no... that's my point - the sort of person who would own a dangerous breed in the first place, is NOT going to hand it over..

It is the same with the knife amnesty.  It is not intended to help the criminal who is determined to continue, the law will deal with them when they are caught, but is a way out for those who have fallen foul accidentally or do not wish to continue transgressing.

>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).

I guess it is a cost issue for some people.

I doubt these folk would be worried about vet costs when finishing off an animal....

I think the sort of people you are referring to would not be dealing with the authorities at all :)  but the ones that do hand their dogs in rather than deal with it themselves must have their reasons and this strikes me as possibly one of them.

The people handing these dogs over are in the main FRIGHTENED dog owners just like you or I who for whatever reason did not realise that their dog may be deemed illegal. Since even the cross of two perfectly legal breeds can result in a dog who may be 'type' its not THAT difficult for it to happen

I think you would be hard pressed to doubt that these people are TRUE dog lovers, i was at the first demo, i have met some of these people, they love their dogs every bit as much as you and i love ours.

Some people HAVE had dogs PTS themselves as they were unaware that they could refuse to sign, and instead go through the court process to have their dog added to the exempt dog index.

Please do not be so offensive as to believe that these people are all 'lesser' in their love and respect for their pets than you are. If you really do think they are not quite as good as you, offer to take a turn on the advice lines and hear their stories for yourself?

Is this post in reply to me? 

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!

hmm,yeah, but we're not talking about knives we're talking about living creatures. 

oh and yes, there is the trend to do the funky amnesty thing... but that didn't work with guns, didn't work with knives and won't work with dogs.  Just another PR stunt to make it look like they're doing...

We're talking about an instrument which can be lethal in the wrong hands aren't we? 

Yep its a PR stunt, but they're trying to lookk reasonable before wading in to enforce the law anyway!

lethal?  oh christ.. I give up... there is absolutely no comparison....an inanimate object versus an animal... hmmm

As you have mentioned enforcing the law - I go back to my original point... determining what is an illegal breed and what isn't... and this is where the grey area lies - dog owners need more info and support. 
There are going to be innocent animals culled here uneccessarily.. that's all I can see happening..
And from what I'm hearing from rescue's and the like, KC reg dogs are being seized..
perhaps you'd like to read this as well... posted on doglost - this is what I'm talking about - fear instilled into people uneccessarily....

With sadness and anger, I have to report that today Cassie was put to sleep as a direct result of the latest dog amnesty being run by police. Cassie was due to be seized by police at 5pm tonight. Owners could not bear the thought of their loving and loyal family member being housed in strange kennels and to be killed by a strange hand. So the very difficult decision was made by the family that they would send Cassie to rainbow bridge themselves. The family are totally devastated, they are very angered too. Owners will be in contact with www.deednotbreed.org.uk PLEASE EVERYONE, DONT LET CASSIES DEATH BE IN VAIN, LETS FIGHT THIS ALL THE WAY.....

Copied from DogLost web site.
RIP Sweet Cassie

If only those poor people - and no doubt many others - hadn't believed the people who told them that it was 'all right now' to own a banned breed. :(

Sorry, Tessies Tracey but these dogs have been lethal in some instances and caused serious injury in others so, unfortunately, they do compare with inanimate object in that instance.  I saw the picture of Cassie by the way and I'm afraid I would have said she was of the type.

JEANGENIE WROTE: 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?

Well for a kick off,people probably dont love and share their lives with kitchen knives and ornamental guns,like they do with their dogs JG. These dogs are to their owners as yours are to you.If there was an amnesty on your breed,would you quite willingly walk your fur babies to the police station to await their deaths?? :rolleyes:

Wouldn't that rather depend on why an amnesty was necessary for JG's breed? :)
I wonder how people think we should deal with the dangerous dog problem.  If we look at the oft quoted 'deed not the breed' model we find a solution that appears to be saying "wait until something happens and then punish that individual" which is not only unacceptable, in my opinion, in terms of the victims point of view but it also allows a problem to proliferate prior to any incident occuring.  I don't blame the authority wishing to take more proactive action and I would be interested in anybodies more effective suggestion.

The thing is though,the majority of these dogs are NOT banned breeds.The dogs they are after do not all look the same.They have got a description of the characteristics and if the dog looks to fit the characteristics,then that dog will be PTS.Innocent dogs should not die in this day and age,simply for looking a certain way. :(

During foot and mouth alot of farmers had to allow their much loved animals and friends to be shot and burned as part of the contiguous cull in an attempt to stop the disease spreading - it was a question of the public good....

.....animals and friends.

Yes which they produce each year to be culled for our consumption or to be milked.
These farmers do not have a loving one to one relationship with his cows like you have with a dog.When they are down about having to cull their animals its because it hurts the pocket more than the heart :rolleyes:

This is no comparison :(

Innocent animals get culled all the time in the name of human safety - think of all the turkeys in suffolk just now being culled so they don't spread a disease which has probably (and this is just a guess) not killed or injured as many people world wide as dangerous dogs have!  (In the UK there are and average of 2.5 dog attack deaths each year (but doesn't split out the listed breeds) and this is just the UK...)

Its not as simple as saying we should train owners and train dogs - the breed is bred to kill things, and to attach animals and people!  Would anyone with a labrador, regardless of how well behaved, guarantee that they could suppress their dogs natural behaviour to carry or retrieve things - particularly if the animal has no other opportunity to express this behaviour, such as a working dog?  Can you guarantee that you can always suppress your fighting dog's instinct to bite? 

ISABEL WROTE:Wouldn't that rather depend on why an amnesty was necessary for JG's breed?


Not really.
If just say a minority of dogs from your breed,attacked and they decided to hold an amnesty for all owners of this particular breed to bring their dogs in to be pts.If your dogs had never displayed any aggression,you felt you could trust them with your lives and they were very much a loving part of your family,would you be willing to kiss him/her goodbye??This is exactly the same for these people who know they own these dogs but are not willing to watch them die.

The Difference is these dogs have been BANNED for 16 years.
So even if it is a dog you could trust with your life, You shouldnot have even bought it in the first place!!!
No I wouldnt hand my dogs over, but mine are NOt banned (But if the media get there way 2 soon will be :( )
Lea.

Again Lea,Not all of these dogs ARE pitbulls.The majority of these dogs are crosses, sold simply as staffords.You cannot kill a dog based soley on the way it looks.Its Murder.

>The majority of these dogs are crosses, sold simply as staffords

But we all know that the DDA banned "dogs of pitbull 'type' and their crosses.'

Crosses are also banned.  They only have to be of the type.

>You cannot kill a dog based soley on the way it looks.

Have you read my question about how you would deal with the problem?  Why not have a stab at answering?

Why not introduce temperament testing.The Liverpool Echo are campaigning for a centre in the Merseyside area.If your dog fails the temperament test then you should be made to have it muzzled,neutered and registered.If you fail to have the dog tested then the dog should be seized,tested and rehomed if necessary.

Surely this has got to be better than this holocaust of the innocents.

Yes, I think there could be some scope for that but how reliable are these tests in fact do any appropriate ones exist that examine all aspects of the dogs nature taking into account his physical capabilities?  I suppose they could be developed.  I don't think it should be paid for out of public money though but rather the owner, for which reason I think it should only be applied to the relevent breeds and I'm afraid I don't agree with the failures being left at large, albeit muzzled etc as tragedies have happened all too often in the dog's own home.

So, youd expect EVERYONE to know that a staffy x labrador could be classed as illegal?

As an EXTREMELY educated guess, id say 90% or more of the dogs handed in or seized are NOT pitbulls or even pitbull crosses.

So these mongrels, they are just bull breed crossbreds of many different kinds. How are they any more inherently dangerous than a KC pedigree bullmastiff, a wolfhound, a great dane, a rottie, a bull terrier..... how?

All those breeds are big enough and powerful enough to do serious damage to an adult given the right provocation or training to behave in that way.

I can tell you that the DDA did teh BEST job EVER at making pitbulls and pitbull types desirable, and this amnesty is *for a fact* pushing UP the price and the demand for entire dogs of certain lines to replace ones already siezed (not handed in, seized! these owners have no intention of obeying the law).

So its not going to achieve ANYTHING useful and will achieve a lot of heartache and misery for both dogs and humans alike.

If nothing else theres a great reason not to support it.

I don't think that is recognising the differences between breed tendancy to be a danger both by temperament and physical ability.  I'm sure if JG had purchased a breed, unwittingly I'm sure in her case ;), and she was then made aware of such a tendancy she would do the responsible thing.

>If there was an amnesty on your breed,would you quite willingly walk your fur babies to the police station to await their deaths??

For there to be an amnesty my breed would already have been banned, and I'd have complied with the law, however reluctantly. After 16 years of the DDA the ones I'd had when the ban was brought in would have been neutered etc, and would be long dead. And I wouldn't have been so reckless as to get more.

Think of all the turkeys??? :rolleyes:

All those turkeys that are born into horrendous conditions to be fed up and then slaughtered for our consumption anyway??
This can hardly be compared to family pets can it??

Staffordshire bull terriers were bred to fight the same as pitbulls.In fact the pitbull derives from the stafforshire bull terrier.Do all the show dogs in the ring have to really work hard to stop themselves ripping the next dogs throat out??
No I dont think so do you??

I dont think any dog should die for what others of his breed do.But the thing which hurts mostly about this is the fact they are not going for a certain breed.They are looking for a 'type'.
So many dogs fit this type,but are not necessarily the same breed :(

>They are looking for a 'type'.

Yes, but that's the point, isn't it? The type was banned 16-odd years ago.

*sigh* :rolleyes:

Have you read the characteristics of the dogs they are looking for??

If you have then surely you can see that this doesn't just cover pitbulls.It covers any types of crosses.It covers my friends dog and he is gsd x lab x boxer.
Now would it be fair to have him PTS??

I think it has to be that way to cover the fact that people breed in all different ways to create these types, it's unfortunate but if people are aware of that, and the law has been around for many years, they should be avoiding breeding or buying anything that could be mistaken as having been deliberately bred in this way.

I've not only read the characteristics, I've seen the pictures on the official Defra leaflets, so to stay on the right side of the law and avoid potential heartache personally I'd avoid getting a dog that was likely to grow up to look like that.

Don't you think that all dogs can be "potentially dangerous!!?  I do.  It's not just Staffys!!

If it was thought Staffys, as a breed, were dangerous they would be on the list but no, I don't think all dogs merit this level of wariness.