I don't care if it's sensationalist or overdone, it's about time the truth was rammed home, but oh lord, is it hard to bear......... *crying*

It's so sad but I agree people need to see what is going on.  I can't believe that the quick introduction to another dog deemed him dangerous but then maybe due to the sheer number of dogs they take in they aren't able to provide any training to help with dogs that may have issues :(

Watching this programme now, Ive put it on my status on fb, about this programme.

This is my current status

is watchin this panorama special. Think its awful, why so many staffy's are sent into rescue every year, many cant be rehomed because they are aggressive due to how they have been raised and bred. all these poor dogs just for some sort of fashion statement. and sent away for no good reason or dumped xx

This is a response

il second that hun, its not the dogs its the frikin owners! X .............. ( This is coming from someone who has bred 3 litters in the past 18 months the last 2 litters where bred from the bitch of the first litter, the dad of the last 2 litters being bred with her brother).

Wonder if she gets it now, fingers crossed eh!!!!

Watching it too - it needs to be done. None of these irresponsible people gives a damn about their dogs - not the ones they own or the ones they breed. They certainly don't give a damn about the staff who have to deal with their irresponsibility. You can say what you like about vets but the one on this programme cared more about the dog he was putting down than its owners or breeders ever did!

I've just decided to put it on - yep the last few minutes to be told that Battersea rehomed 1300 Staffs last year and then to see that poor dog which was pts, that set the tears flowing and the blood boiling :-(.....

None of the irresponsible owners or breeders will be watching either!

> it's about time the truth was rammed home

Articles in the London Morning newpaper (The Metro) and Evening Standard had quotes from Battersea Dogs home in which their source said:

"We killed 360 dogs in 1996 this year we are looking at 3,000.... yes I have used the word kill, it is time to stop with the eumphamisms of 'put to sleep' and 'euthanise'... people need to know the result of their breeding"
(Dogs that due to behavioural problems could not be re-homed for example)
I haven't quoted that exactly! It's just what I remember from the article, but the point is He's dead right in regards to the word Kill versus words like 'euthanise'

But still we get questions on this forum from people with a 'nice staffy' who they want to have pups :-(

The vet on there now is quite choked up he's vocation is to save animals not to put them to sleep(unless for health reasons),also the man that has a litter of staffies saying "If a buyer is prepared to spend £250.00 he expects that they will have a good home" I think not as I have have a Boston as well as a Boxer and if you look on a certain web site for pups of the Boston Terrier breed there are so many cross bred ones for these designer dog breeds someone has originally paid £1500.00 for a Boston bitch in the first place so I dont think that him saying what he said will make one jot of difference.Same that most of the yobs that have these status dogs wont be watching the programme,though I doubt that they really care. : (

and others will say it won't happen to one of mine.

> eumphamisms

!!??
euphemisms!
Sorry everyone! I've sneaked some time on the PC I shouldn't be here, so am rushing and forgot to spellcheck :-(

It's here if you didn't watch it or are strong enough to watch again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tcfmp/Panorama_Britains_Unwanted_Pets/

Heartbreaking, frustrating and ANGRY!
What realistically can be done??.  Wish everyone was made to watch it especially the idiots who back street breed.

> Wish everyone was made to watch it especially the idiots who back street breed.

So so sad but I don't think it would make any difference. I believe there is a large minority of people who have such little respect for themselves or anything else for that matter. Life becomes cheap, disposable and it is mirrored by the way they look after and treat their dogs. It's careless, thoughtless and an easy way to make a few pounds .

The programme has all the main charities calling for an annual dog license which they are convinced will stop this. I cannot see how, but as soon as the Dog Advisory council is set up they will have a lot of say in dog breeding and welfare so it looks as though we are yet again to be taxed because the E***z type breeder keeps irresponsibly churning out puppies.

Over the last two years I have written for the paper several articles from rescues and councils all saying the same regarding this situation, one council man was tearful when he told me that for the first time ever he is "having to put dogs mostly staffies and staffie crosses to sleep", because they cannot re-home. He did say he felt the media focusing on the status symbol dog and making out staffy types to be dangerous dogs does put people off taking them on. Perhaps the general media should take some responsibilty as well.

> but oh lord, is it hard to bear

Oh boy, yes, it certainly is.  I made myself watch it all the way through, and wonder now, if us "responsible" owners should continue to breed.

My breed only has small litters, but if I sold no pups at all, perhaps there would be more homes available to these poor creatures.

It is extremely thought provoking anyway.  And yes, I cried too.

> Perhaps the general media should take some responsibilty as well.

Isn't general media & responsibilty an oxymoron.

mmmmm......

lol

> so sad but I don't think it would make any difference. I believe there is a large minority of people who have such little respect for themselves or anything else for that matter. Life becomes cheap, disposable and it is mirrored by the way they look after and treat their dogs.

So very sad and alas I agree, this is the truth. :-(

Its all part of a deteriorating society where people know their 'rights' but ignore the responsibilities that come with these rights. Its quite horrendous that after all these years Battersea Dogs Home still has to exist in a modern society and is needed more than ever.

I see no point in having a return to the dog licence as irresponsible people will ignore it whilst the responsible ones bear the brunt. However if they made some sort of provision for learning about the care of dogs before you could obtain the licence then maybe it would do some good. I just don't know how they could enforce it? Maybe instead of a paper licence they should produce a highly visible dog tag similar to the tax disc system. If your dog is out in public it must wear the dog tag which needs renewed each year along with a microchip that can be traced back to a breeder who would then have to take responsibility for any puppies rescued. To renew the licence you would need to have your dogs microchip scanned. As with all systems it will be difficult to make it work but something needs to be done.

The owners whose dogs are handed in to rescue and cannot be rehomed due to behaviour issues should be made to attend while their dog is put to sleep. It might just make them think twice about having another dog.

My breed only has small litters, but if I sold no pups at all, perhaps there would be more homes available to these poor creatures.

I don't think so Jean. People who aren't looking for a Staffie or Staffie cross in the first place aren't going to get one because they can't get the breed they want. If there were NO other breed of dog available in the world than Staffies, personally I'd rather not have a dog at all. I don't mean that in a nasty way, I just mean that we all have a type of dog we know suits us, and others we know we simply couldn't live with. People looking for a small fluffy toydog, or a Golden Retriever, or any other type of dog the complete opposite, are very unlikely to decide on a Staffie instead.

Ditto Marianne, even though one of my favourite dogs as a character was my Art Teachers Staff as a breed I would not want to own one.

could solve the problem overnight.
NO unneutered dogs in houses being paid for by houseing benefit. a small tattoo in ear to show that they have been done. houseing benefit withdrawn if any dog over year old found to be unneutered in house.

I'm sorry but there are probably many people in dogs who are on a fixed Income, Pension etc who qualify for some benefit.

weimed, who will police all that?

>NO unneutered dogs in houses being paid for by houseing benefit.

So if you get made redundant (very common in the current economic climate) and are entitled to the state support that you've contributed to for years, you have to get your dog neutered?

I know this is not the complete answer but I feel it does go along way towards some form of control, tracability. My appologies to those that have read my suggestions before.

Everyone who wishes to breed from their female dog must apply through the Council for a casual dog breeders licence. That enables them to breed from their dog only once. That breeding bitch must be identifiable by microchip, DNA or tattoo. All puppies prior to sale must be made identifiable before sale this is the responsiblity of the breeder. All advertisement offering the puppies for sale must carry the breeders licence number issued by the Council. If this breeder sells to a dealer, wholesaler or pet shop (hopefully not) or to a private individual all details of breeder, puppies ID and licence number must be passed to the next purchaser.  The breeding female must after giving birth once, be spayed and the details of the spaying from the vet must go to the Council together with ID details. If the owner of the female dog wishes to sell, rehome or send the dog to rescue all details re ID and spaying must accompany the dog and transfered to the new owner.

This would stop repeat matings by irresponsible people, it would cover ID because the dog would always be tracable it would cut down the cost to rescues as the female would already be spayed and have ID. All it would need is admin work.

If a person wished to breed from their female dog more than once then they would have to apply for a commercial licence through the Council which could operate the same but limit the number of litters to perhaps 4 up to the age of 8 years. Plus many more rules and regs due to them operating a business and breeding commercially but will not go into that right now.

I know hobby breeders will say but we only bred for show but they too have to sell and some time advertise litters that are sold as 'pet only' so there is no reason why they should they be excluded from being licenced too. The 4 litter rule in 12 months, then need to be licenced is a nonsense and allows far too many to breed uncontrolled.  Maybe it could be said that slightly controllable if all breeders reg litters with the KC but not all breeders do and what of the all the 'poos' that are bred as a fashion statement just like the staffies but for different reasons the litters of  'poos' are not registered with the KC and tracable and some of their breeders like wise.

There has to be a way found to make, through legislation, to make people responsible for what they breed and sell, legislation needs to start at the grass roots with the breeder it is the breeder that must take some responsibility  for the over production of puppies and dogs and those ending in rescue equally as much as the final owner. Some dogs in rescue have found their way there through no fault of their own, sometimes their owners have done so reluctantly although on balance I fear it is a too easy option for some to give up on their dog as rescues have an open door for all the unwanted offering an easy solution to many.

I do not have all the answers but I do think this could go someway towards controlling the dog population and easing the pressure on rescues.            
 

> That enables them to breed from their dog only once.

That's exactly the kind of breeding we don't need.

A one off litter does not generally contribute anything to furthering a breed.

If the plan is for the breeder to take one litter only, then they would be better not bothering.

Every litter should ideally be part of the bigger picture, a breeding strategy/plan.

One litter from a bitch or dog tells you very little about their potential, what they are contributing to the gene pool etc.

> I see no point in having a return to the dog licence as irresponsible people will ignore it whilst the responsible ones bear the brunt. However if they made some sort of provision for learning about the care of dogs before you could obtain the licence then maybe it would do some good. I just don't know how they could enforce it?

I agree with you here Dakkobear.  Not aimed at you, just generally - I think any form of legislation is likely to impinge further on responsible breeders and not stop irresponsible idiots.  There will be plenty that disagree but obviously the main reason bull breeds and their crosses are abandoned is because most people can't cope with them.

Why should Crested breeders, Pom breeders, Dachshund breeders, Leonberger breeders, Irish Terrier breeders etc etc etc be tied up with red tape because the breed of choice for most BYB's and stupid prats is Staffs and their crosses?? 

I don't think breeding licences and owning licences should be brought in to cover all dogs/breeds but to start with bull breeds.  And I know this is tough and does penalise a lot of responsible bull breed owners but the reality is is that it's these types of dog are the biggest problem, by a long long shot. 

It should be so unattractive for the general public to want to own a Bull type and so difficult for them that they don't bother. 

It is unthinkable that 99% of the dog breeds in this country and their owners/breeders would come under extensive legislation that need only apply to bull breeds.

Sorry but it's really starting to get my goat!

ANY legislation brought in will only be adhered to by LAW abiding citizens.

A large percentage of the dogs in last nights programme would not have been bred by such people.

Lets face it..... NO legislation is enforceable with this strata of the community, fines/community service are the best that can used against them and these are flouted routinely....many have no 'earned' income.

Now that financial cuts are being rolled out in councils and police forces throughout the country ......ANY deterents will be unenforcable.

Absolutely.  Decent responsible breeders and owners would go out PAY for all the licences etc that they need for fear of breaking the law and the idiots would just carry on regardless.  GBH, assault, theft isn't legal but is an activity most of the stereotypical bull cross hoodie owners partake in I expect... can't see them rushing out to get a dog licence.

> I agree with you here Dakkobear.  Not aimed at you, just generally - I think any form of legislation is likely to impinge further on responsible breeders and not stop irresponsible idiots.  There will be plenty that disagree but obviously the main reason bull breeds and their crosses are abandoned is because most people can't cope with them.
>
> Why should Crested breeders, Pom breeders, Dachshund breeders, Leonberger breeders, Irish Terrier breeders etc etc etc be tied up with red tape because the breed of choice for most BYB's and stupid prats is Staffs and their crosses?? 
>
> I don't think breeding licences and owning licences should be brought in to cover all dogs/breeds but to start with bull breeds.  And I know this is tough and does penalise a lot of responsible bull breed owners but the reality is is that it's these types of dog are the biggest problem, by a long long shot. 
>
> It should be so unattractive for the general public to want to own a Bull type and so difficult for them that they don't bother. 
>
> It is unthinkable that 99% of the dog breeds in this country and their owners/breeders would come under extensive legislation that need only apply to bull breeds.
>
> Sorry but it's really starting to get my goat!

So what happens to those of us who ARE responsible bull breed owners, not breeders, just owners?
I'd do my utmost to own my two Staffords, whatever it took.  Is that what you mean?  Because as Tooolz has said only the responsible will adhere to any sort of new legislation or restrictions anyway!

Edited to say, just seen your reply below Toolz reply molezak.

There is not going to be a perfect answer but why should a Yorkie owner suffer the same restrictions as the prat down the road with his out of control bull cross?  You tell me that all the so-called Pit Bull types aren't mainly Staff cross something? 

If to start with Staffs were licenced then a long way down the road there would be fewer of them as they'd be more difficult to own in the first place so hopefully lose their popularity therefore less about to cross with other breeds.

If to start with Staffs were licenced then a long way down the road there would be fewer of them as they'd be more difficult to own in the first place so hopefully lose their popularity therefore less about to cross with other breeds.

If that was true, there'd be no Pit Bulls now, they'd have died out. Instead they are thriving (and still killing children) -because the law requiring a license to own them made them more desirable by the wrong people.

Brainless

I understand what you are saying and breeding without an individual doing their homework is not something I would encourage but we have to accept that there are many individuals that do breed. Backyard breeders that think it it a good idea to let their bitch have a litter of puppies, then go onto breed another litter and the chain of irresponsibility continues. Just look at the free ads or web sites that offer advertising space, they are filled with puppies for sale of every popular breed, including older puppies under 1 year old.  Some individuals will continue to breed up to and over the time they need to be licenced and still not apply for a licence. There has to be a way of curbing the masses. There are so many breeding for the sake of it or thinking it is a easy way of getting some added finance, they are only interested in the reward as they see it at the end and nothing else. They ae not concerned with gentics, hereditary traits or diseases and no doubt would not know what anyone was talking about if it was suggested to them at the moment because there is no legal requirement to make them have those concerns before mating two dogs and producing a litter of puppies.   But my way they may have to think about before requesting a licence to breed, the same would apply for a commercial licence.  What other way do you suggest to halt the stem of over breeding and irresponsible breeding? I am not speaking of puppy farming commercial breeding, I am refering to the masses of staffies as an example, fashionable x breeds or any other breed that is flavour of the month. 

I should have added that in the original document I did put if the casual breeder wanted to breed from a female dog then they should partake in all BVA/KC schemes appropiate to the pedigree breed they wish to breed from prior to applying for a licence. I think that would better answer your concerns, sorry I wrote the response in  haste and missed out a very important  point.      

> There is not going to be a perfect answer but why should a Yorkie owner suffer the same restrictions as the prat down the road with his out of control bull cross?  You tell me that all the so-called Pit Bull types aren't mainly Staff cross something? 
>
> If to start with Staffs were licenced then a long way down the road there would be fewer of them as they'd be more difficult to own in the first place so hopefully lose their popularity therefore less about to cross with other breeds.

I understand what you're saying molezak.
I don't know if it would work, I don't know the answers.
And as I've said, I personally WOULD licence my Staffords if I had to.  Or anything else for that matter, if it was required.

Why should ANY responsible dog owner suffer the same restrictions as the "prat" down the road with his out of control bull cross?

> You tell me that all the so-called Pit Bull types aren't mainly Staff cross something?

I don't doubt what you're saying.  The undesirable element that tend to own Stafford crosses and pass them off as a pitbull type, because it seems to enhance their status - in their minds - are certainly at fault.

But as others have pointed out, and I do too. Responsible, sensible owners will adhere to rules and regs.  Irresponsible owners/breeders will not. 

No they won't you are absolutely right therefore there is absolutely no point introducing something that would penalise more responsible owners than is necessary.

What if instead of saying 'all bull types to be licensed', list all the specific breeds that do not need licensing?  Maybe a three tier rule - no licence (big majority of breeds), licencing and then strict licencing with neutering?  TBH would it be a ridiculous idea to licence the breeders of the most over-bred breeds?  Labs/GSD's etc etc?  Could this possibly do their actual breed any harm?  It would harm minority breeds no end to the point of their non-existence in this country in a matter of one (dog) generation - a no-brainer in my mind.

Crossbreeds would be difficult of course to sort out and we never could immediately, but if we started by licensing all Staffie owners and breeders, in the long run there will be less to get in the wrong hands to breed with other breeds.  If a Staff wasn't owned by a decent, registered, licensed breeder/owner it has to be neutered.... that sounds really harsh even writing it myself but aside from banning dog breeding completely how do you ever even start to sort the problem out? 

Whatever legislation is brought in, it will penalise someone who it is not necessarily designed to penalise, but what about damage limitation?

JMO!

Maybe a three tier rule - no licence (big majority of breeds), licencing and then strict licencing with neutering?

But WHY would that work now when it did NOT work with Pit Bulls?

Well one of the probs with the whole pit bull thing was that there was this whole thing about experts having to confirm pit bull type.

If it was just bull type that had to recognised, surely that would be simpler?  Not fail safe but simpler surely.

There are no and never were any KC registered Pit Bulls obviously before the 1991 DDA but there are thousands of registered traceable Staffs etc so they can be instantly recognised and licenced whatever. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but there are not that many breeds that could resemble a pit bull type when crossed with another other than Staffs, Bull Terriers etc.  I know you can argue well put a Great Dane to Lab etc but this is going to be far harder for the idiots than to put a Staff x Lab to a 3/4 Staff isn't it?

Believe me I know I am really not suggesting a perfect solution but the main problem with 1991 DDA was all those 'innocent' dogs being seized for just being Staffy/Bull Terrier crosses etc...  I'm not suggesting euthanasia or muzzling, simply licensing/registration/compulsory identification (and neuteuring in the case of novice owners whatever) of these same dogs. 

Every day on another website my husband frequents there are reams of Bull x this and Bull x that for sale or just showing off... the litter photos are usually horrifying, all look badly reared and this is a working dogs website so I don't need to go into what they are used for... most of them do not give a damn where their pups go and breed purposely for the hardest bull cross they can with absolutely no regard for where these dogs might end up :-(

Something harsh needs doing but like I said, it needn't involve breeds which are obviously never going to be abused this in this way to create a 'hard dog'.  There is no place in modern society for 'hard dogs' anymore.  These breeds (and I love them despite what my opinion now is) are being terribly abused and it seems a vast majority are ending up in the wrong hands because of the way they look which comprises their own lives as well as those of humans and others animals.  I really hate to say it but maybe a hard line would be to gradually phase them out :-(

IMO any licensing specific to certain breeds will do the same as the Dangerous Dogs Act.   This was the origin of the Bull Crosses.  Until then people wanted Tosas, Pitbulls etc, but because they became illegal crosses were developed to get around the Act.

The same would happen again.  Once upon a time it was German Shepherds/Alsatians, then it was Dobermanns, then Rottweilers.  I had never even heard of a Dogue de Bordeaux or Neopolitan, let alone saw one until after the Dangerous Dogs Act ;)  there will ALWAYS be a fashion for owning 'hard-looking' dogs amongst certain parts of society.

My personal opinion is that LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE should be used.  If the will was there and the resources, much of the problem would disappear, there are already laws regarding threatening and abusive behaviour, the powers that be simply need to take a harder line regarding them.    BYBs would think twice if they thought that the taxman was on to them.  Can't understand why the Inland Revenue aren't continually trolling certain websites as a matter of course, there's rich pickings there for a start ;)

Umm, you are right, the DDA needs an overhaul and proper enforcing but I still stand by my tiered legislation as that would cover what you say about moving onto other breeds - control the breeding/ownership of those too?

I really cannot understand how good responsible owners of all the breeds that are being used in this way could ever object to tougher laws to stop them being used as weapons and status symbols.

Again, explain to me why should a Pom or a Pap or a Glen of Imaal breeder have to be regulated like a Staff, Rottie, Dobe or GSD breeder?  You say in the DDA they banned Tosas, Dogos etc, yes they did but they weren't even close to the number of those in the UK as there were of GSD's, Dobes etc so of course it was easy for the morons to get into those instead.

Again, explain to me why should a Pom or a Pap or a Glen of Imaal breeder have to be regulated like a Staff, Rottie, Dobe or GSD breeder?

Don't forget that when the DDA was brought in there was a LOT of people that wanted Rottweilers included. At that time, no Pit Bull had ever killed a child in the UK, but Rottweilers had. The last thing you want to do is open the floodgates. I remember a case where a Yorkie bit several fingers off a baby.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there are not that many breeds that could resemble a pit bull type when crossed with another other than Staffs, Bull Terriers etc.  I know you can argue well put a Great Dane to Lab etc but this is going to be far harder for the idiots than to put a Staff x Lab to a 3/4 Staff isn't it?

You will instantly get the required look by using a Rottweiler. Similar head type. Very easy for people to do. Back in the 1980s I used to walk a Labrador x Rottweiler who looked just like an oversized Staffie -or even Pit Bull.
Oh, and edited to say -Boxers. Again there you have a similar head type.

I totally know what you are saying Marianne but realistically the government is going to bring something in I expect whether we like it or not and I for one would prefer to see minority/less risky breeds more exempt than more risky breeds, do you not see what I'm saying?  We have a GSD and a Dobe so I know I'd be facing something too.

> Don't forget that when the DDA was brought in there was a LOT of people that wanted Rottweilers included. At that time, no Pit Bull had ever killed a child in the UK, but Rottweilers had. The last thing you want to do is open the floodgates. I remember a case where a Yorkie bit several fingers off a baby.

The DDA was very flawed that's why it needs overhauling or replacing completely

In some boroughs of London the councils are having to replace the seats on the kids swings because they are being used to train their 'bandogs'... pit/staff types.

Police and Council are unable to do anything to stop them...why are posters still saying regulate this/ ban that /license the next thing..

They cant enforce any of these suggestions.

No you are right, like how we never stop murderers, rapists etc but what on earth do we do then? :-(

The only answer is to make the breeder responsible for what they breed along with the owner. 

All puppies must be traceable to an owner or breeder, they should be identified soon after birth, or failing that when they first visit the vet.

If a dog is abandoned/given up to rescue the person responsible for it (owner and or breeder)should have to pay (unless they have extenuating circumstances). 

Harsh as it seems, people should not think they have put a dog into rescue to find a new home, if they aren't prepared to help home the dog/pay for it's kennelling then it is Put to sleep in front of them, not kidding themselves and salving their conscience.

We have on the one hand good breeders being really upset when an owner re-homes without contacting them first (someone alerted me to someone trying to do this, and we got the info to the breeder and they have the dog back), and then people quite blatantly abandoning dogs for someone else to pick up the pieces, or silly/uncaring BYB's who don't think they are contributing to the rescue problem, but wouldn't' dream of taking responsibility.

As long as people are prepared to buy these puppies then they will be bred.

What used to happen to unplanned litters when they were a drain on the bitches owner and unlikely to find a home, or only for free?  They were drowned, and the owner much more careful about their bitch next season.

Thing is they go not having their own children in the same careless fashion.

Unfortunately any law or legislation always effects those most who abide by them, as they end up having to pay for those that don't. Again unfortunately, this applies to dog ownership in all it's different forms but all agree that something should be done. As some have previously said, surely this is to register/identify all dogs and puppies from source (I only know of micro chipping, tattoo, or DNA) so all are traceable.  To purchase, a form could be got from let say local council (so your residential address can be checked for nominal fee and I mean nominal), next an appointment stamp from vet of choice to register with them with an appointment date for health checks ect. To purchase pup, you have to have the form and vet stamp. Then when appointment at vet is kept, identitiy of dog/puppy can be checked and registered, original form stamped and sent off (to somewhere) who will then send back an individual dog tag/disk that has to be worn when ever out and has to be renewed yearly with appropriate checks on health and ownership. Ok I can see problems, but I believe that every dog should be identifiable and traceable.

> The same would happen again.  Once upon a time it was German Shepherds/Alsatians, then it was Dobermanns, then Rottweilers.  I had never even heard of a Dogue de Bordeaux or Neopolitan, let alone saw one until after the Dangerous Dogs Act ;-)  there will ALWAYS be a fashion for owning 'hard-looking' dogs amongst certain parts of society.
>

Yep we now have American bulldogs and similar, Cane Corso, Boerbel (sp), Presa Canario(sp).

Do we really need to be importing such new breeds?