With regards to the DDA wasn't the evidence there for all to see the 1st of January this year.Pitts are banned yet one managed to kill a young girl.
Dog attacks have not decreased since the introduction of the DDA.
I still beileve it's the owners sheer irresponsilbilty,so we need to clamp down on them,not innocent dogs of the same breed.

It's the same as shark attacks, many blame shark attacks on Great Whites when in reality it's about 5 different, but very similar looking, species that are responsible!
Becky

a predisposition to aggressive behaviour is bound to be more prevalent in some breeds than others, but i too agree with Sal- some people will just latch on to another breed for its potential traits. a ban would also be pretty much impossible to enforce as, among other things, the varying meanings of the term "pit bull" could also cause problems..

but how can you be sure that ALL the dogs that roam free are pits i am sure there are vast amounts of crosses etc and i cant see how just banning pits will stop that problem?

dogs will still be in packs and still be capable of attacking. in this incident i am sure that if it was a pack of sheperds or mastiffs, or boxers etc etc that were vicikous would have killed the woman also, a pack of dogs is dangerous regardless of breed.

therefore just banning pitbulls wont ,make any difference

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in699668.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in694926.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGQAD3UJ61.DTL

http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1207/480457.html

Those are stories from the first page of a search. I think you will find PB are responsible for MOST of the deaths to people by dogs according to breed.

The PB is a breed I like, however given its current state, I think keeping them as pets is far from ideal looking at the frequency of attacks by supposed "pets" that have never showed aggression before.

I didnt say ALL dogs that roam are PB, Im going on the stories and the fact that people are quoting dogs getting loose, escaping from chains etc and these being the dogs that are responsible for the attacks we are seeing. ESCAPED PETS. I agree thousands of dogs escape, but how many kill people when they do, or at least launch attacks of serious proportions to the degree we are seeing with the PB?

Just offering other sides to this. People said Cane Corso's, Presas etc.. would be the next PB, but they arent, nor I dont think they ever will be.

Exactly Stories,media stories which by all accounts very rarely get the correct breed.

If Pitbulls are banned then they very well could be. The fact that many have managed to import Amstaffs into this country when in reality they shouldn't have been able to goes to show that a ban simply doesn't work.
Maybe particular breeds should have a licence to be owned as a way of controlling them?
Becky

This is what a court in OHIO in the US heard in 2006.
Although some Statistics were presented in a CDC Report,which listed different dog breeds involved with human fatalities for the entire US,these Statistics were from 1979-1996.Most experts acknowleged that these were just simply bare Statistics,without reference to the total numbers of dogs in each breed population.
During the hearing the trial court acknowleged that since these numbers were simply bare statistics without reference to the total numbers of dogs in each breed the Statistics had no real relevance or meaning.

In addition,testimony was presented that the situations and reasons for any dog attacks,information which was not included in the CDC report, were much more important to the purpose of preventing further injuries than bare numbers.One expert testified that most fatal attacks on children could be attributed to lack of parental supervision,rather than inheretly vicious dogs.

Although Dr Wright testified he believed Pitbulls have some sort of trigger mechanism,which makes there behaviour unpredictable and they give off no warning signals,he acknowleged he had done no studies and had no scientific data,proof or any other evidence in support of his theory.
The other experts dismissed this theory and agreed that all dogs give off signals which may be ignored or unrecognised by people.

After considering the evidence the court found that Pitbulls are not,as a breed more dangerous than other breeds.

I dont know many pitbulls but know lots of boxers (my choosen breed)and have known alot of boxers attack people, and injure them quite bad, not often reported because the boxers are not part of the DDA, the reason all the attacks by pits are reported is because there on the DDA.
Having said that lots of other dogs, not all pits and rotts attack people and livestock and are reported, and people just dont panick as much if a collie or poodle live next door but they can inflict as much damage on a small child as a larger dog, i think imo if youre going to ban i mean total ban,wipe out irradicate a breed like the pitbull, you'l need to do a alround irradication of type dogs and it just wont work.
You've all heard the saying you only want what you cant have, well imo it makes people only want dogs they know they shouldnt have, a few years back not to far from here a glut of white boxers popped up, i was wondering why so many were about then a well known druggie was known to have told his mates etc that you'l know a dealer by the white boxer he walks, told to me by a police officer so people seem to follow a trend, its just a shame that the animals and then the people have to suffer through thoughtless mindless people breeding dogs they know may be one day seized because of there type. i also believe if the kc made tatooing complusory then the staffies wouldnt get typed as pit types if the parents are tatooed as staffies then so should the pups the them not tatooed would be known to be types or pits and normal joe public will know not to buy un tatooed pups but it would have to be fool proofed.