I have to agree. They are not known as the 'nanny dog' for nothing.The breed originated in the black country as family dogs who would guards the children while the parents worked. They are one of my favourite breeds and I despair of how this latest news is going to affect them. Already the rescue centres up and down the country are filled with staffies and staffy crosses who cannot find homes regardless of how well behaved they are because of how people percieve them.
🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
Dog Control Laws And Pit Bulls
- Thread starter Tokis-Phoenix
- Start date
I have to agree. They are not known as the 'nanny dog' for nothing.The breed originated in the black country as family dogs who would guards the children while the parents worked. They are one of my favourite breeds and I despair of how this latest news is going to affect them. Already the rescue centres up and down the country are filled with staffies and staffy crosses who cannot find homes regardless of how well behaved they are because of how people percieve them.
I find it very sad that you could kill a dog for oone bite without taking the time to ask if the dog was to blame? My vet once told me of a chap who brought his german shepherd to be put down after it bit one of his children. After he had put it to sleep he was standing with the body wondering about it and stroking the dog's coat. He felt something and when he looked closer he found a pencil had been shoved into the dogs ear canal. No wonder it bit. So the dog had died because of a child causing agony to it. Did it deserve to die? I don't think so.
Most dogs don't bite for nothing.
To expect any dog to take all the cruelty and crap children are capable of inflicting is very bad and if any owner suggested this is how it should be then I would suggest the person was not fit to own a dog.
OP
OP
Tokis-Phoenix
^_^
When it comes down to it though, the owner should be more than physically capable of controlling their dog if anything does happen (whether its just taking the dog for a walk and it tries to run off or fight with other dogs in the park, or tries to attack someone etc). I was watching that program Dog Bostel the other day and they had a young skinny blonde woman with a huge male rottweiler dog, the dog weighed about 65 kilo's and the woman weighed around 68 kilo's. If that dog decided it wanted to run off one day while it was on the lead, there's no way its owner would have the physical strength or weight to hold it back and control it.
Such an owner will always be at the mercy of their dog in this sense.
One the problems with the media and laws demonising of certain breeds of dogs, is that it just makes these breeds of dogs more desirable to the wrong sorts of people.
With staffies, i see a lot of people here saying that they are the nicest dogs ever and would never hurt a soul sort of thing etc- i don't think this is entirely correct, i think that staffies are just as capable of displaying violence as any other dog. I don't think staffies are more or less prone to being friendly or bad tempered, i view them like any other dog. I don't think a dog should be judged on its breed alone (a lot of people are being hypocritical in this sense by attributing staffies certain things like being good family dogs due to their breed). If staffies were such a great family dog, then there'd be no dog attacks within families from staffies at all, but there are- simply put, staffies aren't perfect, but neither are they a bad breed.
I think a dog should be judged as the individual animal it is and not just a statistic or type of animal. Dogs are complex and highly evolved animals, and although there are a certain percentage of attacks done by dogs who are purely mean tempered and nasty, there are also attacks done by dogs who are very much provoked into attacking but are not actually nasty dogs. Just like there are good people and bad people, there are bad dogs and good dogs- saying that a certain breed is bad or good due to the breed it is would be like me saying all chinese people are great or bad because they are chinese etc, which would not be true or accurate.
With the dog attack and control thing, i think a lot of it could be solved by simply punishing people a lot harder for their irresponsability over their pets. Right now the current laws and punishments hardly act as a deterrant, with a lot of people getting away free with just a stern word from the authorities. The other aspect is actually enforcing the law properly- although people can potentially go to prison for many years for animal cruelty or irresponsablity, very few people actually recieve any prison time at all, with most peope just getting some hours of community service (which in a lot of cases, the offender doesn't turn up to, and ends up getting away with that too
).
Animals are very disposable in this modern society. Millions of animals are slaughtered in battery/intensive/barn/0 grazing type farms every years after horrendous quality of life, we waste so much food too. People don't have to rely on their horse being in good health so they can work the feilds or take them into the village, people don't need dogs to protect their children and animals, people don't rely on having the cow produce lots of milk because it can just as easily be bought over the counter any time of the day...Animals are becomming a novelty in modern society for a lot of people- we are losing respect for them, and we are becomming more ignorant and arrogant.
I think we can make people show more respect to animals by;
a. Enforcing sticter punishments on animal crime.
b. Making people get back in touch with nature- we are too far removed from reality in our concrete cities. People need to be educated about whats out there in the world.
c. Making it illegal for people to breed or sell animals without a license- if i wanted to, i could buy an ill tempered female dog and breed her tomorrow and then sell off the puppies and then mother for a profit. There is far too much irresponsable breeding going on (whether intended or unintended), i believe that if we were able to control the breeding of animals, then at least there may be less unwanted or problem animals being bred because people will have to put more thought into it. We also need to improve the conditions in the larger commercial pet animal breeding farms.
d. Cutting down on pet sales in petshops- many animal shelters are facing over population crisis's more or less constantly now, but at the same time pet shops are churning out a constant supply of new animals. It seems people prefer to buy animals from petshops brand new, but this often only adds to the unwanted animal problem in the long run. We need to encourage more people to adopt animals so there are less strays on the streets or living in despair in shelters- i think this could be partially acheived by incouraging more people to adopt animals by cutting down on petshop sales and increasing the prices of brand new pets.
e. Stop the demonising of certain breeds, but provide more facts about care and keeping them instead. This could partially be achieved by improving the standards of staff knowledge in petshops, as many staff are very uneducated about the animals they are selling, which can often lead to mistreatment of the animal or the rising/birth of myths about it.
I dunno...What do you think?
Oh yeah, the BBC did an article on how to fend off dogs for those of you who are interested;
http
/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6227497.stm
"No sudden movements
Put hands in pockets
Avoid eye contact
Back away but do not run away
Children can accidentally provoke a dog
Never try to break up two fighting dogs"
Such an owner will always be at the mercy of their dog in this sense.
One the problems with the media and laws demonising of certain breeds of dogs, is that it just makes these breeds of dogs more desirable to the wrong sorts of people.
With staffies, i see a lot of people here saying that they are the nicest dogs ever and would never hurt a soul sort of thing etc- i don't think this is entirely correct, i think that staffies are just as capable of displaying violence as any other dog. I don't think staffies are more or less prone to being friendly or bad tempered, i view them like any other dog. I don't think a dog should be judged on its breed alone (a lot of people are being hypocritical in this sense by attributing staffies certain things like being good family dogs due to their breed). If staffies were such a great family dog, then there'd be no dog attacks within families from staffies at all, but there are- simply put, staffies aren't perfect, but neither are they a bad breed.
I think a dog should be judged as the individual animal it is and not just a statistic or type of animal. Dogs are complex and highly evolved animals, and although there are a certain percentage of attacks done by dogs who are purely mean tempered and nasty, there are also attacks done by dogs who are very much provoked into attacking but are not actually nasty dogs. Just like there are good people and bad people, there are bad dogs and good dogs- saying that a certain breed is bad or good due to the breed it is would be like me saying all chinese people are great or bad because they are chinese etc, which would not be true or accurate.
With the dog attack and control thing, i think a lot of it could be solved by simply punishing people a lot harder for their irresponsability over their pets. Right now the current laws and punishments hardly act as a deterrant, with a lot of people getting away free with just a stern word from the authorities. The other aspect is actually enforcing the law properly- although people can potentially go to prison for many years for animal cruelty or irresponsablity, very few people actually recieve any prison time at all, with most peope just getting some hours of community service (which in a lot of cases, the offender doesn't turn up to, and ends up getting away with that too
).Animals are very disposable in this modern society. Millions of animals are slaughtered in battery/intensive/barn/0 grazing type farms every years after horrendous quality of life, we waste so much food too. People don't have to rely on their horse being in good health so they can work the feilds or take them into the village, people don't need dogs to protect their children and animals, people don't rely on having the cow produce lots of milk because it can just as easily be bought over the counter any time of the day...Animals are becomming a novelty in modern society for a lot of people- we are losing respect for them, and we are becomming more ignorant and arrogant.
I think we can make people show more respect to animals by;
a. Enforcing sticter punishments on animal crime.
b. Making people get back in touch with nature- we are too far removed from reality in our concrete cities. People need to be educated about whats out there in the world.
c. Making it illegal for people to breed or sell animals without a license- if i wanted to, i could buy an ill tempered female dog and breed her tomorrow and then sell off the puppies and then mother for a profit. There is far too much irresponsable breeding going on (whether intended or unintended), i believe that if we were able to control the breeding of animals, then at least there may be less unwanted or problem animals being bred because people will have to put more thought into it. We also need to improve the conditions in the larger commercial pet animal breeding farms.
d. Cutting down on pet sales in petshops- many animal shelters are facing over population crisis's more or less constantly now, but at the same time pet shops are churning out a constant supply of new animals. It seems people prefer to buy animals from petshops brand new, but this often only adds to the unwanted animal problem in the long run. We need to encourage more people to adopt animals so there are less strays on the streets or living in despair in shelters- i think this could be partially acheived by incouraging more people to adopt animals by cutting down on petshop sales and increasing the prices of brand new pets.
e. Stop the demonising of certain breeds, but provide more facts about care and keeping them instead. This could partially be achieved by improving the standards of staff knowledge in petshops, as many staff are very uneducated about the animals they are selling, which can often lead to mistreatment of the animal or the rising/birth of myths about it.
I dunno...What do you think?
Oh yeah, the BBC did an article on how to fend off dogs for those of you who are interested;
http
/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6227497.stm"No sudden movements
Put hands in pockets
Avoid eye contact
Back away but do not run away
Children can accidentally provoke a dog
Never try to break up two fighting dogs"
Canis-Equus
Fish Crazy
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2006
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 0
Im now actively avoiding reading news reports on dog attacks as they make me feel physically sick.
Ive got a bull breed x here. Ive got four dogs, the bull x, the little furry lurcher like the one off Heartbeat (Alfred), a collie x and a saluki x greyhound.
Guess which ones most likely to bite you?
The Alfred alike! Hes cute, hes furry but hes like the troll that lives under the bridge! If hes scared or in pain, yep, he will bite (he never HAS mind you hes never given reason to do so)
Mr bull x though? Wheres he in all this?
Hes hiding under my desk frightened of fireworks, upside down on the sofa, sitting grinning like a loony offering his squeaky ball to my friends 3 year old and being terribly careful not to knock him over. This is the dog i can trust when hes in pain, when hes scared, when another dog has attacked him, NOT to bite me or to bite anyone else.
And this is the dog who because hes got a short square face and a muscley body could end up DEAD purely for the way he looks. The fact that his mammy was a lurcher and his dada was a gsd is irrelevant, that one bull breed in his past stamped him with a certain look. Because of that he can NEVER make a mistake, he can never woof at someone for fear his barks of joy are mistaken for an attack, he cant risk running around on a playing field in case someone thinks hes heading for them....
When i do read these reports of attacks, isnt it odd that i NEVER EVER have read how the dog went to training classes, the owners researched the breed and bought from a reputable breeder, i never hear that the dog was trained to do agility or flyball or obedience, they never tell me that the dog was regularly exercised and had a good recall, passed his canine Good Citizen awards or was trained using positive reward based methods.
Never. Because not ONE of these horrendous attacks has been committed by a dog well trained and responsibly owned.
They are ALWAYS a child left alone, a dog trained to 'guard', a dog kept chained up all day....
If these breeds, and believe me, staffies, rotties etc are numerically VERY popular breeds, were SO dangerous, we'd haer of attacks every day. If it was true as some people will insist that they can 'turn' at any moment, wed hear how onwers had done their best to train their dogs, to clicker train them and teach them bite inhibition, walk to heel and retrieve....
We never do, and the common denominator in every single dog attack is, the owner and teh way they treat their dog. Not the breed of dog.
Breed specific legislation has done nothing but stamp certain types of dog with a seal of approval for the kind of scum who want an aggressive, insecure, fearful and therefore dangerous dog, to use as a weapon.
If we made border collies illegal tomorrow i can guarantee people would want them. Think thats daft? Look at how many people think a rottie is a 'hard' and 'fighting' dog.... a rottie is a farm working herding dog, bred to do a job very similar to a border collie. So is a GSD....
Those of us who own dogs can prevent accidents occuring by simply understanding our dog and treating them as a dog - not how we THINK a dog should be, but how a dog IS. All too often accidents occur because a dog has been treated like some kind of superhero, expected to know right from wrong, expected to tell at a glance friend from foe, to know that food left on the chair whilst we answer the phone isnt for them, to know that their expressions of fear and pain will often be ignored and missed....
Learn how your dog really is, learn that he repeats what he finds rewarding, he doesnt wish to dominate you at all, he wont appreciate yo dominating him any more than you appreciate your boss who is a right cnut. He wants firm, fair leadership and to be gently shown whats rewarding adn what isnt.
</rant>
Ive got a bull breed x here. Ive got four dogs, the bull x, the little furry lurcher like the one off Heartbeat (Alfred), a collie x and a saluki x greyhound.
Guess which ones most likely to bite you?
The Alfred alike! Hes cute, hes furry but hes like the troll that lives under the bridge! If hes scared or in pain, yep, he will bite (he never HAS mind you hes never given reason to do so)
Mr bull x though? Wheres he in all this?
Hes hiding under my desk frightened of fireworks, upside down on the sofa, sitting grinning like a loony offering his squeaky ball to my friends 3 year old and being terribly careful not to knock him over. This is the dog i can trust when hes in pain, when hes scared, when another dog has attacked him, NOT to bite me or to bite anyone else.
And this is the dog who because hes got a short square face and a muscley body could end up DEAD purely for the way he looks. The fact that his mammy was a lurcher and his dada was a gsd is irrelevant, that one bull breed in his past stamped him with a certain look. Because of that he can NEVER make a mistake, he can never woof at someone for fear his barks of joy are mistaken for an attack, he cant risk running around on a playing field in case someone thinks hes heading for them....
When i do read these reports of attacks, isnt it odd that i NEVER EVER have read how the dog went to training classes, the owners researched the breed and bought from a reputable breeder, i never hear that the dog was trained to do agility or flyball or obedience, they never tell me that the dog was regularly exercised and had a good recall, passed his canine Good Citizen awards or was trained using positive reward based methods.
Never. Because not ONE of these horrendous attacks has been committed by a dog well trained and responsibly owned.
They are ALWAYS a child left alone, a dog trained to 'guard', a dog kept chained up all day....
If these breeds, and believe me, staffies, rotties etc are numerically VERY popular breeds, were SO dangerous, we'd haer of attacks every day. If it was true as some people will insist that they can 'turn' at any moment, wed hear how onwers had done their best to train their dogs, to clicker train them and teach them bite inhibition, walk to heel and retrieve....
We never do, and the common denominator in every single dog attack is, the owner and teh way they treat their dog. Not the breed of dog.
Breed specific legislation has done nothing but stamp certain types of dog with a seal of approval for the kind of scum who want an aggressive, insecure, fearful and therefore dangerous dog, to use as a weapon.
If we made border collies illegal tomorrow i can guarantee people would want them. Think thats daft? Look at how many people think a rottie is a 'hard' and 'fighting' dog.... a rottie is a farm working herding dog, bred to do a job very similar to a border collie. So is a GSD....
Those of us who own dogs can prevent accidents occuring by simply understanding our dog and treating them as a dog - not how we THINK a dog should be, but how a dog IS. All too often accidents occur because a dog has been treated like some kind of superhero, expected to know right from wrong, expected to tell at a glance friend from foe, to know that food left on the chair whilst we answer the phone isnt for them, to know that their expressions of fear and pain will often be ignored and missed....
Learn how your dog really is, learn that he repeats what he finds rewarding, he doesnt wish to dominate you at all, he wont appreciate yo dominating him any more than you appreciate your boss who is a right cnut. He wants firm, fair leadership and to be gently shown whats rewarding adn what isnt.
</rant>
A lot of attacks could be prevented if potential owners of large macho breeds had to be aged 25 before they could own them and be assessed by an experienced dog handler to demonstrate their fitness to own the breed. It seems to me that in most of the cases, the dog was owned by irresponsible young people (usually young men who want to show how 'hard' they are by having a 'macho' breed.) I also agree that anyone breeding just one litter, should have to buy an expensive dog licence too no matter what the breed was.
If Mr blogs with a *****, wants to make some money but had to pay £200 to get permission to breed perhaps he would think twice. I think there should be a £50 a year dog licence for everyone which was not applicable oif the pet is neutered. I'm speaking as someone who has 8 dogs.
If Mr blogs with a *****, wants to make some money but had to pay £200 to get permission to breed perhaps he would think twice. I think there should be a £50 a year dog licence for everyone which was not applicable oif the pet is neutered. I'm speaking as someone who has 8 dogs.
TigerIssey
Queen TI
As an owner of a stud book qualifed stafford as per my picture (left not the ram below) I completely agree with Lisa. I live next door to the breeder of my dog who has been breeding staffords for 30 + yrs, I trust this breeder she has had to rehome dogs due to this ignorance too, she is now reluctant to sell to couples without children and interviews extensively about how you would handle the dog in certain situations. There are many breeders out there that with my knowledge I would know to avoid, joe public may not. Breeding plays a huge part in the temperament of each individual dog, this is not breed specific this counts with every dog born, exactly the reason why books and the KC tell you to view both parents before deciding to buy a pup. Any dog with an iffy temperament should not be bred from regardless of the breed itself.
I heard one channel did interview a reresentative from the KC who are keen to negotiate with the government on reforming the DDA laws. On thing is for certain Breed Specific Legislation is to be avoided at all costs!!!!!!!!!!!
Today the police on merseyside have confiscated about 8 pit bull types from the surrounding area of the attack, these dogs would be in no way anything close to a pure bred American Kennel Club Registered American Pit Bull Terrier. I would happily if I lived in america get a well bred APBT, they are also bred for temperament out there, I know people who have owned them with no problems. The pit bull types found in this country are more likely to be crosses that have been made to emulate how they were originally bred with emphasis on fight rather than family dog, as such they should be destroyed. Any owner of a pit bull type has an ulterior motive due to the breeding of them being banned for the last 16 yrs, I fail to see why anyone would want to break a law unless there was something out of it for them - in this case fighting.
Dog fighting was quite rightly outlawed in the 1800's, yet still today there a morons out there that would rather see a dog fight than enjoy the pleasure dog owning can bring especially to children.
I hate to think how the parents of that girls classmates are going to prevent their children from becoming scared stiff of dogs, this is a crying shame. The benefits of owning a dog can be extensive, yet there are people out there determined to turn the whole country against certain dogs.
I would like to see a program on TV that shows people the differences between the different dogs mentioned, to the unknowing a stafford can look simlar to a pit bull there are however many differences if you put them side by side.
I love my dog, I repect my dog, I know what my dog is capable of, please please let this not turn into a vendetta, I remember my parents dobermans getting pointed at, people crossing the road etc in the late 80's when rotties were in the bad books.
This is the type of situation other countries have faced where BSL has been imposed, it is not fair to the dogs who are well bred, well trained and well looked after.
As said before, any breed is capable of becoming the attacker, legislation should be aimed at the specific dog (NOT BREED) that has been allowed to savage someone and on the OWNER who is ultimately responsible for their dog.
Certain Bull Breeds are Britains heritage, please don't allow them to become a rare breed, yes I don't believe every owner has a dog for the same reasons I do, some like to look macho and this is wrong. Not all bull breed owners are how they are perceived, I could show you a photo of myself handling the dog, I am definately not a macho staffie owner, if you went to crufts and watched at ring side, you would see what I meant.
I have probably ranted for too long, but this subject makes my blood boil.
Canis-Equus
Fish Crazy
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2006
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 0
I forget if its been mentioned here.....
But those of us with cross bred bull breeds are at risk, my dogs not a pit bull but going by the frankly pointlessly vague wording from DEFRA on how to decide if a dog is 'of Pit Bull type', he COULD be found to be of type and thus could be confiscated and destroyed.
I have no wish to break the law, i got my dog because i needed a dog, he needed a home, his breed or look a like didnt come into it!
The truly ridiculous parts of this are, going by DEFRAS stupid wording, a LABRADOR is 90% true to th eir definition of pit bull. Oh, and dont think you can hide behind your KC reg and pedigree papers, a KC reg staffy has already died because he was deemed to be of pitbull type.
This affects ALL of us, all dog owners, not just bull breed owners, all dog lovers, not just dog owners, hell even if you just LIKE dogs, you NEED now to stand up and say that breed specific legislation does nothing at all to protect children, adults or dogs and will not prevent accidents like Ellie Lawrensons tragic death from occurring. If its rotties and gsds and staffies next, where DOES it end? The most serious injuries ive had from dogs have been from an Old English Sheepdog, and a Poodle.
Whats more, any ideas such as insisting all dogs are muzzled and kept on a lead wont either, for one thing Ellie was in a family home with the dog, and ive yet to hear of ANY fatality happening due to a stray dog, and looking through the recent cases, the vast majority occur on private land or in private homes, where the victim knew the dog and adults were failing to supervise.
All restrictions such as legal requirements to muzzle and keep on a leash will do, is PREVENT dogs from being properly trained nad socialised and thats exactly what leads to dogs becoming fearful and aggressive in the first place.
As me finaly ranty bit this evening....
There are thousands of dogs in the uk. There are hundreds of thousands of cars and knives, irons and kettles, pairs of TROUSERS - all these cause accidents, some of them fatal. Its not at all outrageous to claim, that each and everyone of the above items causes more serious injuries per year than bull breed dogs have done in TEN years.
So, why isnt there an outcry to ban trousers?
But those of us with cross bred bull breeds are at risk, my dogs not a pit bull but going by the frankly pointlessly vague wording from DEFRA on how to decide if a dog is 'of Pit Bull type', he COULD be found to be of type and thus could be confiscated and destroyed.
I have no wish to break the law, i got my dog because i needed a dog, he needed a home, his breed or look a like didnt come into it!
The truly ridiculous parts of this are, going by DEFRAS stupid wording, a LABRADOR is 90% true to th eir definition of pit bull. Oh, and dont think you can hide behind your KC reg and pedigree papers, a KC reg staffy has already died because he was deemed to be of pitbull type.
This affects ALL of us, all dog owners, not just bull breed owners, all dog lovers, not just dog owners, hell even if you just LIKE dogs, you NEED now to stand up and say that breed specific legislation does nothing at all to protect children, adults or dogs and will not prevent accidents like Ellie Lawrensons tragic death from occurring. If its rotties and gsds and staffies next, where DOES it end? The most serious injuries ive had from dogs have been from an Old English Sheepdog, and a Poodle.
Whats more, any ideas such as insisting all dogs are muzzled and kept on a lead wont either, for one thing Ellie was in a family home with the dog, and ive yet to hear of ANY fatality happening due to a stray dog, and looking through the recent cases, the vast majority occur on private land or in private homes, where the victim knew the dog and adults were failing to supervise.
All restrictions such as legal requirements to muzzle and keep on a leash will do, is PREVENT dogs from being properly trained nad socialised and thats exactly what leads to dogs becoming fearful and aggressive in the first place.
As me finaly ranty bit this evening....
There are thousands of dogs in the uk. There are hundreds of thousands of cars and knives, irons and kettles, pairs of TROUSERS - all these cause accidents, some of them fatal. Its not at all outrageous to claim, that each and everyone of the above items causes more serious injuries per year than bull breed dogs have done in TEN years.
So, why isnt there an outcry to ban trousers?
I will not comment on Breed-specific legislation, but I don't agree with you regarding legal restriction on keeping a dog on lead. When a dog is outside, they should be on a lead, period. It is proper socialization and respectful towards the people around you. Nothing bothers me more than when I see a dog and it's owner bounding about my yard, and the dog is without a lead. I've been chased by too many agressive dogs, have scooped enough unwanted poop in my own lawn, and have repaired too many broken flower beds and I have no shame reporting the owner for not having a dog on lead when it's outside. It is illegal in Miami-Dade county, though it is poorly enforced. Dogs should be trained and properly socialized and so should the owners, and that includes respecting those around you who don't own dogs. My dogs are never outside without a lead.
I do, however, agree with you on the point regarding poor Ellie. A child shouldn't be left unsupervised with a dog, no matter the breed. It is a sad, sad, story, especially since violence like that can be prevented.
These threads just depress me.
llj
OohFeeshy
It's only forever; not long at all...
Well, indeed- remember the phrase 'when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns'? This supposed 'amnesty' of 'dangerous dogs' is unnessecary and cruel- hundreds of families will have to hand over loved, safe family pets to be culled simply becasue they look like dogs deemed to be a danger. Whereas those who keep the dogs for (already illegal) fighting, as status symbols, and suchlike, will keep the dogs- and where will that leave the legislation?
LisaLQ
Fish Gatherer
I read on another site that there may be some other breeds being added to the DDL, including rotties and GSDs. But they might be being used as bargaining tools to get the KC to agree to putting american bulldogs on instead, as they're not a recognised breed.
You know what I found out? Sky would be classed as bull type. She's got bull in her history, it's evident by her looks and colour. But she's a bloomin' lurcher! It's going to come back on many of us if it's allowed to continue. It's really shocking.
Anyone hear about the pitbull owner stopped while driving on the motorway and forced to hand his dog over - because he didn't have it muzzled and on a lead in a public place? It was in the car - on the motorway - and they managed to take his dog away - it's just so idiotic.
This amnesty is all a load of crap too - they're telling folks to hand in their pit bulls to be put to sleep and they wont be prosecuted - when in fact the owners have every right to keep their dogs and keep them neutered and muzzled - as long as they're not causing problems. So pitbull owners think they have to have their dogs put to sleep to avoid prosecution, when in fact they cant prosecute them without giving them the chance to be responsible with them.
So not only are the police/government a set of scaremongers, they're liars and cheats too.
You know what I found out? Sky would be classed as bull type. She's got bull in her history, it's evident by her looks and colour. But she's a bloomin' lurcher! It's going to come back on many of us if it's allowed to continue. It's really shocking.
Anyone hear about the pitbull owner stopped while driving on the motorway and forced to hand his dog over - because he didn't have it muzzled and on a lead in a public place? It was in the car - on the motorway - and they managed to take his dog away - it's just so idiotic.
This amnesty is all a load of crap too - they're telling folks to hand in their pit bulls to be put to sleep and they wont be prosecuted - when in fact the owners have every right to keep their dogs and keep them neutered and muzzled - as long as they're not causing problems. So pitbull owners think they have to have their dogs put to sleep to avoid prosecution, when in fact they cant prosecute them without giving them the chance to be responsible with them.
So not only are the police/government a set of scaremongers, they're liars and cheats too.
KathyM
Fish Herder
That was Otis, the Great Dane cross, he wasn't even a "pit bull".
I have to disagree with this bit. Using the Defra guide for IDing a "pit bull type", most medium sized crossbreeds, especially staffie crosses, will fit the bill. A boxer x labrador would fit, even a pedigree labrador fits the description by about 90% (and dogs dont have to fit 100% to be seized).
So when you look at it from that perspective, you may feel, like me, very differently. There are literally thousands of "pit bull types" by the Defra definition in this country, the vast majority of which are loving family pets, not bred for fighting, or bought by thugs for fighting.
Today I met a gorgeous bullmastiff cross puppy - his owner took him to the vets this morning and was told that he has to be neutered by the time he's 6 months old and has to be muzzled at all times, even in his own garden. Whether or not this is misinformation, that advice is being bandied about (if not by the vet by the owner, although I suspect she's telling the truth given my experience with the same vet) to people with family pets. Obviously if she hasn't got the wrong end of the stick and he did say this, I won't be using that vet again, having Dharma the Bullmastiff here.
Yeah. Ban trousers and give us all summat to laugh at <titter>
It would certainly prove my theory as to whether young men who insist on owning large macho breeds, really do have tiny ....er......'egos'.
I was going to say 'Todgers' but thought it might be removed.
TigerIssey
Queen TI
This really is quite sad for all the "pet" staffords and other bull breeds out there, those staffies used for breeding programs and being shown in the UK and US have already been DNA tested for breed specific hereditary disease. Mine was tested early last year, at least the KC papers and KC have a copy of these DNA profiles that specifically ensure they are staffies and of the parentage described on the KC Pedigree.
Some other breeds besides staffies will have had to go through this too. One disease is L2HGA which is a neuro degenerative disease that has recently been found in staffords, I really would not be surprised if some of the staffie crosses or even pit bull types were found to carry this gene defect aswell.
Personally as a dog owner I feel I have done everything I can to personally safeguard my dog as far as disease, microchipping, DNA testing and training go. Most pet owners probably don't even know about this new found disease, our vet had no idea when taking the blood why we were doing the test at all. I found out through the show world, dog papers and friends in the show / breeding world. Everyone who has had their dogs tested are only mating carriers to clear then testing the litter of puppies before they are homed. Jo public "breeder" is probably not going to have had these tests done, I can see where problems could arise.
I agree with you to some extent, about the guidelines currently in use, they are basically rubbish, however I also think that actually getting experienced Judges / Breed clubs / KC involved in this to rewrite and use of scientifically available testing should actually cut down the amount identified as pit bull type. I know crosses are more difficult, but to someone experienced, definately not the police, pit bull types are identifiable. Some are always going to be harder decisions to make than others. However we are talking about a breed that was banned 16 yrs ago, meaning no breeding and no importing, technically if this was adhered to there should not be any pit bull type dogs left in this country. This is more what I was trying to emphasise although possibly badly as I did get on a rant.
I also think a certain percentage of dogs that fall in the borderline category should be agression tested. Most registered dog trainers are capable of this, our dog trainer was. Hewould also try varying methods to see whether the dog had a training problem or was actually dangerous. Please see each individual dog must be properly assessed, not the breed or breed type.
I have read today that the police have ordered DNA tests on the 8 seized dogs to determine if they are all related, I really and truly think they will be, and ultimately will be linked in some way to fighting. Something that turns my stomach every time I hear that a stafford or some other bull breed has been stolen. Unfortunately all too often this ends up being the stolen dogs future.
Bull breeds are our heritage, they are the most beautiful dogs with some of the best temperaments.
Incidentally, for those that don't believe staffords are the true nanny dog
Staffords are the only dog recommended by the KC as a family breed.
The only KC Breed Standard to mention temperament is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
Taken from KC Breed Standard.
KathyM
Fish Herder
I don't see how temperament testing will help, or why it should only be "pit bull types" that are tested. If you've read anything about BSL in other countries, you may have heard how unfair temperament testing is, and how few dogs will pass it. I don't know any dogs, bull breed or otherwise who would pass similar testing. If it came to that, they'd have to get through me and my family, I'll never let them lay a finger on her.
I also don't get your first quote - the "pit bull type" has not died from genetic illness but because of this ridiculous ban. There are many more already, and will be tonnes as and when they do their frankly evil knee jerk amnesty. And more when they ban more breeds, as they probably will. Not to mention the dogs that are already being dumped at rescues with no history of aggression just because of the intense media "heat" and fear.
Yes, "pit bull types" as determined by law are your everyday bullbreed crosses which there are thousands of in this country. They are so "identifiable" that nearly any dog is at risk. It doesn't matter if they're boxer crosses, or mastiff crosses, or Staffie crosses, or poodle crosses, if they fit that checklist, it won't matter if you and I can tell it's not right, they'll kill them - bred for fighting or not. Family pet or not. Child's companion or not.
I hope I've completely got the wrong end of the stick - it just came across a bit as being worried only about responsibly bred/tested Staffies, and no emphasis on the huge amount of other breeds and crosses this is going to effect. Thing is, if you're against it completely, we need to stand up and be counted NOW. This is happening NOW.
Another board (The Refuge) are hopefully organising anti-BSL meetups. I'll be going to the Liverpool one hopefully.
I also don't get your first quote - the "pit bull type" has not died from genetic illness but because of this ridiculous ban. There are many more already, and will be tonnes as and when they do their frankly evil knee jerk amnesty. And more when they ban more breeds, as they probably will. Not to mention the dogs that are already being dumped at rescues with no history of aggression just because of the intense media "heat" and fear.
Yes, "pit bull types" as determined by law are your everyday bullbreed crosses which there are thousands of in this country. They are so "identifiable" that nearly any dog is at risk. It doesn't matter if they're boxer crosses, or mastiff crosses, or Staffie crosses, or poodle crosses, if they fit that checklist, it won't matter if you and I can tell it's not right, they'll kill them - bred for fighting or not. Family pet or not. Child's companion or not.
I hope I've completely got the wrong end of the stick - it just came across a bit as being worried only about responsibly bred/tested Staffies, and no emphasis on the huge amount of other breeds and crosses this is going to effect. Thing is, if you're against it completely, we need to stand up and be counted NOW. This is happening NOW.
Another board (The Refuge) are hopefully organising anti-BSL meetups. I'll be going to the Liverpool one hopefully.
morgan
Fish Herder
I think it's ridiculous to muzzle a dog in it's own garden. It must feel very claustrophobic and likely to make it irritable. The dog that attacked had clipped ears so it is thought it was used for dog fights. It's illegal to clip a dog's ears in the UK so presumably these dogs never see a vet.
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
269 -
263 -
178 -
167 -
158 -
153 -
139 -
133 -
130 -
108 -
93 -
86 -
84 -
81 -
79