Yes and then there's the idiots that still honestly believe it is the best thing ever and keeping people safe from dog attacks. Even when they haven't gone down since it was brought in.

Isnt there more pitbull types around now, than there was before the ban?

Yes, a wonderfully fantastic piece of legislation

 

Probably or maybe they're getting stricter about what is a "Pitbull" just a fantastic law where great dane mixes are seized as pits....

 

Google Image Result for http://breederinfocenter.com/images2/20070508200623_150642_1.gif

this dogo also has a patch....

He has a patch on his face. That is allowed in the breed standard but a pure white would get chosen out of the 2 if them.

 

Isnt there more pitbull types around now, than there was before the ban?

Yes, a wonderfully fantastic piece of legislation

They have never gone away,there are probably more now than before the ban,unless people just tend to notice them more nowadays - I don't know.

 

in the dda there is a provision for any dog over a certain size to be classed as dangerous. this would include golden retrievers, labs, gsd's etc.

if i can find it again i will post it up.

local councils have immense powers under the act but they dont seem to understand or comprehend the rules at all and many mistakes will be made if they try to use them.

re the apbt. they used the akc standard as they were the ruling body on pits at the time.

re staffs: a dog can be siezed IF it appears to resemble and has some of the characteristics of................
pretty unfair and stupid.

tosas were bred to fight silently, different from non aggression, if a tosa made a noise it was disqualified. i'd put a tosa against any other dog and it would probably win. not that i do or condone, just an opinion.

while i mostly agree it is the deed not the breed, some dog breeds have no business being pets at all. they were and are bred to be so guarding and aggressive they are a strictly working dog imho.

as handsome as they are they are to be given a large dose of respect and fear.

 

while i mostly agree it is the deed not the breed, some dog breeds have no business being pets at all. they were and are bred to be so guarding and aggressive they are a strictly working dog imho.

as handsome as they are they are to be given a large dose of respect and fear.

Which breeds are you referring to ?

 

Which breeds are you referring to ?

Thats what i was thinking

That statement is quite harsh. I would assume a Doberman is in your 'list' deemed not to be suitable? As they were purposely breed to guard.

But my friend had one 'Chester' and i will tell you now i have never seen a nicer, all round family dog. The biggest softie you could imagine. So i would love you to try and tell her that he ''shouldn't be owned''

And if you include GSD's you'd be half wrong.........they were bred for herding purposes.

And Staffies??? Again wrong. In the wrong hands they were made to be fighting dogs. But the still continue to top the ''best family dogs'' charts. They are great family dogs, very loving, patient, great with children etc

 

I do not believe there is any breed that cannot be a pet, it just takes the correct, experienced person to bring it up.

 

I do not believe there is any breed that cannot be a pet, it just takes the correct, experienced person to bring it up.

Exactly. Understanding, training, knowledge and plenty patientce and any dog of any breed could be an amazing addition to a household.

 

will get back to ya on that i have a file on disc somewhere.
but there are a couple of breeds that are so not recommended as pets.

not talking dobies and rotts and stuff. i cant remember the breeds off the top of my head but i remember coming across it a year or so ago.

i had to back up all my lappy hence it is on a disc somewhere.

they were a moloser type dog if i remember rightly. very territorial and very high guarding instinct.

typically woulndt even allow a person to approach. scared the be jesus outa me and i never ever seen or heard of them lol.

 

I would be inclined to agree with Dave actually I think there are some that either need a really experienced specalist handler and a lot of work or should not be in a pet home.

 

btw ya'll love to jump down peoples throats dont ya.

i do actually have a bit of dog experience and am not known for making rash statements.

i like all dogs that doesnt mean to say that all dogs are nice.

ya'll need to lighten up and realise there are many breeds out there you do not know.

i research things i am interested, and not just dogs, and some of the things i find are quite interesting. i wont bother sharing anymore.

 

It is the experienced person that is key, any breed can be a pet. Maybe not a pet for anyone and everyone, but still a pet in the right hands.

 

Yes but your average pet home some breeds would be a disaster.

 

btw ya'll love to jump down peoples throats dont ya.

I wasn't just curious as to which breeds you were referring to

It's amazing how many people actually slate breeds without knowing anything about them.

 

ok english grammar.

where in the statement "some dog breeds are so not recommended as pets"

am i slating any dog?

if i said a ford escort is so not recommended for formula 1 you'd agree.

same difference.

 

in the dda there is a provision for any dog over a certain size to be classed as dangerous. this would include golden retrievers, labs, gsd's etc.

if i can find it again i will post it up.

local councils have immense powers under the act but they dont seem to understand or comprehend the rules at all and many mistakes will be made if they try to use them.

re the apbt. they used the akc standard as they were the ruling body on pits at the time.

re staffs: a dog can be siezed IF it appears to resemble and has some of the characteristics of................
pretty unfair and stupid.

tosas were bred to fight silently, different from non aggression, if a tosa made a noise it was disqualified. i'd put a tosa against any other dog and it would probably win. not that i do or condone, just an opinion.

while i mostly agree it is the deed not the breed, some dog breeds have no business being pets at all. they were and are bred to be so guarding and aggressive they are a strictly working dog imho.

as handsome as they are they are to be given a large dose of respect and fear.

That pretty much did it! Not word for word but taken in the same context.

 

ok english grammar.

where in the statement "some dog breeds are so not recommended as pets"

am i slating any dog?

if i said a ford escort is so not recommended for formula 1 you'd agree.

same difference.

LOL,
I didn't aim that at anyone or you,

I said "It's amazing how many people actually slate breeds without knowing anything about them" it wasn't aimed at anyone,I have enough experience owning the breed I do, to know that people often slate breeds they have no knowledge or experience of :001_tt2: :smilewinkgrin:

 

That pretty much did it! Not word for word but taken in the same context.

not at all, you took 1 half of a sentence out of a whole qualifying paragraph.

the sentence was rationalised by what came after it.

geez gordon brown aint got spin docotrs like you lot lol.

 

Davehyde, I have a feeling you could probably be refering to the Bully Kutta?

http://www.bullykutta.com/

 

that rings a bell, i think it was one of the afghan/ kurdish dogs they use for use for fighting too.

to be sure i'll have to dig that disc out but i have 4ooo to look through.

i never label the things lol.

 

that rings a bell, i think it was one of the afghan/ kurdish dogs they use for use for fighting too.

to be sure i'll have to dig that disc out but i have 4ooo to look through.

i never label the things lol.

The Kutta isn't a pet dog, I think I know which dogs you are refering to but I put Kabul (which is the place these dogs are fought in Afghanistan).

I'll get some information in a moment.

 

Regardless of what breed this dog is, it's quite clearly being bred for the wrong reasons and it's in the wrong hands.

Would anyone else on here put your dogs ears so they looked cropped? I am guessing no. The reason it's done is to make the dog look more aggressive.... Why would anyone in the right mind want that from a dog who could potentially be an illegal breed?

 

not at all, you took 1 half of a sentence out of a whole qualifying paragraph.

the sentence was rationalised by what came after it.

geez gordon brown aint got spin docotrs like you lot lol.

I did read the whole post. And i took it all in. But you stated about the fact that some dogs were bred to guard and be aggressive. And siad they had n o business being pets. Now, there have been many breeds for this!! As i have already put the Doberman being one! Louis Dobermann created this breed for this purpose, so while you may not have actually meant this breed, this was how it was taken.
I do not 'jump' down peoples throats. I reply to what i see..............

 

Davehyde, I have a feeling you could probably be refering to the Bully Kutta?

Bullykutta.com

That is one massive dog