No I'm not another person looking for a pit bull terrier. However, I have been reding through some old message boards out of interest. I seem to recall the banning of dogs coming in at a time when pit bull terriers were getting a lot of bad press. I also seem to recall rotties and akitas were included in this bad press too. My question is why did rottweilers and akitas not get banned but other breeds such as the tosa, fila brasilerio, dogo argentino, am staff etc, etc did? Who decided which breeds were to be outlawed and based on what reasons/evidence. I was not even aware that there was a significant population of tosas/ fila in the country.

Rottys and Akitas...? If the Government had followed that slippery road, where would it have led... Mastiffs, Bull Terriers, Bulldogs, Boxers, Dobermans, the stopping point would have been where?

Easy opt out was to include any dogs which could (would!) have been used by the some people to side step the APBT conformation/description, many people thought the APBT, Am Staff and Dogo to be the same dog, so all included under the description of "Dogs of the Type"... sneaky!

Tosas (only 1 in the country?) and Filas I would imagine would have been seen as the next inevitable threat/trend, so easy to include to the list.

The DDA was basically brought out as a "keep the public happy and be seen to be doing something" exercise .
There are alot more breeds named in other countries in their breed specific legislation . In one , even collies must wear muzzles .

The new Italian legislation includes Newfies, Saints, all the collies, Shelties, Corgis, Schipperkes and Affenpinchers (!) among their potentially dangerous and to be muzzled in public breeds. It is also now illegal for a minor to own one of these breeds in Italy. The world is going mad!
Janet

unfortunatly, things like akitas and pit-bulls have horrible reputations, i work with dogs almost every day and every akita, pitbull, staffy, rottie (and even those horribly vicious collies, lol) are all superb dogs, i believe that akitas are the only dogs in the uk that have to be shot on site! Shocking! I also work with two incredibly large mastiffs, bell and tiger, weighing in at over a combined weight of 30stone, if you met them, yould never say nething bad about them again, theyre as playfull as kittens and as cuddly as teddybears!

Can you point me to any legislation that mentions about AKitas being shot ? Are you in the UK Chris? This is the first time I have heard of this.
I take it you mean they should be shot during a disturbance so to speak and not just shot when seen as you have posted ;)

It was easy to ban the dogs that did not affect the votes. When the ban came in there was only one known Tosa in the uk No known filas nad know known dogo argantinos. Most APBT owners were not the type to vote.
Mick

Hi Chris, not too sure I would want to meet a very playfull anything weighing in at 30 stone. Feel sore already.

I think you have things slightly off base there Chris. There is NO dog in the UK to be shot on sight! As guns are not normally carried in the UK except by criminals it would not even be possible! :)

Regards, John

Hi John

Isn't it still legal for farmers to shoot any dog on site if it's worrying sheep? I know this law was still in use quite recently.

I know that you were talking about dogs under DDA but to say 'NO dog can be shot on sight because no one usually carries guns in the UK but criminals' may also be a bit off base.

Regards

When on any enclosed land with sheep all dogs must be on a lead or 'under close control'. If you allow your dog to worry livestock you can be prosecuted and fined, ordered to pay compensation, and even have the dog destroyed. Now who's worried? Worrying livestock means attacking or chasing any farm animal or poultry - there does not have to be any contact.

Any dog which is not a working dog can be regarded as worrying livestock merely by being off a lead or not under close control in a field or enclosure where there are sheep. A landowner can lawfully shoot such a dog, and the dog's owner can then be subject to all the above penalties too. So be careful! In such an instance the landowner has to report the matter to the police within 48 hours.

Thanks Tohme

Thought it was still legal practice for farmers to shoot dogs on sight if thought to be worrying sheep but then laws do get changed and you can miss it!!

If you re-read Chris's post, dog behaviour, s/he implied that Akitas are the only breed that must be shot on sight! And that is simply false - as John said, there is no particular dog (or breed of dog) which is to be shot on sight.
:)

That was exactly what I meant Jeangenie.
As far as farmers shooting dogs is concerned, even that is not an open and shut case The farmer must be able to prove the dog is out of control and that he fears for the safety of his livestock. It is not a licence to shoot anything which he sees in the field! This has been found in the courts!

Regards, John

Hi JG

I had read Chris's post and did say that I realised it was about 'banned breeds' in my post.

However, as we all know there is a whole range of people who use this site for advice and information. It ranges from the very inexperienced to the very experienced dog owner. It is important that posters and readers are clear in what is said or meant. If a very inexperienced dog owner was happily walking their dog across farmland, their dog joyfully racing about only to be shot by a farmer how would we feel if the shocked owner said 'I didn't think anything like this could happen - I thought no dogs could be shot on sight in the UK - no-one but criminals carry guns'.

See quote of law on worrying livestock by Tohme above - the dog does not have to have worried, injured or killed sheep - it merely has to be off the lead!!

This was not a challenge to John JG - far from it. I'm sure John himself knows that I respect his experience with dogs and value his advice - I ask specifically for it myself.

It is hard to keep up with current legislation that we may know about - it is even harder to keep abreast of new introductions or deletions. Ignorance of it could cost someone dearly but would not exclude them from paying the price.

Regards

Don't worry DB, I read nothing into your post. :)

Best wishes, John