Second part of this programme is on tonight at 9pm. Let us know what you think :)

Watching the pitbull part was realy sad that guy was so upset they were taking his dog. But I was wondering with the one befor it they said it was on the registered on the exempt list but the insurance was lapsed, so a court must have agreed the dog did not pose a danger for it to be on the list so why did they need all those guys with shields? Also they then said the dog passed its test and was returned so why was it tested again if it was only the insurance that was the problem??

.
Let us know what you think

The aliens have landed!
.

> Watching the pitbull part was realy sad that guy was so upset they were taking his dog.

No sympathy at all. He knew he had one of 'those breeds' and yet he did not follow the guidelines to stay the right side of the law and thus he unnecessarily, endangered his dogs life. How stupid was he. He clearly loved his dog very much and yet he was willing to play Russian Roulette with it's life.

agree with admin, if you love your dog that much you will do anything for it including complying with the law to make sure it's safe. Was good to see improvement on the GSD, he was a lovely dog. Was it really necessary to show the dog being put to sleep and then being placed in a plastic bag? that was just shock tactics for the sake of a good programme. It was nice to hear that the blame was placed squarely on the owners rather than the dogs for a change, there are few "bad" dogs but thousands of bad owners in this country.

No sympathy at all. He knew he had one of 'those breeds'
But we don't know if he brought him as a pup as a staffy cross or if he brought him as a pitbull. He may habe brought him as a cross and only found out he was type later on.

I've herd of this happening to people online they brought a pup as a staffy or a staffy mix and later when it grows up people start telling them it looks like a pitbull. There then to afraid of police taking and killing it to seek advice so they carry on hoping that if it's well behaved no one will report it.

One concern which applies to all dog owners is that sooner or later a new, or several new, canine diseases may evolve from these situations, or maybe new strains of existing diseases not susceptible to existing treatments.
.

I've herd of this happening to people online they brought a pup as a staffy or a staffy mix and later when it grows up people start telling them it looks like a pitbull. There then to afraid of police taking and killing it to seek advice so they carry on hoping that if it's well behaved no one will report it.

It's still no excuse. The information is out there and these days all you need is a mobile to Google. If somebody drove a car without insurance or had a TV without a license they could not use the excuse they didn't know they needed it. It comes back to the usual thing -people getting a dog without having done any research.

Was it really necessary to show the dog being put to sleep and then being placed in a plastic bag? that was just shock tactics for the sake of a good programme.

Shock tactics ARE needed in my opinion -after all even though the breeding of Pit Bulls was banned in 1991, they are still being bred, so anything that may get people to think before breeding has to be a good thing.

I liked that episode better than the first one actually. I did feel kind of sorry for the 2 people whose pitbulls were seized - I suppose the unscrupulous owners would just move / hide them if they left them with the owners though. Very sad about the stray one who was pts too. Nice to see a programme making it clear it is so often the owners or badly managed breeders. I wonder what was wrong with the 6 year old staffy at the beginning of the programme, my guess was either medical issues causing change in behaviour, or dog teased beyond endurance by kids just have had enough.

I wonder what was wrong with the 6 year old staffy at the beginning of the programme, my guess was either medical issues causing change in behaviour, or dog teased beyond endurance by kids just have had enough.

Quite possible -and what annoyed me was that the owner just copped out. Would any of us here hand our dog over to the dog warden to be put to sleep? No we would shoulder our responsibility and take it to the vet ourselves -after having consulted a behaviourist. Then again I suppose the dog warden isn't charging....!!

They did, he said it would cost the owner £125 for the pts, more then I've paid a vet myself

Oh I missed that. Odd then to go down that route!

I couldn't believe the callousness  of the owner giving that Staffie up to be pts, it annoys me beyond reason that people will fork out money to buy a puppy, but then suddenly can't afford to take responsibility for it.
I thought this program was the better of the two and did a pretty good job of highlighting the reasons behind the dog problems in this country.
It also did a good job at showing how inadequate the current laws are at dealing with people like Vanessa, I would have charged the lot of them for smoking round those puppies !.

It also did a good job at showing how inadequate the current laws are at dealing with people like Vanessa

Her relatives (?) said she had been banned from keeping animals in 2011 for 5 years. So why did the dog warden not simply contact the police? They could have removed all the animals. Did I miss something? (Have to say that a litter of 7 pups can be REALLY noisy when playing and hence I miss a lot said on TV in the evenings just recently LOL!)

Also, does anyone now why a DOG warden would deal with cats and gerbils etc?

> Also, does anyone now why a DOG warden would deal with cats and gerbils etc?

Most are classed as Animal Wardens, not specifically Dog.

I thought the ban finished in 2011 hence getting all the animals after the ban had finished. I hated my name before now even more (Vannessa) lol

He may habe brought him as a cross and only found out he was type later on.
 

Then he should have complied with the law when he did find out, I am glad he got the dog back, it looked a very nice dog and he was genially upset about his dog going, but, he should have done what he needed to do as soon as he found out he had a possible banned dog.

The woman who stood outside in the bedsheet, I had not sympathy at all, she knew what she had and could not be bothered to renew her licence.

The poor dog being PTS was hard to watch but shock tactics was needed,    the hoarder...well did they not say she had a ban, yet was allowed to keep all those dogs.

I believe the laws are there, those in charge are just not enforcing them. Given the state of the previous property why was she moved into another flat with all her dogs. She clearly had issues which should have been flagged up to social services, the housing provider and a body who would have had the power to remove those puppies. She did not have the capacity to look after those dogs - she wasnt even allowing them access to the garden initially. I still think the dog warden needed further training you don't just shriek oh my god oh my god surely you sit someone down tell them what is expected and what the consequences are if this is not adhered to?

I have worked with a lot of situations similar to this.  in fact the Police Dog Handler who was speaking on camera is an ex colleague of mine. But when i was looking for advice on getting a puppy i came here. 

It is sad that they also don't seem to approach breeders to educate the general public when these programmes are made, as it leads to a huge misconception about these breeds.  When I worked in Housing we regularly had briefings about the "dangerous breeds" but it was very much limited to what our legal requirements were not on educating us or the owners on the unfairness of having a bull terrier on one of the higher floors of a block of flats with no garden even if that is glaringly obvious.

so anything that may get people to think before breeding has to be a good thing.

I 'think' the faculty of 'thought' was outside the perameters of the 2 legged species highlighted in the programm.
.

I found this 2nd episode somewhat lighter than the 1st one but it didn't stop me getting very angry again. The dog warden needs further training if she stays in the job. It seems to me she was taking on the job discription of an RSPCA inspector. Perhaps a touch of delusions of grandur lol. Mind you, when you look at how the woman, (her boss), acted its not so surpising at the wardens behaviour. Her boss appeared a total drip.
The pitbull seized by the police had not been castrated and the owner kept saying "they'll castrate him and he'll be differant" These people who don't have their entire males cut infuriate me.
The woman with all the Staffy's and puppies should have been reported again. People like her take no notice of bans.
What I don't understand is, surely someone from the rspca watched these programs, why oh why haven't they done something. Those poor dogs.

surely someone from the rspca watched these programs, why oh why haven't they done something.

I thought that last week but last night the warden said something from one of the cruelty acts, it amounted to: if the animal has food & water  then theres nothing in law which would stick in court, that seemed the basic gist of it.
.

I found the second part of this programme more hard hitting than the first.

The whole Vanessa thing with pups, mounting dogs that will probably lead to pregnancy so soon after the current litter, despite one of the males being neutered afterwards and complete neglect of other animals, very difficult to stomach. I know that we aren't meant to be judge and jury but this woman should not be in charge of a goldfish, who have comparatively low needs compared to other species. And having a cigarette hanging out of her mouth whilst handling pups....:-( :-(  It was totally ludicrous that they couldn't legally seize all animals in her care, yet seize PBT's because they are a banned breed because of some ill thought out, knee jerk reaction law on the part of the Government back in 1988. Yes, I do agree that playing russian roulette with your dogs life is irresponsible and no, the owner doesn't deserve any sympathy but looking at the dogs involved, it is the deed and not the breed that should be dealt with. There are lots of breeds that are just as capable of inflicting the damage that this breed can, yet these other breeds are still allowed to be bred and owned legally. I think that the programme was edging towards the stupidity of the law, in its depiction of the how the PBT is dealt with. 

Overall, I found this deeply depressing and don't think that in the long run, it will make one iota of difference. Like laws that come in for dogs, only the responsible dog owners act on it, not the the irresponsible. They will just continue to behave as they as always have! Thoroughly unpleasant viewing.

Wish I could see this show in Canada.

knee jerk reaction law on the part of the Government back in 1988

It was not 'just' the gov of the day, the RSPCA were the biggest voice shouting for ban for a couple of years before that, in fact they had been campaigning for  a ban since APBT started to come into UK in early 1980's when a Candian guy introduced them here, they (RSPCA) came out with stuff such as they had a special part of the brain which caused aggression & similar sci-fi stuff & numerous other etc's.
.