Not that I want one, but are Japanese "Torsa's", and Pitbulls outright BANNED in the UK?  Or are there just heavy requirements placed, like he must be castrated, muzzled, and so on..?

Also, why was the PBT singled out to start with?  Sure, I know it got some bad press some time ago, but I am certain that the stats would show that most dog bites come from other breeds, like Collies or Alsatians?  Sure, it was originally bred for fighting, but so too were Staffy's and BT's, and neither of them are banned..

Anyone offer a definitive answer - :) ?

Yes, Japanese Tosas, Pitbull Terriers, Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brasilieros are totally banned, as are their crosses. Also, because 'pitbull terrier' isn't a recognised breed, any dog which is 'of the type' is also banned outright.

But I have seen a few Pitbulls on a lead here and there, and their crosses for that matter..

Why focus on those breeds in particular, esp keeping in mind my earlier points?  What does it physically take for a whole breed to be banned?

Cocaine is also banned, but that doesn't mean it's not available if you know the right (or wrong?) people! ;)

As for why those breeds in particular - it was believed by certain groups that those breeds were most likely to injure people. Whether that's true or not is a moot point. It took an Act of Parliament to get the breeds banned, but the legislation was worded in such a way that other breeds can be added more quickly if necessary.

True about the coke, but you usually would not walk a bag of it around on a lead, in public!  :)

Do you think that other breeds are at risk from the same ban..?

Yes, it's quite possible for other breeds to be added, especially if certain Eurocrats (in parts of Germany many more breeds, including Staffordshires, are banned) get their way. However hopefully the government has realised what a bad law the DDA was and would be a lot more careful about adding to the list than it was in the first place. But the possibility's there ...

There were a number of well publiscised particularly horrific attacks on people by Pitbulls which caused the 1990 Dangerous Dogs Act to be enacted.  No idea why Japanes Tosas, filas, adn Dogos were added as these breeds had not at that time been imported.

The dogs in the country at the time had to be put on a Register neutered, chipped and Tattooed and muzzled in Public, and theoretically there shoudl be no Pitbull younger than 15 ye3ars old, and certainly no descendants around.

Therre are lots of Bull breed crosses that people purport to be or mistake for Pitbulls, whether any of them reallya re is unclear, especially as they are a type rather than a breed, though the American Stafford a recognised breed is considred to be ath pedigree version of a Pitbull and is dual registered in many cases in USA.

I always thought that the reason for the ban was not that the dogs were inherently dangerous, so much as they were most likely to be bought, bred and owned by the kind of idiots who would want them for fighting and other aggressive purposes and not be responsible with their control and training, and of course they are so big and that they would do maximum damage in the minimum amount of time :( :(  Didn't work tho, now the same idiots are crossing other breeds to produce big, aggressive looking dogs to feed their ego :( :(

Other breeds have also had their share in the limelight as 'Devil Dogs', though, and they weren't included in the ban. When I was young it was Alsatians (as they were then) which were the dodgy breed; Dobermanns and Rottweilers have also been in the spotlight. The current 'hard' breed changes with fashion. :(

Around here it's Neopolitan/Dogue crosses and Rottie/Bullmastiff crosses :( :( :(

The DDA was a reformation of an already existing series of laws dating from the 1800's, which specified that any dog which worried, threatened or attacked a member of the public, in what was deemed a public place, would be destroyed. There were also strict rules on dogs being walked in public wearing muzzles. The DDA (both the original DDA and the later DDA) was a means of clarifying these earlier laws into a modernised and clearer form. Four main breeds were banned altogether, both because of their use in dog fighting, in which they were believed to be bred to be inherently vicious, and because of the well publicised dog attacks of the early 1990's. The DDA does encompass ANY dog breed however. In the first form of the DDA, ANY dog which was deemed to be out of control in both a public and a non-public place was liable to be destroyed. This was regardless of whether the owner walked the dog, or a friend of the owner walked the dog, or the dog was loose through escaping your garden etc. The later law did not make the destruction order mandetory (if that is the right word...), and instead allowed for a judge to rule on what requirements needed to be met (i.e. dog was never allowed to be unmuzzled in public, dog must attend training, fines for owners etc.) The DDA affects every dog owner because anyone not in proper control of their dog in both a public and non-public place can be prosecuted. I only know all this because we had to research it for my puppy class, and hand in written summaries of the laws concerning dogs within the British Legal system. There is lots of good information on the DEFRA website.

Just to add, here is the DEFRA website concenring dog laws:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/domestic/dogs.htm

(Cut and paste into browser if it does not come up as a link...)

and here is what they say about laws that were in effect before the DDA of 1991 was introduced:

"Under the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 it is an offence for any person in any street: to let an unmuzzled ferocious dog be at large so that it obstructs or annoys the residents or passengers in the street or puts them in danger; or to set on or to urge any dog to attack, worry or put in fear any person or animal. A dog will not be at large while it is held on a lead. The word 'street' here is given an extended meaning to include any road, square, court, alley, thoroughfare or public passage.

In the Metropolitan Police District a similar offence has been created by the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839. This differs only from the first part of the 1847 Act offence in that it is sufficient that an unmuzzled dog be at large (no obstruction, annoyance or danger need be shown), and that the place of the offence is described as any thoroughfare or public place.

Under the Dogs Act 1871, any person may make a complaint to a magistrates court that a dog is dangerous, or report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it may make an order for it to be controlled or destroyed.

The Animals Act 1971 provides that the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage it causes, if he knows it was likely to cause such damage or injury unrestrained."

The DDA was designed to put all these laws into one form.

Interesting that the previous law appears to also refer to putting in danger other animals as well as people :)

Lindsay
x