God that story is heartbreaking and sadly much like the seizures here. They simply show up and drag the dog away from loving families, children. They brutalize the dog in front of the family. It almost seems like they enjoy it. And then they give the owner no chance. It's a horrible thing.

Sometimes, if the owner is lucky and makes a big enough stink about things, gets it on the national news, they might send the dog off to some rescue or relative out of the city (luckily this mostly affects cities and towns, not whole states or the country). But usually it ends in the dog's death. And much horror.

I'm very lucky that my state has made it illegal to ban any dog based on breed.

There is a comprehension problem here but I do not know how I can make the explanation any clearer.

People can obey the law, as it is set down, and still innocent dogs will be seized and innocent dogs will be euthanised.

There is nothing illegal about owning a Boxer.
There is nothing illegal about owning a staffie.
There is nothing illegal about breeding one to the other.
There is nothing illegal about the subsequent litter of, say, 6 pups.
<fast forward nine months>
There is nothing illegal about the two dogs who look predominately like staffies.
There is nothing illegal about the three dogs who look predominately like Boxers.
But the one dog that substantially matches the APBT breed standard has become illegal.

Nobody has commited a criminal act, nobody has set out to break the law but the dog has grown into a look that is banned and suddenly the dog and owner are outside the law.

Since '97 the Act has included section 4B which allows the police to move against the dog in a civil case and avoid criminalising the owner - so the Act recognises the injustice of prosecuting the owners, it recognises their innocence but still it prosecutes the dog. The dog who only fault is to look 'wrong'.

Not wishing to upset you further but the treatment of seized dogs is a scandal. Last year a Freedom of Information request revealed that almost two dogs per week died whilst in Met. police care - that's just one police authority. In most cases the causes of death are not given, or given simply as "illness".

Dogs that are returned, dead or alive, have been in shockingly bad condition.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SavingBr...10/-uFAxoZg2rc

http://www.youtube.com/user/SavingBr.../0/Uclac1BcFYY

but this thread isnt about if they are legal or illegal, it is about whether or not they are dangerous... and just coz their 'type' are illegal means nothing about how dangerous they are.

the way i read your post, was that people here see them as being dangerous because idiots breed them irresponsibly. but many breeds are bred irresponsibly, and it isnt fair to see all of that breed as being dangerous, just coz of a few.

but that isnt what this thread is about!

its not as simple as that, as John is trying to explain to you!!

Oh, is that what he is doing

Yes. And he's ultimately doing it quite well.

The FACT is these dogs, as a group, are not dangerous. A few members ARE, but one should not judge an entire group based on a few members' actions.

Are they dangerous? of course they are big, strong dogs capable of causing major damage. but then so are cars dangerous.

I find it very sad that in a matter of days the government were able to give many innocent dog the death sentence. With proper handling Pitbulls like any other dog can be fantastic dogs. and the fact two legal breeds can make an illegal one may make section 1 of the DDA the worst law regarding animals to ever be passed.

Completely agree.

jackbox I do think you are missing the point of what John is saying, as so many dogs fall under pitbull in this country just because of how tall and built they are and nothing to do with what breed.

Staffies are mistaken for them all the time, especially the longer legged ones, and many staffie crosses too, I personally do not think that Pitbulls are dangerous anyway, having met a gorgeous one in the states, its all back down to owner not dog.

No I dont, I understand his point perfectly, ...and how so many dogs , fall into this category... concerning the pitfalls of the law.

My point is, apart from the hugely grey area of type, is that certain breeds are banned in this country, the American pit bull terrier being one of them.

The fact the law is ignored by a certain type of person, who willingly smuggle in pit bull terriers from other countries, then uses euphemisms to disguise these dogs enhances the problem of ALL other innocent types being seized under the law.

The problem of "type" has escalated that any dog of a certain parentage can now be seized under the act.

The other banned breeds , we dont see , ( but if they where to also become popular, we would then see the same problems arising with many other xbreeds, that resemble in any way shape or form the breeds in question.

Pitbull terriers are banned, if people respected that , then we would not see the fall out we know see. and many innocent dogs would not be paying the price.

P.S.... jus to make it clear, regarding peopel willingly breaking the law.


Responding to the above, I am not talking about the innocent owner of the examples you set, but those who willingly buy /./breed/ smuggle ILEGAL DOGS

It hasn't escalated. It's been there from the inception of the Act. Otis, a Great Dane cross, was seized soon after the law was enacted.

It's not true when you say...

...because innocent dogs have been caught up in the DDA from day one. You seem be saying that if people didn't have APBTs then the authorities would go easier on typey crossbreeds but don't forget that, in the UK, the pit bull is not recognised as a breed. Any dog described as a pit bull is considered to be a crossbreed.