Just chilling out on a Sunday afternoon (didn't get in till gone 5am from work so having a slow day), got the tele on while I cook myself a bit of dinner and there's a programme on where a dog that fits the 'type' of a banned breed has been seized and may, unfortunately, have a sad ending.  I wonder why people risk it knowing that your dog, your companion, could be taken from you and possibly be put to sleep, just because it is the type of dog that looks like a banned breed.  I couldn't live with myself if my dogs were seized for anything, so to knowingly buy a puppy that may later get taken off me just doesn't make sense, to me at least. 

I know any dog can potentially be dangerously out of control, some smaller breeds that are overly pampered are just lucky they're so small they couldn't do the damage of a larger dog when it comes to how they approach other dogs and people, but to deliberately seek out and own a dog that could be taken off you, I just can't fathom it.

Ignorance maybe? Wanting to look hard? Your mates all have the same type?

I'd imagine a lot simply didn't realise and brought say a staffy X, a longer legged type staff, American bulldog X, American bully larger sizes, or any other medium bull type/cross potentially and thought as it's not an American pitbull terrier it was fine without realising that as the law says American logbook terrier type any dog regardless of parentage can be classed as type if it looks enough like what they say a pitbull type looks like. They could also simply not know about the DDA (some dont).

I see the American bullies becoming more popular now and I would think the large ones would be at a higher risk of being deemed type. I'll say I very much like the look of them but I'd not have anything over the pocket size variety, there about 14inc tall.
Also it doesn't help some of the people breeding large ones are acutely using/buying dogs from abroad that come from American pitbull terrier breeders, the American breeder has the dogs listed as pitbulls and when they come over the UK owner calls them xl American bullies. I guess they must think Brendan get away with it and make money from breeding them more than they care for the actually dogs.
Those who intentionally bring the 4 over I guess same as why anyone likes any breed but I would say it's selfish doing it knowing the dog could be putdown if you can't get it on the exempted dogs list if its seized.

In a lot of cases the dogs are not companions as most accept the meaning and not are family members. They are mainly status symbols and as mentioned  they -to a moron mind - make the owner 'look 'ard'

The poor dog on the programme I was watching was euthanized, it was scared and exhibited aggression towards strangers, and had already bitten a member of the public.  But it's so sad that people are still wanting breed types that are likely to end up like this.

You also have the tough guy wanabes and people who want the dogs as weapons, unofficial attack dogs or want to actually engage in 'informal' fights going out and purposely getting them and breeding them, some these dogs puppies probably also end up in normal pet homes not knowing what there really getting.

I've come across lots of tough guy wannabes with staffies though, and they have obviously encouraged their dogs to be nasty towards others.  And I have come across owners of banned types that are soft as muck, with people and dogs, it's such a shame that it's by type, but the sad reality is, the ones that match banned breed types are more likely to be seized and euthanized than the accepted breeds.

> But it's so sad that people are still wanting breed types that are likely to end up like this.

It is. When I was first looking at dog breeds back way before I was allowed to ever get one (think 15 years ago), I had the pitbull and dogo on my list then found out from a quick Google search they were banned, so off the list they went.

I think a lot of people get caught out innocently buying a staffie cross bred as they just want a family pet and haven't the money for a pedigree and staffies have a good reputation as being nice with kids/family dogs .  Its unfortunate that some of these crossbred pups look very much like a pitbull when grown up :(

The dogs that frighten me are the legal ones- these huge American Bull dogs, cane corsa etc - they seem to have taken the place of status dog of choice and attract idiots who want their dog to be nasty and encourage that .  so many of these being sold round here I dread to think where they will all end up.

I think one of the cross breeds that looks most like 'type' are Labrador x staffies unfortunately.

I’ve read there’s an increase in illegal ear cropping too, which doesn’t help. I cannot understand people who’d do that to a dog, it’s disgraceful.

>

yes lab x staff really do look the type. there is one round here, lovely dog but anyone who doesn't know him would say he was a pit. he isn't he is a boisterous silly friendly cross . I would be terrified if I were his owner.

It's mostly ignorance I think, these types of dogs are cheap to buy and still very popular, particularly in poorer areas.

I had a woman getting on my bus one day with a pit bull, I asked her about it, I said 'That's a lovely dog, what is it' and she proudly told me it was a pit bull terrier. I said to her she couldn't bring it on the bus, not unless it was muzzled. It would also have to be on the exempt list, tattooed, neutered and insured to be legal but I can't enforce that. We had a big chat about it, she had never heard of the dangerous dogs act and had no idea her dog was a banned breed. She bought it as a pit, and it clearly was, and this was about a year ago, so they had been banned for about 28 years!

I can’t say I’m a fan of breed-specific legislation simply because it runs the risk of non-aggressive dogs being seized and destroyed just because they look a particular way.

I’d prefer to see dogs assessed for temperament and behaviour rather than what shape they are.

And I also think giving people a list of dogs that are officially too dangerous to own gives the public a false sense of security about other breeds or mixes that aren’t listed, that could also do a whole lot of damage if they became aggressive. That big scary dog can’t be aggressive, it’s not a pit or a Japanese tosa or a fila brasiliero or a dogo argentino so how bad can it be?

As for why people buy them, I suspect it’s often just because they can. I mean people commit crimes despite it being illegal. Some idiots probably own them _because_ it’s not allowed.

I bet there are a lot of pit bulls out there that are registered with vets as “lab cross” or “staffy cross” and a lot of vets that suspect they are nothing of the sort. (Saying that though, the owner of our surgery thinks my papillon is a Pomeranian!)

(Side note that means nothing, but I’ve been bitten hard enough to draw blood by exactly two adult dogs - a Labrador Retriever (not mine) and a Papillon (mine). Damage was about the same. A bite from a dog bred to fight or kill would of course be considerably worse.)

A lot of people just don't realise - some genuinely don't know that pitties are on the list, and many buy staffie crosses without realising the risk if they grow up looking even vaguely like a pit (and so many do).  Some do, but they love whichever breed enough that they risk it anyway.  And some want the allure of an illegal breed.  It's the whole spectrum of reasons, really.

I know if dobermanns were to be put on the list, I would be absolutely heartbroken and I would probably consider still owning one, but ultimately the threat of removal would stop me.  But I do understand that side of it, at least.

I used to work with young people and was always been asked about my dogs .especially my gsd.they found it amazing that he wasn't aggressive and why wouldn't I want him to be . Many of.them and their families  owned as they described them red nose pits and it seemed to be from a mentality of no one tells me what I can do .if I want one I shall have it. Tbf I never heard of anyone having issues with the police over the breed so i can only assume that in its self bred an idea that there was no problems

   Of course the next step was breeding . A conversation I tried to avoid

I don't know if anyone has seen the prog an 'Animal Planet' called 'Pitbulls & Parolees' but most of the pitbulls on there seem to be big soft couch potatoes. It is all down to up-bringing I suppose  but even the badly treated ones don't seem to be inherently nasty

Yes I've seen it and they look lovely. Imo it goes back to the way our dda is worried. Its not the breed and in mamy cases its the numams involved that cause the problems.
I have a friend in Canada who has a pit x done. The softest daftest dog u could want happily livrs alongside and cuddles the cat and toy breed  they have .then he is in a well balanced human family

> even the badly treated ones don't seem to be inherently nasty

I'm not sure any breed is inherently nasty, but I do know that every single breed can bite. The difference is pit bulls were selectively bred for a long time to be tenacious, not to give up no matter what personal pain they are in and also selectiovely bred to have tremendous bite power. That's what got them banned. They're no more likely to attack than a labrador, but if they did they would be capable of so much more damage.

Have a look at this report, the report is flawed in many ways but you can't argue against the actual cold, hard facts that pitbulls and their crosses have killed 284 people in a 13 year period in the US, way more than all other dog breeds combined!

And yes, of course pits are more common is the US, they account for about 20% of the dog population... and 66% of deaths by dog. The clifton report also includes serious maimings and again pits do more serious harm than all other breeds combined.

When you think about that I'm happy with breed specific legislation, I just wish it was properly enforced.

Maybe some people train Pitbulls up themselves for personal protection without any thought of an OFF SWITCH ....?

In good hands Pitbulls appear to be reliable dogs, sadly in the wrong hands, its like someone driving a Porche that doesn't know how to use the brakes.

Whenever a dog does wrong (regardless of breed) its the owner that should take full responsibility for his/her dogs actions.

ear cropping makes them look hard....

Couldn't agree more chaumsong.

Pitties aren't supposed to be nasty to people, and that's supposed to have a lot to do with why they've been bred (for dog fighting, in more recent history than their original purpose).  If you're setting two dogs against each other, at some point you're going to need to grab one or both, and when that animal is all but drowning in adrenalin, you need one that isn't going to redirect onto you in that moment when you grab them with all the power that they have.  So they are epic people-lovers and loyal to a fault.

I don't know how true that actually is, but it makes sense to me.

I'm another who is totally for banning for the deed NOT for the 'breed'.    I've been bitten 3 times in anger - the first a Corgi, the second a Bloodhound, and then, totally my fault I suppose, a mongrel who was tied up outside a shop with a puppy.   I went to stroke the puppy.   I should have known better, but then perhaps that dog shouldn't have bitten.

I think perhaps people think these aggressive dogs will protect them - or it's just the macho thing?

> Pitties aren't supposed to be nasty to people

No, they're not but they have literally killed hundreds of people, far more than all other breeds combined. That's a cold, hard fact. It doesn't matter that most are soft sweet cuddle monsters, or that you met one that was the softest lump in the world, the fact remains that if you did get a 'bad' one (even if it's not it's fault but it's been horrifically abused say, or poorly bred, poorly socialised, whatever) a 'bad' pit is a very dangerous animal. And you can get a 'bad' dog in absolutely any breed, usually the humans fault.

You can find lots of supporting evidence online, from reliable sources. Some more in-depth than others, but they all agree with the basics "Conclusions: Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs."

This is one trauma centre over a 15 year period. Of the 228 people admitted with serious bites 23 of them died, ALL of those 23 were attacked by pit bulls.

This is 2020 dog deaths so far in the US, again pits take the lead.

> I'm another who is totally for banning for the deed NOT for the 'breed'.    I've been bitten 3 times in anger.

Yes, but they didn't kill you. Any dog can bite, any dog, any breed, however if a pit bites it's far more likely to cause serious damage or even death.

The problem with deed not breed is a dog has to bite first. If the law was properly enforced and there were no more pit bulls in this country 10 lives would have been saved, 5 of them children.

> Yes, but they didn't kill you.

Actually re the Bloodhound - I was lucky she got me on my arm and I was wearing a heavy coat.   All I had was serious bruising.   A few days later, she lunged at a customer who was picking up her dog (this was in a boarding kennel where I worked for a couple of years).   The poor woman suffered serious injury to her face and it was after that incident, the Bloodhound was put down.  I seriously believe she could have 'killed' me or the customer.

If any dog bites, it could be superficial, or serious which is why, again, I'm for looking at each incident.   The deed, not not the 'breed'.   I hate the idea of just looking at a type of dog and assuming it's a killer.  JMO.

Unfortunately once the deed is done, it’s too late for the person left with life changing injuries or worse.

sadly a lot of these breeds and breed types especially pitbulls are not bred responsibility.. no care for type, temperament or health. Many of these breeds no matter how well raised and socialised often aren't fully trustworthy with other dogs which is where I am always wary. I've had many encounters with Staffs and other bull breeds with my dogs where these dogs have sought out and pursued my dogs which bar one time were on leads, the other the dogs knew each other but turned on my dog.

I've met many Pits and American Staffords in countries where they are legal and never had any issue with them towards me as a human but I wouldn't allow my dogs anywhere near them.
Maybe these breeds just don't like my breed?? No idea but I'm always wary for good reason.

> If any dog bites, it could be superficial, or serious which is why, again, I'm for looking at each incident.

If you look at each incident in any of numerous studies you'll see that pit bulls are far more likely to kill or cause serious life changing injuries than all other breeds combined. I don't like it either but it's an actual fact, not anyone's opinion.

> Maybe these breeds just don't like my breed?

It's down to remembering what every breed was originally selectively bred for isn't it, collies can't help herding, labs love to carry things around, spaniels are always rooting about in the undergrowth, sighthounds chase, then there are dog's that were selectively bred to fight...

Person we should widen the discussion from just pitbulls as there other breeds that are banned in the UK.
I haven't looked at the statistics on any of the breeds and neither am I statistician but would expect there are other common  non dda breeds that cause fatalities too so think it has to be debated in a wider context
I think the  act needs reconsidering. Is it working? Is it being properly policed ? For example .have we reduced fatalities or.serious injuries

"Pitties aren't supposed to be nasty to people"

I believe there needs to be more focus on bad owners, and bad owners need to be 'Banned For Life' from owning any dog whatsoever. Taking bad owners out of the equation is the only way to get to the root of the problem in my humble opinion.

Not a Pittie - some years ago there were a family living round the corner from us who had a GSD. If dog was out with Mr or Mrs - all fine ........ If 16/17ish son had it then you crossed the road, it had lunged at several people, ripping coats etc!
Definitely 'owner' not dog.

Well it obviously isn't working, as Pitts should no longer exist in UK, as they were all supposed to be neutered, breeding them is ilegal.

To me it's a 'no brainer.'

The damage that dogs bred to size and 'function' as guarding/fighting type, as so many of these mastiff/bull breeds are and have been, there is no doubt that it really is a question of breed not deed. In the 'wrong' or 'right ' hands, these dogs  can cause death or life changing injury- if they choose to, or are provoked to, attack .
For me, I'd rather be nipped by a collie, snapped by a chi ..than be bitten by a bull/mastiff type. My dogs would attest to this too.

I speak from experience.

What I was getting at is that these dogs were fine around other dogs i saw but decided to hunt and stalk out mine, it was a purposeful move on their part. One situation my dog on lead and we were both stood looking out to sea, this Staff came running in growling at mine, im shouting at the owner to get their dog and all I got was abuse.
Another recently the dog in question a Boxer was ignoring all other dogs but spotted mine, again on lead and made a beeline for her, got close up and started growling, the owner not near by and couldn't give a toss, thankfully I was working with a trainer and we split them up before anything serious happened.

This is what i mean by my dogs seem to attract the bull breeds to come and have a pop.

At dog show, mine on lead as they should be and as I walked past the Stafford ring one flew out at mine (owner standing ringside with others) on a long lead having a pop. It had ignored all dogs walking past ahead of mine. Mine hit the deck as she was scared by it.

Hope that clarifies what I mean in my previous post Chaumsong

> Hope that clarifies what I mean in my previous post Chaumsong

I knew what you meant, but a lot of them do that with all dogs, not just yours.

My dog is an American bulldog. American bulldogs are not pitbulls and are not a banned breed. They are completely different dog breeds.

I personally don't think any breed should be banned and as for those wanting to own a pitbull, pitbulls are extremely loyal and trainable dogs and make amazing family pets. Its their extreme loyalty and trainability that getsbtaken advantage of and bad dog owners use this to train them for fighting.

A pitbull puppy is not born dangerous just like a labrador puppy os not born a great working retriever. They need to be trained to be what the owner wants them to be.

> My dog is an American bulldog. American bulldogs are not pitbulls and are not a banned breed. They are completely different dog breeds.

No their not banned, but as I said the law doesn't see the American pitbull terrier as a breed But a type and it bans American pitbull terrier types  and their crosses, the word type means a dog can be deemed to be of type if it meets their measurements for what a pitbull terrier type looks like. Because of this I have seen some cases online where people have had problems (including dogs taken) that were ment to be Staffx and American bulldogX because when the puppy grew up it happened to look enough like what the government says a pitbull type looks like.

Even a police force had to have one of their training sniffer dogs putdown, it was adopted from a rescue centre but while training an officer deemed it to be type. It was returned to the rescue who had to put it down.

Even a police force had to have one of their training sniffer dogs putdown, it was adopted from a rescue centre but while training an officer deemed it to be type. It was returned to the rescue who had to put it down.
Quote selected text

god yes I remember that- was appalling.  why on earth that dog could not have an exemption was beyond me.  surely being in hands of professional dog handler it was not a danger to anyone

It was because banned dogs are not allowed to be sold orbre-homed I suppose.

So the rescue would be guilty of breaking/broke the law.