized & destroyed but also pitbull TYPES. This leaves the door of the euthanasia room open to all sorts of dogs that the ignorant, officious, & uncaring people that administer the regulations may think are of the type.

Brusbane City Council has a Pitbull Terrier Checklist. I will type it out for your information & amazement.

Each item on the checklist has a grading of 0-3. A grading of 0 indicated no resemblance. 1 indicates a minor resemblance. 2 indicates a strong resemblance. 3 indictes a clear & full likeness.

A score of 1-49 indicates that there are not sufficient physical features present to class the dog as a Pitbull Terrier.
A score of 50+ indicates sufficient features to class the dog as a Pitbull Crossbreed.
A score of 66 points indicates that the dog is a Pitbull Terrier.

1) Dog's head is mediium in length and brick shaped.
2) The dog's head has a skull shape which is flat & widest at the ears with prominent cheeks.
3) The dog's muzzle is square, wide & deep.
4. The dog's muzzle has well pronounced jaws, displaying strength.
5) The dog's teeth meet tightly over lower teeth.
6) The dog's ears are set high on the head & free from wrinkles.
7) The dog's eyes are round.
) The dog's eyes are set far apart, low down on the skull.
9) The dog's nose has wide, open nostrils.
10) The dog's neck is muscular & slightly arched.
11) The dog's neck tapers from shoulders to head.
12) The dog's neck is free from looseness of skin.
13) The dog's shoulders are strong & muscular with wide sloping shoulders.
14) The dog's back is short & strong.
15) The dog's back is slightly sloping from withers to rump.
16) The dog's back is slightly arched at the loins with the loins slightly tucked.
17) The dog's chest is deep, but not too broad, with well sprung ribs.
1 ) The dog's legs are medium to large, round bones and reasonably strong.
19) The dog's feet are of medium size.
20) The dog's thighs have well developed muscles.
21) The dog's coat is short & stiff to touch.
22) The dog's height is between 30cm and 70cm


"They came for the pitbulls and I didn't speak up as I did not own one.

They came for the GSDs, the BTs and Rotties, and still I did not speak up, as I did not own one.

When they came for the dogs over 20 cms high I was worried but I didn't speak up, as my dog was just under.

Then they came for my dog and there was nobody left to speak for ME..." (from the EDBA website)

Thought you might like to see this; apologies to anyone who's already read this news.

(Cross-posted from the Bull Breeds Forum):

Legislation was dealt a savage blow last week in an historic victory
for American campaigners when the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled
that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more
dangerous than another, simply because of its breed.

Around the world, anti-BSL campaigners are rejoicing at the ruling
that drew on evidence provided by genuine canine experts, which was
favoured by the judges over subjective evidence, put forward by
veterinarians and politicians. The court ruling and the evidence
used may now be legitimately used to fight BSL in other countries
such as Germany and Australia, as well as other US States. In the
UK, the Dangerous Dogs Act could possibly be open to a direct legal
challenge in the same way.

The action in Alabama was brought by the Washington Animal
Foundation (WAF) against the city of Huntsville, which had claimed
that American Pit Bull Terriers were `genetically dangerous'. The
case centred on four Pit Bulls held in an animal shelter and adopted
by three local women.

The dogs were survivors of a group of over 50 Pit Bulls seized in a
raid on a dog-fighting ring in April 2000. Half of the dogs died
from injuries or disease, whilst the reminder ?including four
puppies - were held at the City pound and put up for adoption.
Shelia Tack, an emergency room nurse at Crestwood Hospital, adopted
two of the puppies that she named Justice and Elizabeth. Whilst they
remained impounded, she visited them twice a week. The other
puppies, David and Nellie, were adopted by Kay Nagel, a military
officer's wife and resident of Redstone Arsenal, and Loyce Fisher, a
civil service worker from Cullman. However, the City Council refused
to release the dogs, stating that they were a potential danger to
human beings, although none had apparently displayed any aggression.

The matter was referred to court for a legal decision on the dogs'
fate. During a hearing last year, lawyers representing the city,
Michael Fees and Greg Burgess, told Madison County Circuit Judge Joe
Battle the animals were vicious and should not be rehomed. The
Women, who did not have a lawyer, argued the animals were never
trained to fight and conditioning can suppress any vicious
tendencies the dogs might have.
Judge Battle agreed and on Nov 13 2001, declared the four young Pit
Bulls were not dangerous because they were never trained to fight.
The court allowed the city to destroy 21 adult Pit Bulls which had
been used for fighting. However, the City appealed Battle's ruling
to the Alabama Supreme Court and asked the court for an order
preventing the women from taking custody of the dogs.

At this point, Seattle-based WAF became involved in the case and
appointed Huntsville lawyer Mike Seibert to fight their case, based
on evidence they gathered to counter the City lawyer's claims that
all Pit Bulls were `genetically dangerous'.


The foundation hired veterinarian Dr. Alan Jones of Hazel Green to
examine the dogs. But the officers at the shelter do not allow
anyone to have physical contact with the pit bulls, even vet
Jones. "They looked fat and happy," he said. "They seemed starved
for attention and not aggressive at all" Glen Bui, spokesman for WAF
told a local newspaper that the dogs should be released. "I believe
that the City of Huntsville is wasting thousands of taxpayers'
dollars attempting to destroy innocent dogs that were already given
by the circuit court to the three women,' he said.

WAF filed an Amicus (third party) submitting genetic proof that Pit
Bulls are not dangerous. The city of Huntsville were backed by the
extremist animal rights organisation PETA that Pit Bulls were
genetically dangerous, with evidence provided by veterinarians, none
of whom was an expert in any specific canine or genetical field.

WAF cited case laws under Due Process of the law, and stated that it
was unconstitutional to rule a specific breed of dog as `dangerous'
in this way. They also claimed it was `genocide' to try to eradicate
the Pit Bull breed.


WAF submitted evidence to the Supreme Court that they were able to
provide:

Identification of expert treatises regarding the genetics of the
breed in question
Testing and studies regarding genetics verses environment as the
catalyst for a specific dog breed's aggression
Social contributions made by the American Pit Bull Terrier (i.e. as
Assistance Dogs, Search and Rescue Dogs etc.)
The associations brief assisted the court as it had substantial
knowledge concerning the issue before the court
The briefs filed by the City were insufficient to adequately address
the far reaching issues involving genetic breed bias
The Foundation read all briefs and believed that innocent pet owners
and innocent pets were not represented by either brief.
WAF co-founder Glen Bui told OUR DOGS this week: "The court granted
WAF's petition and allowed us 7 days to file amicus curiae. Myself
along with Attorney Mike Seibert worked on the amicus long hours
into the night, while WAF members Kay Nagel and Sheila Tack
proofread and added input. It was finished with less than one hour
before the deadline to file and Shelia raced to the US post office
and sent it certified mail.
"Huntsville's entire case rested on affidavits from veterinarians
claiming they examined the four Pit Bull pups and that were would
pose a danger to the community because Pit Bulls are genetically
dangerous. They also claimed the women had no legal right to adopt
the pups, this was also addressed in the amicus brief."

On Friday, August 30, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in WAF's favour
and ordered that the dogs should be released for adoption, accepting
the evidence but forward by WAF that no breed of dog is genetically
dangerous.

"This is fantastic news," said Bui. "The city could appeal against
the ruling, but I'd like to think they'll give way and release the
dogs to their new owners so that they can enjoy a good life. Two of
them will be trained as Search and Rescue Dogs; the other two will
become pets. The Pit Bulls have been evaluated and temperament
tested before they are released, they are being spayed and neutered.
The city did tell the media that the dogs would be released, so
let's hope they keep their word."

Bui also told OUR DOGS this week: "For years the American Pit Bull
Terrier has been alleged to be dangerous because of its genetics.
Never has WAF found any genetic research proving
that. When we were asked by three Huntsville women for help, they
told us nobody else would help them, they had contacted everyone who
fights BSL. We knew the women had to face the Supreme Court and this
was a very serious case. We knew we had the genetic proof that no
breed of dog is dangerous.

"We knew we also had statistics which proved the APBT has one of the
best temperaments out of 185 dog breeds along with a strong legal
defence. Being aware that never in the past had anyone ever argued
the point, after contemplating the outcome if the women lost, I
decided to bring WAF into the case, on the last day before the
deadline for filing briefs in the Supreme Court WAF petitioned for
Amicus Curiae.

"This case set a standard for future cases concerning BSL and
genetics. We put several years of research into genetics and due
process. We will use the statistics in Ohio; we have received
assistance from state agencies in Ohio to investigate the Lucas
County Dog Warden rulings on BSL in that State, as Ohio is totally
BSL-controlled. Dog owners in Ohio really could use support right
now. "It was a long battle and now we have proved the American Pit
Bull terrier is not genetically dangerous."