# Staff cross from rescue, owners and rescue in court on DDA



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Just seen on News North west that a couple who got a Staff x dog from a rescue are in court today and so is the head of the rescue after the dog was seized as a pit bull type. The rescue and the new owners insist that the dog is a wonderful pet, and looking at the owners they are far from the type, they are an older couple. 
Can't find details online as yet, just looking now.


----------



## sammy1969 (Jul 21, 2007)

Pimperella said:


> Just seen on News North west that a couple who got a Staff x dog from a rescue are in court today and so is the head of the rescue after the dog was seized as a pit bull type. The rescue and the new owners insist that the dog is a wonderful pet, and looking at the owners they are far from the type, they are an older couple.
> Can't find details online as yet, just looking now.


 
Stuff like this never ceases to amaze me, I mean if the dog had shown any signs of aggresion etc I could understand and even if the new owners were the type but obviously this dog has been assessed and found to be fine so why do this to people who obviously just want to give a good dog a good home what next I wonder


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

What it also means is even less homes for staffie and staffie x's as people watching the news, even if the dog gets freed, will be even less willing to offer a home to a staff or staffie x on the fear that, it to, will be seized by the police as a dangerous dog.

And yes, the dog had been checked by the rescue. He was not aggressive in anyway, in fact they said he was a bit scared of other dogs (most likey from poor pup socialisation or from being attacked by a poor trained dog.)

Still can't find anything online yet.


----------



## TEENY (Jan 4, 2008)

I am worried about this. Mine is a staff cross boxer so will to all intents and purposes look like a big staff. I have proof of the cross tho so will making a record of it at vets next week incase of future problems


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Keep a copy of both adverts aswell Teeny. That way you also have that as a back refference.


----------



## TEENY (Jan 4, 2008)

Pimperella said:


> Keep a copy of both adverts aswell Teeny. That way you also have that as a back refference.


oooooooooooooooh good idea. Will do so thanks. I would die if he was taken


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*unjust*

don't it make you sick.A freed dda dog has just died at 14 years old.He was confiscated in 2003,his only crime to be walked without a muzzle and look to be the wrong type.He was released at 13 years old and at least spent his twilight in comfort.Four years in police kennels.Any one needing help needs to contact the fury defence fund which offers expert help for people who end up in this terrible situation with their dogs.


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

Bad news.
Perhaps irresponsible breeders of Staff x's will take notice.
But I sadly doubt it.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Caz said:


> Bad news.
> Perhaps irresponsible breeders of Staff x's will take notice.
> But I sadly doubt it.


 
Exactly! How times have we all said to those planning and those who have a litter on the way. That they run the risk of these dogs being seized and labeled 'PIT BULL TYPE'

Well here's the proof. Wether they get the dog back or not. The suffering that the dog and owner has to go through in the meantime. All because someone thought they'd make a bit of money having a staffie x litter.


----------



## TEENY (Jan 4, 2008)

Caz said:


> Bad news.
> Perhaps irresponsible breeders of Staff x's will take notice.
> But I sadly doubt it.





Pimperella said:


> Exactly! How times have we all said to those planning and those who have a litter on the way. That they run the risk of these dogs being seized and labeled 'PIT BULL TYPE'
> 
> Well here's the proof. Wether they get the dog back or not. The suffering that the dog and owner has to go through in the meantime. All because someone thought they'd make a bit of money having a staffie x litter.


You will all be pleased to know that i will not be one of those. The moment he turns old enough i am having him snipped. It will better all round in the long run.


----------



## vonnie (Aug 20, 2007)

Very worrying.

We rehomed our staffy cross from the pound. To my eyes he is a staffy x collie, but I've had someone come over and ask if he's a pitbull.

To make matters worse, although he is wonderful with all people, he is dog aggressive - we can only presume this is due to no socialisation as a pup. 

We never walk him without a muzzle now. It's just not worth the risk of us being reported. I have no confidence in the authorities when it comes to deciding whaat dog is or is not a 'pitbull type', and so I think he could be at risk if a complaint were ever made.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Caz said:


> Perhaps irresponsible breeders of Staff x's will take notice.
> But I sadly doubt it.


Do you know that was the first thing I thought too! 

I especially hope it wakes up those people whose staffies have been 'caught' or who have deliberately bred them to another breed because they think it'll look a nice dog and who have been insisting on here that the pupps won't be taken under the DDA because they're not pit bulls!

I'm sick of seeing that on here - people insisting that their dogs will be OK cos they're not pitbulls!

This is perfect proof that they don't have to be!!

Poor dog and poor owners - I hope they don't get charged and are given their dog back safe and sound and not too damaged from being in kennels for ages while the case is fought.


----------



## temerist (Feb 1, 2009)

then people wonder why there are still so many staffies and staffy x in rescues. i have to say with the way things are i would be nervous about taking one on as a pet based on the way it looked and possibly ignoring the fact it is a lovely dog. its very sad.


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

Caz said:


> Bad news.
> Perhaps irresponsible breeders of Staff x's will take notice.
> But I sadly doubt it.


Yep, they will continue to breed there dogs to make money whilst putting the rest of us and our dogs at risk!



Pimperella said:


> Exactly! How times have we all said to those planning and those who have a litter on the way. That they run the risk of these dogs being seized and labeled 'PIT BULL TYPE'
> 
> Well here's the proof. Wether they get the dog back or not. The suffering that the dog and owner has to go through in the meantime. All because someone thought they'd make a bit of money having a staffie x litter.


Agreed, but they will continue to breed thinking it won't ever happen to them or there dogs and that they can continue to get away with it. Evene whn news like this is shoved in there faces. I'm sure they will continue to risk there dogs lives and carry on breeding though. And thats what makes me so bloody angry. Its not them that will suffer and possibly have to be distroyed, its the dogs, always the dogs.

Teeny, any chance you can get proof of parentage? could you get pics of the parents and a written letter from the owners to say what your pup is?
Make sure he is registered at your vets as a Staffie x Boxer and that he is chipped stating so also.


----------



## Em_J (Dec 14, 2009)

The problem is that little word "type" - it doesn't matter what the parents are if it's unfortunate enough to look like a pit in the eyes of the law it is one....

That's what makes me so angry about the law - We have a staff, rescued from the RSPCA and it really worries me that she might get taken just because she has quite long legs (daft as that sounds)....

I would never be put off having another staff or staffy cross in the future though - we know our dog and the benefits far outweigh the negative attitude we get....


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

TEENY said:


> I am worried about this. Mine is a staff cross boxer so will to all intents and purposes look like a big staff. I have proof of the cross tho so will making a record of it at vets next week incase of future problems


Sad thing is it's not proving that your dog is a Cross with no APBT in him. That dosen't even come into it.Even if you prove he is a cross with two fully legal breeds they can still take him based puely on his looks.That he has the frame work of a fighting dog and maybe used for fighting.



DDA 1991 said:


> (c) *A**ny dog* of *any type designated* for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.


So anyones dogs life is in the hands of a person that likely knows nothing about the dog in question.To say this dog is or is not used for fighting IMO.So they may as well flip a coin heads the dog live.And tails the dog get PTS.It's that flippant.

Sad thing is recuse centres are full of DIY Pit's(Pit type's).Even the RSPCA has a number of these "TYPE" dogs in there begging adverts.
Will this end up in auto PTS of "TYPE" dogs in resuse centre ?.If all that going to happen when you rehome them is they get took off the new owners.

There's a fair amount of "TYPE" dogs in this RSPCA ads.
http://vimeo.com/1617961
http://vimeo.com/3197625


----------



## Mirf (May 22, 2008)

gazz said:


> Sad thing is it's not proving that your dog is a Cross with no APBT in him. That dosen't even come into it.Even if you prove he is a cross with two fully legal breeds they can still take him based puely on his looks.And that he has the frame work of a fighting dog and maybe used for fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Scarey stuff indeed. I have a rescue staffy who is quite big for the breed and have had several idiots asking me if he's a 'pure putbull'. I am his 5th owner so, if there ever was a problem, I have no hope of proving he's nothing more than a tall, well built, daft as a brush staffy....


----------



## AmyW (Aug 24, 2009)

It's just not fair.

It must be heartbreaking for the woners and stressful for the dog. I really hope this turns out to have a happy ending and they are reunited with their dog.

What a wonderful and just country we live in...


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

TEENY said:


> You will all be pleased to know that i will not be one of those. The moment he turns old enough i am having him snipped. It will better all round in the long run.


TBH I never doubted that you would have him snipped. My post wasn't at all aimed at you or anyone that rehomes a staff X. Good on you for giving the little cutey a home. :2thumb:


----------



## Jacs (Jun 7, 2009)

my ex has a staff cross bullmastiff she is lovley a little bouncy but not at all agressive. probelm is she does look slightly pit bull and he looks like the "type" that could use for fighting, obviosuly he doesnt he is infact very against it. he was once pulled aside by a couple of policemen asking what breed she was but thats as far as it went, they gave her a fuss and let them go on.. ever since he has been really worried about her being taken away. he doesnt have any papers or proof of who the parents are eaither so if he was to be caught he wouldnt have much of a chance apart from the fact she is the softest thing ever. it is horrible to hear about innocent dogs being taken away and pts or even just being taken away to be analyzed, i know pleanty of people with the "good" breeds of dogs which are a LOT worse than 99% of the "pitbull types" siezed


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

Em_J said:


> The problem is that little word "type" - it doesn't matter what the parents are if it's unfortunate enough to look like a pit in the eyes of the law it is one....
> 
> That's what makes me so angry about the law - We have a staff, rescued from the RSPCA and it really worries me that she might get taken just because she has quite long legs (daft as that sounds)....
> 
> I would never be put off having another staff or staffy cross in the future though - we know our dog and the benefits far outweigh the negative attitude we get....


The main problem is (and it confuses my head allot) is the word "Staffie" 
Now you look up the breed description and stats for them, anything that doesnt look the same in height and build isnt a pure Staffie unless you have the paperwork to say so and even that is debateable (due to the types of people breeding them and saying there pure, when there not, even with paperwork) 
My point is, there are so many "Staffies" out there that arent Staffies, but yet people call them "Staffies" even I am guilty of that as I know full well one of mine is a Staffie x with a Cocker, the other, well I don't know. He was born in Wales in a shed, I hand reared him and he had a very dodgy start, all of which can effect his growth and the way he looks. But some people would probably say he is a leggy Staffie, but he would be classed as type along with my female.

There are so many dogs that look alike due to so many people crossing different Bull Breeds that at the end of the day unless you have proof and your dog fits the breed description of a certain breed and doesnt look like it could have some other Bull breed in him your stuffed and he will be classed as type due to the lack of people who actually know about APBTs and the lack of info to actually be able to tell what parentage a dog has. 
I know they say if you have a springer it could be classed as type, but we all know thats a bit far fetched. But if you have a Bull Breed that doesnt look as it should it can and possibly will be seen as type.


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

I don't understand that type quote about fighting dogs when there are loads of fighting dogs which are legel ie English bull terriers, olde tyme bulldogs although used for bullbaiting also for fighting which I own,This law is dumb as f""" ,it has gotta be reviewd although I can understand why pits are illegal
in the wrong hands there deadily they should be licensed and any cross which can be proved should be ok it's so stupid, as for your boxer cross staff I think u should be ok although he may look a little like a pit I think he should look enough differnt to be ok there seriously not as strickt in London pit bulls are everywhere I've only herd of one being confenscated but my mAte got it bk evan though it was a pit mix


----------



## Em_J (Dec 14, 2009)

marthaMoo said:


> The main problem is (and it confuses my head allot) is the word "Staffie"
> Now you look up the breed description and stats for them, anything that doesnt look the same in height and build isnt a pure Staffie unless you have the paperwork to say so and even that is debateable (due to the types of people breeding them and saying there pure, when there not, even with paperwork)
> My point is, there are so many "Staffies" out there that arent Staffies, but yet people call them "Staffies" even I am guilty of that as I know full well one of mine is a Staffie x with a Cocker, the other, well I don't know. He was born in Wales in a shed, I hand reared him and he had a very dodgy start, all of which can effect his growth and the way he looks. But some people would probably say he is a leggy Staffie, but he would be classed as type along with my female.
> 
> ...


Exactly - Most staffies wouldn't actually fit the KC breed standard, so can you really say they are a staff? - they come in all shapes and sizes due to backyard breeding and crossing (with whatever). At best you can say they are probably mostly staffy - Ours, if there's anything else in her, has been crossed at some point with something with longer legs, but slimmer build... She's not particularly stocky for a staffy, but she's on the taller end of average... We were certainly "sold" her as a full staff

The rescue we got her from are very careful with any crosses they get through that look a little suspect - if in doubt they are usually put down. 

Ps. your staffy shaped things are lovely


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

I am moving shortly and have been considering a rescue staff once I am settled in my new place.

This worries me as I will be a young boy living on a council estate, and I suppose I look "the type".

Me and my dog may have something in common then?

How can a dog or person be criminalised for the way they look?


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

Em_J said:


> Exactly - Most staffies wouldn't actually fit the KC breed standard, so can you really say they are a staff? - they come in all shapes and sizes due to backyard breeding and crossing (with whatever). At best you can say they are probably mostly staffy - Ours, if there's anything else in her, has been crossed at some point with something with longer legs, but slimmer build... She's not particularly stocky for a staffy, but she's on the taller end of average... We were certainly "sold" her as a full staff
> 
> The rescue we got her from are very careful with any crosses they get through that look a little suspect - if in doubt they are usually put down.
> 
> Ps. your staffy shaped things are lovely


Even with in the KC Staffies there are two strains of staffie that stemed from differant areas.There's the bully type and the terrier type.Bully type that came from more central Birmingham area.And are short,stocky.And the terrier type that came from the Black country area(North western area of Birmingham).And are longer legged and a little leaner.Plus Dogs tend to have around 2 to 3 inchs taller at the shoulder than Bitchs in both strains.

Both below are KC Dogs both a adult males.

Bully type.









Terrier type.









At the end of the day differant show judges will have differant prefrances.So staffie build and hight will also sway breeder to breeder.
So a staffie of terrier type will likely be a little higher that the gide lines.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

gazz said:


> Even with in the KC Staffies there are two strains of staffie that stemed from differant areas.There's the bully type and the terrier type.Bully type that came from more central Birmingham area.And are short,stocky.And the terrier type that came from the Black country area(North western area of Birmingham).And are longer legged and a little leaner.Plus Dogs tend to have around 2 to 3 inchs taller at the shoulder than Bitchs in both strains.
> 
> Both below are KC Dogs both a adult males.
> 
> ...



Interesting post!


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

bobby said:


> How can a dog or person be criminalised for the way they look?


Sadly often the case.For example if a woman perse was stolen.And standing behind there was a man wearing a suit,tei,shoes and another man wearing a hoody,tracky,trainers.Where are the finger pointing likely to go first.Yet we all know that people in suits steel.

The DDA is nothing more than canine racism.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

"The DDA is nothing more than canine racism."

I suppose it is, all dogs are the same species after all.


----------



## ian-wilson (Sep 2, 2009)

IMG]http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr204/ianwilson_1/DSCF1137.jpg[/IMG]


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

I cant see the pic ian!


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

I reposted your image.
Hope you dont mind!

Very nice lookin dog 

Love the socks lmao


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

If you look at the guidelines that are used to determine ''pit type'' dogs, even the best, purest staffie, with perfect conformation etc could be considered pit type, aswell as most other bull breeds. And paperwork means nothing.

Somewhere on the net is the official guidelines that are issued to the authorities for recognising pit types but I cannot find it, but it lists things like the way the ears sit (often hanging forwards, just like a staff), the overall build (toned, stocky, hind quaters, deep chested - all charcteristics of a staff) and the police are only trained for 2 weeks.

All bull breeds are at risk, and as far as the law goes its all 'above board', not mistakes. The law was written in this way to give the police etc. the power to seize all dogs of a bully nature.


----------



## TEENY (Jan 4, 2008)

marthaMoo said:


> Teeny, any chance you can get proof of parentage? could you get pics of the parents and a written letter from the owners to say what your pup is?
> Make sure he is registered at your vets as a Staffie x Boxer and that he is chipped stating so also.


I cannot get pics of both parents BUT i do have copies of adverts from both other sets of owners and if push came to shove i would just go to house he was bought from originalluy and get a pic of mum.
I will be registering him as a boxer cross at vets and on his chip which he gets next week.


gazz said:


> Sad thing is it's not proving that your dog is a Cross with no APBT in him. That dosen't even come into it.Even if you prove he is a cross with two fully legal breeds they can still take him based puely on his looks.That he has the frame work of a fighting dog and maybe used for fighting.



This makes me sad and very cross.
I am lucky enough to have a LOT of farmland and fields around me so the chances of us running into a lot of people on walks is low. I will be taking him to puppy classes and socialising him with a lot of other friends dogs so that he knows how to behave as i know that him barking his head off WILL get him the wrong sort of attention 




Caz said:


> TBH I never doubted that you would have him snipped. My post wasn't at all aimed at you or anyone that rehomes a staff X. Good on you for giving the little cutey a home. :2thumb:


I know. I just wanted people to know that this is one cross that will not be carrying on his genes lol


----------



## BabyBlonde (Mar 4, 2008)

this was something concerning me with Ducky as the previous owner has pitbulls and I had a feeling her dad wasnt who he said he was and was a pitbull instead.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

Can I see a pic of ducky?


----------



## BabyBlonde (Mar 4, 2008)

some pictures in the picture section under Ducky, Toria and Pepsi.
Not brillant pictures but she wont keep still.
It concerns me still as she is getting vicious! She has bitten me nastily and has broken skin twice


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

BabyBlonde said:


> some pictures in the picture section under Ducky, Toria and Pepsi.
> Not brillant pictures but she wont keep still.
> It concerns me still as she is getting vicious! She has bitten me nastily and has broken skin twice


that needs to be stamped out, either by you or by a proffessional trainer, a dog that bites and breaks skin cannot be allowed to carry on, nip it in the bud, other wise you will have an unpredictable dog, without correct management it will only get worse.

On a different note, true APBT are so different to what people think they look like that, you could probably quite happily walk a true APBT without anyone ever batting an eyelid.

They have been demonised, the DDA makes it worse, because the sort of people breaking the law and keeping them are the sort of people that shouldnt be keeping them, and because of that the lines that are being bred together are fighting lines and aggressive dogs that are not suitable to be bred from are being bred from for the specific purpose of making aggressive dogs.

"Type" is a big concern, and anyone with an iterest should support and follow DDA watch, they have a website and a face book group and help people with dogs that have been accused of being "type" and keep on top of new stories ect..

http://www.ddawatch.co.uk/

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#/group.php?gid=27193457689&ref=ts


----------



## sophs87 (Jan 25, 2009)

BabyBlonde said:


> some pictures in the picture section under Ducky, Toria and Pepsi.
> Not brillant pictures but she wont keep still.
> It concerns me still as she is getting vicious! She has bitten me nastily and has broken skin twice


 
You need to yelp when she bites, 
Just because she bites, it doesnt mean shes a pit.


----------



## ami_j (Jan 6, 2007)

sophs87 said:


> You need to yelp when she bites,
> Just because she bites, it doesnt mean shes a pit.


exactly:roll:
i wouldnt be so quick to claim potential "pit" either its asking for trouble


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Being vicious with humans isn't even a pit bull trait (quite the opposite) either, to be honest I can't believe the ignorance in some posts. 

Why would someone go out of their way to post their dogs on a thread about illegal dogs? If you want your dog IDing genuinely, approach one of the organisations out there to protect your dogs, such as Deed Not Breed or EDDR. 

As for "my dog is a boxer cross and therefore can't be illegal", sorry but not true. Parentage is irrelevant, measurements are all that matters. You can prove parentage and it doesn't mean the dog isn't illegal. I'm quite disappointed that after all this time people are still suggesting that proof of parentage will save any dogs. If a pedigree poodle popped out fitting the measurements (extreme thought but need to go extreme to highlight this clearly), those papers wouldn't make it legal, it would still be a pit bull type dog. 

If I was concerned about the safety of my dogs, I wouldn't post their photos on a public web forum.


----------



## Em_J (Dec 14, 2009)

KathyM said:


> Being vicious with humans isn't even a pit bull trait (quite the opposite) either, to be honest I can't believe the ignorance in some posts.
> 
> Why would someone go out of their way to post their dogs on a thread about illegal dogs? If you want your dog IDing genuinely, approach one of the organisations out there to protect your dogs, such as Deed Not Breed or EDDR.
> 
> ...


Kathy, there's just far too much mis-information out there... I think that's what really makes me angry. Its not just the ordinary lay person that is mis-informed either....


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

From what im reading here and elsewhere, any staff could potentially meet this "type". 

How *likely* am I to have my dog taken away if I rescue a Staff?


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

KathyM said:


> Being vicious with humans isn't even a pit bull trait (quite the opposite) either, to be honest I can't believe the ignorance in some posts.
> 
> Why would someone go out of their way to post their dogs on a thread about illegal dogs? If you want your dog IDing genuinely, approach one of the organisations out there to protect your dogs, such as Deed Not Breed or EDDR.
> 
> ...


I didnt say proof of parentage will save any dog, but if you have documentation as to what the parents are from the breeder and vet it will always be helpfull.
And I don't like the way how poodles and any other breed that looks nothing like a banned breed is always brought into it with people being told that there dog could be seized as type, possibly by a blind man! And putting the fear of god into owners who have no need to worry.


----------



## Em_J (Dec 14, 2009)

bobby said:


> From what im reading here and elsewhere, any staff could potentially meet this "type".
> 
> How *likely* am I to have my dog taken away if I rescue a Staff?


Don't let this put you off getting a staffy if you think its the right dog for you - its very unlikely that you will get your dog seized. Be sensible, go to a breed rescue, learn about the breed and how best to teach them.

If you really are worried, just make sure the dog you get is, or at least looks like a staffy, rather than a slightly bigger cross. There are thousands of happy healthy family dogs waiting in rescue who would love to come home with you!


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

marthaMoo said:


> I didnt say proof of parentage will save any dog, but if you have documentation as to what the parents are from the breeder and vet it will always be helpfull.


I'm not disagreeing that doing anything you can to protect yourself and your dog is a good idea, but I would really appreciate knowing how proof of parentage can help at all, when the law clearly covers dogs of all parentage that fit the measurements, and the onus of proof is reversed (ie. guilty until proven innocent). 




> And I don't like the way how poodles and any other breed that looks nothing like a banned breed is always brought into it with people being told that there dog could be seized as type, possibly by a blind man! And putting the fear of god into owners who have no need to worry.


Now you're being very silly :lol2: - I did say that it was an "out there" example but the facts stand, if your dog fits the measurements, regardless of what breed it is, it is legally classed as pitbull "type" and therefore an illegal dog.


----------



## sophs87 (Jan 25, 2009)

Its sad that dogs only have to fit measurements to be seized and pts 

And that this thread has almost put someone off going to a rescue to home a staffy 
How many others will it put of 

I think the minority of staffs get seized, as pit type,
It doesnt mean they all will or even 90% of the population will be seized, 


I think the law should be changed, That Any dog, Any breed, Size, Cross or not, Should be seized if reported to be aggressive,
This way, there would be less of the agressive small dogs that havnt been socialised or trained because there 'small'.
Less of the ive got a rotti as i need a penis enlargement
Because all Dogs, bought, rescued would need to be propery trained, socialised Ect, In order to not be seized.... If any of that makes sence..... at all.....:lol2:


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

sophs87 said:


> Its sad that dogs only have to fit measurements to be seized and pts
> 
> And that this thread has almost put someone off going to a rescue to home a staffy
> How many others will it put of
> ...


This already is the law. Any dog that poses a *perceived threat *(doesnt have to actually harm anyone, just make someone believe that it could) is at risk of being siezed under the DDA, regardless of breed.


----------



## sophs87 (Jan 25, 2009)

rakpeterson said:


> This already is the law. Any dog that poses a *perceived threat *(doesnt have to actually harm anyone, just make someone believe that it could) is at risk of being siezed under the DDA, regardless of breed.


 
I meant by making pit bulls illegal, they are as dangerous as anyother dog. All dogs should be treated the same, not every pit bull euthenised and pit type seized, Jut for *being that breed*


----------



## arachniface (Dec 28, 2009)

I wish that the government would just hire some geneticists to sort out the "pitbull" definition once and for all, it would save a lot of unnecessary heartache. 

Also wish the public were more conscientious about reporting aggressive dogs and that the minority of crap owners wouldn't spoil it for the 99.9999% responsible owners... still, we can but dream!


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

American pit bull terrier,Amstaff,Staffordshire bull terrier,English bull terrier'etc'etc are in truth pit bulls due to there roots And the cross's of these breed also fall into this box.People alway link the word "pit bull" with the American pit bull terrier and yes the American pit bull terrier is a pitbull but it's not the only one.As the saying goes.An American pit bull terrier is a pit bull.But not all pit bulls are American pit bull terriers.So Pit bull and American pit bull terrier are the same bull not always as pit bull also means other types.So if you mean American pit bull terrier say American pit bull terrier if that what your refering to.



> *Pit bull* is a term commonly used to describe several breeds of dog in the Molosser family. Many breed-specific laws use the term "pit bull" to refer to the modern American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and dogs with significant mixes of these breeds; however, a few jurisdictions also classify the modern American Bulldog and Bull Terrier as a "pit bull-type dog". The term can also refer to dogs that were known as "bull terriers" prior to the development of the modern Bull Terrier in the early 20th century.


That's why is so wrong for the DDA to say Pit bull.Coz that means noone is safe.



DDA 1991 said:


> (1) This section applies to—
> (a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;
> (b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and
> (c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

sophs87 said:


> I meant by making pit bulls illegal, they are as dangerous as anyother dog. All dogs should be treated the same, not every pit bull euthenised and pit type seized, Jut for *being that breed*


This just simply isnt true. Its an argument i keep putting forward but very little people seem to take notice, why is that??

All dogs are not the same.
All breeds are not just as likely to be as dangerous as each other.

I agree that any breed can be dangerous, but some breeds are naturally more aggressive. Its what makes all breeds unique. They all have their charachteristics.

I do oppose the DDA as it stands, but the worst thing that could happen right now is for it to be lifted.

If it were to be lifted we would be in alot of trouble.

In reality dog ownership needs to be banned, and bring back a strict licensing scheme which both educates and vets the owner/handler...

or....and I hate to say it, add many more breeds to the list.


----------



## rangers1690 (Oct 3, 2009)

*Staffy & Rotty Owner*

Hi all, i own a ten year old staffie male and a six year old female rottweiler and while my two dont like other animals they have always behaved impeccacbly towards humans and love my nieces and nephews to bits.However i would not trust them with other animals as my staffie was attacked twice by a japanese akita when he was a pup,and has been nasty to other dogs ever since.I think i am a responsible dog owner and as such act accordingly ie always keep my dogs on the leash,warn other dog owners to keep their dogs away from mine etc.

I think the main problem is the so called hardmen who have these types of dogs as status symbols and use them as weapons,and also irresponsible dog breeders who are only in it for the money and dont care who they sell their animals to.I think it would help a great deal if all dog owners and breeders were licensed,and checked on regularly no matter what the dog.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

rakpeterson said:


> This just simply isnt true. Its an argument i keep putting forward but very little people seem to take notice, why is that??
> 
> All dogs are not the same.
> All breeds are not just as likely to be as dangerous as each other.
> ...


I agree with this in the main but rather than adding breeds to the list it would be better to have a higher level of competence required for keeping some breeds.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

Evie said:


> I agree with this in the main but rather than adding breeds to the list it would be better to have a higher level of competence required for keeping some breeds.


Of course i would much rather have a system in place wich meant there was not an outright ban on any breed but its going to be a tricky business, and if it cant be successfully implemented then I would support several additions to the existing 4.


----------



## vonnie (Aug 20, 2007)

It takes a certain level of competence to be a responsible owner of any breed of dog. Sadly a significant percentage of dog owners would not reach that, IMO.

Unfortunately many of the 'bad' owners are attracted to large, potentially aggressive dogs. This just perpetuates the image of certain breeds, and their indiscriminate breeding just makes matters even worse. A responsible breeder would breed to improve temperament. Some of these idiots breed to achieve the opposite.

I honestly cannot see a situation where staffies as a breed or 'type' are banned. There are too many of them. The expense of policing such an addition to the act could be huge. The current wording was not an oversight. I think it was deliberately left open-ended so that it could be applied in as many cases as possible anyway.

Everyone seems to think they have some sort of 'right' to have a dog, regardless of their circumstances and ownership abilities. Just as they think they have a right to children/a foreign holiday/sky/etc etc etc. For far too many people a dog is just a possession, a status symbol like any other.

And matters are not helped at all by the number of people claiming to have pits. Most of them are probably any combination of bull crosses, but the legislation seems to have made the word even more desirable to a certain sort of moron.


----------



## Em_J (Dec 14, 2009)

rakpeterson said:


> Of course i would much rather have a system in place wich meant there was not an outright ban on any breed but its going to be a tricky business, and if it cant be successfully implemented then I would support several additions to the existing 4.


The problem is that the system as it is is not successfully implemented... I don't think adding more breeds to the list would solve anything.... Those people who use dogs wrongly would just move onto the next breed along and ruin that too....


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Exactly. Let's add a few more breeds to the list, as long as we dont own them it doesn't matter, but when the chavvy idiots who've brought this on THOSE breeds pick someone's favourite breed, then they'll have something to say!

I say we ban labradors! Maybe more people would care then.

(that is sarcasm, btw)


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

vonnie said:


> The current wording was not an oversight. I think it was deliberately left open-ended so that it could be applied in as many cases as possible anyway.


This is my view too.



LisaLQ said:


> Exactly. Let's add a few more breeds to the list, as long as we dont own them it doesn't matter, but when the chavvy idiots who've brought this on THOSE breeds pick someone's favourite breed, then they'll have something to say!
> 
> I say we ban labradors! Maybe more people would care then.
> 
> (that is sarcasm, btw)


If you check my posts you will see that despite loving my breed tremendously I would support a ban. I own Presa Canario's. I am not saying these things about ''other peoples'' dogs, I include my own dogs in this matter. Based on my own experience, Presa's as well as several other breeds should not be available to everyone. And the final reason I would support a ban is because of the way the breed has been ruined in recent years, I like to think it would offer them a level of protection, albeit small.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

I would rather see higher penalties for owners of dangerous animals of any breed/species, than a ban of danes purely to placate the ignorant public.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

LisaLQ said:


> I would rather see higher penalties for owners of dangerous animals of any breed/species, than a ban of danes purely to placate the ignorant public.


And so would I, but failing that, stop everyone from owning them. As a nation we cannot be trusted. Responsible owners are becoming a minority, not the majority.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

I own a bullmastiff and would never support any other breeds being added to the DDA. To do so would be to put the blame at the wrong end of the lead. Breed specific legislation doesn't, hasn't ever and will never work. It is a complete failure and lifting it wouldn't change a thing, because those who have truly dangerous animals don't follow the law anyway. :bash:


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

KathyM said:


> I own a bullmastiff and would never support any other breeds being added to the DDA. To do so would be to put the blame at the wrong end of the lead. Breed specific legislation doesn't, hasn't ever and will never work. It is a complete failure and lifting it wouldn't change a thing, because those who have truly dangerous animals don't follow the law anyway. :bash:


Spot on IMHO


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

Like i said, I do not *want* breeds added and i recognise that as it stands the DDA is a failure, but the only failing of the DDA is the ''pit type'' part.

You dont see Dogo's/Fila's/Tosa's walking the streets, well not much anyway and if another system cant be put in place that does work, I see no other option. For example if Rottweilers were made illegal it would not be easy to flaunt the law as they are well known, they'd all be picked up. If all mastiff/molosser breeds were banned they too are easily recognizable. I admit it is extreme, but I dont see many other ways of dealing with it. Its not to just protect people but the dogs too. As I said, based on my own experience, there is no way that 99% of the country should be able to go out and purchase freely the likes of Presa Canarios, Cane Corso's, Kangal's, Bully Kutta's, Alano's (just a very small number of the breeds I would be devestated to see on the list) etc etc plus the more well known rotties, staffs, all types of bulldog.

I realise many will suffer because of the actions of a few, but that 'few' is fast becoming the majority. How long do these dogs have to suffer before we do something.

and this ''putting the blame at the wrong end of the lead'' is very misleading. Many people who find themselves on the wrong side of DDA do so from ignorance. People assume because its legal its safe, not the case. People believe all dogs are the same, they will alll respond to training the same etc. Many dog attacks werent because the owners intentionally made them aggressive, its because they weren't knowledgable which is why an education/license program would be good.....if it would work!


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

You contradict yourself and show in your post exactly why adding more breeds to the register won't work. To do so they have to have "type" and measurements, or it's not comprehensive legally - that's what happens when you add a law that is based on looks (there are no genetic tests for breed, so it has to be done on looks and measurement). You and I know it doesn't work for pit bulls and their "type". Will it do anything for mastiff "types" (especially when half the breeds you mentioned are crossbred molossers with varying presentations)? No, and there is no circumstance under which this legislation CAN work. 

Breed specific legislation has done exactly what towards preventing the breeding and misuse of pit bull type dogs? Exactly, nothing. What has it done towards preventing attacks? Nothing, they're if anything rising. Do the people who need to be stopped from owning these dogs listen to the law? No, they go around and underneath, if anything they want these dogs more as a status symbol and moneyspinner. So it's a ridiculous argument that breed specific legislation would do anything to make the irresponsible ownership issue better, because it just can't, hasn't and won't ever. Putting mastiff breeds on the DDA would be the worst thing that could happen to their breeds - it ups their status even more with the idiots, and stops responsible people maintaining their breeds. I can't understand where the idea that it could possibly work would come from?


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

Yet again all I can say is "what she said" ^^^^^^


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

KathyM said:


> Being vicious with humans isn't even a pit bull trait (quite the opposite) either, to be honest I can't believe the ignorance in some posts.
> 
> .


 
finally someone talking sense here. pits were bred to fight DOGS not people, infact handlers have to be able to seperate 2 fighting dogs without being bitten so they are not bred to be people agressive!! I doubt most people commenting on pit types have even seen what an actual pitbull looks like. . . youd have to be an idiot to confuse it with a staff - wrong head shape, at least 5 inch height diffrence (if you go on breed standards) and pits have totally diffrent frame, they are generally not as chunky as staffs.
owning two "amstaffs" myself iv never had a problem with police or rspca, even after one of our dogs being attacked by another dog and police involved they made no mention of what she was. just shows how f**ck'd up the law is.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

rakpeterson said:


> Of course i would much rather have a system in place wich meant there was not an outright ban on any breed but its going to be a tricky business, and if it cant be successfully implemented then I would support several additions to the existing 4.


 
no breeds should be banned - i have no idea why people seem to think they should be able to dictate what dogs we are allowed?? they should ave an act which does not include breeds at all, that instead has the same system for any dog proven to be a danger. or mabey have a system where you can apply for a licence to keep certain dogs. . . would stop hood rats getting hold of them! if you can get a licence for a bloody king cobra why the hell not for a pitbull?? i know whats most likely to hurt you!!


----------



## Cockys Royals (Jun 28, 2008)

Hmm ok help me out here, my future pup is apparently staff x rottie, ive met parents & they both look staffy to me. SO what possibility would it be that my new boy may be taken away


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Cockys Royals said:


> Hmm ok help me out here, my future pup is apparently staff x rottie, ive met parents & they both look staffy to me. SO what possibility would it be that my new boy may be taken away


 
Well, from the picture you posted the darker one didn't look full staff in any way. With legs being so much longer, then yes, that 'type' wuld be what in the eyes of the law, would come under the 'Type' discribed within the act.
All depends on what area your in. I know that Liverpool area are really having a major crackdown after the little boy was killed at his grans. 
So a lit of dogs have come under investigation. A lot more than hit the papers.
I know my area (Rochdale District) that the Police have had an Increased amount of calls on Pitbull type dogs. And recently a number of adverts for pit bull crosses (1st I saw was Rottie x Red Nosed Pit puppies, second was in tescos at the weekend for a staffie x pit at 4 month old bitch) I know the local beat bobby as they have their base at my daughters school. Me having my big wolfie dogs sparked a bit of a chat about dogs and then on to the increase of Pits in this area. 3 days ago, they had a call from someone reporting that their dog had been attacked by a young Pit x staffie that was apparently only a pup! (male so I am assuming being around same age it would be same litter as the bitch advertised in Tescos for £150, they'd paid £300) so the police are on the look out for this dog as it is in this area and the woman who's dog was attacked wants to take it futher. 
I think it's very Russian Roulette with dogs that don't look like the KC Show Staffs and even the KC ones are at risk. All down to the word 'TYPE' being used in the DDA. The lack of proper qualified training in identifing them as what they are wether that dog is a loving family pet or an aggressive dog owned by drug dealer on a power trip.


----------



## Nebbz (Jan 27, 2008)

personally i think most of it is propaganda creating more of an issue about hard mouthed dogs because obviously yes thugs are attracted to them.
Regardless of the law, some one will get hold off one! 

Its good owners who get it in the neck, its responsible owners to pay for dicks like them

Its like bad drivers, Young drivers against old......there all as bad as each other, yet young drivers get the worse off it, I happen to know a few young good drivers, and a quite a few bad. But the papers go on and on and on, and this and that law is then put in place to stop this thing happening, but then the boyracers simply find a way around it......same thing with dogs.

most know i hate em, but small dogs are one of the worst types of dogs for bites, they dont go in the papers, simply because they dont do the same damage, but surly any dog that bites, is a dangerous dog.

I hate it, makes me scared to walk my dog, and who is following me home, my staffy is 3 stone odd, quite tall, and off 'Type' even though police have seen him many a time, i never get questioned. I still get the looks of normal people who havent a clue, and my pet hate is a random person walking up to me with there dog, Not giving mine any space atall, asking for an attack, with there kids running at me same story ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH really does my head in....tbh im more of a worry than my dog is, christ ban me ill kill any one who touches my dog, he would prob just sit and watch in amazement :whistling2:


----------



## neep_neep (Oct 18, 2007)

I don't know if anyone saw this news article the other day - though I suspect it has probably been covered on this section of the forum already:

BBC News - Inquiry calls for better care in pedigree dog breeding

One of the key recommendations is "the Dangerous Dogs Act should be amended to apply to all dogs that have been shown to be dangerous, rather than to specified breeds, and should address the problem of dogs being bred and reared specifically as weapons for fighting."

I wonder if the government will actually take note? :hmm:


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

It has already been posted but its pretty relevant here, Im glad you are another one of the people with common sense :2thumb:

I really hope they do away with BSL and target people that are torturing dogs, destroying breeds and giving responsible owners bad names!

Surely this madness will end, it just reads like its from the dark ages.

Infact im sure someone on here called it K9 racism and it pretty much is!


----------



## Nebbz (Jan 27, 2008)

neep_neep said:


> I don't know if anyone saw this news article the other day - though I suspect it has probably been covered on this section of the forum already:
> 
> BBC News - Inquiry calls for better care in pedigree dog breeding
> 
> ...


glad u posted that! had missed it, Interesting and i quite agree!


----------

