> You cant see how people may be offended???

I thought I had explained why I thought they should not be. 

>Perhaps we should become a vigilantes.

I suppose that could happen if people felt the law was not able to protect them from the increasingly more powerful breeds being taken up.  I would prefer it to be addressed with legislation and enforcement.

Another quote from that comprehensive report that you're either not reading or not understanding Rach.

"The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are frequently fatal.

For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances. Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as
their victims are paying the price.

Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

This is an extremely comprehensive report, collating 14 years of data and encompassing 2209 serious attacks by dogs on people, including 264 deaths.

Yorkies are not mentioned at all in the report, presumably because although like any dog they can bite they are extremely unlikely to cause serious damage.

> We are fighting the same fight hun, the good fight

Please don't call me Hun!

> For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances. Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as
> their victims are paying the price.
>

There are many breeds of dog that if they have a 'bad moment' are capeable of inflicting more damage than a pit bull, these breeds don't pose a problem as they simply aren't desirable to the thugs and macho idiots that are in controll of the offending breeds. How many times have you seen/heard a report of a dog attack and were certain that the owners were very responsible people and were just shocked at the attack happening? All the attacks I've read about (apart from the woman having her nose bitten of by her Greyhound), I have the impression that the owners were at fault either through taking on a dog they haven't the experience/knowledge to controll, or general irresponsible behavior.

The root cause of dog attacks is the idiots in charge of the dogs, the damage any dog can do is relative - a small dog is capeable of killing a baby just as a big dog is capeable of killing an adult.
Something needs to be implemented to stop these irresponsible owners from getting dogs in the first place.

I know the potentail for damage my dog is capeable of, however in the right hands he is a loving family pet that will not get a chance to be a threat to anybody, unfortunatley low-life scum are just as free to go and buy one as I was. I would welcome heavy cost licensing for powerfull/large breed dogs, and hefty penalties/prioson sectences for any body found to have such a dog that is causing a nusiance to other people.

Another point is, how many people here have a 'pack' of dogs, dogs not classed as dangerous, but I seriously wouldn't like my chances against an angry pack of Malamutes.

> "The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are frequently fatal.
>For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other

The Puma is not a domesticated species of cat, it is a wild animal. Pit bulls and Rotties are a domesticated breeds of the dog, they have been bred to work for people not taken out of the wild. The comparison of Puma to rottie is way of the mark, the puma is to the house cat what the wolf is to our domesticaed dog.
Add to that a cat is one of the most formidable predators on earth, I know given the option between facing an angry dog or an angry large cat, I would take my chances with the dog. Cats have 5 weapons - combined with incredible agility that dogs just aren't capeable of. Using the fact the we can't have Pumas for a pet to give reasons agains some breeds of dog is just bizarre.

> I would welcome heavy cost licensing for powerfull/large breed dogs

You might but many would not or could not afford it.  Administration and enforcement of the licence fee collection in itself would take up a huge proportion of the cost leaving little to do what seems an impossibly expensive task of ensuring powerful breeds are only owned by those that can always be relied on to behave responsibly.
Licensing is proving fruitless as a means of control in other countries.

> Using the fact the we can't have Pumas for a pet to give reasons agains some breeds of dog is just bizarre.

But we are allowed to keep wild animals as a pet if they are not listed as a dangerous animal so it does illustrate the point that it is the potential danger that an animal represents that governs whether they should be able to be kept in domestic situations.

Given that alot of these attacks are by crossbreeds and sometimes it's impossible to tell what breeds they contain would your ban be on size of dog?

> alot of these attacks are by crossbreeds

A lot of the pedigree ones are not registered either so it would always have to be judged on the type of dog, not ideal but most of us are able to recognise the breeds that we have an interest in so I feel there will be people competent to recognise the relevent breeds either in the pure form of of a type.  That is how the Pit Bull ban works.  I would not say size would be a particularly meaningful criteria.

> But we are allowed to keep wild animals as a pet if they are not listed as a dangerous animal so it does illustrate the point that it is the potential danger that an animal represents that governs whether they should be able to be kept in domestic situations.

But according to this you can keep a Puma (or even a lion) as long as you have a license.
To get that license you need to satisfy the relevent authorities that (in short) the animal is not going to pose a danger to the public. So why not add the most potentailly dangerous breeds of dog to that list, assuming this licensing is enforced (I imagine it is) then it would make owning a 'dangerous' dog much harder, requiring a list of criteria to be fullfilled before a license is granted and the owning of the dog illegal if no license is held.
This act has put a stop to all the wild cats kept as pets (I believe that is why it was brought about in the first place) so I see no reason for it not to work with dogs.

A lot of the pedigree ones are not registered either so it would always have to be judged on the type of dog, not ideal but most of us are able to recognise the breeds that we have an interest in so I feel there will be people competent to recognise the relevent breeds either in the pure form of of a type.  That is how the Pit Bull ban works.  I would not say size would be a particularly meaningful criteria.

I have a friend in the states with a pitxgolden retrieverxaustralian shepherd that looks to all intents and purposes like a slightly furrier Ridgeback without a ridge.Without knowing exactly what he was made up of you would think he was a Ridgeback cross.I don't think it would be that simple ;)

> But according to [url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/gwd/animallist.pdf" rel=nofollow]this[/url] you can keep a Puma (or even a lion) as long as you have a license

Yes, you could have these dogs placed under the dangerous animal licencing rules but like you say this has stopped people keeping wild cats as pets and few people would want to keep dogs as a zoo animal so I can't see the point. 

It is all about the wrong people who get these breeds that causes the problems.
If you had this dogs brother or sister from the same litter it would be by now at 10 months of age a looked after, trained properly and well cared dog...

With the amount of bull breed crosses and all the registered pedigrees living in families in Britain today if they all where demented savages then there would be attacks happening all day and every day.. Which is not the case.

> I don't think it would be that simple ;-)

I don't suppose it would be :-) and I have no doubt that some dogs would slip away unnoticed but the majority could be identified.

> It is all about the wrong people who get these breeds that causes the problems.
>

I agree, but I can't see a feasable scheme to deal with that. 

> Yes, you could have these dogs placed under the dangerous animal licencing rules but like you say this has stopped people keeping wild cats as pets and few people would want to keep dogs as a zoo animal so I can't see the point.

a dog wouldn't have to be kept in a cage, there is no reason why (if the dangerous breeds were added to the wild animal list for licensing) that the criterea for keeping such a dog would be secure garden and muzzling in public rather than a cage.

I for one would have no problem keeping a muzzle on my dog while it was out of the house if it gave peace of mind to people we walked past and would much prefer to have that along with my garden checked for it's secureness and have to pay a lisence fee rather than face my breed of dog banned.

But, basically the point I'm getting at is that lisencing has been implemented for wild/dangerous animals and it has been very effective, there is no reason why lisencing for 'dangerous' dogs would not be as effective as long as it got the same enforcements as the wild animal licensing. It doesn't matter if people with no interest in the potentially dangerous breeds do see the point of restrictions being imposed rather than breed-bans, surely what matters is the publics safety and peoples freedom, with enforced licensing like this, people still have the choice to own whatever breed of dog they want, but without the leeway for it to be a public threat.

>a dog wouldn't have to be kept in a cage, there is no reason why (if the dangerous breeds were added to the wild animal list for licensing) that the criterea for keeping such a dog would be secure garden and muzzling in public rather than a cage.

Yes, I could go with that.  The cost of that sort of licensing would then be born just by the owners of these dogs.  I don't suppose it would be cheap though.

> The cost of that sort of licensing would then be born just by the owners of these dogs. I don't suppose it would be cheap though.

Yep, paid for by the owners of the breeds. No I don't imagine it would be cheap.
The wildlife act has stopped people from owning big cats, but I don't think it would have the same effect on dogs, there are a lot of people who are serious about thier dogs and would pay whatever it took to be able to keep them as the valuble family members they are, but the thugs that want a dog for the 'macho' image (or whatever reason the irresponsible poeple have dogs) would be put of by regulated licensing and subsequent a high price tag. It would also stop these dogs being bought on a whim.

> reply to bilbobaggins, my paper this am said 'baby, around 1 year old is 'in stable condition' '

Oh thank god!! Thats a relief!

Perhaps you should put your idea to your MP, Mastifflover :-)