Really not sure of your point, we know about the attacks , we dont go round with heads in sand, but why would disbanding the law help.

Surely enforcing it more stringently would be better.

I think the 'paranoia' refered to is about the banned breeds.

That's not true. About 95% of dogs charged under section 1 are deemed by the court to be harmless family pets.


I think nt John Bull was drawing a comparision to show the senselessness of our legislation.

If the law is not working then we need a new law. QED.

By the way the DDA is not about dog fighting. If you want to stop dog fighting then it's the AWA you should be looking at. The DDA doesn't even mention dog-on-dog attacks so citing dog fights as a reason to retain it is a bit...you know.

The poster I was replying to felt that the Act removed the possibility of him/her encountering a type dog while out.

That is not the case. Since the Act was passed, and had the effect of glamourising the banned types in the eyes of exactly that type of owner who shouldn't have any dog, the chances of encountering a 'type' dog are higher than before.

It is an unjust law based on a misconception. The more zealously it is enforced the more injustice will occur and without any benefit. It won't make us safer but it will rip apart families and kill innocent dogs. Have a look at Tyler's case below. Is that enforcement 'stringent' enough?

http://www.ddawatch.co.uk/in_memory.html

I never hide the fact that I love all Bully type dogs, and will always stick up for them, espcially as some people wouldn't be able to tell a pit from their elbow (not intended for anyone on here unless its true ) when I worked at the staff rescue even the RSPCA brought in a few pits, not realising what they were.

The biggest problem with Pits though is not what harm they can do to us, but what harm we can do to them, we can do to them, they are a product of what people have breed for, is that their fault?

Honey use to come with me to a Staff rescue, as all the dogs were off lead all the time she got on with all of them, and in there was different types of bull terriers, some imported from Ireland, or bred from imports that the owners didn't want anymore, and I was not worried about her safety, all dogs were monitered and any body langauge watched, and there was never any real upset between the dogs.

If the laws were changed I would be the first to go and buy a PB, I wouldn't get one intentionally now because of the ban, I would be worried about the dog being taken away, but then this can also happen to Staffs, and cross breed's if they tick the right boxes, I would also feel safer with a bully type dog then some other breeds, these dogs can be perfect, can being the main word, too many have been dragged up, under socailised and with the wrong people, the ban has made the wrong people want them more, 'other' types of dogs have been 'created' in a way to get around the ban, and some people are even moving onto other breeds.

Also these dogs are 'dangerous' now, but in a few years it could be a different breed that is put on the list because of stupid people, what would people's reactions be then? What if it was the breed you own, and in a few years people are slating them, saying how its more safer without them, the point being this can happen to any breed.

The point is, it will never be more safer without pits, to the bad owners there is plenty more breeds out there, what would be more safer is to ban the idiots who want dogs for the wrong reason's to have them, although I don't think this will happen unfornatly, and until it does no-one can really feel safer.

I totally agree, dogs of type are ten a penny these days. The link above really brings home the problem of BSL. And for those who defend this ridiculous law, remember it could be your breed next. BSL will eventually target all dogs of a certain size if there is no one to oppose it. That means no Labs, Boxers, Collies etc. Imagine losing your dog in that way. Tragic.

Hi Jackbox, pleased to meet you.

Are you REAL ? Do you not recognise a subtle comparison between a free country and one like the UK ? Obviously not.

Can you not recognise that my reference to Hitler`s crazy fantasy is INTENDED to be funny, but to emphasise the childish stupidity of our Government and their supporters in glibly banning everything in sight ?

There is a statistical factor called PROBABILITY, but it has obviously been discarded. If ONE instance of a threat to humanity occurs in this country - then we BAN the whole lot. What a marvellous attitude to adopt for freedom and progress.

Do you not recognise that paraoia is a reality in populations ? Somebody only has to mention that petrol production is being slightly reduced and the entire population turns the country into a vast queue of cars outside garages. Same with many other features in our daily propaganda ruled lives.

Paranoia ? Jackbox - we have it amongst us all the time about one insignificant thing or another. It is part of the natural gullibility of the masses, frequently exploited by world leaders and particularly Dictators.

I do not think a single one of your counter-remarks on Dangerous Dogs is the least bit relevant, helpful or meaningful, but I thank you for participating in our discussion. The subject seems to be going well with an abundance of sheer common sense.
John Bull

Did I say it was, I was referring to the fact the pit bull is illegal in this country...in response to John Bull comparing them to the USA!!

I have always said and will stand by the fact that it is not the dog, or the breed thats the problem it is the person that owns the dog. You can have any breed as a fighting dog, as ANY dog has the capability to hurt someone or something. The media have a habit of hugly publicising dog attacks when a rottie or a staffy or any bull breed for that matter attacks. What they dont publicise is that for every rottie attack they a four JRT attacks. For example, we were walking round a local park when a staffy came charging up. I was a little wary untill frey and cody started playing with him. He was adorable and so friendly. A little while later a chi and a pomaranian sp came over and went for cody! He didnt do anything to them they just attacked. Obviously people will say they cant do as much damage as say a staffy but if they attack arent they just as dangerous?

I agree with everything you say, but the fact is, the Pit bull and type are against the law, you can cry "unfair " till the cows come home, but until the law is changed and the "legal" breeding of such breeds has its head "above" the pulpit, then we will not see "temperament" and responsible breeding.

We cant keep using the "its the owner " and not the breed, excuse, although to a point it is hugely relervent, but you also have to take into account "nurture" v "Nature" and if you are breeding dogs for their fighting ability , unless you have a seriously experienced owner , and the probability is unlikely for most of these dogs... then you may be sitting on a time bomb.

Of cause that can be said for many many dogs and their owners, but you cant get away from the fact we have a law, and pits /types and the other breeds mentioned are illegal, no matter who owns them.

Of cause it would be, but then I would not willingly buy a breed that was illegal, and risk having it taken away from me.

The law may be ridiculous, but it is law..

And as always its the dogs that suffer, the law on pits have been around for a long time now, so why are people breeding these dogs knowing they may be seized and euthanized...

Do they care ofcause not , as always they are in it for a reason and its not the welfare of the dogs.