just wondering what everyone's opinion is on the dangerous dogs act? personally, i genuinely believe that the owner is the problem, not the dog, all dogs could be drilled into being aggressive and i don't think DDA is the right legislation to reduce dog attacks. Pitbulls for one are such loyal and loving dogs i don't see the problem under the control with a true dog owner. surely there is a better, fairer way of dealing with problem of aggressive OWNERS rather than banning beautiful, loving dogs.

thoughts?

I believe it is being changed at this moment but I don't think the banned breeds will get a reprieve

that's what i fear the most- replacing an already idiotic act with something even more naive and ridiculous. and then the daily mail will get on board and start a horror campaign asking 'why are these breeds not banned when xyz did this?' i can see it now.

If they listen and are sensible, it will be to the advantage of the majority of dog owners, because they are hopefully going to put the onus more on the owners than the poor dog.
Dog on dog attacks should be able to be prosecuted and control orders given to the owners who persistently let there dogs scare other people rather than having to wait until someone is bitten.
To be honest I fear the police will have this as such a low priority that nothing will change

We do actually have enough laws to deal with this, but if it is under the title of DDA then maybe the police will act.

Deed not breed- that is all

__________________
www.RescueRemedies.co.uk
http://www.dogsinneedofspace.co.uk/

I also think it's down to the owners, usually some scumbags who make their dogs fight or be aggresive to be used as a 'tool' - bloody annoys me

__________________
Arnie ♥ - 1996-2011 - Love you always my boy.

http://www.njmdesigns.co.uk

I am not allowed on here to use the sort of language needed to give my honest opinion.

Suffice it to say that the Act was made by a lot of idiot politicians, with no knowledge of dogs, acting in panic. And the breeds they have chosen to discriminate against were not even much seen in the UK at the time. For instance, there was only one Tosa Inu living in the UK when they put this silly Act together.

I am only suprised that they didn't include more popular breeds who always get into the papers, like Staffies and Rotties. We all know that left to themselves they are not nasty dogs, but they are the ones that end up in the papers.

I have never read of an attack by a Tosa, or Dogo Argentino.

A question I was pondering to myself earlier is, why is it nearly always children that suffer the dog attacks so loved by the media? Could it be because children scare the dogs, hurt them, do something to them, or are simply loud?

It is my opinion that until idiot people learn not to leave a dog of any breed alone with a child it does not live with, we are going to have dog attacks and no amount of legislation is going to prevent it.

__________________
http://www.gentle-newfoundland-dogs.com
http://www.royston-pet-care.co.uk



Will always miss you, my little Joshie Woshie xx

If you want real love, buy a dog

If you wouldn't use it on a child, don't use it on a dog

http://pettaxisg8.yolasite.com/
http://www.help-for-learner-drivers.yolasite.com/

I think the reason that with whatever reform the act goes under the banned breeds will still be banned is because if they suddenly lift it then thousands of idiots will buy and breed them just for the status - they'll do it so fast and so badly and with so little clue that inevitabley they will be left unsupervised with kids or mishandled etc to the point a disaster happens and it's all over the media and people are going "I told you so! they shouldn't be allowed!"

I whole heartedly agree imaginary person - idiots of that scale shouldn't be allowed - in fact we should have a 'Common Sense' Exam held at yearly intervals from the age of 8 - 15 if they are shown to still be idiots at 15 without huge improvement they are neutered and tatood on forhead "No Common Sense, Do Not Leave in Charge of Animals or Impressionable Minds"

What we *really* need is a DDOA - Dangerous Dog Owners Act - where the owner is held fully accountable for control and training of their dog at all times - and I don't care how well trained your dog is it should be on a lead in urban environments (ie street/highstreet/built up areas) as no matter how obedient it is it is still a dog - fear, injury or surprise can cause a lot of chaos/accidents/grief when there is no need for it

__________________

Sadly, while it is usually the owners that are the problem not the dogs, there are dangerous dogs out there and there should be some legislation to cover that. It should be remembered that the DDA covers ALL breeds. I'm not a fan of breed specific legislation, and the current breed specific legislation has been responsible for many injustices, however, I do think the trend and current attraction for owning difficult/specialist guarding type breeds as pets are worrying and suspect due to this, the breed specific part will not be lifted.

I believe (from talking to a MP) that part of the reason for banning the breeds was to prevent the 'sport' of organised dog-fighting from growing here as it has done in other countries, along with the gambling and other criminal stuff that goes along with it. I can't argue with that as a reason, even if it is hard on individual dogs and their responsible owners.

I can't think of any very pressing reason for owning any of the banned breeds though. There are alternative breeds that would fit equally well as a family pet for the good owners. The more of them there are, the more likely they are to fall into the hands of people wanting them for 'status' and dog fighting.