Just wondered what some of you thought about the Banning of certain breeds in this country ie: Pitbulls, Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro.

I think we all agree on here that no breed is evil it is the human owners who poorly treat their dogs causing their behaviour... but do you think a ban on such breeds that attract these owners is the only way to control this problem!!?? We seem to punish the breed rather than the deed!! With the law as weak as it is I am in full agreement with the banning of the above dogs as I think it will save many of these dogs from the hands of these morons but ideally I would like to see stricter laws imprisoning anyone who abuses animals, or encourages agression in dogs... and then reintroduce these breeds to our country!

What are other peoples views on this?

i agree
but sorry to say while there are morons about who want to fight these dogs and make the agressive they will not come off the banding of them
and you will always have the morons

which is why I would support the ban. It's a shame tho that we can be tough enough to end an animals life but not deal with morons!! The law in this country really frustrates me!

I fully agree with the banning for the same reasons as everyone else has mentioned - idiots fighting them and breeding hand over fist to make money. I own Dogue De Bordeaux who are ALL my pets first and foremost and when out taking them for a walk have gotten lots of comments about them, mainly good ones but the odd chav/idiot asking how much are they worth, do they fight etc etc....they usually get on thier way with an ear full from me.......one idiot asked me "whats that?" I simply replied "its a dog" and carried on walking.
Some of the banned breeds I have met and fallen in love with and have met plenty of well behaved loving dogs, in the right hands they are loyal family members.
I dont know the way forward as there will always be a fashion with dog breeds, but I hope to god that DDB dont become one of the banned breeds - or I will be moving to a country where they are not banned.
Interesting topic *****

I DO NO AGREE WITH BANNING ANT DOG. banning such breeds such as pit bulls ect is a waste of time. for one they can be imported, as after the many news stories this just about proves it.
i think instead of a ban any owner should be well over the age of 18, provide references and be vetted for at least 6 months prior to ownership. then monthly check ups. the dog should be fixed and chipped by the breeder before sale. i know this can be expensive but if you want the dog so badly you would pay. maybe a contract drawn up stating that the dog cannot be sold.

__________________
georges mummy

I agree that it is always the owner's fault at some point but also dogs can be bred for aggression. Breeding an aggressive bitch with an aggressive dog leads to major problems. With all the training in the world, a dangerous dog will always be dangerous.

__________________

I do not agree with the banning of any breed. This will not stop the idiots they will just move on to another breed and what do we do then?..........continue to ban breeds! There needs to be tighter legislation on owners and prison sentences on those found fighting dogs with an automatic life ban on owning dogs as should also be the case for cruelty of any sort. How often do we see a small fine and a ban of 12 months to 5 years........no deterant at all.

I don't agree in banning breeds but they should make owners get a licence or something along then lines to make sure only responsible people own them. As you will always get morons who just want to fight them.

__________________
Anna xx

I'm on Facebook

I hate the thought of any breed being banned, as people who are responsable for the aggresion beeing inbred into them and trained to behave this way. However as many other people have stated banning is the only viable option with the laws the way they are at the moment.

__________________
did I scare ya did I !!!!!!

I hate BSL/DDA,it has nothing to prevent dog attacks at all infact since 1991 dog attacks have not decreased at all and 85% of attacks happen on private property.
I will fight against BSL it is wrong and targets the wrong end of the lead,this is a letter I sent my MP,

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