# dangerous dogs article in the sun



## pink lady (Jul 2, 2008)

as i do i was reading my daily gossip found this article at the bottom of the page
Snarling and slobbering dogs bred as killing machines | The Sun |Features
was an interesting read, cant believe that breeder openly talked about what he did and then posed 4 pictures! its people like this what destroys the dogs breed and make them a savage animal which kills, cant believe he was so open about it all :lol2:


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Sadly, it seems a lot of people on this forum support Pit bulls and their crosses. But in my honest opinion, if you want a loving, stable pet, why the f**k would you get a pit bull that is UK bred. Tell me one breeder of UK Pitbulls that breeds for good gentle nature, dog friendly, child friend, stable dogs? Not one! Anyone breeding them can not honestly say they breed them for that. And ones that are bred are bred by bloody idiots who intend to sell them as weapons not house pets.

Yes, Deed not Breed. But with the fact they are illegal, no one can honestly say thats what they are breeding them for!


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*devil humans*

makes my heart bleed looking at those innocent pups, born full of kindness and good will.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Nice to see the Sun reporting things responsibly and educationally, as usual. </sarcasm>

Sick of this style of reporting - could just as easily be a reporter dressed up for all we know. Yes there are idiots breeding these dogs, but as long as the myth of them being "devil dogs" that bite and "don't let go" that can earn a bloke £5000, then what kind of status do they expect them to have? For feck's sake, they've just printed an instruction manual on how to do it, and given out the guy's name and where he lives. 

Seems to me the Sun have just run an advert for the kinds of thugs that lets face it won't be reading the Guardian. If Raj exists, he'll be raking it in from that backup off them. Idiots.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Pimperella said:


> Sadly, it seems a lot of people on this forum support Pit bulls and their crosses.


And why not? They need people's support. It's the idiots that breed them illegally that don't deserve it.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

KathyM said:


> And why not? They need people's support. It's the idiots that breed them illegally that don't deserve it.


 
I ment support the breeding of them. :whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## Stacey010884 (Mar 7, 2009)

I like Pitt's but think it'll probably be kindest for the breed to be left to die out so none can be victims of dig fighting anymore, but the sad truth is dogs of other breeds will then be used (, they already are,) and other breeds will be favoured for fighting, then it'll be another breed to be banned because of these thugs.

Why can't we put agressive/bad people to sleep? It'll save so many poor dogs the same fate.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

KathyM said:


> Nice to see the Sun reporting things responsibly and educationally, as usual. </sarcasm>
> 
> Sick of this style of reporting - could just as easily be a reporter dressed up for all we know. Yes there are idiots breeding these dogs, but as long as the myth of them being "devil dogs" that bite and "don't let go" that can earn a bloke £5000, then what kind of status do they expect them to have? For feck's sake, they've just printed an instruction manual on how to do it, and given out the guy's name and where he lives.
> 
> Seems to me the Sun have just run an advert for the kinds of thugs that lets face it won't be reading the Guardian. If Raj exists, he'll be raking it in from that backup off them. Idiots.


 
you've skipped the fact that they've told the police. So Raj has probably been arrested by now.
From what i remember there was something in the news of the world a 'few' years ago where they'd busted a big crime ring, informed the police, the police arrested them and then they reported it. The police had to drop the case (or something) because the newspapers can't report it after the arrests have been made. They need to investigate it and inform the police but publish it before the arrests are made. 
The plod will have the information The Sun had and they'll do with it what they decide.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

TBH Meko, I doubt "Raj" even existed. Even if he does, then all that article has done has solidified the wrongful stigma of the dogs and advertised their worth as a business to a certain type of reader. The problem is the media like to hype it up with use of words like "devil dogs" and the hard man image of the breeders who breed fighting dogs. All they've done is advertised that image that the dog fighting twonks want for themselves, they've justified what they do by putting a cash value on them and perpetuating the myth of locking jaws and "devil dogs". They shouldn't be allowed to print stories, that paper, they're as bad as the US's National Enquirer for stirring up rubbish based on absolutely sod all.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

KathyM said:


> TBH Meko, I doubt "Raj" even existed. Even if he does, then all that article has done has solidified the wrongful stigma of the dogs and advertised their worth as a business to a certain type of reader. The problem is the media like to hype it up with use of words like "devil dogs" and the hard man image of the breeders who breed fighting dogs. All they've done is advertised that image that the dog fighting twonks want for themselves, they've justified what they do by putting a cash value on them and perpetuating the myth of locking jaws and "devil dogs". They shouldn't be allowed to print stories, that paper, they're as bad as the US's National Enquirer for stirring up rubbish based on absolutely sod all.


:no1:


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

KathyM said:


> TBH Meko, I doubt "Raj" even existed. Even if he does, then all that article has done has solidified the wrongful stigma of the dogs and advertised their worth as a business to a certain type of reader. The problem is the media like to hype it up with use of words like "devil dogs" and the hard man image of the breeders who breed fighting dogs. All they've done is advertised that image that the dog fighting twonks want for themselves, they've justified what they do by putting a cash value on them and perpetuating the myth of locking jaws and "devil dogs". They shouldn't be allowed to print stories, that paper, they're as bad as the US's National Enquirer for stirring up rubbish based on absolutely sod all.


i'm on the fence. 
We don't know if Raj does or doesn't exist, but for every Raj that doesn't there's one that does. They've also highlighted the 'dangers' of back street pit bull readers to the people who would report them as well as to the people who'd buy one.
Personally i like The Sun. I'd rather read that than most other papers, i can make my own mind up as to what i believe in that, the Daily Mail, the Sunday Sport, the guardian and even the FT. We can't dismiss every story reported as false just because we don't like the paper.


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

i don't like the sun becauser i was brought up in liverpool so know full well of some of the sh*t they publish :whip:


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Meko said:


> i'm on the fence.
> We don't know if Raj does or doesn't exist, but for every Raj that doesn't there's one that does. They've also highlighted the 'dangers' of back street pit bull readers to the people who would report them as well as to the people who'd buy one.
> Personally i like The Sun. I'd rather read that than most other papers, i can make my own mind up as to what i believe in that, the Daily Mail, the Sunday Sport, the guardian and even the FT. We can't dismiss every story reported as false just because we don't like the paper.


It's not a dislike of the Sun that makes me say they're talking sh*te, it's the rubbish they've written lol. Not my fault if they can't report properly - show me a decent story by them on the "dangerous dog" situation, and I'll show you 5 where they've printed a snarling "pit bull" picture and called them "devil dogs" and perpetuated the locking jaw myth. None of that has anything to do with me preferring a higher standard of reporting, that's just down to the rubbish they repeatedly print. As you said, it's up to you whether you believe it, and you're obviously bright enough to see through all the claptrap in that article. Sadly they've got a million and one lower IQ readers that will believe whatever they type, regardless of the facts of the matter.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

KathyM said:


> show me a decent story by them on the "dangerous dog" situation, and I'll show you 5 where they've printed a snarling "pit bull" picture and called them "devil dogs" and perpetuated the locking jaw myth.


lol, don't all newspapers just share the one picture regardless of the dog? staffy, pitbull, amstaff.. It's always the same picture of the same dog. No wonder they call them devil dogs................. they can't kill the bastard!!


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Yeah I think it has to be made up, because no idiot would stand and pose for a newspaper photographer wearing a balaclava, and believe he wouldn't be prosecuted. Plus his "pitbull" looks like a rottie x GSD.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

Pimperella said:


> Sadly, it seems a lot of people on this forum support Pit bulls and their crosses. But in my honest opinion, if you want a loving, stable pet, why the f**k would you get a pit bull that is UK bred. Tell me one breeder of UK Pitbulls that breeds for good gentle nature, dog friendly, child friend, stable dogs? Not one! Anyone breeding them can not honestly say they breed them for that. And ones that are bred are bred by bloody idiots who intend to sell them as weapons not house pets.
> 
> Yes, Deed not Breed. But with the fact they are illegal, no one can honestly say thats what they are breeding them for!


 
firstly id like to point out that the dog raj has in the photo is NOT a APBT, not even a cross by the looks of it, looks NOTHING like what a pit should look like.

I know from personal experience that people do breed and keep these dogs for pets only. Our dogs are pets/guards (they are personal protection trained) and are excellent family dogs. Its idiots like you with attitudes that they can brand all dogs with the same stick just because they are a certain breed, the fact that you go on to say you support breed specific legislation is hilarious. pot kettle?? This is why these dogs have such bad wrap - idiots with views like this believe this sh*! - have you even met a pitbull? Did it try to eat your children the moment it saw them? DIDNT THINK SO.:bash::bash::bash::bash:


----------



## ChokolateLatte (Nov 9, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> firstly id like to point out that the dog raj has in the photo is NOT a APBT, not even a cross by the looks of it, looks NOTHING like what a pit should look like.
> 
> I know from personal experience that people do breed and keep these dogs for pets only. Our dogs are pets/guards (they are personal protection trained) and are excellent family dogs. Its idiots like you with attitudes that they can brand all dogs with the same stick just because they are a certain breed, the fact that you go on to say you dont support breed specific legislation is hilarious. pot kettle?? This is why these dogs have such bad wrap - idiots with views like this believe this sh*! - have you even met a pitbull? Did it try to eat your children the moment it saw them? DIDNT THINK SO.:bash::bash::bash::bash:


Out of interest, why would people breed these dogs as family pets considering they are illegal? As you obviously know people who own/breed them, doesn't it seem odd when so many other varieties to chose from, they would do something illegal just for a family pet that could be seized and destroyed at any time? 

If you resort to illegal activities to produce the dog, it's hard to believe it's for a family pet. Breeding for temperament must also be a big problem when all underground and it's known many breed for fighting.

Are you also saying you have pitbulls trained to protect you? Surely you don't need protection and how is the dog going to judge all people correctly? Sounds like a tragedy waiting to happen.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> firstly id like to point out that the dog raj has in the photo is NOT a APBT, not even a cross by the looks of it, looks NOTHING like what a pit should look like.
> 
> I know from personal experience that people do breed and keep these dogs for pets only. Our dogs are pets/guards (they are personal protection trained) and are excellent family dogs. Its idiots like you with attitudes that they can brand all dogs with the same stick just because they are a certain breed, the fact that you go on to say you support breed specific legislation is hilarious. pot kettle?? This is why these dogs have such bad wrap - idiots with views like this believe this sh*! - have you even met a pitbull? Did it try to eat your children the moment it saw them? DIDNT THINK SO.:bash::bash::bash::bash:


You must have been dropped on the head if you think Kathy's anti-any breed. Anyone with half a brain cell can see she's very mch anti-BSL.

Edit. Clearly I've been dropped on my head as I thought the quote was of Kathy. Apologies.


----------



## sophs87 (Jan 25, 2009)

To be honest, the sun does and always has talked sh*t! And they always seem to find the bloody retards, the only ones capable of talking so much cr*p that the only place that will take their stories is The.....SUN!

Rant over


----------



## sophs87 (Jan 25, 2009)

ChokolateLatte said:


> Out of interest, why would people breed these dogs as family pets considering they are illegal? As you obviously know people who own/breed them, doesn't it seem odd when so many other varieties to chose from, they would do something illegal just for a family pet that could be seized and destroyed at any time?
> 
> If you resort to illegal activities to produce the dog, it's hard to believe it's for a family pet. Breeding for temperament must also be a big problem when all underground and it's known many breed for fighting.
> 
> *Are you also saying you have pitbulls trained to protect you? Surely you don't need protection and how is the dog going to judge all people correctly? Sounds like a tragedy waiting to happen.*





Like any protecting/guarding breed imo


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 22, 2008)

the dogs are not to blame its the humans that make them what they are just look at the poor pit bulls that get trained to fight human again these type of dogs were not born killers


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

When they're bred by irresponsible pricks who only breed for aggression, then yes, they can be born to be more likely aggressive.

Still not the breed or dogs fault, but temperament is partially inherited, partially how they're raised. 

Nobody breeds pitbulls for pet only in the UK. Sorry, girlsbutgray, but they dont. The only reason they risk breeding a banned breed is for status, showing off, and money. Your friends (or yourselves?) wouldn't be breeding pitbulls if they had the social image of a poodle. They breed them because they're banned, and therefore make them look "hard". Are these the kind of responsible breeders who breed for pet homes?

Nope!


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

ChokolateLatte said:


> Out of interest, why would people breed these dogs as family pets considering they are illegal? As you obviously know people who own/breed them, doesn't it seem odd when so many other varieties to chose from, they would do something illegal just for a family pet that could be seized and destroyed at any time?
> 
> If you resort to illegal activities to produce the dog, it's hard to believe it's for a family pet. Breeding for temperament must also be a big problem when all underground and it's known many breed for fighting.
> 
> Are you also saying you have pitbulls trained to protect you? Surely you don't need protection and how is the dog going to judge all people correctly? Sounds like a tragedy waiting to happen.


I have dogs trained for PP as we have a large house with grounds and stables, with horse thefts being what they are i dont want my 10-15k eventers going missing! They are trained to know the diffrence between when they are on duty. . ie when we arent at home or when they are down the yard and im out riding and when people are obviously in our home at our invitation. In 10 years and a few dogs we have never had a problem, probarly due to the fact the guy who we use as trainer is an ex policedog trainer.

I know poeple who have owner pits before the ban came in, and they were family pets then. personally i think they are beautifull easily trained loyal dogs (we had numerous as guards when growing up) and its easy to see why people would want them as a pet. No diffrent to having any other bull breed as a pet, or rottie gsd for that matter, its just sadly there were a handfull of attacks in the early 90's which the media blew out of proportion and now pits are seen as killers which is FAR from the truth. Look at america, pits dont top the list of dog bite or attacks over there yet they are very popular dogs, and mainly as family pets as thankfully there isnt anywhere near the prejudice towards them as in the UK


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> . They breed them because they're banned, and therefore make them look "hard". Are these the kind of responsible breeders who breed for pet homes?
> 
> Nope!


 
How on earth can you say that?Have you met ANY pit breeders? It seems you believe everyone who owns one lives on a council estate and needs to look "hard"??


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

Having a pop at the sun is a bit pointless. Although I agree to some extent with most of the comments, it's just a newspaper. The aim of the tabloids is to sensationalise any story it can. If they can't they won't bother with the story. I had an 3/4 English bull terrier at the time of the dangerous dogs act who at over 5 stone (and he was athletically built) was a formidable looking dog. I had no end of comments, people crossing the road etc. and people I knew asking annoyingly ignorant questions. I patiently and comprehensively explained the D/D act and what was in my opinion an unjust, uninformed piece of kneejerk legislation to whoever would listen. I had an argument with one lady at my badminton club who was convinced that rottweilers had also been banned! I virtually quoted the act chapter and verse before she would believe me. Dogs are not and never have been the problem its people who get them for fashion, kudos or without the faintest idea of how to handle or fulfill the needs of a dog. Go forth and spread the word people but don't preach as that tends to p**s people off and they don't listen. Like Cesar says 'be a calm assertive leader'.


----------



## sammy1969 (Jul 21, 2007)

I know there are alot of these idiots around but I know for a fact that in the UsA they use pitballs as police dogs instead of GSDs etc as they are more intelligent and more easily traine. Over ehrewe have the attitude that these dogs areall killers but I have come across at leas pure bred pits in my life and not one of them showed any signs of aggresion towards any one they came in contact with and that includes small children. I am stil of the old adage you dont get a bad dog you get a bad owner. Admittedly this type of reporting really dosn't help any owner of a pit type dog as it clearly only shows the down side of bad ownership and the negative side of what some people will do when thy have one of these lovely animals


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

snakewhisperer said:


> I virtually quoted the act chapter and verse before she would believe me. Dogs are not and never have been the problem its people who get them for fashion, kudos or without the faintest idea of how to handle or fulfill the needs of a dog. Go forth and spread the word people but don't preach as that tends to p**s people off and they don't listen. Like Cesar says 'be a calm assertive leader'.


AMEN :2thumb:


----------



## ChokolateLatte (Nov 9, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> I have dogs trained for PP as we have a large house with grounds and stables, with horse thefts being what they are i dont want my 10-15k eventers going missing! They are trained to know the diffrence between when they are on duty. . ie when we arent at home or when they are down the yard and im out riding and when people are obviously in our home at our invitation. In 10 years and a few dogs we have never had a problem, probarly due to the fact the guy who we use as trainer is an ex policedog trainer.
> 
> I know poeple who have owner pits before the ban came in, and they were family pets then. personally i think they are beautifull easily trained loyal dogs (we had numerous as guards when growing up) and its easy to see why people would want them as a pet. No diffrent to having any other bull breed as a pet, or rottie gsd for that matter, its just sadly there were a handfull of attacks in the early 90's which the media blew out of proportion and now pits are seen as killers which is FAR from the truth. Look at america, pits dont top the list of dog bite or attacks over there yet they are very popular dogs, and mainly as family pets as thankfully there isnt anywhere near the prejudice towards them as in the UK


The situation in this country is still that they are a banned breed, so anyone breeding or owning them is irresponsible. The sad truth is that most will be bred for aggression due to the reason most will want and take a risk on them. The gene pool to breed for good temperament must be rather small.

There are states in the US where pitbulls are also banned and where they aren't there are restrictions in place including muzzling and leashing in public.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> How on earth can you say that?Have you met ANY pit breeders? It seems you believe everyone who owns one lives on a council estate and needs to look "hard"??


I dont hang around with criminals, so no, I've not met any. Nor do I want to. 

Why would ANYONE breed a breed that is likely to be taken off you and put to sleep?

I dont need to know them to know they are stupid, evil, uncaring bastards.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

ChokolateLatte said:


> The situation in this country is still that they are a banned breed, so anyone breeding or owning them is irresponsible. The sad truth is that most will be bred for aggression due to the reason most will want and take a risk on them. The gene pool to breed for good temperament must be rather small.
> 
> There are states in the US where pitbulls are also banned and where they aren't there are restrictions in place including muzzling and leashing in public.


 
So how about the millions of people that speed everyday - thats illegal but im sure we wont all go hounding them or branding them boy racers?? Its the same saying all people who own pits are hood rats! Millions speed everyday (and break the law in many other ways too) - whats more likely to kill an innocent child?? The car not the bloody pitbull but yet its socially acceptable to speed??

I know some states and counties have restrictions but there are plently that have NO restrictions on pits - california, texas, arizona, phililly. from the way some people talk about pits there should be hundreds of people being mauled half to death every day in these states, but suprise suprise there isnt!!


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> I dont hang around with criminals, so no, I've not met any. Nor do I want to.
> 
> Why would ANYONE breed a breed that is likely to be taken off you and put to sleep?
> 
> I dont need to know them to know they are stupid, evil, uncaring bastards.


 
The likelyhood of this happening is very slim, and a lot of police forces (including thames valley and the met) are now working on only destroying dogs that are proven to be a danger to the public, if the dog is a family pet they will be given the dog back it just has to be nutered,muzzled in public and tattoo'd for ID.

Im sure you know plenty of criminals - everyday people break the law all the time - it just depends what is socially acceptable to yourself.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Over in the US, where the dogs aren't illegal, there are responsible breeders.

There are NO responsible breeders in the UK. There is no such thing as responsible breeding of a banned dog. They are bringing dogs into the world that will kill them. Not responsible at all.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> The likelyhood of this happening is very slim, and a lot of police forces (including thames valley and the met) are now working on only destroying dogs that are proven to be a danger to the public, if the dog is a family pet they will be given the dog back it just has to be nutered,muzzled in public and tattoo'd for ID.


Rubbish. How many dogs were taken off their owners without telling them of the chance to have their dog back? How many were put to sleep based on looks and not actions? How many have been given back, compared to euthanised?

Educate yourself. If you think you know all there is about pits, I'm pretty ignorant to their plight, and yet I know more than you.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> Over in the US, where the dogs aren't illegal, there are responsible breeders.
> 
> There are NO responsible breeders in the UK. There is no such thing as responsible breeding of a banned dog. They are bringing dogs into the world that will kill them. Not responsible at all.


 
okay so just because there is a law in place saying you cant have these dogs automatically makes any dogs bred in this country savage beasts bred for fighting? PLEASE! Plently of people breed pits for fighting over there and they are widely used as guards but still not anywhere near the attacks youd expect from an animal that is apparently so dangerous it has to be banned here!


----------



## ChokolateLatte (Nov 9, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> So how about the millions of people that speed everyday - thats illegal but im sure we wont all go hounding them or branding them boy racers?? Its the same saying all people who own pits are hood rats! Millions speed everyday (and break the law in many other ways too) - whats more likely to kill an innocent child?? The car not the bloody pitbull but yet its socially acceptable to speed??
> 
> I know some states and counties have restrictions but there are plently that have NO restrictions on pits - california, texas, arizona, phililly. from the way some people talk about pits there should be hundreds of people being mauled half to death every day in these states, but suprise suprise there isnt!!


Speeding is a totally different subject and cannot be compared with backstreet breeding of an illegal animal which is then mostly used to fight or intimidate and has a good chance of being destroyed. 

It doesn't matter how good the animal could be, the fact is it's illegal breeding and hence the vast majority doing it are doing it for the wrong reasons and in poor conditions.

You have admitted to owning pitbulls, how would you feel them losing their life just for being born?


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> Rubbish. How many dogs were taken off their owners without telling them of the chance to have their dog back? How many were put to sleep based on looks and not actions? How many have been given back, compared to euthanised?
> 
> Educate yourself. If you think you know all there is about pits, I'm pretty ignorant to their plight, and yet I know more than you.


Those owners obvious didnt have the knowledge of their local police forces or indeed couldnt afford a decent lawyer. If they had researched it they would have been aware of the fact.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

please see the flowchart issued by defra on page 4. . . 

if the dog is no danger they CAN keep the dog. Seems Im the one educated thanks. . 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/documents/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

girlsnotgray said:


> okay so just because there is a law in place saying you cant have these dogs automatically makes any dogs bred in this country savage beasts bred for fighting? PLEASE! Plently of people breed pits for fighting over there and they are widely used as guards but still not anywhere near the attacks youd expect from an animal that is apparently so dangerous it has to be banned here!


I'm wondering where the word responsable fits in with the word illegal?

There are NO responsable breeders of "APBT's" or "Types" (my def of types being crossed with an APBT) in this counry, because no caring dog owner would breed something that is illegal and could face death.



girlsnotgray said:


> please see the flowchart issued by defra on page 4. . .
> 
> if the dog is no danger they CAN keep the dog. Seems Im the one educated thanks. .
> 
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/documents/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf


Reminds me a bit of hansel and gretel, you know the lovely old lady who lured them in with promises of sweets and lots of good things to eat, only to fatten them up and eat them.

They can keep the dog if the dog is assesed by what they class as specialist (I wouldnt class them as that) and is seen to be of sound mind. If not the dog is distroyed. And you still have to go through the court process for the dog to be placed on the register, the register is not open to place dogs on.


----------



## ami_j (Jan 6, 2007)

girlsnotgray said:


> please see the flowchart issued by defra on page 4. . .
> 
> if the dog is no danger they CAN keep the dog. Seems Im the one educated thanks. .
> 
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/documents/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf


fraid not
just because this is on their site doesnt mean thats how the police work it.
there was an episode of bring in the dogs where a bloke was walking his dog in the park and it was taken even though it was friendly. i will have a look see if ive still got the link


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> okay so just because there is a law in place saying you cant have these dogs automatically makes any dogs bred in this country savage beasts bred for fighting? PLEASE! Plently of people breed pits for fighting over there and they are widely used as guards but still not anywhere near the attacks youd expect from an animal that is apparently so dangerous it has to be banned here!


I didnt say that. Tell me where I said that.

To make it clearer for you...I said that anyone who breeds a banned breed knowing they face an uncertain future, where their health, happiness, longevity and lifestyle is likely to be poor, is not a responsible breeder.

I have nothing against the breed at all, just the fecking idiots who breed them knowing they could die or are owned by idiots for idiot purposes.

9 times out of 10 the people who own these dogs, specifically look for these dogs, and purchase these dogs are not looking for a family pet or are not the kind of home who should have one. They are either after them for illegal purposes (fighting), stupid purposes (posing) or so ignorant of dog care they shouldn't own a pet rock.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

ami_j said:


> fraid not
> just because this is on their site doesnt mean thats how the police work it.
> there was an episode of bring in the dogs where a bloke was walking his dog in the park and it was taken even though it was friendly. i will have a look see if ive still got the link


You think that's bad, I've read of a dane cross who was taken out of his owner's car, because he wasn't "muzzled in public". He was seized, kenneled, got incredibly poorly and died despite having a very well respected dog trainer on his side, and an owner who loved him very much.

Let's face it - the usual people who have these dogs wont fight to get them back. They'll just go get another!


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

and actually a lot of states in america have a massive problem with pits being bred for fighting. more so than here because its so easy to get them with them not being illegal in some states.

the thing is at the end of the day that no matter how much you like pitbulls, to breed them knowing that if you are found to have it that it could be destroyed is stupid when there are so many legal breeds available. why take a dog on and make it part of your family knowing it could be taken and destroyed upsetting you and your family and being totally unfair on the dog.

you may not breed it for fighting but you are still encouraging breeding a dog that may be destroying just for being the breed it is


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

The DDA has made the problem worse, its made them even more the dog to have, the fact that they are illegal just makes them more desirable to criminals and wannabe thugs.

People breeding them are breeding irresponsibly, most of the pitbulls in the UK are from aggressive and fighting lines.

When two aggressive dogs are purposefully bred together and sold to certain types of people theres only one outcome. 

And all the dogs that people think are pitbull terriors look nothing like true American pittbull terriers, if someone had a genuine APBT they could probably walk it around without people even looking twice at it.

Also when it comes to fighting dogs, a dog that is people aggressive is no good at all and wouldnt be used, because the people fighting them have to be able to get in break then up, treat them for injuries without the risk of getting bitten a people aggressive pitbull is a useless fighting dog.

This is a subject that I'm becoming ever increasingly interested in because of how unfair the law is and how "type" could be pretty much any stocky bull breed.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Exotic Mad said:


> and actually a lot of states in america have a massive problem with pits being bred for fighting. more so than here because its so easy to get them with them not being illegal in some states.
> 
> the thing is at the end of the day that no matter how much you like pitbulls, to breed them knowing that if you are found to have it that it could be destroyed is stupid when there are so many legal breeds available. why take a dog on and make it part of your family knowing it could be taken and destroyed upsetting you and your family and being totally unfair on the dog.
> 
> you may not breed it for fighting but you are still encouraging breeding a dog that may be destroying just for being the breed it is


Thats the thing though, for a dog to be classed as "type" it doesnt have to be a pitbull, far from. A real APBT looks nothing like the "type" dogs that the law has banned.


----------



## ami_j (Jan 6, 2007)

LisaLQ said:


> You think that's bad, I've read of a dane cross who was taken out of his owner's car, because he wasn't "muzzled in public". He was seized, kenneled, got incredibly poorly and died despite having a very well respected dog trainer on his side, and an owner who loved him very much.
> 
> Let's face it - the usual people who have these dogs wont fight to get them back. They'll just go get another!


it doesnt suprise me , sadly  why they waste time taking dogs who are no threat....


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

Pimperella said:


> Sadly, it seems a lot of people on this forum support Pit bulls and their crosses. But in my honest opinion, if you want a loving, stable pet, why the f**k would you get a pit bull that is UK bred. Tell me one breeder of UK Pitbulls that breeds for good gentle nature, dog friendly, child friend, stable dogs? Not one! Anyone breeding them can not honestly say they breed them for that. And ones that are bred are bred by bloody idiots who intend to sell them as weapons not house pets.
> 
> Yes, Deed not Breed. But with the fact they are illegal, no one can honestly say thats what they are breeding them for!


Do you mean pit bull or American pit bull terrier there the same but pit bull doesn't just mean American pit bull terrier.If you mean American pit bull terrier say that.There aren't that many American pit bull terriers in the UK there all DIY Pit bulls.



> *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.


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

SiUK said:


> Also when it comes to fighting dogs, a dog that is people aggressive is no good at all and wouldnt be used, because the people fighting them have to be able to get in break then up, treat them for injuries without the risk of getting bitten a people aggressive pitbull is a useless fighting dog.


 You beat me to it! The problem with the APBT is that so called experts advised government that there was no other reason for owning the breed than for fighting or as an aggressive 'threat' dog. I have old footage of news reports and programmes, articles and actual APBT magazines.Incidently one of the APBT magazines has a feature on a dog that was an obedience champion, in this country! As far as I remember noone in this country was actually killed by an APBT before the D/D act but many other breeds have killed before and since. It is thought that the APBT originally came from these shores anyway and I have read a claim that they can be traced back to paticular staffies that were taken to the states to fight and were then developed with various hound breeds.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

girlsnotgray said:


> firstly id like to point out that the dog raj has in the photo is NOT a APBT, not even a cross by the looks of it, looks NOTHING like what a pit should look like.
> 
> I know from personal experience that people do breed and keep these dogs for pets only. Our dogs are pets/guards (they are personal protection trained) and are excellent family dogs. Its idiots like you with attitudes that they can brand all dogs with the same stick just because they are a certain breed, the fact that you go on to say you support breed specific legislation is hilarious. pot kettle?? This is why these dogs have such bad wrap - idiots with views like this believe this sh*! - have you even met a pitbull? Did it try to eat your children the moment it saw them? DIDNT THINK SO.:bash::bash::bash::bash:


 
WOW Were you dropped on your head as a baby or just breast fed too long?? :whistling2:
For a start if you actually read the article, it did in fact say the dog pictured was a Rottie x 'pit'
And yes, when working with the dog warden service, yes I have seen many a DIY Pit Bull in my time. 

Since as we are talking DIY pit bulls here, bred in lock ups and council estates by chav scum. You tell me which one of them is breeding them as loving family pets??



LisaLQ said:


> Over in the US, where the dogs aren't illegal, there are responsible breeders.
> 
> There are NO responsible breeders in the UK. There is no such thing as responsible breeding of a banned dog. They are bringing dogs into the world that will kill them. Not responsible at all.


What I was getting at.
How can anyone breeding a bred that is illegal in the UK claim to be breeding for sound temp/health/child friendly family pet when they are breeding for intimidation rather than 



gazz said:


> Do you mean pit bull or American pit bull terrier there the same but pit bull doesn't just mean American pit bull terrier.If you mean American pit bull terrier say that.There aren't that many American pit bull terriers in the UK there all DIY Pit bulls.


DIY's dear :lol2:. Just like I know the difference between a Staffie and a pure SBT bred for show from top class parents.
You get people who will watch Crufts (of the past now due to BBC ban) That would see those lovely STB's trotting round the ring and think it wasn't a Staffie at all.


But then again, I breed Wolves don't I :lol2: Well thats what I get told walking mine and people shout 'Is it a Wolf?'

It's Northern Inuit dogs I breed but again, most people can't tell the difference between a Wolf, Malamute, Northern Inuit and a Sibe lol When all us who have them can clearly see a massive difference.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

marthaMoo said:


> I'm wondering where the word responsable fits in with the word illegal?
> 
> 
> They can keep the dog if the dog is assesed by what they class as specialist (I wouldnt class them as that) and is seen to be of sound mind. If not the dog is distroyed. And you still have to go through the court process for the dog to be placed on the register, the register is not open to place dogs on.


I dont understand what your disagreeing with then? If you have a well trained Well socialised APBT and the money for court fees then you dont really have a problem. Only an idiot wouldnt persue the method in court to save their dog, it was only issued in april 09 but as its DEFRA who created the law in the first place the police would have to follow this methodology and at least have the dog asessed. I believe it costs in the region of a grand (from what iv read by people who have gone through the process - and yes there dogs were placed on the register), so if you have the money whats the problem?

Im guessing half the issue in this country is people breeding these mongrel type pits which have stuff all APBT in them at all. sadly with a lot of x breeds you can end up with the bad bits from both or all breeds, its probarly these dogs that are giving pits such a bad name. Hence why id only ever buy a pedigree - regardless of breed.

It amazes me the amount of people on here who feel they can comment on the subject that have no history or dealings with the breed. This is why the DDA was put into force in the first place, misunderstanding and public hysteria at its best. I at no point have said i agree with backyard breeders, i merely stated that not ALL APBT breeders are the chavvy hood rats that everyone accepts, that would be a bit like saying anyone that owns a toy breed is either a widowed old lady or a paris hilton wannabe. It isnt fair to brand all owners with one label.


----------



## girlsnotgray (Dec 28, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> Let's face it - the usual people who have these dogs wont fight to get them back. They'll just go get another!


Im guessing this incident with the dane cross was BEFORE april 09 then - or the owners didnt take it to court? 

That is my point - the people who deserve to have these dogs and keep them responsibly and as pets not fighters or status dogs WOULD fight to get their dog back, thats the whole reason they have this system in place. Any dogs that are a danger or not well balanced would be destroyed which i can understand totally.



Exotic Mad said:


> you may not breed it for fighting but you are still encouraging breeding a dog that may be destroying just for being the breed it is


I have never stated that i breed APBT's - i dont,i am just an owner.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> please see the flowchart issued by defra on page 4. . .
> 
> if the dog is no danger they CAN keep the dog. Seems Im the one educated thanks. .
> 
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/documents/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf


I'm not sure how you can in the current climate openly admit owning these dogs and yet be so ignorant on the legalities?

Yes there is a slim chance that you might be able to keep your dogs - that is after they've been seized and held in police kennels for months with no socialisation or human attention and left to rot for months, and only then if you get a sympathetic judge who deems the dog not to be a risk. At that point you will have to have the dog tattooed, microchipped and neutered, and for the rest of its life it will be onlead and muzzled and never be allowed to run free at the park or in the fields. This will be at the owner's cost and most of the chavs breeding them wouldn't be arsed going that far. Many owners have had to go that far because they bought their dogs not knowing what they were considered legally and love them that much, so anyone knowingly breeding these dogs to be put in that situation where they most often don't come home is nothing but a pure heartless money-grabbing shite.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> That is my point - the people who deserve to have these dogs and keep them responsibly and as pets not fighters or status dogs WOULD fight to get their dog back.


No, anyone responsible enough to own a pit bull terrier would not knowingly buy one in the first place as it is breaking the sodding law and doing more harm to all dogs! :whistling2:


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

KathyM said:


> I'm not sure how you can in the current climate openly admit owning these dogs and yet be so ignorant on the legalities?
> 
> Yes there is a slim chance that you might be able to keep your dogs - that is after they've been seized and held in police kennels for months with no socialisation or human attention and left to rot for months, and only then if you get a sympathetic judge who deems the dog not to be a risk. At that point you will have to have the dog tattooed, microchipped and neutered, and for the rest of its life it will be onlead and muzzled and never be allowed to run free at the park or in the fields. This will be at the owner's cost and most of the chavs breeding them wouldn't be arsed going that far. Many owners have had to go that far because they bought their dogs not knowing what they were considered legally and love them that much, so anyone knowingly breeding these dogs to be put in that situation where they most often don't come home is nothing but a pure heartless money-grabbing shite.


 
For once I agree with you. This girl seems to know absolutely nothing at all about what the situation is. Openly admitting to having a Pitbull, flouting the law. It's the inoccent dogs who suffer. God, only the other week was a Staffie x from a rescue centre, in a home with a couple who had gone to give a dog who had been accessed by that rescue, a home for life. Only to have that dog seized by the police in Bootle!


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

I know of a fella who absolutely adored his dog, who was seized and held in police kennels. DNB helped him get through the court system, it took bloody months and in that time he wasn't allowed any access to his dog. The temperament tests were all done (and I would love to know what these entail as I have my suspicions that this alongside the rotting in police kennels was the cause of what happened next), the dog was deemed not a risk and allowed to leave. Sadly on arrival home the dog was so badly psychologically damaged and petrified that the owner had to make the very hard decision to put it to sleep. Other dogs seized around the same time spent months in kennels and because the police didn't ensure they were vaccinated and put them in kennels that didn't follow basic hygeine procedures, they DIED of parvo despite being deemed no harm. 

That is what illegal breeders are perpetuating. All those proud and smug law-flouting owners who went out and knowingly bought an illegal dog against the law are causing all this. People who think they're above the law and that it can't touch them. God forbid they come for them, and let's face it, there's nothing to say there isn't one of the Nazi police officers on here looking for a bit of glory against the defenceless is there? Better hope she can hide hers!


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> Im guessing this incident with the dane cross was BEFORE april 09 then - or the owners didnt take it to court?
> 
> That is my point - the people who deserve to have these dogs and keep them responsibly and as pets not fighters or status dogs WOULD fight to get their dog back, thats the whole reason they have this system in place. Any dogs that are a danger or not well balanced would be destroyed which i can understand totally.


I dont know of ONE owner who deserves to have one of these dogs, who doesn't have them for status or fighting. Because if they were responsible owners, they wouldn't own one knowing that their selfishness could get their dog killed or _at best_ kenneled, abused and traumatised. The only people that own these dogs are so selfish that they dont care their dog might die or be stuck in kennels for months/years while the police decide whether they're pit or not (and for those boasting on forums about their pits, that likely will be the dying part). They are so ignorant they think it wont happen to them. They are so stupid, they think they can get away with it. And when they are caught, they wont stand a chance of getting their dog back, whether they fight or not. Which they probably wont.

I think it's disgusting that someone could sit there and say that it is worth all that fear and distress purely so they can own a banned breed, purely so that their dog's status can scare off a few would be intruders. Like you need a pitbull to do that...


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

People are missing the point here I recon, your dog doesnt have to be a pitbull to be classed as "type". 

As Pimperella said, it could be a staffy cross, in fact it could be any number of crosses, there are hundreds of dogs walking around that could be seen as type, and the owners dont have a clue.

The law is complete bullsh*t, it doesnt work full stop, its not stopping people owning them, and dog attacks by "type" dogs are on the rise. If that doesnt prove the law doesnt work then what does.

Its made the problem worse.


----------



## robstaine (May 7, 2009)

Stacey010884 said:


> I like Pitt's but think it'll probably be kindest for the breed to be left to die out so none can be victims of dig fighting anymore, but the sad truth is dogs of other breeds will then be used (, they already are,) and other breeds will be favoured for fighting, then it'll be another breed to be banned because of these thugs.
> 
> Why can't we put agressive/bad people to sleep? It'll save so many poor dogs the same fate.


I agree we put animals to sleep at a click of a finger playing god... why do we get to do that? and people who want to die and people who help end their suffering get jailed? thats a bit f***ed up to me to be honest....

I think if all pit bulls did die out which will never be the case either rotties or staffs with be banned next.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

SiUK said:


> People are missing the point here I recon, your dog doesnt have to be a pitbull to be classed as "type". .


Absolutely, my comments were about anyone breeding or buying dogs of type knowingly, regardless of parentage. It's still illegal even if they're bullbreed crosses made to look "hard", and look how many morons are churning them out.


----------



## elle1331 (Mar 19, 2007)

Im confused now, is it illegal to own a APBT and illegal to own a type of AMPB? 
What exactly constitutes as a 'type' is it a dog that is crossed with a pit or just a dog that looks like a pit? 
I have been asked if my Angel is a pit and when walking bud (when he was a pup) and Angel together i have been asked if Bud is Angel's pup and are they both pits. 
I have both the KC papers for both my dogs stating what they are and the lineage of both dogs so im not overly worried as i can prove what they are if something was said but im still confused as i know of a pure pit that is due to have a litter and although shes south of the border and the laws are different im just wondering what would happen if one of these pups came to the north.


----------



## robstaine (May 7, 2009)

here is my dog.. I get alot of bad looks and idiots who look like they would fight dogs say my dog is a pitbull cross... I got him from a shelter and police have also seen me walk him and I have never been stopped.
As some of you may know from my previous post I he came to the rescue in a sorry state broken leg emaciated and very scared.. this fear has grown to fear aggression so he wears a muzzle but my point is that idiots pick dogs like mine because they look hard and think they will do good in fighting.. I guess mine lost and was chucked away beaten and starved. Some people make me sick and what really P***es me off is that people have the ignorance to give me dirty looks because he has a muzzle on and shake their heads( because they think I am another 'young' person with a dangerous dog) without even knowing the facts if I was that kind of person that they thought i was would I even be F***ing bothered to put a muzzle on him in the first place? no.. I would of let him attack any one and anything if I was like them idiots.
sorry rant over.
Here is my beautiful but messed up dog.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

elle1331 said:


> Im confused now, is it illegal to own a APBT and illegal to own a type of AMPB?
> What exactly constitutes as a 'type' is it a dog that is crossed with a pit or just a dog that looks like a pit?


Any dog that fits the DEFRA guidelines and measurements is legally "pit bull type" and that is sadly regardless of parentage. Any dog that fits the measurements is still legally able to be seized and put down as "pit bull type".


----------



## elle1331 (Mar 19, 2007)

KathyM said:


> Any dog that fits the DEFRA guidelines and measurements is legally "pit bull type" and that is sadly regardless of parentage. Any dog that fits the measurements is still legally able to be seized and put down as "pit bull type".


So anyone with a larger bull breed needs to measure their dogs to make sure they fall under or over Defra's guidelines regarding measurements??? 
I'm sorry but that sound idiotic to me


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

I didn't write the law! :whistling2:


----------



## elle1331 (Mar 19, 2007)

KathyM said:


> I didn't write the law! :whistling2:


im not saying you are but christ almighty ive just been reading up and Angel falls into all the category's 

General Description: Muscular smooth-haired dog. Has a square profile (i.e. as tall from the ground to the top of the shoulder and as long from the point of the shoulder to point of the hip.

Height: Average for both male and female 45-55cm.

Head: Should be wedge-shaped when viewed from top or side and round when viewed from front. Broad jawbones, skull and strongly developed nostrils. Strongly developed cheek and jaw muscles.

Muzzle: Not pointed.

Ears: Located high on skull. Tip of ears folds foreword or sideways or have been cropped. No wrinkles.

Eyes: Elliptical when viewed from front. Triangular when viewed from the side. Small and deep set.

Neck: Muscular all the way up to the base of skull.

Chest:Broad. Deep ribcage. Ribs strongly curved tapering towards bottom.

Bac*k:* Muscular. Broad sloping hips. Broad loin.

Legs: Front legs are straight and give massive, solid impression. Hips are long and broad and continue on to become relatively long hind legs with a well muscled thigh.

Coat: Single coat. Short smooth haired but bristled to touch. Can be any colour.

Tail: Located low down in the hindquarters. Thick at base tapering to a point at the end. Narrows to a slender tip or has been docked. Should hang like a pump handle when relaxed.

Taken from here Pit Bull Terrier Dog Breed Profile - Size, Weight, Temperament, Coat, Care and Training Information on the Pit Bull


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

I always laugh at the tail requirements. Needs a tail on its hindquarters - well that rules out all the dogs with one round their neck or on their front left foot! :lol2:

Tail? Check!
Head? Check!
4 legs? Check!

It's a pit bull.


----------



## elle1331 (Mar 19, 2007)

KathyM said:


> I always laugh at the tail requirements. Needs a tail on its hindquarters - well that rules out all the dogs with one round their neck or on their front left foot! :lol2:
> 
> Tail? Check!
> Head? Check!
> ...


I personally think its got to a stage now where they don't know what the bloody hell a pit is and are just targeting big muscled hard looking dogs. 
My Angel looks big and scary when you see her swinging her a**e walking down the street until you come in the house and see her trying to nurse one of my wee girls baby dolls or see her sprawled out on a 7 foot sofa with a pink playboy blankie wrapped round her lol


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

KathyM said:


> Tail? Check!
> Head? Check!
> 4 legs? Check!
> 
> It's a pit bull.


Thats pretty much it, tbh the law should read; "looks like a slightly bigger staffy? Then lets put it to sleep."


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

elle1331 said:


> im not saying you are but christ almighty ive just been reading up and Angel falls into all the category's
> 
> General Description: Muscular smooth-haired dog. Has a square profile (i.e. as tall from the ground to the top of the shoulder and as long from the point of the shoulder to point of the hip.
> 
> ...


There lays the first f:censor:k up in this law.Amiercan pit bull terrier has a breed profile.Amstaff has a breed profile.Staffordshire bull teirrer has a breed profile.English bull terrier has a breed profile'etc'etc all said are classified as "PIT BULL" types.A "PIT BULL" has no breed profile.Just "PIT BULL" is a broard discripion of a bull/bull terier type dog with the physic that it can handle it's self in the Pit ring.Be it a pure dog bull/bull terrier type or a cross of these types.Giving breed profile to a "PIT BULL" is like giving breed profile to a Lurcher."PIT BULL's" come in all shapes and sizes there is no set profile.




> *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, America 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.


----------



## elle1331 (Mar 19, 2007)

gazz said:


> There lays the first f:censor:k up in this law.Amiercan pit bull terrier has a breed profile.Amstaff has a breed profile.Staffordshire bull teirrer has a breed profile.English bull terrier has a breed profile'etc'etc all said are classified as "PIT BULL" types.A "PIT BULL" has no breed profile.Just "PIT BULL" is a broard discripion of a bull/bull terier type dog with the physic that it can handle it's self in the Pit ring.Be it a pure dog bull/bull terrier type or a cross of these types.Giving breed profile to a "PIT BULL" is like giving breed profile to a Lurcher."PIT BULL's" come in all shapes and sizes there is no set profile.


ok so slightly worried now as apparently papers and lineage means nothing if someone suspects my dogs to be a certain 'type' and as there is no true definition of what is now classed as a 'type' where do i stand if someone knocks on my door, if people have noticed that i have muscle hard man type dogs used as a status symbol rather than a much loved pet that they are? 
For people who dont know i have a large muscly mastiff and a large staff both are from respected breeders and both are KC registered chipped and registered/Tagged as is the law in N.I


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

robstaine said:


>


I was going to write what happen to his back paw as is looks sore.The it twiged what is was :blush::lol2::lol2:.


----------



## robstaine (May 7, 2009)

lol hehe sorry he doesn that all the time :S


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

That's what the crop function of image software is for (yuck!). :lol2:


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

Bless him hes proud of his manhood:lol2:


----------



## clairebear1984 (Dec 13, 2009)

girlsnotgray said:


> How on earth can you say that?Have you met ANY pit breeders? It seems you believe everyone who owns one lives on a council estate and needs to look "hard"??


 
Have you and if u have y they breeding dogs that are not allowed in the UK?


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

There's an EBT that lives near us that I often see walking with his owner, and I so want to go up to him and tell him to get his dog neutered. Something to do with the wide gait and the EBT waddle makes them so offensive. :lol2:


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

elle1331 said:


> Im confused now, is it illegal to own a APBT and illegal to own a type of AMPB?
> What exactly constitutes as a 'type' is it a dog that is crossed with a pit or just a dog that looks like a pit?


 The original reason for APBTs' being referred to as pit bull types is because the government of the time were advised that they were basically a mongrel breed and were not recognised by the AKC and also they wanted to cover any dog that could have APBT blood. The original legislation covered four breeds but as there was only one Tosa in this country and no known individuals of the other two, the main focus was on APBTs' or crosses and putting the onus entirely on the owner to prove their dog had no APBT whatsoever in its make-up.


----------



## robstaine (May 7, 2009)

lol my bad....sorry he tends to do that alot :s not sure why... I will remember next time to go on paint first and block it out lol


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

robstaine said:


> lol my bad....sorry he tends to do that alot :s not sure why... I will remember next time to go on paint first and block it out lol


 
lol One of those black circles they use on cheap porn mags lol


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

LOL @ Pimperella knowing that! :lol2::Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

LisaLQ said:


> LOL @ Pimperella knowing that! :lol2::Na_Na_Na_Na:


 
All my mates while growing up were Lads lol Honestly I swear! Not that I'm a Porn Queen or anything :whistling2::lol2:


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

:lol2:


----------

