Merseyside Police: "Between 7 and 13 February 2007 owners of illegal dogs have the opportunity to co-operate with the police and hand them over for humane destruction without being prosecuted"

http://www.merseyside.police.uk/html/aboutus/campaigns/dogs/index.htm

Received:

Dangerous Dogs Act - Information for dog owners:

The Merseyside Police 'dog amnesty' will commence on 7th February 2007 and last for seven days.

Dog owners in the area are asked to hand over any dog they feel may be a 'pit bull type' of dog to the Police, without fear of prosecution.

Deed Not Breed would like to make local responsible dog owners aware of the following:

* You are under no legal obligation to hand over dogs under the Amnesty. If you do your dog WILL BE DESTROYED.

* If you do not hand over your dog under the Amnesty and it is later seized, you are under no legal obligation to sign seized dogs over for destruction. If you sign over ownership of your dog it will be destroyed. Seek advice immediately.

* If you don't sign your dog over, you have the right to a Court hearing. Only a court can order the destruction of your dog. It may be possible for the Court to order the registration of your dog onto the Index of Exempted Dogs, proving that he or she poses no threat to the public and certain requirements can be met. 1000 dogs have been registered this way since the law was amended in 1997.

Remain calm and do not panic-you are not alone.

The law hasn't changed at all. No one can force you to hand over your pet dog for destruction, unless by Court Order.

If you are at all worried about your dog's behaviour-seek professional help.

The Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, Association of Pet Dog Trainers and many other welfare groups and individuals have voiced serious concerns and oppose the 'amnesty'.

For further information- please visit: www.deednotbreed.org.uk

Telephone help lines have been organised, they are run and backed by experienced volunteers who are fully up to date with factual information.

You can also be referred to a solicitor for professional legal advice:

08700 34 55 62 - advice line
08700 34 55 63 - advice line

That is quite a frightening link.  by the description of 'this is what an illegal dog looks like' I'm the proud owner of an illegal dog (except she isn't).  She's a tall chunky KC registered staffy but going by the description she would get seized.  thank goodness for KC paperwork.

It is also quite worrying that people cannot hand in dogs they know are dangerous but aren't on the restricted dangerous list.  I'm a firm believer in it being the owner not the dog (most of the time but poor breeding plays a significant role) and if someone owns a dog that has proven itself as dangerous and liable to attack they should be allowed to hand it in.  If there is a knife amnesty going on, people are still allowed to hand in firearms so what is the difference?

This is frightening, the description ' Characteristics of an illegal dog ' near match my EBT!!! People get her confused with her breed at the moment, goodness knows what breed they will think she is now.

I don't quite 'get' these amnesties - why would people hand their dogs in? You'd assume they are either family pets, or status symbols, but either would have value to the owner.

M.

To avoid prosecution.

I don't know about on Merseyside, but in N. Ireland there has been several incidents involving attacks by pit-bull types that appeared to have been abandoned.  Any other breed could have been handed over to a shelter but fear of prosection means this isn't an option for those who choose to own banned breeds.

A couple of such incidents contributed to one council's decision to instigate an amnesty which commenced on 1st January.  I believe 15 dogs so far have been handed over to be PTS under this amnesty and a further 46 or so have been assessed (mainly at the request of owners who think they may have been sold a pit-bull X under the guise of Irish Staff) and found to be not of pit-bull type.  I'd love to know what criteria is being used to make these assessments but I suppose it's somewhat reassuring to know that not everything that looks vaguely pit-bull is automatically being destroyed.

Very frightening   My SBT is the "long-legged" type and would match this!!!  He unfortunately has no papers.  He has the best temperament of any dog I've ever known and does obedience, exemption shows and agility.
This makes me sick!!!
JUDGE THE DEED NOT THE BREED!!!!!!

Sarah

Never a truer word spoke Sarah.  (Deed not breed)
It's sad, it really is.  SBT rescues are at capacity most of the time anyway, regardless of culling amnesty's.  This is just adding to that.
I think that the reason people may hand their dogs in is possibly down to being frightened?  Ignorance?  I dunno..
all I can say is that it sucks....
I've said it before and I'll say it again... with regard to the incidents that have brought about this amnesty, why have no 'humans' being brought to justice?  Why has no-one been prosecuted?
The authorities are aiming this at the wrong end of the lead!!!

Thanks so much to Admin for the clarification my friend has a mongrel who we are all very worried about at the moment she was thinking of phoning the police this morning but won't be now.

My aunties Lurcher X and my mums Heinz 57 fit the bill of the characteristics of a 'pit type'.Will they be seized if they aren't brought in??
Its nuts and I cannot believe that even after all the advice Merseyside police received from the KC about why its not a good idea,they still went ahead anyway.
The best bit though is that if you have a dangerous dog but its not an illegal breed,then they wont take it if you try to hand it in.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The best bit though is that if you have a dangerous dog but its not an illegal breed,then they wont take it if you try to hand it in.

But how do they know?  Even some of the most scientific minds have admitted to it being such a grey area to identify a 'pit type'!
grrrrrr stupid stupid stupid
( not u Waffy, the 'authorities'!)

tessies tracey, I took that to mean that if you had a dangerous GSD, Rottie, cockapoo or any other dog which may have bitten and/or terrorised the neighbourhood you can't hand it in because it isn't on their dangerous 4 list and doesn't match the description they have given.  absolute nonsense as there will be non registered loving family pets being seized and lethal badly brought up other dogs still causing mayhem.

I'm aware that very few people on here watch dog borstal but I've been laid low with a bug this week and have tuned in everynight and was absolutely astounded at the man, think he was called xavier who had the 2 chi's.  they were a total menace to the community and he felt it was the other owners fault when his dogs started on a rottie and it retaliated - frightening!  He couldn't understand until it was spelt out to him (more than once) that it was his dogs that were out of control.  Slightly off topic but highlighted that dangerous comes in many different forms.

Just a quick aside but DB actually sets up or encourages and films situations which could come under the DDA - such as the GSD walking past a very scared little girl. They should be more careful

Lindsay
x

ermmm. I'm confused cheekychow.  If you're referring to the part of my post in bold, I was quoting the post above me.
In my actual reply I'm talking about people who may have non kc registered staffords or similar, who feel pressured or frightened into handing their dogs over.  If the authorities and even medical/veterinary staff are even having trouble identifying a 'pit type', then what chance does anyone else have?  That was what my post meant.  My referral is to pitbulls, nothing to do with GSD's, Rotts or anything else.
I'm also very much aware that ANY breed or crossbreed can be dangerous, but that wasn't what I was referring to.

I agree with handing the dogs in. Because of what happened in Liverpool, there could well be people that know their dogs are a threat, or maybe have concerns they could be, or could actually be the sort of people that have bred them but now feel its all a bit to 'hot'. Its far better to hand them in, than chuck them out of a car.

Apart from that, I feel so very sorry for everyone who owns a dog that could match the 'pit bull' type description, same as I did when the law first came in. Whatever the Government were thinking of when they worded this Act and made it Law beats me. Votes probably! We all remember the early years, all those poor dogs on 'death row'. Following this publicity it only takes a neighbour who hates dogs to have the Police on your doorstep. Once again its the idiots, those that breed and fight these types of dog, or use them for protection, that have bought this act to the fore again and made life difficult for the genuine owners. And, of course, the Government for bringing in such a law that gives a description of a dog that could cover a multitude of mixed and pure breeds and banging it up there with the banned dogs.
Sending my best wishes to you all.

Calmstorm - sorry but that isnt whats happening.

People are confused as to what they are supposed to do, they are being frightened into making that call to the police, not realising the real truth, and not realising their rights.

DeedNotBreeds telephone advice lines are going MAD with calls from people terrified for their dogs, who have already had dogs seized, and plain dont know or understand whats going on.

The people handing dogs in are NOT owners of dogs whose behaviour is dangerous, or could be, and certainly not those owners of dogs who are dangerous intentionally.

This amnesty, just like the DDA did originally is STILL stamping pitbulls as being inherently dangerous and thus desirable to own if you want to intimidate or actually injure someone.
These people dont give a stuff if for the time being their dogs have to stay hidden in sheds, not walked or taken to the vet, thats barely any different from how things were before. No one will report these people for fear of violent comebacks, so they wont get their dogs seized either.

I bet this just pushes UP the price of seriously dangerous fighting dogs.

and THAT's what I've been trying to say..thank you Calmstorm

without gettting my head bittten off...here goes I live in Liverpool and have seen for myself the amount of this 'type' of dog there are in this City a lot are being used for fighting we have problems in most local parks with groups of louts setting thier dogs on defenceless people out walking thier pets.
Gangs on street corners with these 'type' of breeds are very scary ...believe me.
I know of two people who have had thier animals attacked in shopping areas one a defenceless WHW which was adored by its owner l{lived in my brother road) they picked it up and the dog grabbed it from behind the persons back by its head and literally ripped it apart in front of her, the other was a similar situation  both dogs died of thier injuries.
The area I live in is a sought after area with nice people but even so this sadly is so common even around here that our local newspaper 'the echo' have a dangerous dogs column quote:
ECHO Biteback campaign
THE ECHO is launching a fightback against yobs blighting our communities with dangerous dogs. We want tough new laws and bigger penalties for thug owners who set their animals on other pets for sport or allow them to attack people in the street.

I for one am extremely worried /scared/ terrified when I take my 3 dogs out I mostly ask my OH or son to come with me this surely isnt right we should be able to go to the park or walk down the road without fear.
I do feel sympathy for people who love thier dogs and are not envolved in this horrific behavior but something had to be done  whether it was right or wrong I really dont know....

Ditto the bit about my head getting bitten off (and please this is by no means having a go at probably rightly concerned staffie owners) but.....

Can we please remember that a little girl was mauled to death recently by an illegal dog - and the police are now trying to prevent it happening again!!!

It strikes me that the police are in a difficult situation - I personally would like to see the police enforcing their powers to go onto the streets and remove dogs that are obviously bred and used in what is basically the creation of fear, or for fighting.  Without the DDA or this latest campaign how exactly are the police to tackle the issue of individuals using dogs as the latest weapon?

The challenge for the police will be to do what I suspect is the object of this exercise - remove dangerous dogs from individuals who are most probably already known to them - and the reasonable first step from a PR perspective is to have a week's amnesty first.  We should all hope that they do not simply round up every dog they can find who looks like it fits the bill. As far as I can see the broad description of what is a dangerous breed is deliberately left broad because nobody with a pit bull will show you papers which show that!  THe police need to be able to lift the offending animals without getting into wrangles over whether its actually a staffie or an irish staff etc.

Surely the DDA is doing what it was intended to do - make it illegal (and at least very uncomfortable) to be involved in those breeds of dogs which can be dangerous - and lets face it what were they bred to do - which is not to guard, like a Rottie or a dob - but to KILL!!  Being injured by a dog which is badly trained and bites is one thing, and the owners may be totally to blame - but being set upon by a breed developed for the purposes of biting something and not letting go until it has killed it is something different!  Owners of these breeds, however supposedly responsible and knowledgable, will always be trying to subdue what is natural behaviour - imagine trying to stop retrievers carrying things, or collies rounding things up. 

This is not a national initiative - it is localised in a part of the country where there is a track record of problems, such as those described by Starryeyes, and culminated in a little girl being killed - perhaps we should support the police in what is likely to be an attempt to deal with a specific problem.  The breeds in the DDA were not picked at random and we would hope that once the police have dealt with the current problem in merseyside - and they stop them attacking people and dogs, and killing children, then the spotlight will move onto the next thing, and Staffie owners can be left in peace. 

Perhaps anyone adamantly anti-amnesty or anti-seizure should consider how they would feel if their daughter had died, or at least put themselves in the shoes of the police when asked 'What are you doing to prevent this happening again'!

Deed not breed makes a nice slogan but perhaps we should put people first and consider that nobody wants themselves, or god forbid- their children- to be the evidence of the 'deed'.  What value a child's life?

I don't think it does any use confusing the amnesty with the law itself.  We are where we are, the law has been passed and this amnesty allows people who may fall foul of that law to either give up a dog they should not have been owning for quite some years now and escape prosecution or sleep peacefully at night knowing that their dog has been determined not to be of the type.
I don't see why anyone would object to the amnesty in itself.  If they do not feel they want to expose themselves to that sort of examination for fear of losing their dog then nobody is forcing then but they remain in the same situation as before.  The amnesty is not changing any situation the law is already here.

My point is though, and believe me i have and i can assure you the people working as Deed Not Breed, not forgotten the tragic death of Ellie Lawrenson....

We have had 16 YEARS of the DDA and pitbulls being illegal.

It didnt save Ellie, it did'nt save Kadee Leigh...(oh, did we forget her, she died and the DDA doesnt allow for the people responsible for her death to be charged either, oh but she was killed by rottwielers, so thats ok?)

There are four adults responsible for Ellies death to one degree or another. The owner of the dog, the keeper of the dog when the owner wasnt there, and ellies parents who were aware of the dogs presence and still left her there.

Under the DDA, there is NOTHING any of those adults can be charged with, as the current law does not cover private property.

Just imagine for a second that Ellie had been left in a room with an unsecured shotgun, loaded, by those same four adults.

You can bet your life one of those would be responsible and would be being charged with something.

The law we have is insufficient, its unenforceable and doesnt target the problem where it starts, which is wtih irresponsible owners.

This amnesty doesnt allow anyone to sleep safely at night Isabel - i wish it did. There are only TWO 'trained' officers for the whole of merseyside and Merseyside police will NOT confirm how these officers are supposed to be 'experts'.
Plenty of dogs will die for no reason other than their looks.

There has been an amnesty on pitbulls in Bradford for 16 years.

You could buy a pitbull if you had the money in an HOUR in bradford, it is from personal experience, abosolutely FULL of pitbull types, fighters, pets, dangerous and not dangerous. Their 16 year amnesty has removed only 75 dogs..... wow.

The DDA needs to be re written and personally i think that this amnesty and amnestys like this are pathetic efforts to make the police LOOK as if they are doing something when in fact they arent, and will only hinder chance of change to the DDA to make it workable and effective.

I can tell you from personal experience, the people of liverpool do NOT want this, the public do NOT support it, im fairly sure a lot of police do not support it.

If nothing else, think about this. People go around raping and murdering and beating one another. We ALL have the ability to do that - none of us are imprisoned because we MAY do something. We are only punished when we DO do it.
So how is it any different if its dogs? Pomeranians HAVE killed, a golden retriever, a labrador, more than capable of killing a child..... ban those too?

we certainly do remember that a little girl lost her life, and certainly that other children/people have been hurt or attacked by dangerous dogs.
but isn't this the point.. they are dangerous DOGS, not any specific breed need be mentioned... a dangerous dog is a dangerous dog is a dangerous dog...
The target is the wrong end of the lead!!!!  It is the yobbish, stereotypical type person that is not helping the situation at all!!
I have to say again, I'm in agreement with theemx.. The DDA, is flawed..there are adults out there who should have been made responsible for these attacks..and they haven't and that's sad and wrong.
The amnesty is simply a PR exercise to make it look like the authorities are actually doing something for once..

Can I add that the owner of the pit bull that mauled Ellie was known for goading the dog and making it human aggressive.Also the girls own father has been interviewed by the Liverpool Echo and he has not spoken to the grandma since as he had told her that the dog should never be allowed in whilst she was there.Apparently the dog was in the house with them for an hour before the attack.He was seen sat shaking on the mat as he was terrified by the fireworks.The thugs that own these dogs and set them on other dogs and people are the ones who should be targeted after all,when a muslim extremist attacks our country do we as citizens of Britain, call for all muslims to be targeted??........No we simply accept that not all muslims are like that.So why should all these 'of type' dogs be targeted simply for looking a certain way??
This country makes me sick.

Can I also add that the dog had been reported to the authorites TWICE previous to the attack.The police had the opportunity to do something about it then but didn't.Now they are hell bent on trying to look like they have control of the situation and taking any pets which fit the description,whether that dog has ever showed aggression or not.

>Also the girls own father has been interviewed by the Liverpool Echo and he has not spoken to the grandma since as he had told her that the dog should never be allowed in whilst she was there.Apparently the dog was in the house with them for an hour before the attack

How very sad - is it me or does it seem that the Grandma let the dog in because of the fireworks? And the dog could have attacked because of this?

How about we ban fireworks?! Far more dangerous that 99.9% of dogs (whatever the breed)

On doglost a pet SBT was put to sleep by owners becuase the police were coming to take it away & they were scared for there dog it was lost then they found her she was only 6months old that was in merseyside The dangerous dog act should read the deed not the breed.

Why have Mersey side police chosen to show a photograph of an aggressive dog on the web site, surely this is just fuelling the hysteria.

I re-homed a springer spaniel last week, one of the reasons was because the owner had read in the paper about dogs attacking children.

Thin end of the wedge me thinks :(

Why are dogs (and i'm still talking about dogs bred to kill other things in a fighting situation) permitted but knives and guns are different?  I am sure that we are all quite happy that between lawmakers and police there are less knives and guns on the street than before - we do not all complain that we are not permitted to carry knives on the street (if I happen to be wearing my horsey-jacket containing my penknife in my pocket when i nip out to the chippy then i am breaking the law) because it i a perfectly reasonable law and protects our safety.  Trying to apply the same rules to pit bull terriers seems to me to be simply an extension of that logic.

Deed not breed sounds fair enough in principle - but by definition requires something - or worse still someone - to be injured by the dog first - is it really worth the risk?

'fighting' dogs ARENT permitted - but determining what is and what isnt an illegal breed is not so clear cut. Defra's guidelines for what is a pitbull type and what isnt are so vague a huge number of perfectly legal breeds could quite easily be found to be 'type'. For KC reg dogs thats not *such* a huge problem (although its by no means a guarantee), but for crossbreeds, its a big deal.

Deed not breed sounds fair enough in principle - but by definition requires something - or worse still someone - to be injured by the dog first - is it really worth the risk

But that is how our law works.
We don't arrest young black men from poor areas because they MIGHT be violent criminals even though certain sets of statistics show they are likely to commit crime.... we arrest them AFTER they commit a crime.

We don't ban all drivers of boyracer cars because statistics show they are more likely to be driving whilst drunk....we wait until they HAVE committed a crime.

Do you REALLY want to live in a country where you are guilty until proven innocent?

Come to that, do you REALLY think its right to lay the blame at the feet of an ANIMAL rather than a human being?

It is all rather water under the bridge arguing about whether the law is fair, effective etc.  The law is here and I think people are getting confused that campaining against an amnesty is the same as campaining against the law.  It is not and I doubt the climate is at all amienable at present to considering a repeal, which is what I think people are really angling for.  The amnesty is completed different and is, I think a useful way out for those who wish to reconsider owning these dogs in the light of recent events shining a light on their possible law breaking.

I know it's drastic - but if every non KC registered staffy or staffy cross had to, by law, be spayed/neutered, then the problem of identifying pit bull types would be solved in a matter of years.

Let's face it, most of us agree that purebred dogs should be KC registered and encourage potential buyers that post here to go reputable breeders who register their puppies.  People could have their dogs neutered and get a letter from their vets stating that the op has been carried out.  The end result - no more pitt bull types - no more long legged staffys being mistaken for pitt bulls (they'd have KC registrations to prove their breed) - rescue kennels would be able to cope with the amount of staffy types coming in (after the initial inevitable influx).  If a dog is identified as being not registered and not neutered the owners could be fined a huge amount as a deterent to others.  People do not NEED staffy crosses.  The dog population certainly doesn't need them.

Like I said, it's very drastic - but with proper policing it could work.

Debs

Isabel.. c'mon.. this is targetting the wrong people completely!  A useful way out for those who wish to reconsider owning these dogs you say.. oh dear, get real!  Do you really think that under this amnesty owners who ARE irresponsible and DO have illegal breeds for whatever reasons, are really gonna hand them in? 
The law is a different matter, that i agree with.  The amnesty is another issue altogether!
Of course some people are angling for a repeal, that's because the DDA law is flawed.
As I said before, there are going to be people who aren't as clued up as some and are gonna feel backed into a corner into handing their dogs in unneccessarily....
Surannon, that idea is in itself also flawed... do you think that every single KC registered Stafford out there precisely fits the standard?  i.e. NO long legs, not over 16" at the wither?  Besides which why should it just be Stafford crosses?  Aren't there other crossbreeds that bite or become aggressive then? Quote: people do not NEED staffy crosses - Oh dear oh dear - people do not NEED labra-frickin-doodles, but the get 'em!!!!
Sheesh..

do you think that every single KC registered Stafford out there precisely fits the standard?  i.e. NO long legs, not over 16" at the wither

*sighs* That's why I said no more long legged staffys being mistaken for pitt bulls (they'd have KC registrations to prove their breed).

people do not NEED labra-frickin-doodles, but the get 'em!!!!

You're so right - but two wrongs don't make a right ;)

Debs

*SIGH* KC registration isn't proving a thing at the moment.  Ask some Liverpool and Ireland residents.  As I said you can still have long legged KC registered staffords who may STILL be mistaken for a pit.  KC papers or not. 
I don't see what this has to do with the original discussion at any rate.  The amnesty is wrong, it's frightening and it's a PR stunt to put some peoples minds at rest.  Those of us with an ounce of sense, knows it will make no difference......

Two wrongs most certainly don't make a right.  But guess which 'cross' breed was around first?
To target only cross bred Staffords is just blinkered.

Not all "long legged" Staffys have papers!!!!  :rolleyes: Not all these dogs are dangerous, some of us socialise our dogs properly!!!

As far as I can see it is targetted at people who believe they may have a dog that is possibly of the banned type.  Who responds to it is up to them and you are right irresponsible people probably won't take advantage of it but then if they do own a dog that falls within the description they face the prospect of prosecution, probably a greater prospect than for some time as it appears the police will follow this up with an increase in enforcement, but at least it allows those that do want to relieve themselves of that prospect to do so.

Whenever there are gun and knife amnesties, many honest people hand in their 'weapons', even when they're not illegal (ordinary kitchen knives, such as you and I use every day) and harmless reproduction ornamental firearms. Why would people not think of doing the same in this case?

Because they are the nasty evil, criminal element of society that have no intention of abiding by the law I would imagine JG.
Those that own fighting dogs, I'm sure, would not hand their animals in.  Or perhaps I'm wrong, and they might as they don't hold their animals in any regard whatsoever?  Who knows..... but I'm fairly sure there are those that won't...

I totally agree that the nasty vicious criminal element won't give two hoots about the amnesty, but the people who have bought pups because so many people say "They're so good with people" etc etc, and they genuinely didn't realise that the ban still applies to their dog, are the ones who might hand them over. These are the people I'm sorry for - the ones who've been misled, and now realise they're at risk of prosecution as well as having their dog seized.

These are the ones the amnesty will help if they are willing to take it.

I agree. :)

but are the authorities helping?  From what I've heard so far Isabel, once those dogs are handed over, that's it - no going back - dog destroyed.
Thank goodness I suppose that those helpline phone no's are there.. but still there are those that won't understand what their rights are, what they can and cannot do and will lose a family pet.

>once those dogs are handed over, that's it - no going back - dog destroyed.

I understand that is the terms of the amnesty.  I think the police would help you decide if you ought to be handing your dog over but once you have there is no court case, for example, to decide.  That is you declaring.

absolutely, and I agree.. the poor people who have been misled.  These people may now have a crossbred dog in their possession, but does that make it a pitbull? 
This is why when I first started posting on this thread, I said that identifying a pitbull is such a grey area.  Doesn't necessarily mean that a crossbreed is - if you see what I mean?

We don't arrest young black men from poor areas because they MIGHT be violent criminals even though certain sets of statistics show they are likely to commit crime.... we arrest them AFTER they commit a crime.

No we'd don't arrest young black men or boy-racers - because they are human beings and we have 'human rights' - where humans have the right to be treated equally - but i'm afraid that when it comes to dangerous animals I'd like people's safety to be put first!

Defra's guidelines are not perfect - but what else are they supposed to do since most of the fighting dogs probably don't have papers which say what breed they are?

Do you REALLY want to live in a country where you are guilty until proven innocent?

We are not talking about people here - we're talking about dogs aren't we?  Dogs are animals and as soon as we start giving animals exactly the same rights as people do we not all become vegan???  You can argue that it's the right of the human owners to own the dogs, but then would that argument not apply to guns, knives, explosives and every other of the thousands of dangerous things prohibited in Europe?  This strikes me as a rule here to ultimately protect human beings right to life, and not to live in fear, etc - and is perfectly reasonable.  If there is time and energy to be spent in criticising and lobbying then surely its things like tail docking etc?

Come to that, do you REALLY think its right to lay the blame at the feet of an ANIMAL rather than a human being?

Its not even remotely about blaming an animal - I don't care who is ultimately to blame - I don't want to meet a potentially dangerous dog on the street in exactly the same way that I don't want to meet a POTENTIALLY dangerous knife or gun on the street.  Knives and guns are not dangerous in themselves - they are inanimate objects and they too require human intervention to make them dangerous - but that is not an excuse to allow anyone to own or manufacture them!

I DO see the point if you are the owner of a cross breed - but I do not think we should be criticising DEFRA or the law (and it takes alot for me to say that believe me - particularly when they come out with things like tail docking bans!) as they are trying to deal with an issue where they are damned if they do but equally damned if they don't - what makes the DDA unworkable in the eyes of some is that not everyone responsible for enforcing it has the wit to put common sense over the need to meet targets.  And before the mass protest can I suggest that the police targets are a direct result of public demand - the public is quick to demand to know what the police are doing about issues,and how effective their use of tax payers money is.

I think you have said it all very well, velmabell.

but i'm afraid that when it comes to dangerous animals I'd like people's safety to be put first!

then target the OWNERS, NOT the dogs... promote responsible dog ownership, promote respect - for other people and their rights.
NOT the dogs.  In the recent cases of dog attacks that have brought this amnesty about, the only only reason that the owners of those animals weren't prosecuted (and SHOULD have been) was because of a loophole in the DDA (yes that Law that we all keep confusing with the amnesty apparently).
Like I said before, the real 'dog fighting' fraternity will NOT be handing in their dogs.  It happened in the 90's and it will happen again today.
They won't hand those dogs in, and the poor old Joe Public who has a cross bred dog of ANY breed, whether it has stafford,pitbull, or even whippet in it will end up being on the losing side.

NOBODY expects the rear dog fighting fraternity to hand in dogs - but the trendy thing to do is to have amnestys before the police get started enforcing laws - think guns, knives etc.  As already said the courts are required to order the destruction of any dog which is seized, but not surrendered in the amnesty - therefore if you do not think you have a dangerous dog you do not have to hand it in, and you can argue the toss in court later.  If you do think you have what is genuinely a dangerous dog/breed then you either save everyone time and hand it in, or you get it neutered and keep it muzzled in public.

then target the OWNERS, NOT the dogs... promote responsible dog ownership, promote respect - for other people and their rights.
NOT the dogs

If we were to turn back the clock, and were talkng about making the carrying of knives in public illegal, could we honestly replace the word 'dogs' in the above sentence with 'knives' and it would still seem reasonable?  Probably not, and our overflowing prisons are a testament to the fact that 'promoting respect for people and their rights' has not been particularly successful thus far!

I understand several dogs have been handed over - these dogs will be destroyed.

It makes me wonder what sort of owner would hand a dog over to be kennelled and pts. If they were true dog lovers they wouldn't own them in the first place, and would have them PTS kindly on their own home (worst case).

Does this mean this amnesty is working? (not a pointed question - just asking in general :) )

Presumably the sort of owner who would own a dangerous breed in the first place, and whose dog is possibly more about status than about being a pet or companion.  Perhaps the amnesty is working...?!  :)