Talking about dangerous dogs now!

Missed it, anything worth reporting back to us on?

Talking about the difficulty of recognising the breeds banned under DDA particularly pit bull as it is a cross not a breed as such. Saying how unhelpful it is and that law needs changed to make dog owners responsible for the action of their dogs regardless of the breed - can't say I disagree

I agree with the ban the deed not the breed, but then does that mean the current breeds they have banned will be open to be owned again in this country? Much as i like the Pitty i can just see a wave of them coming through if they do release that part.. Not sure that we will be any better off for it?

Not sure bout that - we certainly don't need these breeds here IMHO but if they said I missed it - I think it was more about the fact that the problem is increasing despite the DDA

Its only just finished have to say duh we told them it was not the breed but the deed that needed dealing with 18 yrs ago and now the Lib Dems are offering more legislation to make the owners responsible --- talk about take ya time!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely there is enough legislation about if it was actually enforced to deal with these people and their weapon on a lead?  Rather than a new bill just change the animal  welfare act to include this sort of behaviour surely that would be passed a lot quicker than a new bill?  Also there should be more controls over cross breedings to improve health and welfare for the dogs themselves and reduce the number of irresponsible owners/breeders who do it for money and nothing more.  How many folk crossing the bull breeds actually do any health tests of either parent involved non that I'm aware of and yes it has made things very easy for the status symbol breeders to make a profit and avoid the DDA.

> I agree with the ban the deed not the breed

I think the flaw in "Deed not the Breed" is it requires the "Deed" to occur before you can do anything which, obviously, allows for tragedies to happen.  I do think some breeds represent a far greater danger to the public than others.

> I do think some breeds represent a far greater danger to the public than others.

This is very true Isabel, in the wrong hands and the problem with many breeds and crosses are that they do pose a problem, the Pitbull for instance, i do love this breed but i can see things becoming a huge problem if they did allow  this breed to become legal in this country, all the deeds committed shall we say, how many of these would go undetected , how many would be prosecuted?

I personally think the way its written at the moment plus adding in the 'deed' should be enough to cover it. A dangerous dog is a dangerous dog regardless of breed and this does need to be looked into further.

I also think there should be more to cover people being bitten/hurt in their own homes or private property to say the least.

> I also think there should be more to cover people being bitten/hurt in their own homes or private property to say the least.

As I understand it that is the only piece missing.  I thought deeds, regardless of breed, were already covered and that we are all already responsible if our dogs behave in a threatening manner in public let alone damaging.

This was a second reading of this bill and as pointed out in Our Dogs previously, there are a number of grey areas which will need addressing. So far I have not been able to get anyone involved to answer the questions I have about these grey areas. Below are three questions I have asked, but as yet have to get an answer to.

If it is claimed a dog has bitten someone and the owner is claiming the dog did it but was provoked, as in section 4 could it also happen that in the dispute the dog might have been seized and destroyed immediately, as stated in section 5, before the owner can organise a defence and save the dog? Does the power to seize and destroy allow an intervening time for the owners to get together their defence or could the dog be destroyed before this happens?

In section 2 I notice it says that an owner can be forced to microchip their dog. What should they do if they wish to have their dog tattooed instead? Or what if the dog is already tattooed?

Can you explain section 5 sub section 3 where it states a dog may be destroyed to protect it from suffering? Could this be a health and welfare thing or a way of stopping dog fighting?

> I do think some breeds represent a far greater danger to the public than others.

i have to say i disagree isabel, no breed is more or less dangerous than any other. lines might be, owners might be, specific dogs might be, even certain breeds in the wrong hands might be but i don't think any breed stands alone as more dangerous.

I'm sure we have had these discussions before but give me an irate Yorkie over an irate Pit Bull anyday :-).

> I'm sure we have had these discussions before but give me an irate Yorkie over an irate Pit Bull anyday :-).

perhaps, but there is nothing to say the pitbull will be irate. just because something has more destructive power in potential it does not necessitate that it is more destructive.

i;ve met more irate yorkies than bullbreeds :)

> i;ve met more irate yorkies than bullbreeds

I'd rather face 10 irate Yorkies than 1 irate Pit Bull :-)

>> I'd rather face 10 irate Yorkies than 1 irate Pit Bull :-)

thats not the point though, i'd rather face a yorkie than a cow but which is more likely to bite me?

to give a random example- a fully trained Shao-lin monk could obliterate you in a moment, doesn't mean they would

> i'd rather face a yorkie than a cow but which is more likely to bite me?
>

The Yorkie probably but it probably won't kill you.  That is my point.  The potential for harm does matter.

> The potential for harm does matter.

why?

Isn't it obvious?   Surely you can see a Yorkie bite is nothing to what a Pit Bull can do.

Isn't it obvious? <IMG alt=confused src="/images/confused.gif">&nbsp; Surely you can see a Yorkie bite is nothing to what a Pit Bull can do

similarly if i am hit by a bus it will do more damage than a scooter-so shall we ban buses?
or if i fall off of a pair of high heels its likely to hurt worse than slipping out of a flip flop-so shall i be a shorty for all time?
or or if i get in a car i'm more likely to have an accident than catching a bus- well, i don;t drive anyway so i'm good :)

so yes, the potential harm should that pitbull attack someone is likely to be greater than if it were a yorkie, but you cannot comment on a situation that has not occurred. its not fair to damn an entire group of anything for the potential harm they could cause- hippos are the biggest animal killer of humans in the world- shall we shoot them all just in case?

> hippos are the biggest animal killer of humans in the world- shall we shoot them all just in case?

No, just not keep them as domestic pets.

>> No, just not keep them as domestic pets.

not the point i was making. you shouldn't get rid of something because of its potential to harm, else there would be no dogs at all and we'd all probably be in prison :)

My point is you act proportionate to the danger and the benefits.  Buses are useful to us, hippos and Pit Bulls less so.

> Pit Bulls less so.

no less useful than your cockers or my bullies isabel, shall we ban them?

If they have the same potential for harm perhaps we should but I don't think either does.  Does it?

> If they have the same potential for harm perhaps we should but I don't think either does.&nbsp; Does it?

teeth. claws. instinct driven natures. all dogs have the same potential to react in some way and attack something so i would say yes. so what potential for harm don't your dogs have? i'm of course not saying they would but they do have that potential

similarly if i am hit by a bus it will do more damage than a scooter-so shall we ban buses?

But you do need to pass a more rigorous test to be in charge of a bus than a scooter?
Re Hippos & high heels. I'm well aware high heels are more risky than flipflops and choose not to wear them, I'm also aware that hippos are dangerous which is why if I am ever fortunate enough to see them in their natural state I would be cautious, people in charge of hippos are required to keep them under control due to their potential to do great harm as should all in charge of an animal with the potential to cause great damage.

(LOL I can't believe this line of conversation)

> LOL I can't believe this line of conversation

lol random is my middle name :) (actually they are suzanne fleming and mcavoy)

> But you do need to pass a more rigourous test to be in charge of a bus than a scooter?
>

ah see, now thats a good idea :) but i'd apply that to any dog.

i just hate anyone or anything being categorised a certain way because of how they look or where they come from. i've been a bullbreed owner all my life and have been a resposible one with generally well behaved, lovely dogs, but it still does not prevent the comments and critisisms that come simply from how my dogs look or are covered in the media.

i also get annoyed at people imagining dramatic circumstance and over reacting as a result. i'm not saying don't show due dilligence and care but i don't think its fair to judge a book by its cover.

> no less useful than your cockers or my bullies isabel, shall we ban them?

> If they have the same potential for harm perhaps we should but I don't think either does. Does it?

Bullies could potentially cause more damage than cockers so they should be banned.

Come to think of it, cockers could potentially cause much more damage than a chihuahua so let's ban them too.

All dangerous dog problems solved!

:-)

> Come to think of it, cockers could potentially cause much more damage than a chihuahua so let's ban them too.
>

and they more damage than a hamster so lets ban chi's

oh, but i was bitten by a hamster once...so maybe them to.

see? it gets silly. if an individual dog shows serious issues deal with it but banning whole breeds on the fact that why have some power behind them is silly

> being categorised a certain way because of how they look or where they come from.

It doesn't matter to me what they look like or where they come from.  Nor do I think I am being overdramatic or over reacting.  I am merely pointing out the obvious, despite your apparent inability to see it, that some dogs are so powerful and so tenacious that they represent a danger that is recognised as significant all around the world.

> that some dogs are so powerful and so tenacious

it is not the power or tenacity that is the issue, it is whether that power and tenacity are likely to cause harm. many dogs are more physically powerful than a pit but are we suggesting they be banned?

> I am merely pointing out the obvious, despite your apparent inability to see it

well i have to say that i think it is obvious that you cannot tar thousands of individuals with the same brush other than to denote principal physical characteristics but you seem to be unable to see that. clearly it is obvious that they have the potential to harm but potential is not destiny, it will not for certain come about.

> many dogs are more physically powerful than a pit but are we suggesting they be banned?

If they also have the other characteristics that mark the Pit Bull out then yes, I do, but then there are several other breeds similarly banned.
I don't see the point in you keep picking out one attribute and saying ah but this breed has that also, the point is when you put several attributes together you add up to something that probably is not a good idea to allow the general public to own.  I don't think that is difficult to understand so I can't see the point in adding anything further.  You either feel the same or you don't.

clearly i don't :)

it's not that i don't understand your pov isabel, i just don't agree with it, but such is the wonder of the world.

When this topic comes up again and again I always like to give the same argument. We all know that some breeds have traits bred into them and that even if they're not now chosen for these traits they still exist. Collies herd, hounds chase, labs retrieve things.... pitbulls were bred to fight, they were bred to keep fighting no matter what, no matter how much pain they were in or how badly injured they are, they'll keep fighting and that for me is the danger of the breed. If a gsd with a dodgy temperament attacks someone chances are a shout and a well placed kick will see it off. If a pitbull attacks someone they are likely to just keep biting even while they are been bashed over the head with a shovel. I'm not saying a pitbull is more likely to attack anyone than any other breed, I'm saying that they are genetically programmed to sustain the attack no matter what happens to them.

This is a very interesting study, and the most comprehensive study ever on dog attacks and deaths caused by dogs. You can clearly see that pitbulls are far more dangerous (have killed more people) than any other breeds of dog.

which is a fair point, though how many deaths constitute a breed being dangerous? but i still disagree with breed based legislation.

Regardless of whether it is the breed or the deed no dog needs to be put in danger of any sort. If this legisation stops some of the dog fighting crowd all well and good! I got this report from Dog Watch today so sad...

1.  Dead Bull Terrier Found

Larkmead Veterinary Centre in Wallingford report that a dog was found on a Farm in Fulscott on 23 April. She was a red/brown coloured bull terrier and was dead, in a bin liner, covered in puncture wounds from what appeared to be a dog fight.

In the same Dog Watch there was a lost chow spotted at Stoke Row, it had an Abingdon number on it's collar but managed to get away before a lead could be attached.

> Regardless of whether it is the breed or the deed no dog needs to be put in danger of any sort. If this legisation stops some of the dog fighting crowd all well and good! I got this report from Dog Watch today so sad...
>

a better reason in my view

The RSPCA officer on BBC was saying that since the ban there has been a big increase in Pit Bull types ending up in rescue.  He was saying that the Pit Bull was still a status symbol amongst yobs and to avoid attracting the law they cross the breed with other bull breeds such as Staffs making identification of the Pit Bull type cross virtually impossible without DNA testing.

It is all very well to say that the breed is not at fault but when the breed is being poorly bred or deliberately bred for fighting or guarding it puts people in danger. 

A recent "Animal Cops Detroit" was raiding a property for Pit Bull dogs being used for fighting.  The officer said that they have a big problem with this activity in Detroit and that dog fighting was generally linked to other crimes.  They were alerted to this particular property after someone had found a stray puppy of about 4 months which had been used as bait to train young Pit Bulls.  The poor thing was in a terrible state but that's how the PBTs are trained, on puppies.

Remember illegally bred PBTs are usually bred for temperament!

all of which are valid points. personally i would prefer if they introduced new legislation that it helped defend breeds from misuse but i also appreciate that that if far from likely

>personally i would prefer if they introduced new legislation that it helped defend breeds from misuse but i also appreciate that that if far from likely

A start would be prosecuting people involved in dog fights but you don't hear of that happening. Another would be removing PBTs from owners but that's obviously not happening either according to RSPCA.

Until PBTs become unfashionable with unsavouries they will be a dangerous breed IMO.

> A start would be prosecuting people involved in dog fights but you don't hear of that happening

indeed

> Until PBTs become unfashionable with unsavouries they will be a dangerous breed IMO

I agree with many other breeds as well. We haven't had a huge influx on the Boerbels(sp) or some of the other mastiff types which are popular in many other countries, which has to be a good thing at this time..