Radio 4 are asking for votes
Could you visit this site http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/2006vote/index.shtml
and ask the act to be repealed type in "The Dangerous Dogs Act"

I don't think I want the DDA repealed. Amended is one thing, repealed quite another.

Personally I think it should be enforced more. Pit bull terriers are still being bred, along with types like them, and every day I see one out walking round without a muzzle and often off lead :rolleyes:

I agree.  they are becoming the must have accessory for youths.  if more people report them to the police then the more dogs will be taken off the streets!  They are after all still a banned dog!

I can see a need for a new/improved/tougher law but why would you want it repealed.

Because it is an unjust law labelling innocent dogs as dangerous.  There are no Dangerous breeds only individuals, mainly due to breeding for poor temperament or bad rearing and lack of training.

The danger is largely caused by humans.

I know the arguments for and against, and although this may start a huge row and lists of people telling stories about their pat dog pit bulls that raised the children. Still I can't resist replying.

Yes, I agree, that how you raise, train and socialise a dog will make up maybe 90% of it's temprement, however I also think that dogs will do what they've been bred to do. If a breed has been selected to portray certain behaviours, then these behaviours eventually become ingrained in the breed. My borzois will chase fast moving animals, every borzoi I've had would do this. My collies can't run in a straight line when out walking, they always go in a huge loop or banana shape to where they want to be. They've never had sheepdog training yet round up the other dogs and will nip their heels :)  If a breed has been bred selectively for many generations to fight - seems to me this is what it will do, in my opinion this is a dangerous breed, that in the wrong hands can turn into a dangerous dog.

Yes but these traits are in several bull breeds, our own Stafford's are an example.  I am not a great fan of bull breeds because of their tendency to a high prey drive and to have low tolerance where other dogs are concerned because of this past link to fighting/baiting.

You will have to admit that to a large extent these traits have been toned down and bred out in many breeds.

That apart fighting dogs were never bred with aggression towards humans in mind, and most are very people orientated and trusting (the reason they are so easily abused), on the other hand the guarding breeds have been bred to guard and to be suspicious of strangers.

So which group are most likely to produce a dangerous dog if bred from parents with poor temperament and then sold to those who want a four legged weapon with teeth or are simply incapable of bringing up a dog with these traits.

Yes, I agree, that how you raise, train and socialise a dog will make up maybe 90% of it's temprement, however I also think that dogs will do what they've been bred to do. If a breed has been selected to portray certain behaviours, then these behaviours eventually become ingrained in the breed.

Okay if that's true then why did you guys ban Dogo Argentino? I can see your point of view, but what's Dogo as a hunting dog got to do with anything...... and besides, even dogs that were bred for dog fights are just dogs . They were not bred to harm people and believe me they are no more "dangerous" than your own Staffordshire Bull Terrier. My auntie has a lovely AmStaff girl and believe me she's an angel compared to my Chi boy LOL. He sorts her out in a second as she's such a softy! ;)

Okay if that's true then why did you guys ban Dogo Argentino?

"You guys"? You don't for a single moment believe anybody IN dogs had anything to do with it do you? It was the then government picking breeds out of thin air that they believed had the potential to be dangerous -for whatever reason. At least we should be grateful that 3 of them (well actually, the ONLY 3 named BREEDS as opposed to TYPES) did not exist in the UK (apart from the lone Tosa) so that it didn't affect a lot of people/dogs  (i.e. there were no KC registered breeds that suddenly found themselves facing extinction) -they could have bowed to public pressure and added Rotties to the proscribed breeds.

"You guys"? You don't for a single moment believe anybody IN dogs had anything to do with it do you?
That was directed to people that enforced the law and the ones supporting it ;) ......

"You guys"? You make it sound as if the UK is the only place that has banned various breeds. Don't forget there are areas of Germany where the number of banned breeds make our mere 4 look very half-hearted.

if more people report them to the police then the more dogs will be taken off the streets!
poor dogs, wonder where they will end up if removed?

Dead Sam, as they are illegal.  Always the dog pays for the humans actions and lack of responsibility

the DDA doesn't just cover ''pitbull'' types.... and the very fact that it does borders on BSL...

I voted, and yes I voted for the DDA to be repealed.. but actually in hindsight a complete rethink or amendment of the act might be a better option.
I think that where the amendments might need to be applied is to remove the naming specific breeds or 'types'.  If a dog is dangerous, it's dangerous... REGARDLESS of breed...!
If the owner of said dog is not acting in a responsible manner, i.e. keeping dog in control in a public place.. then the OWNER needs prosecuting/persecuting(!) NOT the dog....(of course dependant on circumstances).

it's a minefield that's for sure!

Sadly the DDA was drawn up as a primarily Breed Specific Law (not verging on BSL), actually outlawing certain breeds and set a precedent that other countries and states have followed, many adding their own choices of breeds such as our own humble people friendly Staffords.

No law should be about breed/type only about deed.

exactly!  Drawn up in haste and with no proper thought to it!

Breed specific Law, Breed specific Legislation... verging on the same in my eyes!  In other words, as you have said, targeting specific breeds rather than the act... wrong wrong wrong!!!  This is how BSL did begin in other countries, and I would hate to think that this country could follow... :(

Thankfully, at the moment Staffords are not included in our DDA.....but equally there are several other breeds that shouldn't be on there....
that's my whole point, it shouldn't be breed specific at all!
Because that's when it could turn into BSL...

Actually we started it here in UK, it is the other countries that have followed us with starting BSL laws.  The DDA has been on the books since 1990 I think.

Well, I'm not going to get into 'who started it'... but in fact as far back as 1980 Hollywood, USA passed a law whereby all owners of 'pitbulls' had to prove that they had registration papers and over $25,000 worth of public liability insurance.  Then in 1984 a blanket ban in New Mexico for the pit... but I digress...
My point was that this isn't ''just'' a pitbull law.... it's a Dangerous Dogs Act... dogs surely being the operative word?
I understand that people feel certain breeds are more dangerous than others, but is that really the case?
Isn't that what we all strive for - the way an animal is treated and brought up?
In conclusion I still feel the DDA 1991 needs completely rehashing so that no specific dog is targeted, only the irresponsible owner.....

if more people report them to the police then the more dogs will be taken off the streets! 

The vast majority of these are not pitbulls at all but Staffy crosses and badly bred Staffies. Surely you don't want all Staffies to be banned? Crossbreeds? Kc reg'd Staffies have been seized as being of the pitbull TYPE (AND convicted in at least one case) and if everyone reported dogs they BELIEVED were pitbull types that would be an awful lot of dogs seized........which is what happened when the DDA was introduced. Joe Bloggs down the road can't decide what is a pitbull type or not, only the courts can -at the great expense to the dog owner and the tax payer but more than anything else the DOG. The fault with section 1 of the DDA is that it doesn't deal with deed at all but LOOKS.

The law should concentrate on responsible dog ownership, not what dogs look like.I'm not saying I want pitbulls to be bred, just that it has already been proven again and again that you cannot base a court case on looks alone. Think of all the poor dogs that were kenneled in secret locations for YEARS -because prosecution and defence could not agree on what type the dog was of.

The prosecution (at least used to) judge each dog by a scale of points to prove if it was a pitbull or not. Even a Yorkie would score 80 out of 100 on that scale -because it's a dog, it has 4 legs, 2 eyes etc......

This is an interesting piece written about pit bulls. I think it shows a balanced view of what the type is like. (You'll notice that in the states pit bull can refer to different breeds and mixes) I was looking for something completely unrelated but remembered this post.

I think this is something many people, including dog owners, fail to understand "Please remember that animal-aggression and people-aggression are two distinct traits and should never be confused. Unless they have been very poorly bred and/or specifically "trained" to attack humans (often by undesirable individuals through abusive methods), pit bulls are, by nature, very good with people. They are, in fact, one of the most loving, loyal, friendly and dedicated companions one can have."

vote again this law has been shortlisted. I don't think it should be completly withdrawn but it needed a lot more thought before it became law

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/2006vote/vote_index2.shtml

Personally I think it should be enforced more. Pit bull terriers are still being bred, along with types like them, and every day I see one out walking round without a muzzle and often off lead rolleyes
Okay ignoring the fact that they are illegal in UK (fair enough, though I think blaming a breed for human stupidity is crazy), I don't believe what being muzzled has anything to do with Pitties or AmStaffies or Rotties or any other so called "dangerous" breed . A dog is a dog and I have seen many, too many dangerous dogs of all kinds of breeds running around unsupervised..... anything from a German Sheppard to a Miniature Pincher. When will people realize that the breed is NOT responsible for people's ignorance and lack of knowledge about training a dog??!

>I don't believe what being muzzled has anything to do with Pitties or AmStaffies or Rotties or any other so called "dangerous" breed

Because the proscribed breeds must be muzzled by law when out in public.

He, he I understand the law and understand where you're coming from but let's ignore the law for a second and look at it from other's countries point of view...... we have no such law back home and AmStaffs are walking around without any problems...... just like any other dog and hey, we actually show them as well and so far all the handlers and other dogs are still alive!!!! ;)

Exactly, and that is why no breed should be banned just individual owners whose dogs are a danger should be made to either control them effectively or not be allowed to keep them.  There are enough laws in place to facilitate this already.

Just curious Ory, do you think that breeds have tendencies to express the behaviours that they were bred for? That is, collies chase and herd, retrievers retrieve and carry, GSD have natural guarding instinct as some examples? I would hope so, as that was the point of breeding dogs to fulfill functions. I've known owners and people who worked to rescue pit bulls in the US and they can be the most fantastic and loving dogs around with people. Some with other dogs. But, if you know the breed and its origins you have to acknowledge that it's in their genes to fight dogs and be great with humans. If I owned one I would be careful to avoid problem situations and would never trust a pit bull 100% not to fight.

Don't get me wrong, I think the DDA was a knee jerk reaction and not well thought out - it should be revised. I would not ban dogs based solely on breed. But I ask because you sound like you think Am Staffs have no potential to do harm. But then maybe you think the DDA should only apply to protecting people. In my local park I'd like a control order on 1 GSD, 1 mixed breed, and a pack of 7 basenjis. So you see, I'm an equal opportunity muzzler. ;-)

Just curious Ory, do you think that breeds have tendencies to express the behaviours that they were bred for? That is, collies chase and herd, retrievers retrieve and carry, GSD have natural guarding instinct as some examples? I would hope so, as that was the point of breeding dogs to fulfill functions.
Oh yes, most definitely. But saying that, it very much depends on the lines these dogs come from. Most American Staffordshire Terriers in Europe come from show lines and as such they have mostly been bred for a certain purpose, that purpose being loving pets and show dogs. Yes they still show signs of "aggression" towards other animals, but so do most other Terriers (I am mostly talking about AmStaffs here, as I know the breed quite well, I can't say much about Dogo Argentinos, but I know they were bred as hunting dogs).
All dogs were bred with a purpose and it's just common sence that you will not buy a dog which does not go well with your life style and the life style of your family. If I was going to buy a Whippet which comes from lines of sight hounds and was bred for chasing small animals, i am definitely sane enough not to buy a rabbit pet at the same time ;). Same with AmStaffs or Jack Russel Terriers or perhaps Bull Terriers..... I will understand their nature and if I can not give them what they need and make sure they get early socialization, I will not decide to own the breed at all....... every breed comes with it's traits and it's in our best interest to understand and respect their nature. That however has nothing to do with criminals using a particual breed as a symbol of their power and to bully other members of society..... I say "punish the people, not the breed!!!".

>That however has nothing to do with criminals using a particual breed as a symbol of their power and to bully other members of society<

My sister worked in rescue in California and they had huge problems finding homes for their pit bulls for this reason. Poor dogs; they'd get some real softies in but people looking for family dogs rarely came in asking for pit bulls. The ones who did want them were denied adoption as they were the type of person you just described. Sad really.

>I can't say much about Dogo Argentinos, but I know they were bred as hunting dogs).<

Quite right, they were bred for hunting (quite a mix really!). I wonder if it was just because they look a little like white AmStaffs. :-(

>I say "punish the people, not the breed<

If only eh.. :)

As far as I was aware the DDA and those laws emulating it are enacted in response to perceived danger to people.  I don't think the legislators give a stuff that certain breeds have a tendency to want to fight with each other.

So in this respect the banning of any breeds with fighting origins are flawed, as these breeds if true to their type, ancestry and reason for existence has nothing to do with aggression to humans, usually quite the opposite.