# Police dog PTS for being pit type



## Equi (5 July 2014)

If anyone saw about a dog called Tyson, he was a staffy x rescue from RSPCA who showed promise for being a serch dog for the police. But some bright spark decided that he didn't like the look of him and called him a pit, and subsequently the dog was destroyed.

This is getting ridiculous! I hate this BSL crap!!!!

I'm not sure if petitions are allowed on here but i signed one of gov.uk https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/58381


----------



## Rosie'smum (5 July 2014)

Ive signed it. I hate that pit bull types have to put to sleep because they are of that breed. There are some lovely dogs about and are really friendly. Its the owners that need to be dealt with not the dogs.


----------



## AengusOg (5 July 2014)

...


----------



## bonny (5 July 2014)

To be fair to the police, they could hardly enforce the law on banned breeds if they are using one themselves, although you would think someone would have thought of the consequences before they started training the dog !


----------



## Equi (5 July 2014)

I get that, but the mere fact someone jus decided a staffy x was a pit is ridiculous. There are VERY few real pits in the UK and the likelyhood of them being crossbred is unlikely.


----------



## bonny (5 July 2014)

In theory, as they are banned there are no "pit bulls" in this country, the law obviously doesn't work and everybody sees dogs that they would consider to be pitbulls, I don't know how else it can be policed other than by type now....


----------



## Equi (5 July 2014)

Again i get your point.. hmmm. well im anti BSL anyway, so i would like it abolished, but like you say how else are they going to police it...hmmmm


----------



## LaMooch (5 July 2014)

Alot of it is not the breed but the owner as the story proves. Right home/owner has a job. Yes there are some cases where it is just the breed of dog but this is more then likely due to inbreeding. Think some owners need putting down


----------



## Equi (5 July 2014)

LaMooch said:



			Think some owners need putting down
		
Click to expand...


So much agree!!


----------



## Copperpot (8 July 2014)

It is simply an unworkable law that punishes dogs for the way they look. I saw a case recently where litter mates were seized. One was deemed type and the other not. Same parents, same genetics. 

What really annoys me is the fact that friendly well behaved dogs loose their lives for no other reason than how they look, yet someone I know has a dog that has killed another and bitten a person. This dog would be dead if it were a staffy. They fact it's fluffy and cute means nothing has been done. 

The wide range of dogs which are measured up and deemed type is laughable. Most are clearly not. It seems any dog that looks a bit staffy like is at risk really.


----------



## LaMooch (8 July 2014)

Copperpot said:



			It is simply an unworkable law that punishes dogs for the way they look. I saw a case recently where litter mates were seized. One was deemed type and the other not. Same parents, same genetics. 

What really annoys me is the fact that friendly well behaved dogs loose their lives for no other reason than how they look, yet someone I know has a dog that has killed another and bitten a person. This dog would be dead if it were a staffy. They fact it's fluffy and cute means nothing has been done. 

The wide range of dogs which are measured up and deemed type is laughable. Most are clearly not. It seems any dog that looks a bit staffy like is at risk really.
		
Click to expand...

Fully agree


----------



## SpringArising (8 July 2014)

Signed


----------



## Luci07 (9 July 2014)

What  I can't find out is....pit bulls are a banned breed in the UK. Therefore dogs are deemed to be "of Pitbull type". This is where the law seems to be very flaky. However, a dog can be seized as "type" and then can be returned with certain restrictions (insured, muzzled in public, has a home).  The dog had a home, a job and unblemished record. What am I missing?


----------



## twiggy2 (9 July 2014)

Luci07 said:



			What  I can't find out is....pit bulls are a banned breed in the UK. Therefore dogs are deemed to be "of Pitbull type". This is where the law seems to be very flaky. However, a dog can be seized as "type" and then can be returned with certain restrictions (insured, muzzled in public, has a home).  The dog had a home, a job and unblemished record. What am I missing?
		
Click to expand...

the RSPCA will not home a dog of 'type', the fact that as the law stands they already had seems to be missed


----------



## Shysmum (9 July 2014)

How can the Police use a dog possibly under the DDA ?  I know it is awful - but pit bulls, pure or cross, should no longer be lawfully alive in this country. trust me, they can flick at the speed of light. Very sad, but that is how they are bred. For fighting.


----------



## Luci07 (10 July 2014)

Shysmum said:



			How can the Police use a dog possibly under the DDA ?  I know it is awful - but pit bulls, pure or cross, should no longer be lawfully alive in this country. trust me, they can flick at the speed of light. Very sad, but that is how they are bred. For fighting.
		
Click to expand...

I can't agree with you in this instance and your post is factually inaccurate. Dogs seized under the DDA fit guideline measurements. This means that a lot of dogs which broadly fall into this were seized and appraised would have no pit in them whatsoever. I fully accept there are a (sadly) large number of ignorant low life scum who breed indiscriminately and for the chance to pay the next bar bill and their breeding results will often fall into type. However, the law does give owners the opportunity to keep these dogs under certain conditions. It doesn't always work, but I am still at a loss that the police put down this dog when he could have met all the conditions and easily. I also appreciate there are some dogs that are so damaged by their owners they will never be able to be rehomed but the majority can be.


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

Shysmum said:



			How can the Police use a dog possibly under the DDA ?  I know it is awful - but pit bulls, pure or cross, should no longer be lawfully alive in this country. trust me, they can flick at the speed of light. Very sad, but that is how they are bred. For fighting.
		
Click to expand...

OMG- please go and educate yourself on the breed before spouting such garbage. Family dog of choice in the USA? The Pit. They do not "flick at the speed of light" anymore than any other breed. Its nothing to do with their breed per se, but about what idiots hands they are born into/ trained by, if you bred any large breed and trained it to fight- then it would.

This is just a prime example of why it should be deed not breed - Tyson had proven himself not only of sound temperament, but useful to society, and lost his life as a result because a totally stupid, ill thought out law.


----------



## Luci07 (10 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			OMG- please go and educate yourself on the breed before spouting such garbage. Family dog of choice in the USA? The Pit. They do not "flick at the speed of light" anymore than any other breed. Its nothing to do with their breed per se, but about what idiots hands they are born into/ trained by, if you bred any large breed and trained it to fight- then it would.


This is just a prime example of why it should be deed not breed - Tyson had proven himself not only of sound temperament, but useful to society, and lost his life as a result because a totally stupid, ill thought out law.
		
Click to expand...

Where is the like button for this post?


----------



## Copperpot (10 July 2014)

Shysmum said:



			How can the Police use a dog possibly under the DDA ?  I know it is awful - but pit bulls, pure or cross, should no longer be lawfully alive in this country. trust me, they can flick at the speed of light. Very sad, but that is how they are bred. For fighting.
		
Click to expand...

Absolute pure ignorance.


----------



## Moomin1 (10 July 2014)

The reason pits are a banned breed is because they've been bred over many years to have a determination no other dog has. When one does turn, they don't stop.  It's nothing to do with them being any more temperamentally aggressive than any other dog - it's purely down to the fact that IF they turn, the consequences are a hell of a lot worse.


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

What is this "turn" ???

Dogs work on cause and effect, react to the moment - don't suddenly grab hold of something and not let go for no reason- there is no "switch".

They are also no more likely to cause more damage than a dog of equal size (there is a bite force study somewhere)- but yes can be more tenacious, which depending on circumstance can make the consequences worse.

This dog in question had proven itself to be of sound temperament, and was good at his job...... its like saying all spaniels should be PTS because they have floppy ears- just a plain stupid idea.


----------



## Copperpot (10 July 2014)

I believe the study showed a GSD has a stronger bite than a pit bull. And they can't lock their jaws contrary to some people's beliefs. 

If you actually look at the dogs which have been seized and deemed type you will see the broad spectrum these measurements cover. 

Imagine having your pet taken away and possibly destroyed just because a tape measure says so. A pet that has never harmed anyone. If your lucky after 6 months and thousands of pounds you may get your dog back, but it will have to be muzzled for life.

Even staffy's with KC papers on both sides have been deemed type. And the people this law affects isn't usually the type of people who shouldn't own dogs. It's normal every day, responsible pet owners.


----------



## Moomin1 (10 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			What is this "turn" ???

Dogs work on cause and effect, react to the moment - don't suddenly grab hold of something and not let go for no reason- there is no "switch".

They are also no more likely to cause more damage than a dog of equal size (there is a bite force study somewhere)- but yes can be more tenacious, which depending on circumstance can make the consequences worse.

This dog in question had proven itself to be of sound temperament, and was good at his job...... its like saying all spaniels should be PTS because they have floppy ears- just a plain stupid idea.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "what is this turn?" - any dog can 'turn'. I never said they do it for no reason, did I?

As for the locking jaw business - yes it's a myth.  And no, they don't have te strongest bite necessarily. It's nothing to do with that. It's down to the fact that pit types can be more tenacious by far than other breeds, making any attacks on humans far more likely to be fatal.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 July 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			The reason pits are a banned breed is because they've been bred over many years to have a determination no other dog has. When one does turn, they don't stop.  It's nothing to do with them being any more temperamentally aggressive than any other dog - it's purely down to the fact that IF they turn, the consequences are a hell of a lot worse.
		
Click to expand...

I'm really sorry and I'll apologise now to those who can't accept the above statements,  but in my view they are entirely correct.  Dogs which are bred for a specific purpose,  and then denied that work,  can prove to be difficult.  Whilst many of the quasi-undesirable traits are being bred out of certain breeds,  and to enable them to better fit in with the average pet home,  there are and there will always be those breeds or types with a high percentage which will revert back to 'form'......... 

Consider the Greyhound and it's inherent drive,  and to kill just about anything which is small and furry.  Then let's consider the Sheepdog and it's oft propensity to 'head' what ever's available,  or the English Pointer and it's abilities to 'point',  or the Labrador which is ALWAYS carrying something in its mouth,  or the now Czech bred Border Patrol dogs,  or in the case of Pitbulls,  those dogs which are bred to fight.  

There are other breeds,  I agree,  which carry traits and breed characteristics,  some of which are amusing,  some an irritation,  and some which makes them a liability.  The Pit Bull is one of the latter,  and to argue from the 'Deed' rather than the 'Breed' stance shows a blinkered and risk filled stance.  

It never fails to amaze me that the dogs which pose the greatest risk to mankind are those which all so often (NOT always,  I accept),  appeal to those who look for a status object,  whilst not having the faintest idea what they're doing with a dog,  and the apparently much favoured description of their recent acquisition,  is that he's "****ing awesome".  The reply all so often should be "Yes,  I'm sure he is,  but have you any idea what you're doing"?  Very,  very few have,  and it's for that reason that all dogs which have a predisposition towards a dangerous disposition should be outlawed.

I'm also with Shysmum,  and wonder what on earth the Police were doing with such a dog,  in the first place.

Alec.


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

ANY dog Alec, is capable of being dangerous in the wrong hands. These dogs have not been bred to fight, nowadays, like i said the family dog of choice in the states, (in the right hands) although you will always get those who do- but again not just with Pits- I mean a Rotty is capable of inflicting just the same sort of damage. Same as many pet collies, and spaniels and other "workers" live quite happily without doing the job they were once bred for.

These dogs were "composed" from bulldogs and terriers to bait big game. they were known for their disposition towards loyalty to their handlers/ people in general, allowing handlers to remove them from a fight etc and kindness towards kids. They have also been used in police forces in places like the states - how is that a dangerous dispositon?


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			I'm not sure what you mean by "what is this turn?" - any dog can 'turn'. I never said they do it for no reason, did I?

As for the locking jaw business - yes it's a myth.  And no, they don't have te strongest bite necessarily. It's nothing to do with that. It's down to the fact that pit types can be more tenacious by far than other breeds, making any attacks on humans far more likely to be fatal.
		
Click to expand...

See I still dont get the "turn". Any dog is capable of biting someone yes. Like I said pits are more tenacious, and as such could cause a worsened outcome, BUT they are also less likely to be aggressive towards people than some other breeds.... so its swings and roundabouts and should be bloody deed not this BSL breedism bullpoop!


----------



## Moomin1 (10 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			See I still dont get the "turn". Any dog is capable of biting someone yes. Like I said pits are more tenacious, and as such could cause a worsened outcome, BUT they are also less likely to be aggressive towards people than some other breeds.... so its swings and roundabouts and should be bloody deed not this BSL breedism bullpoop!
		
Click to expand...

They aren't less likely to be aggressive towards people whatsoever. They have the same chance of being aggressive as any other breed.


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

Oh right so you believe breeding plays a part when it is a non desirable trait? like fighting but not when it is a desirable one like fondness/ loyalty/ tolerance towards people? Surely you cant have it both ways.......


----------



## Moomin1 (10 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			Oh right so you believe breeding plays a part when it is a non desirable trait? like fighting but not when it is a desirable one like fondness/ loyalty/ tolerance towards people? Surely you cant have it both ways.......
		
Click to expand...

I thought you said that it's the deed, not the breed?  Therefore, any dog has the potential to be aggressive, just as much as the next, depending on their environment and training.  

You can't have it both ways.

You continuously appear to be misunderstanding my posts.  I did not ANYWHERE say that pit types are more aggressive than any other breed.  I said that the way they have been bred over years has made them much more tenacious than other breeds, hence the higher risk factor of a fatality IF they attack.


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

It is deed not breed I dont give a flying pig what breed your dog is- if it attacks mine, or me I will report it, however if that dog is minding its own ambling along why would anyone report it for just the way it looks? Which is what the law allows, and what happened to Tyson.
- does not mean breeds do not have traits- just that not all individual dogs will show one or another- like collies- a friend of mine got a dog from good farm working stock- he was due to be held under in the water trough because he was absolutely petrified of sheep- useless to the farmer. So not every dog of a certain breed will show its supposed "traits".

ummm if you read mine I agreed they can be more tenacious than other breeds. Personally i do not believe they have more "determination" than any other, ever tried to get a determined terrier out of a hole???. It is also NOT the reason they are banned..... that is down to a few high profile attacks, and the government needed to look like they were doing something- hence useless banning (making more scum want them) and BSL law


----------



## Moomin1 (10 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			It is deed not breed I dont give a flying pig what breed your dog is- if it attacks mine, or me I will report it, however if that dog is minding its own ambling along why would anyone report it for just the way it looks? Which is what the law allows, and what happened to Tyson.
- does not mean breeds do not have traits- just that not all individual dogs will show one or another- like collies- a friend of mine got a dog from good farm working stock- he was due to be held under in the water trough because he was absolutely petrified of sheep- useless to the farmer. So not every dog of a certain breed will show its supposed "traits".

ummm if you read mine I agreed they can be more tenacious than other breeds. Personally i do not believe they have more "determination" than any other, ever tried to get a determined terrier out of a hole???. It is also NOT the reason they are banned..... that is down to a few high profile attacks, and the government needed to look like they were doing something- hence useless banning (making more scum want them) and BSL law
		
Click to expand...

Why would you report it? Er, because it's a banned breed?  

And for a painful bit of repetition...NO not ALL types of a breed will show 'traits'.  BUT many of those breed types WILL, and that is why pits are currently a banned breed.

Thirdly, I actually happen to know quite a lot about why they are a banned breed, other than the argument of 'the government needed to look like they were doing something'.  

Fourthly, I have not once on this thread, or any other of similar nature, said I agree with the banning of any breed, or what my personal opinions on any breed are.  My posts are based on fact.

And finally, I am feeling far too hormonal to continue, so will end there lol!


----------



## Crabby (10 July 2014)

It's an unfortunate law which was a knee jerk reaction to dog attacks and which to me makes little sense. The dogs don't get born with 'attack human' imprinted in their brains. They get made that way by dreadful owners who think having a macho dog enhances their image and who get a kick out of having dogs that only they can handle.  I seem to remember that there were several attacks by Rottweilers around the time the law was introduced yet they are bit on the banned list..not suggesting they should be btw just making a point.


----------



## Moomin1 (10 July 2014)

Crabby said:



			It's an unfortunate law which was a knee jerk reaction to dog attacks and which to me makes little sense. The dogs don't get born with 'attack human' imprinted in their brains. They get made that way by dreadful owners who think having a macho dog enhances their image and who get a kick out of having dogs that only they can handle.  I seem to remember that there were several attacks by Rottweilers around the time the law was introduced yet they are bit on the banned list..not suggesting they should be btw just making a point.
		
Click to expand...

There are four breeds of dog on the banned list currently. All are on there for a reason.  That reason is NOT because any have 'attack human' imprinted on the brain, as I have already pointed out.  It is because of certain characteristics which make them far more likely to inflict serious injury, or fatalities IF they were to attack a human.  It has nothing to do with general daily temperament.


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

So you must  believe BSL is good- as dogs should be reported- doing NOTHING wrong just for the way they look? - crazy

If you know so much as to the why's and wherefores you really could explain better......


----------



## Moomin1 (10 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			So you must  believe BSL is good- as dogs should be reported- doing NOTHING wrong just for the way they look? - crazy

If you know so much as to the why's and wherefores you really could explain better......
		
Click to expand...

I really can't be bothered.  It's like banging my head against a brick wall.

And I have already pointed out (yet again, you appear to not be reading my posts properly), that I HAVE NOT said what my beliefs are.  I have stated WHY they are on the banned list currently - not whether I agree or disagree.


----------



## Luci07 (10 July 2014)

I have read all the responses and where they fall down, completely, is that these dogs are NOT PURE BRED PITBULLS. They are deemed to be of "type" if they physically reach certain measurements and they are being destroyed due to how they look. God help a larger Stafford cross as they are first in the line though boxer and lab crosses have fallen foul as well. As these dogs are not a breed, how on earth can you then align breed characteristics to them?. And if any dog that could be deemed to be "of type" was automatically dangerous, how can the DDA manage to get a number freed and returned to their owners? I follow, with great interest a number of pit bull pages and the success rate for rehabilitating real Pitt bulls seems high. I respect people's opinions but challenge you when you simply seem to leave a dogs behaviour simply down to breeding and not what the human does at then end of the lead. And as Lexie said, if you want to support the view that Pitts are more dangerous, then you must also accept that this breed has been bred to be far more tuned into and accepting of humans.


----------



## Moomin1 (10 July 2014)

I actually give up. Read my posts


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

So dogs are placed on the list because of their tenacity, and ability to do damage if they were to attack. Yet the staff is not on it,  (tenacious no?) nor any other large breed (ability to cause vast damage no?) The logic simply does not follow.


----------



## Copperpot (10 July 2014)

In that case my Lakeland terrier should be on it as well as my dobie. One is extremely tenacious and the other large and powerful. 

May as well add all large dogs to the list then as well as terriers. Daschunds were bred to dig to badgers. You gotta be tenacious for that. Better put them on!


----------



## Shysmum (10 July 2014)

Pit bulls were placed on the DDA list for very good reason. There is far more illegal dog fighting going on in this country than anyone knows about. Therefore, many of these dogs are trained from pups to fight. Some don't have the full on instinct and are therefore sold on. To become pets, or to become the "criminal's dog of choice". 

The ones that do have the instinct to kill go into the underworld, and when they have won so many fights, they command a high price to be bred from.  This is why these dogs are so unpredicatable, and the fight instinct is so very near the surface.

I did training at the Met's pit bull pound when the DDA came in. You never ever went into a kennel without a break stick. They are able to lock on and hold, and the ONLY way to get them off is to use a break stick, or if need be, shoot them. These dogs were in the pound to be identified by specialists whether they were piut bull or not.  Most had the fighting scars, and they were pitiful. yes, HUMANS do that to them. They breed the fight instinct into them. Have done since these dogs baited and killed bears in pits for entertainment. And yes, they locked onto the bulls which were chained up. 

So whatever you say about these dogs,or indeed me - why be so rude on threads (children),  this law is not an airy fairy knee jerk reaction. A lot of kids were seen by these sub fighting dogs as targets, thought to be by certain cries/screams they make. there were a lot of incidents. 

Think what you like, but perhaps scratching the surface of the underworld where these dogs are bred illegally might enlighten a few commentors on here. And I hope that the ruduction in pits, Akitas and the like has not only reduced the dogs suffering, but has reduced the number of aggression incidents in homes the dogs just do not understand.

Copperpot particularly, learn the harsh facts of dogs bred to fight.


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

Er interestingly akitas are not banned. I know cops who are involved with bsl, not dda, who think its garbage, because they are 2 very seperate things - one is basically dog racism, the other to protect the public from out of control dogs of whatever breed. Also catagorically dog dog agression does not translate to dog human/child aggression.  Whilst I get theremis dog fighting going on, the handlers need to be able to train, potentally live with their prized possession, so human aggression would be an enormous no no.
the other huge, enormous issue is the "type" could be boxer, lab, rottie mix and still be murdered for no good reason other than a daft check sheet says so.


----------



## Shysmum (10 July 2014)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/1

"any dog bred for fighting" - encompasses a large range  

http://www.dog-breeds-expert.com/Dangerous-Dog-Breeds.html

The DDA is unfortunately subjective and did not go in any way far enough.

ps. the word "murdered" is very emotive,smacks of bunny hugger, and is not helpful. There are too many dogs in this country because people keep BREEDING them, and then the RSPCA and council has to "MURDER" them - humanely and painlessly put them to sleep to protect them from further cruelty or abandonment - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO HOMES !!!

In my life, I put down every sort of animal on a daily basis. There was no -where for them to go, no-one wanted them (only fluffy babies), and at least this way, they would never suffer again. I hated it, but that is how it is. Buy a puppy, another rescue dog loses a chance of a home, and more pups are bred for the financial gain.


----------



## Shysmum (10 July 2014)

http://www.pitbulllovers.com/pitbull-articles/pitbull-and-dog-aggression.html


----------



## Crabby (10 July 2014)

Can Lhaso Apsos be added ? One bit me last year..and I was minding my own business !  Sorry being flippant  

Do DNA tests get taken into account .. Just that I know someone who had it done for a rescue dog which people had commented on being of 'type' and the dog turned out to be a Great Dane X


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

Murdered is apt, in this instance, this dog not only had a home, but a job useful to society. He was not rotting in a kennel, he was killed purely 100% because of how he looked!


----------



## lexiedhb (10 July 2014)

Crabby said:



			Can Lhaso Apsos be added ? One bit me last year..and I was minding my own business !  Sorry being flippant  

Do DNA tests get taken into account .. Just that I know someone who had it done for a rescue dog which people had commented on being of 'type' and the dog turned out to be a Great Dane X
		
Click to expand...

No. They wont take dna testing into account, just what some "expert" says, and a list of criteria.


----------



## Shysmum (10 July 2014)

Trust me, my terrier has to be "managed" - if she had not made an agreement with me, I would fear for her life !

I know her boundaries, she knows mine, but trim her poo hole and she needs a muzzle full on. Bit hubs down to the bone recently. DDA - yup. Zylkene works on her though - phew.

i hate to have to be so forth right about Pit bulls etc - it's just that when you have seen the videos/real fights, and you see the dogs suffering, it breaks your hurt and makes you very angry.


----------



## Copperpot (10 July 2014)

Humans are the problem not the dogs so why punish people who want to own dogs that under this ridiculous law may measure in as type. They aren't pitbulls many are staffy crosses. 

Punish the under ground people. Bring in dog licenses, so only responsible people can own dogs. 

The pathetic DDA law does not punish these people. Infact it makes a lot of money by seizing people's innocent pets, holding them for months and charging a fortune for it. Meanwhile you see the type of people who shouldn't own dogs walking down the street with a dog they clearly see as a status symbol without a care in the world. 

And if what the Police deem as a pitbull is the standard you work to, then god help dogs. 

Taking a dog from a loving home, locking it away in often crap conditions, certainly isn't reducing suffering to dogs.


----------



## lastchancer (10 July 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			The reason pits are a banned breed is because they've been bred over many years to have a determination no other dog has. When one does turn, they don't stop.  It's nothing to do with them being any more temperamentally aggressive than any other dog - it's purely down to the fact that IF they turn, the consequences are a hell of a lot worse.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think people quite grasp the difference until they see it first hand. A friend of mine was put in intensive care for 2 months after her 2 bull breed dogs turned on her, out of the blue. Had her strapping 6' son and his mate not arrived when they did she would without a doubt have been killed. Eaten in fact.


----------



## cptrayes (10 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			Murdered is apt, in this instance, this dog not only had a home, but a job useful to society. He was not rotting in a kennel, he was killed purely 100% because of how he looked!
		
Click to expand...

No, Steven Lawrence was murdered because of how he looked. That dog was quietly and humanely destroyed. Maybe if there were no other unwanted dogs in the country it might matter a little bit, though nothing in comparison to the murder of a human. Given the number of homeless dogs in the country, what does it matter if this one was destroyed or another one?


----------



## LaMooch (10 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			No, Steven Lawrence was murdered because of how he looked. That dog was quietly and humanely destroyed. Maybe if there were no other unwanted dogs in the country it might matter a little bit, though nothing in comparison to the murder of a human. Given the number of homeless dogs in the country, what does it matter if this one was destroyed or another one?
		
Click to expand...

But this dog had a job and a home so was not another homeless dog


----------



## cptrayes (10 July 2014)

LaMooch said:



			But this dog had a job and a home so was not another homeless dog
		
Click to expand...


And he will be replaced. The net total of dogs alive will be the same, so does it really matter if it was this dog or another that died?


----------



## Dobiegirl (11 July 2014)

This is a crazy law, dogs of type conform to certain measurements , a Staffy x Lab could  for instance actually be of type but his fellow siblings could measure not of type. The pitbull is not actually a breed so DNA testing would be of little use, because its down to measurements there are always going to be innocent dogs who measure as type. This to me is grossly unfair and a typical ill thought out knee jerk reaction for the events that occurred  at the time, far better to go with deed not breed, the amount of dog attacks hasnt diminished because the root cause hasnt been addressed, as an aside more people die every year from bee stings than from dog attacks.


----------



## lexiedhb (11 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			No, Steven Lawrence was murdered because of how he looked. That dog was quietly and humanely destroyed. Maybe if there were no other unwanted dogs in the country it might matter a little bit, though nothing in comparison to the murder of a human. Given the number of homeless dogs in the country, what does it matter if this one was destroyed or another one?
		
Click to expand...

The comparison between dog and human has no relevance. Yes it matters, the police royally screwed up, this little dog lost his life simply because of how he looks, not because he did anything wrong, highlighting how this law is a complete total waste of time.


----------



## cptrayes (11 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			The comparison between dog and human has no relevance. Yes it matters, the police royally screwed up, this little dog lost his life simply because of how he looks, not because he did anything wrong, highlighting how this law is a complete total waste of time.
		
Click to expand...



It has great relevance to me in the use of the word murder to describe the humane destruction of a dog.

You are right of course, the comparison between a dog and a human has no relevance, which is why it was wrong, imo, to describe this dog's death as murder, which is the killing of one human being by another.

I agree with you that the law is rubbish if genetic testing does not save an animal.


----------



## Spring Feather (11 July 2014)

I think it's telling that Pitbulls are banned or restricted in almost every civilised country of the world.  There's a reason for that.  And I'm not sure where the poster who claims that Pitbulls are the breed of choice in the USA got that idea as it is simply not true.  Pitbulls are banned/restricted in most cities and some States have totally banned them within the whole State.  Where I live they are banned from being bred or imported.  Those who were alive prior to the legislation coming in have been allowed to live but under incredibly strict guidelines. 

As Alec and the other say, yes dogs have inherent traits, of course they do, which is why when people choose a dog they look to the breed which stereotypically have the desired traits for whatever job the owner wants.  Of course there are some dogs in each breed who are not typical of their breed but that is a small minority.  I own a Czech bred GSD, by and out of border patrol parents, and yes she is totally typical of her breeding, as are all my other dogs.  Mine are mostly quite challenging breeds and do need to be in the right hands.  I have jobs for my dogs, the jobs they were bred for, and that keeps them focused.  Most of my own dogs, in the wrong home/hands could be very destructive and it's unsurprising to me that a couple of the breeds I own are banned/restricted in certain States/cities as they are not, and never were, bred to be pets. 

So, in essence, although I'm not a fan of BSL, I can completely understand why it was imposed in so many countries of the world.


----------



## CorvusCorax (11 July 2014)

Did anyone actually see the programme he featured on?

I saw a dog who acted like a spaniel but unfortunately for him, did not look like one.
He was assessed by a police officer in a compound where other dogs were running free and he was neutral but pleasant when approached by them. He was more into humans and kept jumping into the arms of the officer, who he had apparently only just met. 
He had crazy ball drive and retrieved a 'dead' tennis ball which had been placed in a thicket (which not all thin-skinned dogs would have been happy to do) and then blind, from a well hidden area behind a sofa inside a shed.
He was a very happy, busy little chap, from what I could see from my armchair 
I'd be more than happy if my dog behaved the way he did.

The law is flawed and the way we breed, register, sell and identify our dogs is flawed, the American Pit Bull Terrier is not recognised by the FCI and therefore not by the UK Kennel Club, therefore there is no relevant breed standard or dedicated breed club/registry with a DNA database against which to test. 
Within the DDA you have to prove what the dog is not, not what it is.


----------



## Equi (11 July 2014)

Havent read any comments since my last post causs havent got time, but i will say that any pit of staff that showed a mere hint of human agression (be that a snarl or god forbid a lunge) was, in the fighting rings, hit over the head with a hammer immediately. Human aggression is NOT tolerated in fighting dogs, so to say they are bred to fight which makes them more tenacious and likely to bite humans is wrong. The most bite cases are strangers (that uncludes friends and family the dog has met before), in a new/other home. Statistically, bites happen to owners the dog has had since birth the least. unfortunately they are the kind of dog that gets passed about a lot and that upsets them greatly.


----------



## Shysmum (11 July 2014)

^^ that is a very   incorrect statement, corvax

The DDA states that ANY DOG BEHAVING DANGEROUSLY IN A PUBLIC PLACE is subject to coming under the law.  Why have people not grasped this ?

Further, there is legislation going through now that will prosecute owners of ANY dog if it attacks people whilst in the owners house, and yup, those dogs will have an order on them to be destroyed.

It is the owners at fault. They take on dog they CANNOT HANDLE, in the wrong environment, the dogs snaps, that's it.


----------



## CorvusCorax (11 July 2014)

As you probably know Shysmum, I was talking about the application of the DDA in relation to banned 'breeds' or types - none of which are recognised in the UK so how on earth do you benchmark what a dog is or isn't.

This dog was not behaving dangerously in a public place and was probably in the best hands it could have been, with a knowledgeable handler, doing a job. I just think it's a shame for all concerned.


----------



## Crabby (11 July 2014)

Shysmum.. I've become paranoid about this. I've got a rescue german shorthaired pointer with fear aggression and I ask people not to stroke him but they still want to! He bit my son two weeks ago..again fear based but the bite hurts just as much whatever the source. I've got him a muzzle for when anyone new comes into the house and I just don't let him loose in the house around them ..just in case.. And I never let him get within reach of anyone when we are out just in case! 
Was the dog who was pts the one in the rescue program on TV ? Such a shame ..he just looked like a normal staffie to me


----------



## Shysmum (11 July 2014)

please be very careful with that dog. My first cruelty case was a GSD cross - he lived with me for the rest of his life. But he was very protective of me, and I really had to stamp down hard and set boundaries. He never ever bit. I tell you what, I would never have a dog that has bitten in my house. I hope you are insured.


----------



## Crabby (11 July 2014)

He's being watched very carefully and yes he's insured. He's going nowhere though .. I took him in and here he'll stay. His behaviour was caused by mistreatment and cruelty of humans. I think he's due some kindness in his life.


----------



## Spring Feather (11 July 2014)

Crabby said:



			He's being watched very carefully and yes he's insured. He's going nowhere though .. I took him in and here he'll stay. His behaviour was caused by mistreatment and cruelty of humans. I think he's due some kindness in his life.
		
Click to expand...

Do you actually know he's been mistreated?  Or is this a guess based on what you see?  I only ask as often mistreatment is not the reason dogs are fear-aggressive.

I own a fearful young dog.  I've owned her since she was 6 weeks old.  Nothing has ever happened to her and as a puppy she was a very stable dog.  She became like this after a terrible thunderstorm when our house was hit by lightning.  Absolutely nothing to do with people.  She became paranoid about anything above her for about a year.  She used to be very friendly with people but then she became incredibly shy around them.  I have spent a lot of time teaching her and she's made huge progress.  She has just turned 2 years old now and is very friendly with people she knows now.  With strangers she keeps her distance but because she's a giant breed, and a very beautiful one at that, many people try to have her come to them so they can pat her.  I simply tell them to ignore her and she will come in her own time, and she always does.  My 5 other big dogs are super-friendly to people so she does take cues from them.  She will sniff around the people, I still tell them not to pat her until she actually touches them and then they pat in a very aloof kind of way.  She's totally accepting of this and almost always the next time that person comes around again, she will come over wagging her tail and allow them to pat her straight away.  Small steps taken over a very long period of time has sorted the dog.  I would never have tried to 'fix' this problem by hiding her away or keeping her away from people, but this type of dog has to be managed very carefully.


----------



## Crabby (11 July 2014)

I could make all sort of 'guesses' about Sam's history but I only say what I 'know' about him. Rescued from a pound in Cyprus weighing 12kg with his ribs kicked in and would cover his eyes and cower when anyone tried to touch him in the shelter. So yes, badly abused by humans and not a guess. And the guessing part was that he was kept caged and alone and starved ( makes them want to hunt don't you know! To the humans he trusts..me, my husband and the kennel staff he's as soft as his breed spec says he ought to be. On a positive note he's come on in leaps and bounds since he arrived here 6 weeks ago..lots of leaping and bounding in fact now that he's getting fit 

Yes..getting the same thing with people wanting to stroke him as he's very handsome. He's fine outside the house actually and I'm doing as you say indoors as long as the person is comfortable around dogs. Introductions are made in the neutral territory of the lounge where he's not usually allowed to be and where people are sitting down quietly so he doesn't get anxious.


----------



## lastchancer (11 July 2014)

Crabby said:



			Shysmum.. I've become paranoid about this. I've got a rescue german shorthaired pointer with fear aggression and I ask people not to stroke him but they still want to! He bit my son two weeks ago..again fear based but the bite hurts just as much whatever the source. I've got him a muzzle for when anyone new comes into the house and I just don't let him loose in the house around them ..just in case.. And I never let him get within reach of anyone when we are out just in case! 
Was the dog who was pts the one in the rescue program on TV ? Such a shame ..he just looked like a normal staffie to me 

Click to expand...

How old is your son?
If he's under 18 you are legally required to keep him safe to the best of your ability, the dog has bitten once... 
It's sad that the dog has been abused but I wouldn't be putting the welfare of a dog above that of my child - regardless of age.


----------



## Crabby (11 July 2014)

lastchancer said:



			How old is your son?
If he's under 18 you are legally required to keep him safe to the best of your ability, the dog has bitten once... 
It's sad that the dog has been abused but I wouldn't be putting the welfare of a dog above that of my child - regardless of age.
		
Click to expand...

No, he's not under 18 but that does not mean that I'd put a dog's welfare before that of my son. I don't consider biting anyone of any age acceptable however with good management and training it should be avoidable. And here we are back on the original subject ..no breed of dog comes with a guarantee that they will never ever bite .


----------



## Alec Swan (11 July 2014)

Reading so many of these distressing posts,  and they are certainly that,  makes me wonder just why so many feel that with those dogs which really can't fit in,  and with mankind,  either through breed type,  genetics,  lack of ethical human contact,  or through good old-fashioned neglect,  just why we bother,  and if a dog is so unable to fit in with mankind,  just who are we flattering?  Would that be ourselves?

OK,  so the odd dog or two are turned around,  I've done it myself,  but there are so many,  so many dogs which are taken on by their well intentioned and generally subsequent homes,  and the 'Well intentioned' will live lives which they hand over to a dangerous/difficult/displaced dog.  Honestly,  I wonder why.  Would you,  any of you,  give 10 years of your life to someone who showed no sense of gratitude,  at all?  Well?  Would you?  I wouldn't.

The time must surely be approaching when we consider the practicalities of our ambitions.  We have to enquire of ourselves just how realistic are our chances,  linked to our experience,  and of success.  We should also ask of ourselves whether we should inflict our ambitions upon our families.  I'm not too sure that we have that right.  

There are those who've put their families at risk for what I would consider to be entirely selfish motives.  Had I such difficult or dangerous dogs,  then they would be kennelled,  and they would be no threat to those who I love.  Try as I may,  I fail to see that keeping a basically very unhappy dog alive,  to only serve my own sense of self-worth,  to be incredibly narcissistic,  and shallow.

By all means,  we should consider ourselves,  but there are times when we should put the well being of the animal first,  and all so often the animal's well being is best served by humane destruction.

Alec.


----------



## lastchancer (11 July 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Reading so many of these distressing posts,  and they are certainly that,  makes me wonder just why so many feel that with those dogs which really can't fit in,  and with mankind,  either through breed type,  genetics,  lack of ethical human contact,  or through good old-fashioned neglect,  just why we bother,  and if a dog is so unable to fit in with mankind,  just who are we flattering?  Would that be ourselves?

OK,  so the odd dog or two are turned around,  I've done it myself,  but there are so many,  so many dogs which are taken on by their well intentioned and generally subsequent homes,  and the 'Well intentioned' will live lives which they hand over to a dangerous/difficult/displaced dog.  Honestly,  I wonder why.  Would you,  any of you,  give 10 years of your life to someone who showed no sense of gratitude,  at all?  Well?  Would you?  I wouldn't.

The time must surely be approaching when we consider the practicalities of our ambitions.  We have to enquire of ourselves just how realistic are our chances,  linked to our experience,  and of success.  We should also ask of ourselves whether we should inflict our ambitions upon our families.  I'm not too sure that we have that right.  

There are those who've put their families at risk for what I would consider to be entirely selfish motives.  Had I such difficult or dangerous dogs,  then they would be kennelled,  and they would be no threat to those who I love.  Try as I may,  I fail to see that keeping a basically very unhappy dog alive,  to only serve my own sense of self-worth,  to be incredibly narcissistic,  and shallow.

By all means,  we should consider ourselves,  but there are times when we should put the well being of the animal first,  and all so often the animal's well being is best served by humane destruction.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Very wise words Alec, the same could be said for a lot of 'project' horses too. I think a lot of the time it is an ego boost - it  is very, very rewarding to bring a bad horse or dog around. Or the 'I rescued it' kudos. However, when other, non involved people end up paying the price it becomes unacceptable. 

My mothers beloved cat was killed on our property by a retired greyhound that our well meaning neighbors had 'rescued' 
Of course it went for the cat, that is what it had been trained to do. Why have a bloody racing greyhound as a family house dog?


----------



## Equi (11 July 2014)

Dogs bite we are never ever going to breed that out of them, even the best trained one can bite with fear or pain if needed. We don't want to get bitten, we must breed dogs with no teeth.


----------



## Crabby (11 July 2014)

equi said:



			Dogs bite we are never ever going to breed that out of them, even the best trained one can bite with fear or pain if needed. We don't want to get bitten, we must breed dogs with no teeth.
		
Click to expand...

 now excuse me while I away and polish my halo.


----------



## Copperpot (11 July 2014)

I do agree with pts dangerous dogs but only when behaviour dictates and not appearance. 

Out of all the dogs we have fostered or adopted only one ever bit us, repeatedly. My OH and his friend still bear the scars. Interestingly it was the only non bull breed we have ever had here.  I believed and still do that the dog should have been pts but the rescue wouldn't allow it. He was a westie x jrt. We weren't the first people had had bitten and we weren't the last either. His appearance means that people do not take his behaviour seriously. Were he a staffy he would be dead. 

All the others have been bull breeds who have been treated appallingly by humans. All showed nothing except love and were able to live happily with the dogs we already had. 

And I don't think the majority of people do it for kudos. They do it to help save a dogs life. Because ultimately they love dogs and in particular a certain breed and feel drawn to help them if they can. 

A retired grey hound should be muzzled when not on it's own private property or off lead. And any rescue should have told the new owners that. 

2 weeks ago my friends dog attacked and killed the YO's at the yard we share. She also bit the YO as she was picking her spaniel and drew blood. She is a dog bought over from Iraq as an 8 week old puppy. She has never suffered abuse (friends OH works in Iraq and had her from a tiny puppy). She is medium sized dog and looks cute and fluffy, think Littlest Hobo. Nothing is being done about it. She is extremely dog aggressive. My friend knew this yet she wasn't muzzled. I believe this dog should be pts. It won't be and I will continue to keep my dogs well away from it. 

What I guess this long ramble is saying is that yes they are dogs who's behaviour warrants death. But their appearance shouldn't.


----------



## lexiedhb (11 July 2014)

Shysmum said:



			^^ that is a very   incorrect statement, corvax

The DDA states that ANY DOG BEHAVING DANGEROUSLY IN A PUBLIC PLACE is subject to coming under the law.  Why have people not grasped this ?

Further, there is legislation going through now that will prosecute owners of ANY dog if it attacks people whilst in the owners house, and yup, those dogs will have an order on them to be destroyed.

It is the owners at fault. They take on dog they CANNOT HANDLE, in the wrong environment, the dogs snaps, that's it.
		
Click to expand...

The dog in question was killed under bsl, breed specific legislation, not dda.


Copperpot said:



			I do agree with pts dangerous dogs but only when behaviour dictates and not appearance. 

Out of all the dogs we have fostered or adopted only one ever bit us, repeatedly. My OH and his friend still bear the scars. Interestingly it was the only non bull breed we have ever had here.  I believed and still do that the dog should have been pts but the rescue wouldn't allow it. He was a westie x jrt. We weren't the first people had had bitten and we weren't the last either. His appearance means that people do not take his behaviour seriously. Were he a staffy he would be dead. 

All the others have been bull breeds who have been treated appallingly by humans. All showed nothing except love and were able to live happily with the dogs we already had. 

And I don't think the majority of people do it for kudos. They do it to help save a dogs life. Because ultimately they love dogs and in particular a certain breed and feel drawn to help them if they can. 

A retired grey hound should be muzzled when not on it's own private property or off lead. And any rescue should have told the new owners that. 

2 weeks ago my friends dog attacked and killed the YO's at the yard we share. She also bit the YO as she was picking her spaniel and drew blood. She is a dog bought over from Iraq as an 8 week old puppy. She has never suffered abuse (friends OH works in Iraq and had her from a tiny puppy). She is medium sized dog and looks cute and fluffy, think Littlest Hobo. Nothing is being done about it. She is extremely dog aggressive. My friend knew this yet she wasn't muzzled. I believe this dog should be pts. It won't be and I will continue to keep my dogs well away from it. 

What I guess this long ramble is saying is that yes they are dogs who's behaviour warrants death. But their appearance shouldn't.
		
Click to expand...

THIS!!!!


----------



## Alec Swan (11 July 2014)

Copperpot said:



			.......

A retired grey hound should be muzzled when not on it's own private property or off lead. And any rescue should have told the new owners that. 

........
		
Click to expand...

Explain to me where the justification,  or the pleasure can be,  in keeping such an animal,  short of our own sense of self worth.  Explain to me how we can keep any dog,  contained by the most restrictive of practises,  and then tell me that we have the best interest at heart,  of anyone,  but ourselves.

Alec.


----------



## lexiedhb (11 July 2014)

Er shysmum, one post says your dog bit your hubs down to the bone recently, and then you claim you wouldnt have a dog that has bitten in your house? Which is it?
alec why do you think a muzzle is so very restrictive?


----------



## Shysmum (11 July 2014)

My terrier is 14, she had a stroke two months ago, a bit of dementia, and a dodgy back, and that disease that is making her blind.  And a personality that is much grumpier.

 I did something stupid, I lifted her tail and back up to trim her without thinking and she snapped in pain. It was my fault. She is on daily anti stroke tablets, and now metacam, and zyklene when needed, has been professionally clipped now and is a new dog. i emphasize she was in pain. And I am not proud of it. 

But any dog that has bitten without a very good excuse (as in pain) is not one I could have. Believe me, Scoobie my GSD cross was the dog of my life, but I was able to work through his issues completely, and had a huge reward. if i couldn't manage it, he would have been PTS no question. none.


----------



## lexiedhb (11 July 2014)

Poor girl! Although I think fear is also a valid reason!


----------



## Shysmum (11 July 2014)

i've had Sophie since she was three weeks old - her litter mates had been drowned. She has always been "opinionated", but no problem at all - just don't pull her around.  I love her dearly, and have nightmares about losing her - but of course, if she has another bad episode she will not suffer for a second.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			.......
alec why do you think a muzzle is so very restrictive?
		
Click to expand...

It isn't the muzzle,  in itself,  it's the dog which has been bred,  for one purpose only,  the only purpose that the dog truly understands,  and then it's retired,  it's gifted to someone who with the best will in the world,  hasn't a clue what the dog's actually about,  and it spends the rest of its life,  probably from the relatively young age of 4 years,  and it lives in a cage.  A cage of kindness,  I'll grant you,  but one of ignorance too,  albeit it well intentioned.  

I no longer keep racing greyhounds,  but if I did,  they would never be re-homed.

Alec.


----------



## Copperpot (11 July 2014)

It depends how your going to keep said dog. Mine are exercised on private land which is secure. So said grey hound could run muzzle free and catch rabbits til it's hearts content. I'm sure that would make for a happy dog.


----------



## lastchancer (11 July 2014)

Copperpot said:



			A retired grey hound should be muzzled when not on it's own private property or off lead. And any rescue should have told the new owners that.
		
Click to expand...

It was on it's own property and jumped the fence. Had the owners known even anything at all about racing dogs they'd have known that would probably happen, and that is the problem with re-homing dogs. Too many rescues re-homing dogs inappropriately. I like dogs, love them in fact. But why on earth do people insist on taking risks when re-homing?


----------



## lastchancer (11 July 2014)

Copperpot said:



			It depends how your going to keep said dog. Mine are exercised on private land which is secure. So said grey hound could run muzzle free and catch rabbits til it's hearts content. I'm sure that would make for a happy dog.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely ideal. I'm not anti-greyhound at all - the ones I've known have all been lovely gentle dogs, even the one that killed our cat was a nice dog, just not suited to that particular lifestyle.


----------



## Dobiegirl (11 July 2014)

lastchancer said:



			My mothers beloved cat was killed on our property by a retired greyhound that our well meaning neighbors had 'rescued' 
Of course it went for the cat, that is what it had been trained to do. Why have a bloody racing greyhound as a family house dog?
		
Click to expand...

I know a lot of people who have retired Greyhounds who live very happily with a cat, Greyhounds are difficult enough to rehome without that sort of statement, Im sorry your mums lovely cat was killed by one but you cant label them all the same. In actual fact they are not trained to kill a cat but hares.


----------



## Crabby (11 July 2014)

All the sight hound come or should come with a warning about their urge to chase small furry animals. Just as collies come with an inbuilt instinct to round up anything that moves. Unfortunately it doesn't stop people from taking them on when they can't provide an ideal situation for them. I've gotten involved in rescue and rehoming and it's all too easy to just re home a dog even when it's not an ideal situation simply to get them out of dire circumstances.


----------



## Shysmum (11 July 2014)

I used to work in a grey hound racing kennels as a teenager, and absolutely adore them. But I would never trust one as a pet. So sad, as they have wonderful, kind and grinning personalities.


----------



## Luci07 (12 July 2014)

My dog walker specifically rehomes ex racing grayhounds and they have made wonderful pets. She does, however, muzzle when walking as almost a given and assumes anything smaller and furry could be seen as fair game. It is restrictive though but she understands and accepts these. 

We have gone off piste though. I suspect there are very clear lines drawn up between those who think a pit bull is automatically prone to aggression and those of us who do not. I help in a very small way with rescue with fund raising so see a lot of what goes on behind closed doors as well. I accept some dogs wont be rehabilitated but do not accept a breed will always act in a certain manner.  I am a big Stafford fan and now have 4 so clearly don't accept the media prejudice against my dogs although at the same time, accept mine have to be really really well behaved at all times as we are always on show as ambassadors for the breed.


----------



## cptrayes (12 July 2014)

Dobiegirl said:



			. In actual fact they are not trained to kill a cat but hares.
		
Click to expand...


Surely the vast majority of them are trained to ' kill' a furry toy on a wire?


----------



## cptrayes (12 July 2014)

Since this discussion has broadened a bit, I'm interested in the views of people regarding dogs bred to kill to hunt, and dogs simply bred, as I understand the 'pit' bull was (pit being the fighting area, I believe?) to kill.

I can see both sides to the argument, if the pit bull's genetics do make it more likely to be dangerous.


PS I found the info that they are banned or severely controlled in many US states interesting, thank you poster.


----------



## Equi (12 July 2014)

Depends how broad you want to go. Every terrier is bred for killing, which is the fact most small dog owners don't get and which is why most little rats are terribly aggressive and unpredictable. But it is ok it is small and cute so who cares. 

I'm not a fan of anyone having a working type dog if they have not got the room and time, that covers all sheep/herding/gun/hounds. There is nothing worse than seeing a collie in a garden the size of a shed.

If a dog is bred to do something, they will want to do it. Unless you are my old golden ret, she wouldn't fetch.


----------



## Dobiegirl (12 July 2014)

Quite a few states have lifted the ban on BSL in the US, they were lobbied and with education the powers to be have lifted it.

A lot of dogs deemed to be Pitbulls are not, the difficulty is proving it, the tape measure is a ridiculous way to identify a dog, all breeds have different types. Ive had 5 Dobermanns now through my hands who have all looked very different, Ive also seen crosses of dogs who have looked liked Dobermanns, because they are a registered breed with a pedigree they can be identified by DNA, sadly Pitbulls cant. More people are killed by dogs in the UK that are not Pitbulls, that should say something about the ridiculous law. 

The are still not addressing the real problem which is owners, I really think all dogs should be licensed and perhaps have to wear an identifying disc on their collar, the revenue from the licenses could fund more dog wardens who would have the power to take the dogs off the owner. It would affect pounds etc but hopefully only for a short while and hopefully result in fewer dogs and making people more responsible for their dogs.


----------



## Alec Swan (12 July 2014)

Dobiegirl said:



			I know a lot of people who have retired Greyhounds who live very happily with a cat, ....... In actual fact they are not trained to kill a cat but hares.
		
Click to expand...

A correction for you.  All so often half grown kittens are thrown in with greyhounds in the belief that it 'Gingers them up',  and I'm quite sure that it works.  Greyhounds are not trained 'on hares',  as coursing is now illegal,  and there,  to a greyhound anyway,  is no difference between a cat and a hare.  The greyhound which will share its bed with a cat and in a kitchen,  will quite probably kill that very same cat when it's a hundred yards from home.  Single Greyhounds (though far worse as a pair),  will when loose and in a public place,  spy the small and vulnerable Skye Terrier,  the tiny Poodle or Dachshund,  and they will kill it without a second thought.  I've witnessed such an event,  and it was ghastly.

There is no difference to a Greyhound,  between a hare,  a cat,  or anything else which is small,  furry and mobile.  There's a very good reason why those with sense,  muzzle Greyhounds in public,  and those who don't,  should,  in my opinion.

Alec.


----------



## Arizahn (12 July 2014)

Dobiegirl said:



			The are still not addressing the real problem which is owners, I really think all dogs should be licensed and perhaps have to wear an identifying disc on their collar, the revenue from the licenses could fund more dog wardens who would have the power to take the dogs off the owner. It would affect pounds etc but hopefully only for a short while and hopefully result in fewer dogs and making people more responsible for their dogs.
		
Click to expand...

We have this here in Northern Ireland, along with mandatory microchipping. Unfortunately, as usual only the responsible owners are affected by it anyhow. 

And the microchips are not as helpful as you would think. EG - pups are microchipped by their breeder, as you must have a licence to acquire a dog, and the dog cannot have the licence issued unless it has a chip. However, what many people seem to miss is that the microchip details must also be updated to have the new owner instead of the breeder, otherwise the chip and licence will not match up and the licence will technically be invalid.

None of this seems to have any impact on backyard breeding, status dogs, or idiots in charge of dogs  I suspect if the licence were issued to the human as an owner/handler, as opposed to the dog, it could be better managed. You know, like a driver's licence.


----------



## Crabby (12 July 2014)

Arizahn said:



			We have this here in Northern Ireland, along with mandatory microchipping. Unfortunately, as usual only the responsible owners are affected by it anyhow. 

And the microchips are not as helpful as you would think. EG - pups are microchipped by their breeder, as you must have a licence to acquire a dog, and the dog cannot have the licence issued unless it has a chip. However, what many people seem to miss is that the microchip details must also be updated to have the new owner instead of the breeder, otherwise the chip and licence will not match up and the licence will technically be invalid.

None of this seems to have any impact on backyard breeding, status dogs, or idiots in charge of dogs  I suspect if the licence were issued to the human as an owner/handler, as opposed to the dog, it could be better managed. You know, like a driver's licence.
		
Click to expand...

Hi.. I'm moving to Antrim in September and my dog is microchipped ..will I need a dog lisence too? I grew up in the west if Ireland and it was compulsory to get a dog lisence cut it was abolished at some point.


----------



## Alec Swan (12 July 2014)

Dobiegirl said:



			.......

The are still not addressing the real problem which is owners, I really think all dogs should be licensed and perhaps have to wear an identifying disc on their collar, the revenue from the licenses could fund more dog wardens who would have the power to take the dogs off the owner. It would affect pounds etc but hopefully only for a short while and hopefully result in fewer dogs and making people more responsible for their dogs.
		
Click to expand...

If we consider just how stretched our judiciary are,  do you honestly think that legislation will make any difference,  at all?  The answer is in education,  but I'll accept that how we persuade the idiot that he's buying the wrong dog,  and for the wrong reason,  only adds to the confusion!  How we convince 'the idiot'  that as those with experience don't want to keep the apple of his eye,  so he being less qualified,   and so on a collision course with common sense, then educating the said man,  is likely to be frustrating.

The answer is that we change the current culture of canine ownership.  How we achieve that,  I haven't a clue,  except that by peer pressure,  the very same peer pressure which has encouraged our apparent fascination with baubles,  so Society may yet come of age,  and reject our pointless and eventually painful,  path.

I'm really not sure,  and whilst I agree that there's a need for change,  I'm certain that pointless and unmanageable legislation,  will achieve nothing.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (12 July 2014)

Alec, you have a lot of experience with hunting dogs. I'd be really interested in your view of the relative dangers to humans and domestic animals of dogs bred to hunt versus dogs bred to fight another dog to the death in a pit situation?


----------



## Copperpot (12 July 2014)

The point is a lot of these dogs aren't pitbulls. They are crosses of other dogs not bred to fight to the death who just happen to have the same bodily measurements as a pit bull. 

I know which of my dogs presents the most danger to other animals and it's the small terriers. None represent a danger to humans. 

Dog aggression or other animal aggression doesn't always equate to human aggression.


----------



## Spring Feather (12 July 2014)

Dobiegirl said:



			Quite a few states have lifted the ban on BSL in the US, they were lobbied and with education the powers to be have lifted it.
		
Click to expand...

Not as far as I'm aware.  From what I read over here more cities and municipalities are putting in place restrictions/bans for PBTs.  Can you provide links for your statement?

Here are the lists of States/Cities/Municipalities in the US who have bans/restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers; there are 43 States who had some form of restrictions or full State bans on them in 2013, so if they've changed this, I'd be very interested to see your link corroborating this.  

http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-state-by-state.php

Here are the statistics of deaths caused by dogs in the States in 2013.  The breeds of dogs are given and I think you'll see the huge disparity between all other dogs and Pit Bulls.   

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php


----------



## Alec Swan (12 July 2014)

cptrayes,

I'm not really sure quiet how we separate the two separate factions.  One 'type' is bred to assist man,  to be his servant as it were,  and the other is bred,  again for our own ends,  but to achieve ITS own ends,  and without the animal giving any thought to a deference to man.  I have no experience of dogs which are bred to fight with others of their kind,  and I never will.  I find the purpose,  if not the dogs themselves,  behind the breeding of any animal which is designed or bred,  specifically for the 'baiting' of another animal and for the entertainment of man,  to be totally abhorrent.  We have to understand here that the bulk of those 'Fighting' dogs,  never actually fight.  The bulk of such animals are owned by those who see such 'Hard dogs'  as being a status symbol.  An extension of themselves,  or as they would have the world see them!  Perhaps such men spend too much time looking in mirrors.

The danger,  as I see it,  with those dogs which are bred in such a way as to really only consider their own focus,  is that they find the transition towards being a servant of man,  very difficult,  if not impossible.  There are the Bull breeds,  Greyhounds,  English Pointers,  if I'm honest most of the Hound breeds,  and so the list goes on.  Before D_R leaps to the defence to his favourite type of dog,  whilst almost always non-aggressive,  they can be rather wayward in their resistance to conformity.  Compliance and obedience aren't really needed in the Pointing breeds,  nor Greyhounds,  and nor for that matter,  the fighting or baiting breeds,  and that's where the problem lies,  I think.  Rarely if ever are they ever taught to walk to heal.

Let us consider the GSD,  and others of its type,  which would include the Doberman,  The Rottweiler,  the Schnauzers,  and so on.  Their aggression has been harnessed (or should be),  and the animals energy should be directed towards its handlers wishes.  The Bull breeds,  and the Greyhounds,  for instance,  are encouraged to have a non-compliant and so a possibly dangerous aspect.  The please-myself-attitude,  can make those dogs which are bred with 'attitude',  to be dangerous to man.

This is all very well,  but if we exclude all those dogs,  those which were bred to do a job of work,  from the Pet-Dog roster,  then what do we have left?

I'm more than happy to be contradicted!

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (12 July 2014)

Interesting, thank you Alec. I must say I am disturbed by the number of working dogs that I see in pet environments, often left alone all day while their owners go to work. It doesn't seem to me to be any life for any dog, never mind one bred to work


----------



## Broodle (13 July 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			Not as far as I'm aware.  From what I r read over here more cities and municipalities are putting in place restrictions/bans for PBTs.  Can you provide links for your statement?

Here are the lists of States/Cities/Municipalities in the US who have bans/restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers; there are 43 States who had some form of restrictions or full State bans on them in 2013, so if they've changed this, I'd be very interested to see your link corroborating this.  

http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-state-by-state.php

Here are the statistics of deaths caused by dogs in the States in 2013.  The breeds of dogs are given and I think you'll see the huge disparity between all other dogs and Pit Bulls.   

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php

Click to expand...

I urge lexiehb, and any others who mistakenly regard the pitbull as 'the family dog if choice in the US' to read the whole contents of the bottom link in SF's post. Harrowing stuff :-(

For those arguing that the current legislation, with it's emphasis on measurements, is flawed - what on earth is the alternative? Pit bulls are bred to type so dna is no use. And 'breed not deed' is nice in theory, but it relies on someone being hurt/killed before action is taken.  

I'm afraid I regard the small number of 'innocent' victims of this legislation to be necessary, albeit sad, collateral damage.


----------



## lexiedhb (13 July 2014)

Surely dogs used in fighting need to be compliant and obedient to their owners in order for their owners to remove them from said fight, train them without getting bitten themselves?  Bullbreeds certainly can be trained to very high standards in many disciplines.


----------



## lexiedhb (13 July 2014)

Broodle said:



			I urge lexiehb, and any others who mistakenly regard the pitbull as 'the family dog if choice in the US' to read the whole contents of the bottom link in SF's post. Harrowing stuff :-(

For those arguing that the current legislation, with it's emphasis on measurements, is flawed - what on earth is the alternative? Pit bulls are bred to type so dna is no use. And 'breed not deed' is nice in theory, but it relies on someone being hurt/killed before action is taken.  

I'm afraid I regard the small number of 'innocent' victims of this legislation to be necessary, albeit sad, collateral damage.
		
Click to expand...

But any dog can bite, doesnt mean they do so why should normal, friendly family dogs be pts because they have a wide head and are x cm's tall? Could be any mix of dog breeds.... could as the dog in the op be useful to society! Yes dangerous dogs need to be dealt with but not on the basis of a set of measurements.


----------



## Crabby (13 July 2014)

Interesting statistics SF.. Couldn't find the UK ones but from memory I'd say they were the same breakdown and in exactly the same circumstances ..visitors to home being top of the list and or dogs newly acquired ..The 4 year old mauled to death last year by bull type breed near me had only been in the home a short while.
Reading that report I was reminded of an incident from a few years back when I visited my friend who had two Rottweilers who were primarily guard dogs. I'd only mat them a few times so when we get back to his home he had to run upstairs to the loo. However both dogs had followed him indoors and were in front of me so I was left with a choice to go back out and shut the door or stand my ground and tell them to leave. I chose option 2 being as confident as my fast beating heart would allow  I'd swear those two dogs had a conversation with each other about what to do. They looked at me and they looked upstairs to where their master had gone and they looked at each other before finally deciding to leave quietly and I could draw a very deep and very relieved breath as I shut the door behind them. Funny thing though ..afterwards one of them selected me for special preferences and would always come to me first.  Had I read those statistics I'd have chosen option 1 and left quietly and waited until the owner had returned.


----------



## Broodle (13 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			But any dog can bite, doesnt mean they do so why should normal, friendly family dogs be pts because they have a wide head and are x cm's tall? Could be any mix of dog breeds.... could as the dog in the op be useful to society! Yes dangerous dogs need to be dealt with but not on the basis of a set of measurements.
		
Click to expand...

Did you read the link?  I'd be interested in your thoughts. 

The issue is that my lab crosses could bite in theory, yes, but the consequences are unlikely to be death.  A dog with the physical traits (and potential inbred characteristics) of a pit bull type could also bite, but the chance of the result being death of the human are far far higher.

What is your proposed alternative to our current legislation?


----------



## Copperpot (13 July 2014)

In theory your lab crosses could also fall foul of a tape measure and be deemed type. Perhaps you would think different of the law then?


----------



## Broodle (13 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			But any dog can bite, doesnt mean they do so why should normal, friendly family dogs be pts because they have a wide head and are x cm's tall? Could be any mix of dog breeds.... could as the dog in the op be useful to society! Yes dangerous dogs need to be dealt with but not on the basis of a set of measurements.
		
Click to expand...




Copperpot said:



			In theory your lab crosses could also fall foul of a tape measure and be deemed type. Perhaps you would think different of the law then?
		
Click to expand...

Given that the other half is poodle, it seems unlikely 

Seriously though, I do get your point and I'm quite sure I would be devastated. But I still don't see a viable alternative being proposed.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			Surely dogs used in fighting need to be compliant and obedient to their owners in order for their owners to remove them from said fight, train them without getting bitten themselves?  .........
		
Click to expand...

Sadly,  not so.  Obedience and compliance are at the bottom of the priorities list.  Breed from generation after generation of such animals,  and what are we likely to end up with?  The answer is "What we have".

Alec.


----------



## Clodagh (13 July 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Sadly,  not so.  Obedience and compliance are at the bottom of the priorities list.  Breed from generation after generation of such animals,  and what are we likely to end up with?  The answer is "What we have".

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I bet they were originally though, temperament would have been top of the list. The owner would need to be able to go in the ring with a blooded, energised, fighting animal and safely remove it without getting mauled himself.
Like game cocks (chickens) while aggressive with all other chickens tend to be very affectionate and easily trained with people.
Trouble is most of the dimwits breeding fighting dogs nowadays know nor care about anything other than a fast buck.


----------



## Copperpot (13 July 2014)

I don't know the ideal solution. What I do know is it isn't taking people's pets for no reason and destroying them. 

Personally I'd be happy to pay £100 for a dog licence. Have my ownership skills checked and my home checked also. I have 4 dogs and I think it should be a licence per dog not per owner. I know the people that I don't want owning dogs would fail to comply with this and in the short term a lot of dogs would be removed from their owners. But perhaps in the long term it would deter people from owning dogs to use as weapon or status symbol. 

Once at work I saw some youths with a tiny staffy puppy. It was on the train platform, no lead, just wandering about. I told them to pick it up. I then got on the same carriage as them. The tiny puppy was looking to the owner for attention and he just kept roughly pushing it away and generally being horrible to it. I thought what chance has that poor dog got. If I hasn't been in uniform (I work for the train company) I'd have grabbed it and made a dash for it! 

These are the type of people I don't want to own any dog especially a staffy type dog. They destroy a good dogs reputation and breed them with other larger dogs. These dogs are incredibly people orientated. And it's all to easy for people to abuse that for their own agenda. 

Unfortunately you can't catch these people with a tape measure! And it's far easier to go after law abiding people will cough up the money to get their beloved pet back.


----------



## cptrayes (13 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			Surely dogs used in fighting need to be compliant and obedient to their owners in order for their owners to remove them from said fight, train them without getting bitten themselves?  Bullbreeds certainly can be trained to very high standards in many disciplines.
		
Click to expand...

There's one dead dog in the ring by then, is the other not half dead too, and fairly easily removed? Ditto in training, the dog will already have killed whatever 'free to a good home' dog it's been trained with, and be fairly easy to remove from its victim, I would have thought?

The law is a problem, but it is interesting that there seems to be no viable alternative


----------



## cptrayes (13 July 2014)

Broodle said:



			I urge lexiehb, and any others who mistakenly regard the pitbull as 'the family dog if choice in the US' to read the whole contents of the bottom link in SF's post. Harrowing stuff :-(

For those arguing that the current legislation, with it's emphasis on measurements, is flawed - what on earth is the alternative? Pit bulls are bred to type so dna is no use. And 'breed not deed' is nice in theory, but it relies on someone being hurt/killed before action is taken.  

I'm afraid I regard the small number of 'innocent' victims of this legislation to be necessary, albeit sad, collateral damage.
		
Click to expand...


I'll summarise. The crux of the issue is this:

*SIX* per cent of US dogs were pit bills in 2013

* SEVENTY EIGHT* per cent of people who were killed by a dog in the US in 2013 were killed by a pit bull.

If they are bred by type and not recognisable by DNA, what is the alternative to the current law?


----------



## Broodle (13 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			But any dog can bite, doesnt mean they do so why should normal, friendly family dogs be pts because they have a wide head and are x cm's tall? Could be any mix of dog breeds.... could as the dog in the op be useful to society! Yes dangerous dogs need to be dealt with but not on the basis of a set of measurements.
		
Click to expand...




Copperpot said:



			I don't know the ideal solution. What I do know is it isn't taking people's pets for no reason and destroying them. 

Personally I'd be happy to pay £100 for a dog licence. Have my ownership skills checked and my home checked also. I have 4 dogs and I think it should be a licence per dog not per owner. I know the people that I don't want owning dogs would fail to comply with this and in the short term a lot of dogs would be removed from their owners. But perhaps in the long term it would deter people from owning dogs to use as weapon or status symbol. 

Once at work I saw some youths with a tiny staffy puppy. It was on the train platform, no lead, just wandering about. I told them to pick it up. I then got on the same carriage as them. The tiny puppy was looking to the owner for attention and he just kept roughly pushing it away and generally being horrible to it. I thought what chance has that poor dog got. If I hasn't been in uniform (I work for the train company) I'd have grabbed it and made a dash for it! 

These are the type of people I don't want to own any dog especially a staffy type dog. They destroy a good dogs reputation and breed them with other larger dogs. These dogs are incredibly people orientated. And it's all to easy for people to abuse that for their own agenda. 

Unfortunately you can't catch these people with a tape measure! And it's far easier to go after law abiding people will cough up the money to get their beloved pet back.
		
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but the point of the legislation in question is to get rid of a whole breed/type. To me, given the pitbull's characteristics and history, I'd say the aim is correct. And I don't see any viable alternative for putting that aim into effect. 

I guess my question is do you - and others- disagree with the aim of eradicating the pitbull? And if not, how else should that aim be achieved?


----------



## MrsElle (13 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I'll summarise. The crux of the issue is this:

*SIX* per cent of US dogs were pit bills in 2013

* SEVENTY EIGHT* per cent of people who were killed by a dog in the US in 2013 were killed by a pit bull.

If they are bred by type and not recognisable by DNA, what is the alternative to the current law?
		
Click to expand...

The problem with statistics is that they are just that.  They can't show the circumstances of the dog attacks.  Because pit bulls and the like tend to be the 'weapon of choice' of certain members of society they are of course more likely to attack and kill, having been encouraged to do so.

If the new 'weapon of choice' breed was a Lab, for example, having been whipped up into aggressive frenzies by their owners, then statistically more Labs would be injuring and killing than any other breed.

I am a great believer in deed, not breed, and while of course some dogs have breed traits, I don't know of any that were bred to attack and kill humans.  

We have recently got a JRTxLakeland pup, and even at 10 weeks of age he is displaying his breed traits.  It is down to me as a responsible owner to channel those traits in the best possible way to ensure he doesn't become a menace.  This is the same for all breeds in my opinion.


----------



## cptrayes (13 July 2014)

I said it was a summary 

Each individual case is described in detail if you have the stomach to read about grannies being eaten in their hotel room. And children becoming the dog's dinner


----------



## Spring Feather (13 July 2014)

MrsElle said:



			The problem with statistics is that they are just that.  They can't show the circumstances of the dog attacks.
		
Click to expand...

It's a shame you didn't read the link I posted as it describes in detail how the people were killed by the dogs.


----------



## Spring Feather (13 July 2014)

Copperpot said:



			Personally I'd be happy to pay £100 for a dog licence. Have my ownership skills checked and my home checked also. I have 4 dogs and I think it should be a licence per dog not per owner. I know the people that I don't want owning dogs would fail to comply with this and in the short term a lot of dogs would be removed from their owners. But perhaps in the long term it would deter people from owning dogs to use as weapon or status symbol.
		
Click to expand...

We have dog licenses over here and dogs must wear their tags.  What difference do you think it would make to anything by having licenses in the UK? 

I have a kennel license as I own too many dogs to be allowed to live on the same premises within our municipality.  3 is the maximum amount of dogs allowed per household in our municipality and I have 6 dogs.  My farm was inspected by the authorities who granted me a kennel license.  My dogs don't have to wear tags as they do not have individual licenses; they are individually covered and come under the umbrella of my kennel license.  People with only 1, 2 or 3 dogs have to apply for each dog they own and are given individual licenses and tags for each dog.  I'm not 100% certain what happens to the money 'earned' from all of these dog licenses.  There is a codicil on all applications and licenses that the license can be revoked at any time, which, if invoked, would then mean you'd have to either give up your dogs, or move to another municipality.  I'm not sure I get the point of dog licenses tbh and I guess the UK don't either as years ago when I lived in the UK we did have to buy dog licenses; they cost 37p from what I remember.


----------



## Copperpot (13 July 2014)

Broodle said:



			I don't disagree with anything you've said, but the point of the legislation in question is to get rid of a whole breed/type. To me, given the pitbull's characteristics and history, I'd say the aim is correct. And I don't see any viable alternative for putting that aim into effect. 

I guess my question is do you - and others- disagree with the aim of eradicating the pitbull? And if not, how else should that aim be achieved?
		
Click to expand...

No I don't agree with eradicating pitbulls. What then. Another dog breed will take their place and become vilified by the press and then we will have to eradicate that also. I think it's a slippery slope. 

When I was young I remember everyone being scared of Rottweilers and Dobermans. Those dogs luckily for them went out of "fashion" with people. I hope the staffy x types do too. Although some poor other dog breed will take their place. 

I would like to eradicate bad and irresponsible owners. But god knows how we do that. 

I would also like the people in charge of deciding whether dogs are "type" to have some decent training and meet proper pitbull type dogs. The vast different shapes and sizes they deem at pitbull types is ridiculous. Some of the traits such as "almond shaped eye" are too generic. All my dogs have eyes that shape.  The inconsistency is what I find hardest. 

Most cases I have seen on the DDA website, the owners proceed to court and get their dogs back. Which is good. They are legally exempt and have to follow certain rules. This doesn't include being muzzled in their own home. So I wonder if people are saying that it's visitors to the home which are often attacked, how this helps.


----------



## Copperpot (13 July 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			We have dog licenses over here and dogs must wear their tags.  What difference do you think it would make to anything by having licenses in the UK? 

I have a kennel license as I own too many dogs to be allowed to live on the same premises within our municipality.  3 is the maximum amount of dogs allowed per household in our municipality and I have 6 dogs.  My farm was inspected by the authorities who granted me a kennel license.  My dogs don't have to wear tags as they do not have individual licenses; they are individually covered and come under the umbrella of my kennel license.  People with only 1, 2 or 3 dogs have to apply for each dog they own and are given individual licenses and tags for each dog.  I'm not 100% certain what happens to the money 'earned' from all of these dog licenses.  There is a codicil on all applications and licenses that the license can be revoked at any time, which, if invoked, would then mean you'd have to either give up your dogs, or move to another municipality.  I'm not sure I get the point of dog licenses tbh and I guess the UK don't either as years ago when I lived in the UK we did have to buy dog licenses; they cost 37p from what I remember.
		
Click to expand...

It would allow the council to know who owns what and where they are keeping them. I'd also like it to specify that all bull breeds are neutered or speyed, as we have far too many in rescue. And it would stop back yard breeders making a few quid and not caring about what they are breeding. 

Dog licences before we not used to track who owns what dogs and where. 

People with known criminal records for certain offences could be refused a licence to own a dog. I guess it could be used in a number of different ways.


----------



## lastchancer (13 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I said it was a summary 

Each individual case is described in detail if you have the stomach to read about grannies being eaten in their hotel room. And children becoming the dog's dinner 

Click to expand...

I read it, such a horrific end for the victims. I can't understand why people keep breeding them, dog fighting was banned long ago, therefore fighting breed dogs should surely be obsolete except possibly a few kept by heavily monitored, licensed enthusiasts. 
Then even Pitbulls could be kept going, but only by those who have the time, finance and intelligence to do so safely. 
We have a lot of muppets keeping 3 or more of these dogs in small family homes then they wonder why it ends in tears..


----------



## Luci07 (13 July 2014)

Interesting comments about the licensees although I have to agree that it would be law abiding people who would cough up and not the lowlifes who add to our massive dog problem.

There are states in the US which have recently overturned the BSL..I shall go and dig it out but by focusing on a breed, you largely excuse the human who made the dog the way it is. 

Not being flippant but I did wonder if the money from breeding dogs could be classed as income and taxed... Or benefits reduced. Possibly not easy to police but I did wonder if the threat might reduce the unwanted dog numbers, even just a little.

I have had years with staffords, only dog that ever bit a member of my family was a black lab. Came as a surprise as my uncle had working labs and there was not a chance in hell that one of his dogs would ever have done something like that.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 July 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			.......  I'm not sure I get the point of dog licenses tbh and I guess the UK don't either as years ago when I lived in the UK we did have to buy dog licenses; they cost 37p from what I remember.
		
Click to expand...

Correct,  that was 7/6d.,  or thereabouts!  I remember it too.  My first Lurcher puppy cost me 10/s,  and I was dammed if I was going to spend almost her purchase price,  again and on a licence.  Lace never had a licence,  but my word she did have some fun!  I would that I had her now.

Alec.


----------



## Crabby (13 July 2014)

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier has arisen from centuries of careful breeding to develop a strong dog that is placid towards people. It should not be confused with the pit bull, a breed of uncertain origins and unpredictable temperament.

The above taken from a breed description and history .. Such a shame that these lovely dogs have been tainted by the pitbull label.


----------



## Copperpot (13 July 2014)

Crabby said:



			The Staffordshire Bull Terrier has arisen from centuries of careful breeding to develop a strong dog that is placid towards people. It should not be confused with the pit bull, a breed of uncertain origins and unpredictable temperament.

The above taken from a breed description and history .. Such a shame that these lovely dogs have been tainted by the pitbull label.
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I have a staffy although he does have a little of something else in there too. Of my 4 dogs he is the most loyal and loving. He adores people.

I cannot fault his temperament. I love all my dogs but he is just that little bit extra special. He reads me exceptionally well. He's also extremely trainable as all he wants to do is please us. He loves to be told he is a good boy when he does something well. 

He came from a pretty dire dog pound that was closed down due to some of the practices that were taking place. Despite this humans are the love of his life.


----------



## lexiedhb (14 July 2014)

Yes I read the stats. I also recently read stats that in the uk you are more likely to get bitten by a lab, not that they are more aggressive than any other breed. And whole countries have overturned bsl, italy and the netherlands? being two I believe because it simply does not work, aswell as states in the usa
Ok so lets ay the apbt is of unsound temerament and has no place in society - just the pit, not a staff, lab, rottie x or a mongrel made up  of god knows what- so how do you  didifferentiate in this country? You cant, so they dont, which is hugely unfair to any responsible owner, with a dog who has done nothing wrong.
I have no issue with dda, for any breed out of control, dogs shouldnt be a nuisance to the public, but basing a law on a "type" of dog helps no one, and as was illustrated by the dog in the op, not all bull breeds are running around biting folk.


----------



## cptrayes (14 July 2014)

Lexie you keep hearking back to dogs that bite, but the issue here is dogs that kill.

Surely it's better that a thousand innocent dogs painlessly lose their lives than that one innocent child is mauled to death?


----------



## lexiedhb (14 July 2014)

Ok not long ago there was a high profile attack involing a mal and a collie x I think, and a dead baby. Apparently the truth was never told surrounding that  (someone on here said the news had it totally wrong) but still - not bullbreeds. There qre also a fair few by bull mastiffs - but they are not subject to bsl. Where would you like to draw the line - ban all dogs? A bite can kill.


----------



## Goldenstar (14 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I'll summarise. The crux of the issue is this:

*SIX* per cent of US dogs were pit bills in 2013

* SEVENTY EIGHT* per cent of people who were killed by a dog in the US in 2013 were killed by a pit bull.

If they are bred by type and not recognisable by DNA, what is the alternative to the current law?
		
Click to expand...

This is the crux of it .
There's no point in spending my and everyone else's taxes in a complicated and useless system because licences and owner checks that would burden the usual law abiding Members of the population and by ignored by the people causing the issue . 
The law at the moment  not fair but it's the best of a bad job .


----------



## Copperpot (14 July 2014)

2 babies have been killed by jrt's in recent years.  Those cases seem subject to less media hysteria and not accompanied by the all too familiar picture of a snarling dog and headlines such as devil dogs etc. 

The main issue surrounding those attacks is don't leave a baby / child unattended with a dog, no matter what it's breed. 

If this law has it's way all staffys will end up banned to. Then what dogs will it come for next?

It's all very well to quote statistics from the US but the crux of the matter here is the way dogs who clearly aren't pitbull types are labelled as such. 

So what we will do is continue to let the people that are causing the issue get away with it and penalise responsible dog owners.


----------



## ester (14 July 2014)

I don't think the issue is having pit bulls banned, it is the determination of what constitutes a pit.


----------



## Crabby (14 July 2014)

ester said:



			I don't think the issue is having pit bulls banned, it is the determination of what constitutes a pit.
		
Click to expand...

Agree.. That and lack of knowledge and hysteria by the general public which results in perfectly good dogs being reported as being pit bulls. One of my neighbours has a beautifully behaved GSD who is about a year old. A few days ago a small off lead dog ran up to him and they were actually playing together but little dogs owner insisted that GSD was dangerous and was fighting his dog. Threatened all sorts and went around telling everyone about how his dog was attacked. With the new laws in place this could so easily result in a lovely well behaved dog being pts ...again public misconception about a powerful breed and ignorance about how dogs play and inter react coupled with stupidity of owner who thinks that it's ok to let small dogs to run free without any sanction.


----------



## cptrayes (14 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			Ok not long ago there was a high profile attack involing a mal and a collie x I think, and a dead baby. Apparently the truth was never told surrounding that  (someone on here said the news had it totally wrong) but still - not bullbreeds. There qre also a fair few by bull mastiffs - but they are not subject to bsl. Where would you like to draw the line - ban all dogs? A bite can kill.
		
Click to expand...

I would draw the line at any breed where the number of serious injuries and deaths caused by that breed of dog far outweigh what would be expected from the number that exist. That is my understanding with pit bulls.

There will ALWAYS be bad owners, and until we can guarantee that there are none, we need to try to make sure that they cannot own a risky breed. If you cannot DNA test for a pit bull,  what other sensible option is there but to try to eradicate the type?


----------



## Spring Feather (14 July 2014)

I really don't know the answer to this.  As said previously I'm certainly not a fan of BSL but I'm also wondering if it is actually doing some good, over here anyway, maybe not in the UK yet?  The amount of attacks/fatalities that have been high profile in the news in years gone by, don't seem to be coming to light any more.  I don't know whether that is because these attacks aren't happening so much or there is some other reason for it.  

I'm not convinced that dog licenses would make any difference though.  Over here I know people who have never tagged their dogs and I know just as many who have more than 3 dogs in my municipality and they only tag a couple of them so they don't have to fork out for a kennel license.  These are all normally law abiding citizens as well, so if they are doing it then I'd think that anyone who is 'dodgy', shall we say, wouldn't even bother to get any of their dogs tagged.

I honestly don't know the answer.


----------



## lastchancer (14 July 2014)

Crabby said:



			Agree.. That and lack of knowledge and hysteria by the general public which results in perfectly good dogs being reported as being pit bulls. One of my neighbours has a beautifully behaved GSD who is about a year old. A few days ago a small off lead dog ran up to him and they were actually playing together but little dogs owner insisted that GSD was dangerous and was fighting his dog. Threatened all sorts and went around telling everyone about how his dog was attacked. With the new laws in place this could so easily result in a lovely well behaved dog being pts ...again public misconception about a powerful breed and ignorance about how dogs play and inter react coupled with stupidity of owner who thinks that it's ok to let small dogs to run free without any sanction.
		
Click to expand...

No ones going to put a dog to sleep for playing - if it had attacked then there would be injuries proving this. 
Sadly there's no legislation against the stupid and ill informed.


----------



## Copperpot (14 July 2014)

Actually the new law states differently. You don't have to be bitten, just be in fear of the dog. It can be the other side of a fence. I'm sure this wouldn't equal pts but it can cause problems for people I'm sure.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 July 2014)

If the Authorities were called, every time that a dog barked at a stranger,  and all of those dogs were considered to be dangerous,  then we'd barely have a dog left alive,  in the country!!

The paranoia is pathetic,  it really is,  but and it's a huge BUT,  there are those dogs,  dogs which are capable of causing the most dreadful damage,  or worse,  and who are owned by idiots (the irony of this must appeal to others!),  and I still fail to understand how or why it is that those who know what they're doing,  don't want these animals,  but the idiot,  DOES!!  Is it to do with image?  Is it to do with a lack of self esteem,  and a belief that the difficult and the mostly intractable,  will somehow give them a degree of kudos?  

Why is it that those who haven't the faintest idea what they're doing,  want the most difficult dogs?  Why do those who would struggle with a Ford Fiesta,  want to drive Ferraris?  Does anyone know?

Alec.


----------



## lastchancer (14 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			But any dog can bite, doesnt mean they do so why should normal, friendly family dogs be pts because they have a wide head and are x cm's tall? Could be any mix of dog breeds.... could as the dog in the op be useful to society! Yes dangerous dogs need to be dealt with but not on the basis of a set of measurements.
		
Click to expand...




lexiedhb said:



			Yes I read the stats. I also recently read stats that in the uk you are more likely to get bitten by a lab, not that they are more aggressive than any other breed. And whole countries have overturned bsl, italy and the netherlands? being two I believe because it simply does not work, aswell as states in the usa
Ok so lets ay the apbt is of unsound temerament and has no place in society - just the pit, not a staff, lab, rottie x or a mongrel made up  of god knows what- so how do you  didifferentiate in this country? You cant, so they dont, which is hugely unfair to any responsible owner, with a dog who has done nothing wrong.
I have no issue with dda, for any breed out of control, dogs shouldnt be a nuisance to the public, but basing a law on a "type" of dog helps no one, and as was illustrated by the dog in the op, not all bull breeds are running around biting folk.
		
Click to expand...

Are you seriously unable to understand the difference between a typical attack from a dog that originally was bred to fight and other types of dog?

Yes all types of dog can bite, but fatalities from these attacks are notable in that they are unusual, mostly the result of more than one dog attacking at the same time. 
Fatal and serious attacks on people & fatal and serious attacks on other dogs/other pets are overwhelmingly caused by bull breeds.


----------



## lexiedhb (14 July 2014)

Are you seriously unable to understand that I agree with the dda. I agree there are dogs out there of dubious temperament, managed by idiots. If you accept the genetics that make them "fighting dog s" you have to also accept they were bred to be non human aggressive. 
I also dont have a problem per se with the pit being banned I struggle with the fact it could be a number of different, non banned breeds, losing their lives having done naff all wrong. All this bull has been seen in different breeds over the years, and its always been nonsense.
yes target the idiots using dogs as weapons, or for intimidation purposes but joe bloggs with his mutt (which pit types Invariabbly are ), minding their own, or dogs like in the op, who are useful, friendly etc why should they suffer?

ban the pit the idiots will  move on to the mastiff,  or the husky, or the rottie. Doesnt stop idiot owners wanting, and getting a 'hard' dog.


----------



## Moomin1 (14 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			Are you seriously unable to understand that I agree with the dda. I agree there are dogs out there of dubious temperament, managed by idiots. If you accept the genetics that make them "fighting dog s" you have to also accept they were bred to be non human aggressive. 
I also dont have a problem per se with the pit being banned I struggle with the fact it could be a number of different, non banned breeds, losing their lives having done naff all wrong. All this bull has been seen in different breeds over the years, and its always been nonsense.
yes target the idiots using dogs as weapons, or for intimidation purposes but joe bloggs with his mutt (which pit types Invariabbly are ), minding their own, or dogs like in the op, who are useful, friendly etc why should they suffer?

ban the pit the idiots will  move on to the mastiff,  or the husky, or the rottie. Doesnt stop idiot owners wanting, and getting a 'hard' dog.
		
Click to expand...

They don't need to 'move on' to the mastiff, husky or rottie - they are already just as much a status dog as pits.


----------



## Clodagh (14 July 2014)

cptrayes said:



			There's one dead dog in the ring by then, is the other not half dead too, and fairly easily removed? Ditto in training, the dog will already have killed whatever 'free to a good home' dog it's been trained with, and be fairly easy to remove from its victim, I would have thought?



Click to expand...

Would you go in the field to remove a stallion that had just killed, or half killed, its field mate (say it had got in with another aggressive stallion? I don't think so. You must have split up a dog fight in your time? More often than not the winner goes for you when you try to detach him from his victim.


----------



## cptrayes (14 July 2014)

Clodagh said:



			Would you go in the field to remove a stallion that had just killed, or half killed, its field mate (say it had got in with another aggressive stallion? I don't think so. You must have split up a dog fight in your time? More often than not the winner goes for you when you try to detach him from his victim.
		
Click to expand...


The stallion comparison is irrelevant.

The dogs are not fighting any more at the end of the kind of dog fight that these dogs are bred for, one is dead, or mostly dead, that's the point of the fight. The fight is OVER when the winner is removed.

I do not see why there is an assumption that fighting dogs must be easy to handle by their trainers. The people I have come across with dangerous dogs have been  proud that they are hard to handle.


----------



## lexiedhb (14 July 2014)

Its not an assumption.  They were bred to be human friendly, those that werent simply did not make the grade. Although, then and now is obviously vastly different.


----------



## cptrayes (14 July 2014)

lexiedhb said:



			Its not an assumption.  They were bred to be human friendly, those that werent simply did not make the grade. Although, then and now is obviously vastly different.
		
Click to expand...

Staffordshire bulls were bred to be human friendly. I don't believe that the same necessarily applies to pit bulls, otherwise they would not kill in the disproportionate numbers that they do.


----------



## lexiedhb (14 July 2014)

We shall have to agree to disagree!


----------



## cptrayes (14 July 2014)

OK


----------



## Howe Street (16 July 2014)

I haven't read all of the replies but I just wanted to share two websites that may be of interest: http://www.dogsbite.org and http://www.daxtonsfriends.com

These are both American websites and having read the vast majority of victim case studies it would appear that in many cases the pit bulls were raised in loving homes from puppies.  Mine may be an unpopular view, but I do believe that this breed has a higher propensity for causing serious injury or death over any other breed and the statistics appear to back up that claim. I'm glad they are banned in this country.


----------



## Crackedhalo (17 July 2014)

Taken from the american badrap pit bull website - 'bite inhibition towards humans was encouraged through selective breeding so gamblers could handle their dogs during staged fights - partially because of these early breeding efforts which frowned on man biters pit bulls gained a reputation for their trustworthy nature with humans'


----------



## Equi (17 July 2014)

America can not be compared to UK. There are far more people for a start, much larger cities, more crime etc. UK does not have the same pit problem, there are very few real pits here. They are all porrly bred crossbreeds and god knows what the cross is.


----------



## cptrayes (17 July 2014)

Crackedhalo said:



			Taken from the american badrap pit bull website - 'bite inhibition towards humans was encouraged through selective breeding so gamblers could handle their dogs during staged fights - partially because of these early breeding efforts which frowned on man biters pit bulls gained a reputation for their trustworthy nature with humans'
		
Click to expand...

Errr, a pro pit bull website is .....  pro pit bull. ??


----------



## Crackedhalo (17 July 2014)

So are you suggesting they are supplying incorrect information? 

Its common sense really isn't it, you wouldn't breed human aggresive traits into a dog that required handling by humans during a fight - the same as dogs bred to retrieve aren't bred with hard mouths. 

As Lexi mentioned, those days are not these days and the pit bulls in this country are not pit bulls as they were originally bred. 

However I think the point is being missed, anti pit bull or pro pit bull, the point is the way the dog is deemed to be of type is inadequate. I don't think anybody has said pit bulls should be legal in this country. 

Responsible owners will always be responsible and idiots will always be idiots.


----------



## cptrayes (17 July 2014)

What specific improvement do you want to see in the way that a dog is deemed to be a pit bull type?  My understanding having read the thread is that there is no solution, and that so far no-one has suggested any solution other than repealing the law.



PS I'm suggesting that it is completely impossible to know if the information is true or not because of its source. If it came from a site that was about all sorts of dogs it would be a lot more credible.


----------

