i am sorry maybe i ment to say dogs that have killed a lot ! but what do you think about the idea !

I get your point,but not sure if it's workable.

There is always going to be irresponsible owners out there,take for example the current legislation,there are still pitts in the uk,been bred,it drives the idiots underground.

Me,I would like to see legislation to make all owners accountable for there dogs actions,regardless of breed.Tighter restrictions on breeding,advertising & sale of dogs.

Every dog bred should be put on a registery of some description,(similar to the DVLA we have for cars)with Breeders details etc...

__________________




Rooney Rumpus DNA Tested L2/HC Clear

Ellies Babe Genetically L2/HC Clear

ruardeanstaffords

surely after how many people/kidds that have been killed by these dogs its time to protect the puplic by selecting who can own and breed these dogs!

I have known many rotties and all have been lovely friendly and loyal dogs, so serial killer is no way to describe them, it is as has been said on many occasions that these incidents are mainly down to the owners, these are the people the law should be looking at and not banning a whole breed beacause of irresponsible owners

These kinds of ideas are great in theory but will never happen - there are far too many idiots who breed Rotties out there - maybe its not the way to go - it would push these back yard breeders even more undergound - in a perfect world these breeds wouldnt be abused like they are and getting a bad name through ignorance. Who knows whos got what in their house/garden/shed etc......how would you force this new law???

__________________

i know that most breeds can kill ,but when you get one breed constantly in the news for killing ,then its time to strike out at the people that have brought these dog up and who own them!

The press & media will always target big powerful breeds it has more impact.

I sent this letter to my MP last year regaring legislation we have in place:

Dear ????????

You will probably be aware of the recent media coverage of dog attacks on children,including the tragic events of January 2007,where by a beautiful little girl lost her life to an attack by alledgly a pitbull type dog.It is similar in many repects to that experienced in the months leading up to the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Current Policies are achieving very little to prevent further attacks.

Unfortunately, much of the media appears to again be pursuing the simplistic route of blaming the “breed” involved in each incident rather than trying to understand and deal with the real cause of such attacks. There is an increasing danger that the current Government and parliamentarians will be similarly drawn into a response which has surely now been shown to be ineffective in protecting the public and particularly children.

The problem with the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, despite the hard won amendment in 1997, continues to be the emphasis placed on the idea that a dog is dangerous because of its breed rather than its behaviour. It may not be palatable to some people, and certainly not the politicians like Kenneth Baker who rushed to introduce his conscience salving nonsense, that the breeds that have actually killed people in the UK over the past 50 years include a West Highland White Terrier, Golden Retriever and “Jack Russell”.

The popular press might have you believe that those breeds should therefore be banned and condemn the many thousands of healthy and well-adjusted examples of each of these breeds that live contentedly with children, the elderly and the lonely bringing comfort and companionship.

The reaction to any incident where a child is badly mauled seems set in stone. Kill the dogs involved, cremate them as quickly as possible and call for a ban on the “breed” involved. What is learned from such actions? The answer is “absolutely nothing”. The benefit for the public is zero. The rewards for all the politicians and newspaper editors is substantial. After all, they are “protecting the public” ……… I do not agree!

Scientific evidence from around the world conclusively demonstrates that factors such as the criminal or social background of the owner is far more significant than the type of dog involved. Of course the newspapers will frequently cite the Pitbull, Rottweilers or other powerful dog but this is increasingly being proven, after the event, to be something else entirely. Why is this? Simply that the general public’s knowledge of “breeds” is substantially based on what they read in the newspapers. If the papers have been full of stories about German Shepherds then the public will report anything from a Rough Collie to a Briard/Dobermann cross as a “German Shepherd”.


It is unfortunately true that a certain “type” of person can be attracted to the bull breeds. The cycle is obvious. The media inadvertently glorifies the worst aspects of a breed’s history. The inconsiderate or delinquent thug decides to get a dog that will enhance his image and then goes on to intentionally train the animal to be extra aggressive, perhaps cross breeding to combine the very worst examples of aggression and power. Rumour says that some dogs are even treated with hallucinogenic drugs to increase their maladjustment.


Of course not every attack can be tracked back to criminal ownership. Equally dangerous is the stupidity of selling pups produced from selectively bred working guard dogs to the general public as pets. Whilst accepting that nurture is at least as influential as nature in such cases, never the less dogs intentionally bred through several generations for their nervousness, aggression and excitability are likely to carry at least some of those characteristics into their progeny.

Targeting a specific breed is not appropriate. The main problems relate to irresponsible ownership and lack of education.

Yet governments, local and national, continue to act like sheep and merely follow the old, failing policy of “ban the breed”. The Kennel Club’s Domino Campaign has been prominent in making the dog owning public aware of the risks inherent in the political clamour to introduce ever more restrictions on dog ownership.

The law introduced in the UK in 1991 was quickly followed by a muzzling order affecting nearly 40 breeds in Eire. In 1992 came the critically important decision in Bavaria to also ban several breeds. With a fragmented opposition from Bull Terrier owners and only 2 Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the area there was little that could be done to prevent their inclusion. 9 years later, it was the Bavarian “model” that was taken up by the German Federal Government and no amount of opposition could make them consider the fact that there had never been a single SBT attack reported in the entire country. Other countries are now trying to follow the German lead and other breeds are gradually being introduced to the “list”.

Although not responsible for any of the recent attacks that have in the media, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and its cousin the Bull Terrier have once again been pilloried by certain sections of the press.


I believe that we can learn to prevent most of the severe attacks. This is also the expressed view of veterinary and animal welfare organisations across the World and including The Kennel Club, NCDL and BVA. What we desperately need is for some rules to be created for the investigation of serious dog bite incidents that will enable us to understand the causes of attacks and begin to educate the “breeders”, owners and the general public to prevent escalation in an increasingly crowded world.
In my opinion this includes containing the dogs involved rather than immediately killing them if at all possible. In most cases, the dogs are actually captured alive and can easily be caged and made safe without killing them immediately. I am not pleading for their lives – I agree that this “crime” should carry the death penalty for these dogs – but not immediately!
· Allow the animal behaviourists to test the animals involved.
· Check their system for drugs.
· Check their responses to various stimuli and check for attack training.
Surely a post-mortem is an absolute must in such cases. We need to know what really causes dogs to attack people and we cannot do that by just killing them.

If we are to prevent repeated recurrences of such incidents we have two choices. We can either ban ALL dogs (ignoring the many scientifically proven health, social and educational benefits of such pet ownership to the lonely, elderly and children) or we can instigate informed research to determine just how the misbehaviour of humans leads to such attacks and legislate to prevent such actions.

__________________




Rooney Rumpus DNA Tested L2/HC Clear

Ellies Babe Genetically L2/HC Clear

ruardeanstaffords

Bit of editing been going on - half the posts on this thread have been changed or missing??????????

__________________

Hi Debbie,

I havent edited any posts, but I have removed a couple of posts which people complained about, which called the 'Rottweiler' dog breed names. It is unfair to blame the dog breed when its down to the owners of the breed. Theirs a lot of users on this site who love the dog breeds like the rottweiler, and I think its unfair on them.

Thanks
Mark
Pet Forums Administrator

__________________

Free Pet Advertising in the UK at Pets4Homes
Dogs - Puppies - Pets - Cats - Kittens for Sale

OK - Thats what the majority of the posters were trying to say - now my posts dont really make that much sense regarding this subject LOL But I shall leave them - too late to be editing my own posts now. Cheers Mark - there were some very unfair comments made

__________________