Dog Control Laws And Pit Bulls

[TigerIssey]

Not many of the chavs would own one of these bacuse of the £1000 price tag compared with as little as £150 for a rotties or staffie pup but they are similar in temperament to a rottie

A stafford for that money needs questioning anyway the rate for a KC registered stafford pup is actually around the 500 - 600 pound mark. Those that are advertised for less have questionable breeding anyhow. If it cannot be KC registered, it is not to be considered a pedigree dog, anything could have been bred in there.

I would love a rottie pup to bring up to the same standard. I don't particularly have anything agains any breed, but the facts remain that certain breeds have an 'image'. Usually those same breeds need a firm hand and lots of sensible socuilisation and training . They attract young men who want to appear 'macho' and who are unwilling to act responsibly with regard to training etc. I do not ever advocate that a breed is 'bad' and that they should be sungled out for banning, but I do strongly believe that there should be breed specific targetting as regards to unsuitable people owning them. I believe that this would actually save the breeds. Not directed at bull terriers or rotties, but any large, cheap to buy , dogs with a strong guarding instinct.

There should be no BSL at all, if a licence is required to own one breed of dog, it should be needed for all types of dog. Any owner or potential owner approaching a reputable breeder SHOULD have to go through a series of interviews with the breeder re there suitablity. I also believe that dogs should not be bred if you don't already have a list of people waiting for puppies (the list of people you have interviewed and deemed suitable). As such a dog would not then be advertised in the local paper!!
Breeders of the dog breeds you consider as 'macho' should be finding out whether these people are suitable before handing over a puppy. A new type of liscence may be the answer, however it should cover ALL dogs not just certain breeds. I really don't think age restrictions will work, many people who are unsuitable are over 25. The breeds you mention should not be classed as potentially dangerous either, they along with ALL other dogs including toy breeds can be potentially dangerous. Size does not matter, a chihauaua can cause just as much damage to a baby as any larger breed.

I will say again ALL dogs can be dangerous if not controlled or in the wrong hands.

 

[KathyM]

We'll have to agree to disagree Fenwoman. I don't believe ANY form of BSL will ever work. If you say that dangerous owners shouldnt have Staffies (which incidently are a small breed, not a large one), Rotties, etc, they'll move on to other breeds and well see irresponsible acts with them, including mass hysteria made by the press. Eventually it overflows into all breeds being restricted.

The age thing also doesn't sit right with me. There are as many dodgey undesirables here over 25 with dogs as there are young 'uns. If you're going to have age restrictions on dog ownership, it should be for ALL dogs, not specific to certain breeds. It wouldn't work otherwise, they'd just pick other breeds and be as irresponsible with them.

As for the cost of the dog, if we put restrictions on "cheap" dogs, that's not just covering backyard bred examples (which are often as highly priced as well bred specimens, sometimes higher), it's covering mongrels in the Free Ads/similar and more scarily, rescue dogs.

I maintain my position that all BSL is unecessary and wrong. It doesnt work. It's hasn't worked in 16 years. It will never work.

 

[OohFeeshy]

What would happen if, for instance, all the dog breeds considered 'dangerous' were culled? Simple- the idiots would probably find another breed to take the position of a macho, fighting breed. Maybe something large like great danes, maybe dogs in 'surplus' like greyhounds, maybe some of the larger, stockier terrier types. Maybe something else. All of which, with neglect, training and abuse can be turned into the next 'devil dogs'.

It would probably be more effective to put controls on the people- while any Joe Public could have a breeding ***** in his shed with no one any wiser, you can't exactly hide people. While some people may object on the grounds of it being 'Big Brother esque', or similar, I see no reason why it shouldn't be law to have all dogs (and other larger pets like cats) microchipped, and neutered unless you have a specific intention of breeding, in which case, even tighter checks. While perhaps hard to enforce, it immediately identifies, upon checking, who is a responsible owner and who isn't. If random security checks of people are allowed, again, there is no reason why random checks of microchipping couldn't work- after all, it only takes a few seconds. Licences should be required for all pets- you need them for guns, to drive, ploice checks before many jobs, rigorous checks to adopt a child, proof of age before you buy alchocol, lottery tickets or cigarettes- so why is it that, at the age of sixteen, anyone can go any buy any pet with just something to say they're sixteen? The legal age for buying a dog, cat, hamster, gerbil, rat, bird, whatever, is the same as the legal age for buying a lottery ticket (in the UK). In the same way, whoever buys that animal could be a drug dealer, a criminal, a murderer, a paedophile, a hitman or whatever, and no one would care.

 

[fenwoman]

Not many of the chavs would own one of these bacuse of the £1000 price tag compared with as little as £150 for a rotties or staffie pup but they are similar in temperament to a rottie

A stafford for that money needs questioning anyway the rate for a KC registered stafford pup is actually around the 500 - 600 pound mark. Those that are advertised for less have questionable breeding anyhow. If it cannot be KC registered, it is not to be considered a pedigree dog, anything could have been bred in there.

I would love a rottie pup to bring up to the same standard. I don't particularly have anything agains any breed, but the facts remain that certain breeds have an 'image'. Usually those same breeds need a firm hand and lots of sensible socuilisation and training . They attract young men who want to appear 'macho' and who are unwilling to act responsibly with regard to training etc. I do not ever advocate that a breed is 'bad' and that they should be sungled out for banning, but I do strongly believe that there should be breed specific targetting as regards to unsuitable people owning them. I believe that this would actually save the breeds. Not directed at bull terriers or rotties, but any large, cheap to buy , dogs with a strong guarding instinct.

There should be no BSL at all, if a licence is required to own one breed of dog, it should be needed for all types of dog. Any owner or potential owner approaching a reputable breeder SHOULD have to go through a series of interviews with the breeder re there suitablity. I also believe that dogs should not be bred if you don't already have a list of people waiting for puppies (the list of people you have interviewed and deemed suitable). As such a dog would not then be advertised in the local paper!!
Breeders of the dog breeds you consider as 'macho' should be finding out whether these people are suitable before handing over a puppy. A new type of liscence may be the answer, however it should cover ALL dogs not just certain breeds. I really don't think age restrictions will work, many people who are unsuitable are over 25. The breeds you mention should not be classed as potentially dangerous either, they along with ALL other dogs including toy breeds can be potentially dangerous. Size does not matter, a chihauaua can cause just as much damage to a baby as any larger breed.

I will say again ALL dogs can be dangerous if not controlled or in the wrong hands.

They might be of questionable breeding but they are still purebred. Even if they aren't KC reg 2 purebred dogs put together will produce purebred pups. The KC reg is only for verifying the parentage and to allow dogs to be shown at KC organised shows. The problem is that there are more backyard breeders who have a purebred ***** who put it with any old purebred dog to produce a cash crop. They know practically nothing about dog and don't ask potential buyers anything at all. They are only interested in the money. That's where a lot of the problem dogs come from. If you go to a website like 'Loot' you will find plenty of unregistered purebred pups . Have a look here for example staffy pups

or here
rotties and crosses

I'm afraid I cannot agree that a chihuahua can cause as much damage as a rottweiller or staffie.

We are in agreement about what 'should' happen such as:
"Any owner or potential owner approaching a reputable breeder SHOULD have to go through a series of interviews with the breeder re there suitablity. I also believe that dogs should not be bred if you don't already have a list of people waiting for puppies (the list of people you have interviewed and deemed suitable). As such a dog would not then be advertised in the local paper!!
Breeders of the dog breeds you consider as 'macho' should be finding out whether these people are suitable before handing over a puppy."
but the fact remains that in most cases, even among top breeders who are licenced, or who show, this simply does not always happen and in the case of BYB these almost certainly does not happen since they are only interested in making money.

 

[fenwoman]

We'll have to agree to disagree Fenwoman. I don't believe ANY form of BSL will ever work. If you say that dangerous owners shouldnt have Staffies (which incidently are a small breed, not a large one), Rotties, etc, they'll move on to other breeds and well see irresponsible acts with them, including mass hysteria made by the press. Eventually it overflows into all breeds being restricted.

The age thing also doesn't sit right with me. There are as many dodgey undesirables here over 25 with dogs as there are young 'uns. If you're going to have age restrictions on dog ownership, it should be for ALL dogs, not specific to certain breeds. It wouldn't work otherwise, they'd just pick other breeds and be as irresponsible with them.

As for the cost of the dog, if we put restrictions on "cheap" dogs, that's not just covering backyard bred examples (which are often as highly priced as well bred specimens, sometimes higher), it's covering mongrels in the Free Ads/similar and more scarily, rescue dogs.

I maintain my position that all BSL is unecessary and wrong. It doesnt work. It's hasn't worked in 16 years. It will never work.

So do tell me what WILL work then?
I keep seeing lots of reasons why BSL won't work, but nobody ever suggests what WILL work. I never said staffies were a large breed BTW and I didn't feel inclined to list every single breed I would include but mentioned 2 just to give a gist of what I meant.

 

[fenwoman]

What would happen if, for instance, all the dog breeds considered 'dangerous' were culled? Simple- the idiots would probably find another breed to take the position of a macho, fighting breed. Maybe something large like great danes, maybe dogs in 'surplus' like greyhounds, maybe some of the larger, stockier terrier types. Maybe something else. All of which, with neglect, training and abuse can be turned into the next 'devil dogs'.

It would probably be more effective to put controls on the people- while any Joe Public could have a breeding ***** in his shed with no one any wiser, you can't exactly hide people. While some people may object on the grounds of it being 'Big Brother esque', or similar, I see no reason why it shouldn't be law to have all dogs (and other larger pets like cats) microchipped, and neutered unless you have a specific intention of breeding, in which case, even tighter checks. While perhaps hard to enforce, it immediately identifies, upon checking, who is a responsible owner and who isn't. If random security checks of people are allowed, again, there is no reason why random checks of microchipping couldn't work- after all, it only takes a few seconds. Licences should be required for all pets- you need them for guns, to drive, ploice checks before many jobs, rigorous checks to adopt a child, proof of age before you buy alchocol, lottery tickets or cigarettes- so why is it that, at the age of sixteen, anyone can go any buy any pet with just something to say they're sixteen? The legal age for buying a dog, cat, hamster, gerbil, rat, bird, whatever, is the same as the legal age for buying a lottery ticket (in the UK). In the same way, whoever buys that animal could be a drug dealer, a criminal, a murderer, a paedophile, a hitman or whatever, and no one would care.

but forcing every single pet owner to microchip and licence every single pet, will lead to terrible fear. What about a pensioner with a couple of old cats or dogs who are her sole companions? What about me with 10 cats and 8 dogs, all rescues, all neutered? I object to being forced by law to allow a foreign object to be inserted into them. I don't like chips. Why should the majority of good pet owners, be penalised for the few bad ones? Dog licences never worked when we had them here and they don't work in Northern Ireland where they still have them. It seems like the few bad apples will just cause misery for the majority of people like me who live for our animals and ensure we do right by them.
As much as I like bull breeds, rotties, dobes, GSD etc. If it comes down to a BSL being enforced upon them so that the majority of dog owners can enjoy their dogs as usual, then I'm all for it.
I keep hearing
"oh that won't work, Oh that won't work" when nobody ever seems to say "here is a solution to the problem"

 

[Tolak]

What would happen if, for instance, all the dog breeds considered 'dangerous' were culled? Simple- the idiots would probably find another breed to take the position of a macho, fighting breed. Maybe something large like great danes, maybe dogs in 'surplus' like greyhounds, maybe some of the larger, stockier terrier types. Maybe something else. All of which, with neglect, training and abuse can be turned into the next 'devil dogs'.

It would probably be more effective to put controls on the people- while any Joe Public could have a breeding ***** in his shed with no one any wiser, you can't exactly hide people. While some people may object on the grounds of it being 'Big Brother esque', or similar, I see no reason why it shouldn't be law to have all dogs (and other larger pets like cats) microchipped, and neutered unless you have a specific intention of breeding, in which case, even tighter checks. While perhaps hard to enforce, it immediately identifies, upon checking, who is a responsible owner and who isn't. If random security checks of people are allowed, again, there is no reason why random checks of microchipping couldn't work- after all, it only takes a few seconds. Licences should be required for all pets- you need them for guns, to drive, ploice checks before many jobs, rigorous checks to adopt a child, proof of age before you buy alchocol, lottery tickets or cigarettes- so why is it that, at the age of sixteen, anyone can go any buy any pet with just something to say they're sixteen? The legal age for buying a dog, cat, hamster, gerbil, rat, bird, whatever, is the same as the legal age for buying a lottery ticket (in the UK). In the same way, whoever buys that animal could be a drug dealer, a criminal, a murderer, a paedophile, a hitman or whatever, and no one would care.

but forcing every single pet owner to microchip and licence every single pet, will lead to terrible fear. What about a pensioner with a couple of old cats or dogs who are her sole companions? What about me with 10 cats and 8 dogs, all rescues, all neutered? I object to being forced by law to allow a foreign object to be inserted into them. I don't like chips. Why should the majority of good pet owners, be penalised for the few bad ones? Dog licences never worked when we had them here and they don't work in Northern Ireland where they still have them. It seems like the few bad apples will just cause misery for the majority of people like me who live for our animals and ensure we do right by them.
As much as I like bull breeds, rotties, dobes, GSD etc. If it comes down to a BSL being enforced upon them so that the majority of dog owners can enjoy their dogs as usual, then I'm all for it.
I keep hearing
"oh that won't work, Oh that won't work" when nobody ever seems to say "here is a solution to the problem"

The problem isn't the dogs themselves, it's negligent owners. Who should be dealing with negligent owners of dogs, buildings, cars, guns, or any of a million other things but the legal system. Here in the US there has been a big crackdown on driving while intoxicated in the last 20 years, especially in the last 10 years. Harsh sentencing with large fines, along with education helps lower the drunk driving rate.

Instead of making laws against specific breeds, or laws that infringe on the rights of lawabiding citizens, enforce the existing laws strongly, and sentence harshly. Large strong dogs can maim & kill people, sentence the owner for what the crime is if their dog tears someone up, attempted murder, or at least manslaughter. A certainty of doing 5 to 10 years will make Joe Macho think twice about getting a larger dog and training it improperly, no matter what the breed. If your dog is off it’s leash on anything but private property, it gets taken away, you get a hefty fine with a portion going towards caring for, rehoming, and rehabilitating that dog. If you can’t pay the fine you get a nice time out at the local jail to think about how to properly care for a dog.

All the laws in the world won’t do any good if they aren’t enforced, and the guilty sentenced accordingly. Prohibiting anything doesn’t work without the proper follow up.

If you chose to own a larger breed of dog you need to provide the proper care & environment, no different than a larger fish. If you neglect your property, drive negligently, or cause any other situation where someone else gets hurt you are responsible, and often times those things are removed from your possession if the negligence is severe or intentional. Fines & jail time are often given in intentional cases.

I have nothing at all against dogs, I love them all. I like the smaller terriers, westies, cairns & such. Having a city size yard means a smaller size of dog if I want to provide the proper space for outdoor activities. It also means a secure fence, keeping an eye on gates, and maintaining a safe & secure outdoor area.

Individuals need to be held personally responsible, and dealt with individually & harshly if warranted.

 

[OohFeeshy]

but forcing every single pet owner to microchip and licence every single pet, will lead to terrible fear. What about a pensioner with a couple of old cats or dogs who are her sole companions? What about me with 10 cats and 8 dogs, all rescues, all neutered? I object to being forced by law to allow a foreign object to be inserted into them. I don't like chips. Why should the majority of good pet owners, be penalised for the few bad ones? Dog licences never worked when we had them here and they don't work in Northern Ireland where they still have them. It seems like the few bad apples will just cause misery for the majority of people like me who live for our animals and ensure we do right by them.
As much as I like bull breeds, rotties, dobes, GSD etc. If it comes down to a BSL being enforced upon them so that the majority of dog owners can enjoy their dogs as usual, then I'm all for it.
I keep hearing
"oh that won't work, Oh that won't work" when nobody ever seems to say "here is a solution to the problem"

Oh, it certainly isn't the best suggestion, but it's better than what's happening at the moment. Under current laws and plans, not only can anyone own a pet of almost any type, but if all the BSL goes ahead, it could well end up as a massacre of anything that fits the description of a potentially dangerous dog. Which, by your reasoning, also comes under 'the majority of good pet owners being penalised for the few bad ones'. To my mind, BSL is like if anyone who owned a gun, whether licensd or not, being put in prison for owning firearms- sure, the majority aren't dangerous to others, but since a few are, everyone gets the blame. I'm also not entirely sure how you support neutering of all pets but not microchips- while neutering requires surgery, suppresses natural behaviours, and physically removes part of the dog or cat, microchipping is quick, easy, provides information about medical history and owners (a huge help with homeless or abandoned pets) and does no harm to the pet being microchipped. Your reference to the old lady- I don't quite see where you're coming from.

 

[madmom]

Here the woman who owned the dog that killed the lady in her apaartment was tried for manslaughter. I don't remember if she was found guilty or not. In some areas owners of these so called vicious breeds in some areas are required to take out insurance on their dogs. The rates are quite expensive. Microchips are used in some dogs but I think these are show dogs. I don't know if I'd want a foreign body inserted in my animal either fenwoman.
Did you know not to long ago some people were actually discussing microchipping the elderly. I don't mean every elderly person over a certain age but those in facilities that the senile or have azh*** (can't spell it) as well as the more seriously mentally challanged people.
I know we are becoming a digital society but this is just rediculous (sp?)

 

[KathyM]

We'll have to agree to disagree Fenwoman. I don't believe ANY form of BSL will ever work. If you say that dangerous owners shouldnt have Staffies (which incidently are a small breed, not a large one), Rotties, etc, they'll move on to other breeds and well see irresponsible acts with them, including mass hysteria made by the press. Eventually it overflows into all breeds being restricted.

The age thing also doesn't sit right with me. There are as many dodgey undesirables here over 25 with dogs as there are young 'uns. If you're going to have age restrictions on dog ownership, it should be for ALL dogs, not specific to certain breeds. It wouldn't work otherwise, they'd just pick other breeds and be as irresponsible with them.

As for the cost of the dog, if we put restrictions on "cheap" dogs, that's not just covering backyard bred examples (which are often as highly priced as well bred specimens, sometimes higher), it's covering mongrels in the Free Ads/similar and more scarily, rescue dogs.

I maintain my position that all BSL is unecessary and wrong. It doesnt work. It's hasn't worked in 16 years. It will never work.

So do tell me what WILL work then?
I keep seeing lots of reasons why BSL won't work, but nobody ever suggests what WILL work. I never said staffies were a large breed BTW and I didn't feel inclined to list every single breed I would include but mentioned 2 just to give a gist of what I meant.

What WILL work are the new laws being written that are NOT breed specific. What WILL work is making each and every owner responsible for their dog, no matter what the breed (which is part of the new DLAG proposals). What WILL work is reopening the Index of Exempted Dogs and allowing people the chance to have their "pit bull type" dogs registered without fear of prosecution or euthanasia of completely innocent dogs, until that new non-breed specific legislation is introduced.

Are you honestly saying breed specific legislation HAS worked? Because I must be on a different planet to you if you honestly think BSL is going to make things better.

Can I ask what breed/s you own? It's amazing how many people have acted along the lines of "Well it's not my dog being killed, so who cares?". It's time for ALL dog lovers to come together and speak out against this holocaust. One day it'll be the breed you love, and then who will you cry to? Do you think you'd feel differently if your dog was on the list? Look at Ireland's proposals for bans, dogs that are already restricted. Look at Italy's breed specific legislation. Look at Germany's 20:40 legislation. Then tell me you aren't worried one bit about your dog being next. I'm personally bricking it, I have a Bullmastiff - a 40kg obedience Level 3 trained, well socialised and friendly, Bullmastiff. Is that another breed you'd rather see banned? What about the dogs in the hands of responsible owners thatjust happen to be the same breed? It's alright for them to be punished for the greater good is it?

In the States, 2 daschunds dragged a baby out of a playpen and killed it. A cocker spaniel ripped it's elderly owner's throat out. My son was mauled, and permanently facially scarred, by a greyhound. My Bullmastiff was attacked 2 months ago in the park and wounded by a collie cross with irresponsible owners. I've been badly bitten by a Jack Russel. My old foster Staffie was badly wounded in an attack by a mongrel in which he was too frightened to fight back and urinated on the pavement as it tore into his face (this case went to court and we were awarded damages). I bet if I called for any of these breeds to be banned (which I wouldn't as I'm sensible), you'd get off your backside and fight that.

If you read the campaign website, the KC, Dogs Trust and many others (Scottish SPCA, Victoria Stilwell) are all speaking out against the amnesties. There ARE alternatives. We don't need to murder innocent dogs to get a safer dog owning community.

 

[fenwoman]

We'll have to agree to disagree Fenwoman. I don't believe ANY form of BSL will ever work. If you say that dangerous owners shouldnt have Staffies (which incidently are a small breed, not a large one), Rotties, etc, they'll move on to other breeds and well see irresponsible acts with them, including mass hysteria made by the press. Eventually it overflows into all breeds being restricted.

The age thing also doesn't sit right with me. There are as many dodgey undesirables here over 25 with dogs as there are young 'uns. If you're going to have age restrictions on dog ownership, it should be for ALL dogs, not specific to certain breeds. It wouldn't work otherwise, they'd just pick other breeds and be as irresponsible with them.

As for the cost of the dog, if we put restrictions on "cheap" dogs, that's not just covering backyard bred examples (which are often as highly priced as well bred specimens, sometimes higher), it's covering mongrels in the Free Ads/similar and more scarily, rescue dogs.

I maintain my position that all BSL is unecessary and wrong. It doesnt work. It's hasn't worked in 16 years. It will never work.

So do tell me what WILL work then?
I keep seeing lots of reasons why BSL won't work, but nobody ever suggests what WILL work. I never said staffies were a large breed BTW and I didn't feel inclined to list every single breed I would include but mentioned 2 just to give a gist of what I meant.

What WILL work are the new laws being written that are NOT breed specific. What WILL work is making each and every owner responsible for their dog, no matter what the breed (which is part of the new DLAG proposals). What WILL work is reopening the Index of Exempted Dogs and allowing people the chance to have their "pit bull type" dogs registered without fear of prosecution or euthanasia of completely innocent dogs, until that new non-breed specific legislation is introduced.

Are you honestly saying breed specific legislation HAS worked? Because I must be on a different planet to you if you honestly think BSL is going to make things better.

Can I ask what breed/s you own? It's amazing how many people have acted along the lines of "Well it's not my dog being killed, so who cares?". It's time for ALL dog lovers to come together and speak out against this holocaust. One day it'll be the breed you love, and then who will you cry to? Do you think you'd feel differently if your dog was on the list? Look at Ireland's proposals for bans, dogs that are already restricted. Look at Italy's breed specific legislation. Look at Germany's 20:40 legislation. Then tell me you aren't worried one bit about your dog being next. I'm personally bricking it, I have a Bullmastiff - a 40kg obedience Level 3 trained, well socialised and friendly, Bullmastiff. Is that another breed you'd rather see banned? What about the dogs in the hands of responsible owners thatjust happen to be the same breed? It's alright for them to be punished for the greater good is it?

In the States, 2 daschunds dragged a baby out of a playpen and killed it. A cocker spaniel ripped it's elderly owner's throat out. My son was mauled, and permanently facially scarred, by a greyhound. My Bullmastiff was attacked 2 months ago in the park and wounded by a collie cross with irresponsible owners. I've been badly bitten by a Jack Russel. My old foster Staffie was badly wounded in an attack by a mongrel in which he was too frightened to fight back and urinated on the pavement as it tore into his face (this case went to court and we were awarded damages). I bet if I called for any of these breeds to be banned (which I wouldn't as I'm sensible), you'd get off your backside and fight that.

If you read the campaign website, the KC, Dogs Trust and many others (Scottish SPCA, Victoria Stilwell) are all speaking out against the amnesties. There ARE alternatives. We don't need to murder innocent dogs to get a safer dog owning community.

You seem to be missing the point I was making. I never said I wanted to see any breed eradicated. However, BSL might be useful inasmuch as they would require potential owners to pass a competency test of some kind before owning one. A person with an out of control chihuahua is a prat but the dog cannot in any way cause death. A person with an out of control bullmastiff, rottweiler, pitbull, akita, can cause death and indeed they HAVE all killed in recent years.
I now own 8 dogs, none are what I would class as the sort of dogs which are bought by the chavs who want to appear macho. While the 2 largest might cause damage if they attacked someone, they are not powerful enough to kill an adult. They are a lurcher and a border collie. Lurchers are notriously docile and have zero guarding tendencies. Collies have a tendency to nip but it is a one bite job only. I sad before and I will keep saying. Not only do I have nothing against the breeds I have mentioned before, I have owned some of them in the past and would do so in the future, however, I would ensure that MY dog was well socialised etc.I would also be willing to take a competency test before getting a potentially dangerous breed. A rottweiler is perfectly capable of killing an adult, so is a bullmastiff. They were BRED for protection and have the instinct still in them. They would not be typical examples of their breed if they did not. I would not expect to get a rottweiler and have it behave like a cavalier king charles spaniel.
Yes I saw the campaign website and see that people with a vested interest are against BSL but I still have not seen any of the experts come up with a solution. It is too late once someone has been killed. It won't bring them back to life if you put theowner in prison. Something needs to be done to STOP children being killed and adults being mauled and people's pet dogs being killed by the large powerful breeds which are doing the damage.
We will have to agree to disagree it seems. We both love dogs but have a different viewpoint. I don't think we will ever agree on the subject. I respect your viewpoint and have enjoyed the discussion but we will never agree on the subject.

 

[fenwoman]

In the States, 2 daschunds dragged a baby out of a playpen and killed it. A cocker spaniel ripped it's elderly owner's throat out. My son was mauled, and permanently facially scarred, by a greyhound. My Bullmastiff was attacked 2 months ago in the park and wounded by a collie cross with irresponsible owners. I've been badly bitten by a Jack Russel. My old foster Staffie was badly wounded in an attack by a mongrel in which he was too frightened to fight back and urinated on the pavement as it tore into his face (this case went to court and we were awarded damages). I bet if I called for any of these breeds to be banned (which I wouldn't as I'm sensible), you'd get off your backside and fight that.


I would be against those particular breeds being banned (and I'm not calling for a breed ban in any case) because they are unusual and isolated whereas it seems that we keep hearing the same breeds being involved in deaths of children.
Have you any links to the stories you mention about the above dogs as I have searched and cannot find anything.(the dachshunds and the cocker). I found plenty about children being killed by pitbulls and rottweilers though.

 

[KathyM]

I'm sorry, we WILL have to agree to disagree Fenwoman. I disagree that anyone that supports BSL truly loves dogs. And given that I gave you examples of non "devil" dogs killing, your arguments don't hold any weight with me I'm afraid (I'm on the ase digging out the links but have found plenty of small dog kills baby/owner stories for you).

I'll have to remain thankful that there are people out there willing to get off their backsides for all dogs, not just the ones they ignorantly think aren't dangerous in the wrong hands.

My dog isn't any more danger than yours. I won't sit back and allow them to ban or restrict her. I won't sit back and let them enforce muzzling and no offlead exercise for the dog I spent 3 and a half years so far ensuring wasn't a danger to anyone, and I sure as hell won't sit back and say "Hey it's not my dog, it's not my problem". I find your posts wholely ignorant and offensive.

 

[fenwoman]

I'm sorry, we WILL have to agree to disagree Fenwoman. I disagree that anyone that supports BSL truly loves dogs. And given that I gave you examples of non "devil" dogs killing, your arguments don't hold any weight with me I'm afraid (I'm on the ase digging out the links but have found plenty of small dog kills baby/owner stories for you).

I'll have to remain thankful that there are people out there willing to get off their backsides for all dogs, not just the ones they ignorantly think aren't dangerous in the wrong hands.

My dog isn't any more danger than yours. I won't sit back and allow them to ban or restrict her. I won't sit back and let them enforce muzzling and no offlead exercise for the dog I spent 3 and a half years so far ensuring wasn't a danger to anyone, and I sure as hell won't sit back and say "Hey it's not my dog, it's not my problem". I find your posts wholely ignorant and offensive.

There is no need to get personal and fling insults. I have been reasonable in explaining why I think the way that I do.I have tried to give reasoned replies. I keep sayin that I have owned large guarding breeds and would do so again however, I fully understand thepotential of such dogs in the wrong hands. You keep referring to your own dog and seem to want to be blind to the fact that in the wrong hands (obviously not yours) they can be dangerous. This breed blindness is sad.

dog mauling on google

 

[KathyM]

http/archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/09/pomeranian.kills.ap/
Pomeranian kills baby

A quote from the CDC (US) research into dog bite statistics:

Extensive additional research* has resulted in locating and documenting 40 of the 89 fatalities for which the CDC could not locate newspaper articles reporting the incident and/or the breed of dog involved. Of the 40 fatal attacks not located in newspaper reports, 37 involved breeds of dogs other than a pit bull or pit bull type dog.

Another quote from a US dog bite statistics site:

In a tongue-in-cheek article, Daily Camera reporter, Clay Evans, asks the rhetorical question: "Should Labradors be banned?"

Boulder, CO, proposed a ban on 'pit bulls', despite evidence this 'breed' isn't the biggest problem. As proof, Evans writes:

"According to statistics kept by city of Boulder Animal Care and Control, "labs" — as they are so innocently called — were responsible for an astonishing 18.9 percent of the 748 dog bites in the city from 1997 to 2003, more than twice as many as the next highest breed (German shepherds, at 8.5 percent)."

Those who must actually do the job of killing dogs based on breed readily admit that nearly all the dogs they kill shown no signs of aggression, whatsoever.

99.9% of all dogs, from all breeds, will never be involved in an attack at any time in their lives.

In France, the first ever full face transplant took place on a lady that was mauled by her labrador.

I do apologise, I said the daschunds had killed a baby, when it was one and it only left him critically ill in hospital (must've got mixed up with the Pomeranian):
http/www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64465-2002Dec16

Poodle attacks Pit bull:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...oodleAttack.jpg

Mongrel kills infant:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...KillsInfant.pdf

Golden Retriever mauls child (again, 2nd incident):
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...Golden31105.pdf

Labrador mauls child:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...bmaulschild.pdf

####zu cross mauls child:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...attack43005.pdf

Labrador and daschund attack owner:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...hLabApril05.pdf

Golden Retriever (IDed in another story) attacks mother and child:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...nattack0505.pdf

Paris Hilton's Chihuahua bites TV producer:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...nattack0505.pdf

When good Wheaten Terriers Go Bad:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...Wheaton0705.pdf

Jack Russell attacks child:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...006/JRT0206.pdf

Labradors kill pomeranian and maul pit bull:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...edbreedlabs.pdf

Pomeranian attacks pit bull:
http/www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Other...edbreedlabs.pdf

I could go on. Strangely, the majority of dog bites I've found seem to be from retriever breeds (lab, golden, etc) and small handbag types. This also corresponds with dog bite statistics I read recently. I don't see them being outlawed.

There is no need to get personal and fling insults. I have been reasonable in explaining why I think the way that I do.I have tried to give reasoned replies. I keep sayin that I have owned large guarding breeds and would do so again however, I fully understand thepotential of such dogs in the wrong hands. You keep referring to your own dog and seem to want to be blind to the fact that in the wrong hands (obviously not yours) they can be dangerous. This breed blindness is sad.

dog mauling on google

Breed blindness is very sad indeed. It's very sad that you're willing to tarnish a whole breed, sorry many breeds with the same brush, and their owners. Can I ask you again, what about the majority of these dogs that are owned by caring and responsible owners? Who are well trained and socialised? Are you happy for them to suffer for the minority of idiots?