Bsl targets the wrong animals especially as many individuals of whatever breed live exemplary lives. The animals that should be targeted are human beings. Make every dog owner of every breed fully responsible for the actions of their dog.

Agreed! Like I always say it's a HUMAN problem, not a dog problem. We have to address human actions because it's THEIR actions that result in the dog's actions.

By the way, if anyone wants to read more about the history of the Pit Bull and the media's reaction to it, I cannot more highly recommend Karen Delise's The Pit Bull Placebo. I learned a lot from that book. AND it's available for free in PDF form from here: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...-publications/

Yes, I agree that there are other breeds that would need to be assessed (all of the breeds you mentioned I believe have restrictions in other countries?)

Just to clarify, I am not comfortable at all with any legislation that totally bans breeds but I am honest enough to ask if this is a necessary evil to protect the public from these dogs being misused by irresponsible humans?


And Yes I do feel that some breeds are more dangerous in the way that they attack, Fighting breeds hang on, they are bred and encouraged to do this? the injuries seen in these attacks are far worse than bites from other breeds? I cannot accept that the severity of this behaviour could possibly be seen in a gentle breed such as the Golden retriever?

Sorry! lots of posts now I can't keep up!

Controls on certain breeds to ensure safe ownership... umm Yes, rather than ban them. I would have no problem with this, I would accept that my chosen breed has sadly been a target of misuse and has therefore been deemed as potentially dangerous in the wrong hands. Unfair maybe but sad reality?

Good breeding, health and welfare for ALL animals.. Yes

Tighter controls for dog ownership in general?.... Maybe?

Sorry , need to log off now but Thanks for this open debate it has been very helpful for me

Some are, some aren't. Banning them does not make them right. Back in the early 2000's Italy ended up banning ANY dog who had EVER been involved in an attack. They ended up with 92 dog breeds on the list, including Border Collies and Corgis. They did change that in 2007 but for something like 4 or 5 years, they had a HUGE list of banned dogs. Does that make it right? I don't see how it does.

How is it a necessary evil? I live in an area with tons of Pit Bulls. They're super popular here. I would guess at least 25-50% of the dogs in any given area on my city are pit bulls. I meet more of them than any other dog breed these days. And only ONE pit bull mix I've met in 8 years has gone after my dog (none after me). And THAT dog was mistreated and shocked to within an inch of her life. The dogs that have gone after my dog? A German Shepherd, a Chihuahua, and a Shiba Inu, among others. The dogs that bit me? A Pomeranian and the Shiba Inu who went after my dog and redirected a nasty bite to me. The German Shepherd bit his owner when she tried to get him away from my dog. Not one pit bull has gone after me, not even the ones we've found loose and wandering (most wanted to play with my dog or wanted attention). So why would we ban or restrict ownership when the VAST majority of them are owned by normal people and are normal dogs.

The problem I see here is that you're reading media reports. Which only report on the bad ones. I could assume that everyone gets into serious car accidents or most plane flights crash if I just read news reports. No one reports on the millions of people who take flights every day with no problem. And no one reports on the millions of pit bulls that go about their daily lives just being dogs.

The other problem is that you have NO experience with the breed since they are banned there. I have a lot of experience with it over here as they're not.


You think?

70 punctures and a broken wrist...from a Golden Retriever: http://www.orilliapacket.com/2014/08...ut-heartbroken

This "innocent" Golden Retriever mix mauled an infant to death: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1237732 (Please note that the family's OTHER dog attacked their older child later...interesting that both dogs in ONE family were aggressive...)

This Golden Retriever leapt a 5-foot fence to attack a woman and tried to rip her arm off. She had to have extensive surgery: http://www.nbc12.com/story/21752552/...triever-attack

This Lab attacked a pit bull. The pit bull had to have surgery it was so severe. http://www.inquisitr.com/1636642/an-...r-reports-say/

Any dog can attack and cause serious injuries. A baby was once even killed by a Pomeranian.

I'd say German Shepherds are trained to hold on too...have you ever seen a police dog demonstration? Any dog can be trained to grab and hold.

And again, most of these dogs who were trained to attack and hold on were trained to attack DOGS. Not PEOPLE. Which is why yes, you have some dog aggressive pit bulls and that is certainly something people have to be aware of when getting the breed. But they should not be people aggressive. And penalizing people for the actions of a few makes no sense.

It's breed discrimination pure and simple, people read media reports in the UK where the Staffie is portrayed as a devil dog and form their judgements on what they read. Labradors that bite, rarely if ever make the news. It's always a staffie or staffie type even when the photo's of the dog an obvious crossbreed several times the size of a Staffie.
I own a Staffie and I'm willing to take full responsibility for his actions, I took him on, I trained him, I make the decision to let him off lead, how the hell could I possibly blame anyone else?

And the same thing goes for the pit bull over here. They're medium sized dogs (generally 30-60 pounds) and yet you get these media stories about someone's "100 pound pit bull" attacking. Sorry but no. That's not a purebred pit bull. And it very likely is some sort of mastiff, maybe a mix, maybe not with a bit of pit bull in it. One time someone's two Presa Canarias killed a woman in an elevator. Original reports called them pit bulls. There are STILL places on the internet that cite the case as evidence that pit bulls are dangerous.

Legislation needs to target the deed, not breed - and hold owners/breeders accountable.

The funny thing is around here the drug dealers (or at least the one that has been pointed out to me) are using a Border Collie as their 'guard dog' it's just what you would expect, very 'guardy'/territorial (probably because it is never walked) and hence very intimidating - every bit as intimidating as a pit, Tosa, Dogo or any other the other banned breeds in the wrong hands.

I think the point I am trying to make is that any medium to large sized dog can be turned into a terror machine - so unless you are prepared to ban half (or more!) of our breeds we need to target the deed and the owners and breeders rather than the breeds.