I think it should be based on the individual dog... My Great Dane is brindle, but very gentle... I have a rat and 2 parrots... he's never tried to hurt any of them... Also, he's just learning to find my keys for me... He's 10 months old and very boisterous.. I have heaps of bruises... but, he's NOT dangerous...

I don't think you can go by size... The most aggressive dog I've ever met was a chihuahua... The only dog who ever bit me was a mini poodle...

Suppose that's why I like BIG dogs...

That sounds surprisingly like something I once read on a German BSL site.

Yes, it does sound like a hoax.

I thought April fool too.

I thought that the point made is that it DOES say in the Dangerous Dogs Act that any dog deemed of type can be seized and its up to the owners to prove that its not of pit bull type.

this is the actual description on the dda of what they deem a Pit bull type to be:

now reading that it could cover many types of dogs and certainly hundreds of crosses. Thats why its scary as if they chose to they could seize many many dogs and the outcome would be that as the OWNER you would have to prove it wasnt a pit bull type,,,,, so how do you do that if you got them from a rescue centre or have no papers?

Even if its a hoax as you put it the DDA does have some very worrying wording with regard to amendments and what can be seized. the way the world is going presently and the media's love of sensationalist reporting of dog bites, then I wouldnt be surprised if this act gets amended !!!


i cant put the link to original article as it contains forums, but if you google the title and dog magazine it will come up.

Not an April fool it is an article printed on dogmagazine.net. I tried to post the link but the forum wont let me for some reason.

It isn't in the current DDA but it a bill that some are trying to push for. It would affect ALL dog not just certain breeds or types.

I highly doubt it will happen as there would be public outcry but it is scarey to think what some feel should happen.

ONly one province in Canada has BSL, it's really sad cuz it effects all Pit bull's, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, and any thing deemed to look like one of these breeds. breed bans are ridiculous and wont keep anyone safe, all it does is kill dogs. I would have a Pit in a heartbeat if I wasn't seriously allergic to short haired dogs. a deaf Pit at that! they can be such wonderful dogs I remember a few years ago when it was Dobies and rotts with the bad rap... everyone would cross the street to avoid then and people wanted them banned. Cocker spaniels have a higher rate of bite incidence than Pit bulls..... we haven't banned them!

Who is pushing for it? The reason I ask is that I recently nearly fell for a `New dog Law in Scotland will ban dogs off lead everywhere` post. Scare-mongering really doesn`t help your cause (which I do support).
Instead of stuff like this , why not campaign against the real effects of present anti-dog laws - like bans on pets in council accomodation, leash laws in Manchester etc.

Agree
I also thought the article was good,it makes a very good point.

Two legal breeds that are crossed can produce an illegal type dog, and lets face it there will always be crossbreeds.

I'm sure those who get caught up in this disgusting legislation don't think it's scaremongering,I certainly don't BSL is active and a very real threat to those who own crossbreeds / breeds of a certain look.

It's not April Fool. It's not a new bill. The author is using dramatic style to illustrate this point:

To Valandra and Jesterjenn - That's what sec. One, DDA is all about. Looks. Every dog seized under sec 1, DDA is seized because of how it looks - nothing more.