Fair enough. All I can say is this. Lord Baker is on record as saying the KC supported the 1991 DDA, this is the law that introduced BSL to this country. The KC backed it. This is documented in the consultation papers, it is not a suggestion or a rumour it is documented fact. The KC are as responsible as any organisation for saddling us with BSL. I would not ask you to believe everything you read in the press, especially BSL stuff but that site I link to is my site, I wrote that feature and I have gone on record before (here)

Kennel Club Make Dangerous Dogs U-Turn

and re-stated that the KC supported the introduction of Lord Baker's DDA. I challenged the KC to deny that this was true. They didn't deny it, because, quite simply, they couldn't.

You seem very passionate about BSL and I applaud you. I am myself. But I would strongly urge you not to believe the KC as they are trying to re-write history to suit their current stance. Who is to say that had they NOT supported Lord Baker, we might not even have BSL right now?

This is official Parliamentary record from 1991
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jun 1991

^^This is as conclusive as I could possibly post that KC supported BSL.

Well he would say that wouldn't he?

I know the RSPCA supported the legislation and admitted last year it doesn't work.

Major's Government had to be seen to do something, so, the then Home Secretary Kenneth Baker drafted the Dangerous Dogs Act with the help of the RSPCA. The Kennel Club's involvement was minimal. Pit Bulls were not a recognised breed in the UK, so it didn't concern them. The Act was rushed through Parliament with minimal debate and, as we all know, the DDA came into being in May 1991. Pit Bulls were effectively illegal and had to be muzzled in public, registered on the Index of Exempted Breeds and microchipped, tattooed and insured. Any PBT or - crucially - Pit Bull 'type' unregistered after November 1991 would be seized and liable to be destroyed under Section 1 of the Act.
link BSL - The dangerous dogs act.

All legislation needs to be thought through properly and dog owners need to be consulted,personally I wouldn't trust the Government or DEFRA.

__________________




Rooney Rumpus DNA Tested L2/HC Clear

Ellies Babe Genetically L2/HC Clear

ruardeanstaffords

Agreed but what other options are there?

__________________

He wouldn't be able to say it if it wasn't true. I can't stand the bloke, I think he's an idiot and responsible for one of the worst laws on the books right now.

However, I have a real problem with large organisations who like to re-write history to suit their agenda of the day.

You are correct, the PBT was not a KC recognised breed and hence it didn't concern them. But the fact is, as that document proves and they (the KC) have not denied, they DID support it.

With a Govt we are entitled to vote them in and vote them out accoding to their performance record. What the KC (and others) have done is try to re-write their own history because they are not accountable.

Take this recent (months old) statement from the KC.

Well, excuse me but what????

The 'political climate'?? - what has that got to do with anything?

Either the BSL/section 1 part of DDA is a bad law or it is not. The political climate has got absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. Nothing. This is more example of the KC saying one thing but in reality, doing another. When WOULD the 'political climate' be write to remove banned breeds? I can tell you, never. The political climate since 1991 has not changed. In fact as you are probably aware, every time there is a serious dog attack there are calls from some quarters to add MORE breeds to the banned list. I'm afraid that by saying the 'political climate' is not right for us to ask for a lifting of section 1 banned breeds is the equivalent of me saying "I'll ask for a ban to be lifted when politicians don't lie and England is baking in all year round tropical weather!" i.e. never.

I personally would just like for this to be out there and publicly on record. Whatever they may say, the KC along with others, ushered in BSL. It's like having your cake and eating it.

In terms of 'trusting' the Govenment. Well, I agree with you. But this is a different Government and I wrote to both David Milliband and Ben Bradshaw and they both confirmed they will NOT add more breeds to the DDA and they accept that BSL is flawed. Sadly, in terms of legislation and better laws, if we want change we simply have no choice - the Govt is the ONLY place that laws can be changed. I think the trust in the likes of the KC is dodgier ground to be honest for some of the reasons I've pointed out. They let us (dog owners) down once and they've done it over and over since. Most recently by holding a 'breed id' course where they trained up people to id PBT type dogs. That, for me, as an endorsement of BSL. Still.

Interesting thoughts. Personally I see this having a huge advantage in combating dog theft.

The other thing that this scheme does is it defines clearly who the legal owner of each dog is, regardless of whether it is KC reg'd or not. Also, having a central Govt database of each legal dog and who it belongs to will surely make a huge difference to the lives of dog wardens and should cut (drastically) the number of strays who are lost or stolen.

And that leads me to the stolen dogs issue.

Dog thieves would also need to be master forgers as well as being able to tap into central Govt database in order to 'sell on' on a stolen dog. Bearing in mind it becomes an offense to sell a dog to a non licence holder and that all dogs have legal owners, the life of the dog thief is going to be much, much harder, if not impossible. After all, who's going to want to buy a stolen dog from a man down the pub if the chances are you'll be stopped at some point either by a dog warden, a vet or any other official and asked to produce paperwork that you don't have. For people who want a dog, getting one through sensible, responsible legal means will suddenly make the most sense.

Regarding the funding issue. £240m is quite a lot of money when compared against some other areas of governance. Obviously the Govt themselves would have to decide what revenues required. I am by no means qualified to set budgets at that level

Ultimately if the Govt even decided this was worthy of putting public money into as well as the self financing elements, it would pay the country off economically. Having less dog attacks would reduce NHS bills and save lives.

I see still in theory it sounds good,dog theft is an issue,but would vets actually ask to see the paperwork,they are there to treat sick and unwell animals........

Same sort of thing with docking,I would refuse to give mine or the dogs details....The RSPCA visited us when we lived in the Midlands,they assumed we didn't know our rights,we did unfortunatly for them,I asked them if they had a warrant,No was the answer,so I asked them to get off my property,I showed them the dogs who they were more than happy with but they insisted on seing the kennels,they were refused......

Yes we do need a change in the law,BSL needs scrapping,but again I can't see how this proposed document would work properly,it's not about making money or self funding it's about responsible ownership,wipng out BYB & Puppy Farmers,charges of Murder,Manslaughter and ABH should be brought against those Irresponsible owners,owners need to be held accountable for their dog actions,regardless of breed.

__________________




Rooney Rumpus DNA Tested L2/HC Clear

Ellies Babe Genetically L2/HC Clear

ruardeanstaffords

I think in it's most simple form it's like this. It's about trying to instill a mandatory level of education amongst all owners rather than a few. It's about putting up an obstacle to those people who want to get a dog 'right now, this very second' and equally putting an obstacle up to those suppliers who want to sell a dog to the same 'right now, this second' type of buyers.

Is it perfect? No. I don't believe any law is.

Would it end BSL? Yes it would. It would legally place emphasis on owners not dogs.

Would it stop all the bad eggs? No. Again, I don't think any law can.

Would it stop an awful lot of them? Yes, I think it would.

Something called the broken windows theory is interesting reading.

By making those who are on the 'fringes' of law breaking realise that everyone is governed by the same rules and that dog ownership is a privilege that should be earned rather than a god given right, it would change cultural thinking. Passing an ownership test would become as accepted as passing a driving test or a cycling proficiency test.

For those who believe dog ownership should be a plain, god given right. They will never agree with this proposal. And I can accept that.

Dog Theft as I see it is still an issue even though we have chipping etc...

Vets are not usually interested in what paperwork comes with a dog,they are not fully informed of what breeds have inhereited conditions etc......

If a dog is stolen,will it ever go to a vet,etc......

I agree no law is perfect again I think there are aspects of the new proposal that need looking at in depth.

__________________




Rooney Rumpus DNA Tested L2/HC Clear

Ellies Babe Genetically L2/HC Clear

ruardeanstaffords