|
|
Location: uk
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
|
04-10-2009, 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox 
Were did I say human aggression
Re.highlighted, I think I said that!!
The truth is that pit bull are, by nature, among the safest of dogs around people. They can be made aggressive, as can any breed, but in such a case a pit bull is a danger to the extent that it deviates from its nature, not complies with it.
|
|
|
Location: uk
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
|
04-10-2009, 09:36 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
Did I, were did I mention the DDA??
I referred to the fact that people use the pit in the UK for fighting, and that they were an illegal breed...
Never mentioned the DDA.... that I think is your misinterpretation!
The law you are clearly refering to is the law banning the four breeds. That is the DDA. A few posts later (#21), and in reply to my comments on the DDA, you replied:
If I am misinterpreting you and you are talking about a different law then you might be in the wrong thread.
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
04-10-2009, 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by lozzibear
if you arent talking about human aggression, then in what way are they a time bomb??
i dont know much about what happened here, in the UK (im not old enough too), but in america many APBTs are just getting taken off their owners and PTS. considering what happened with Staffs in merseyside, i doubt the UK let all dogs live out their life.
so why cant we use that excuse then?? its true, it is the owners not the breed
Today is different we are talking about a breed that is ILEGAL, and as such will be siezed.
Originally Posted by Freysterdewdrop
I have an aunt in the USA. She owns and has bred pitbulls. Her dogs are so sweet natured and have never attacked another animal because they have been raised correctly. , IMO
And I think if you read my posts again, you will see I said, that we dont (here in the UK ) have the privilege of breeding for the family pet market, of such breeds, and consequently those that are being bred are sadly bred by the people which dont have the breeds welfare at heart.
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
04-10-2009, 09:44 PM
Originally Posted by johnderondon
The relevent post is #18 where the law banning four breeds (that being the DDA) was being discussed. You said:
my emphasis
The law you are clearly refering to is the law banning the four breeds. That is the DDA. A few posts later (#21), and in reply to my comments on the DDA, you replied:
If the "it" here does not refer to the DDA then your post makes no sense
If I am misinterpreting you and you are talking about a different law then you might be in the wrong thread.
No, right thread, was answering this post by John bull, who diverted from the original question .
The Pit Bull was considered by the UK Government as a bigger threat to our nation than that made by Adolf Hitler in 1940, when he intended to challenge the might of the Royal Navy by invading our Great Island in an armada of wooden paddle boats from occupied Holland.
Hope that helps
|
|
|
|
Location: uk
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
|
04-10-2009, 09:47 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
So to make it clear, I was not referring to the DDA , but to the law concerning an illegal breed, the PITBUL!
Hope that helps
The DDA (abbreviated form of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, as amended 1997) is the law that bans pit bull types. What law are you talking about?
|
|
|
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
|
04-10-2009, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
I think when the law was brought in there where restrictions fo existing dogs, , they where allowed to live out their natural lifespan.
Today is different we are talking about a breed that is ILEGAL, and as such will be siezed.
|
|
|
Location: East Midlands, UK
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 105
|
04-10-2009, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
I think when the law was brought in there where restrictions fo existing dogs, , they where allowed to live out their natural lifespan.
Today is different we are talking about a breed that is ILEGAL, and as such will be siezed.
And I think if you read my posts again, you will see I said, that we dont (here in the UK ) have the privilege of breeding for the family pet market, of such breeds, and consequently those that are being bred are sadly bred by the people which dont have the breeds welfare at heart.
|
|
|
|
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
|
04-10-2009, 09:59 PM
Originally Posted by Freysterdewdrop
But someone has already said that they would have a PB if they could and I would certainly have one. I would have the dogs welfare at heart. If the DDA was lifted then PB could be bred for family homes. Instead of looking at the fact that they are a 'dangerous breed' shouldnt the government be sifting out the pieces of scum who put these dogs through hell?
the government should definitely start with the scum... its getting ridiculous what these people can get away with
|
|
|
|
Location: Preston, Lancashire
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,648
|
04-10-2009, 10:04 PM
Some of the ones I have met/worked with had been used for illegal fighting, but still showed no agression to humans, or even the other dogs in the kennels!
I do like the breed, and think it is a shame that they were made illegal to own, but at the time perhaps it was for the best, as at this moment in time, when there are a lot of idiot owners, probably still the best thing.
Would I ever own one? If they were ever taken off the DDA, and we had good lines to breed from (probably imports?), then it would be a breed I would consider.
|
|
|
|
Location: uk
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
|
04-10-2009, 10:05 PM
http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_a_pitbull.html
|
|