# Should pitbulls be illegal?



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

I was just wondering what peoples veiws are on pitbulls being illegal, I mean making them illegal doesnt really get rid of the problem and it's still possible to get those dogs, furthermore I think the people that have pitbulls now are more likely to be the ones that don't care about braking the law and do anything to use a dog to look 'Hard'. Although I had a friend with a pitbull and it was such a nice dog it's a shame that they have mauled children etc. I do honestly believe that if a pitbull is brung up correctly and isnt abused/use for fighting etc they can make excellent pets. I don't agree with making them illegal, However i'm not sure how I would feel had it been my child being bitten etc. How do you feel?


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Ceratophrys said:


> Although I had a friend with a pitbull and it was such a nice dog it's a shame that they have mauled children etc.


you could do with clarifying that bit as it can be read that your friends pitbull mauled children.

The usual arguement, its not the dogs its the owner so no they shouldn't have been made illegal because a small number of them bit / maimed / killed people... 
Should they ban cars for the same reason?


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

yeah they get bad press IMO


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

its the owners, not the dogs.
anything can be tamed.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

boidae said:


> its the owners, not the dogs.
> anything can be tamed.


well not anything :lol2:


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

sorry i should have checked through before posting.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

They should be DWA... it will help deter people getting them for protection or to attack people...


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

boidae said:


> its the owners, not the dogs.
> anything can be tamed.


My point the rest of my family see my young sister and think a pitbull would instantly hert her. I dunno It just seems alot of the incedients have been unclear and we are not told everything.


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

bradhollands999 said:


> They should be DWA... it will help deter people getting them for protection or to attack people...


Yes!! that is an excellent point!


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

yeah dwa would make sense.
would definitely keep keepers to a select few who actually want to care for them and not take advantage of what they are capable of.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

bradhollands999 said:


> They should be DWA... it will help deter people getting them for protection or to attack people...


 
how can they be DWA? kept in an enclosure and away from the public etc etc? it wouldn't be a pet just a 'symbol' which makes it worse.


and since when have they been wild? so should they have a PDDA? (Possibly Dangerous Domestic Animal)


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

There illegal...

I know loads of people with them...ahwelll!!!


----------



## emma18x (Apr 15, 2008)

Meko said:


> The usual arguement, its not the dogs its the owner so no they shouldn't have been made illegal because a small number of them bit / maimed / killed people...
> Should they ban cars for the same reason?


Couldn't agree more with that.


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

SNAKEWISPERA said:


> There illegal...
> 
> I know loads of people with them...ahwelll!!!


Yeah they run the risk of having them taken off them and being slaughterd or wateva that sucks. Be so much better if they didn't have to worry about people reporting them each time they take it for a walk etc.


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

My heart goes out to those who have been affected from pitbull attacks btw.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

whether I agree with it or not they are illegal and having one is cruel on the animal I recon just for the fact that they could be put to sleep for no reason if they are found and thats not fair on the dog.


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

Ceratophrys said:


> Yeah they run the risk of having them taken off them and being slaughterd or wateva that sucks. Be so much better if they didn't have to worry about people reporting them each time they take it for a walk etc.


Well not really, 
Not down here anyway, they look like big staff's to a certain point, !!


----------



## gwinni (Oct 8, 2007)

Any dog can bite, it doesn't matter what the breed. Small breeds can be more snappy and likely to bite than bigger breeds. Pitbulls can make fantastic pets in the right hands, but unfortunatly they aren't always in the right hands. Plus the media tend to dive straight onto attacks by certain breeds, pitbulls, rotties etc but you very rarely hear about labs, yorkies, collies or whatever other breeds have ever bitten. I totally agree with punish the deed not the breed!


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

gwinni said:


> .* I totally agree with punish the deed not the breed*!


 
i need that explaining to me. I may be being thick but the 'deed' is dogs attacking.


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

No they shouldn't be illegal. Any dog has the potential to do damage, and i've seen more aggresive yorkshire terriers and small dogs than the bull breeds and larger dogs like rottys & Gsd's. The difference is if they turn for whatever reason they do significantly more damage. So people cry out that they're a dangerous breed and should be illegal. 

I find the whole thing quite ridiculous, it's owners not dogs that are the problem. Bad handling, not raising them to know boundaries or their place within the pack heirarchy can all lead to problems. And people who leave children alone with a dog no matter how 'tame' that dog may seem are irresponsible in my honest opinion. Generally speaking its the kids I don't trust not the dogs. I might get slated for that and if so, so be it. 
Take EmmaJ for example (sorry to borrow you hun) but she has 7? I think dogs. And if she can manage to keep them away from her son unattended what do the rest of us have as an excuse with one or two?


Completely agree with gwinni the media plays a huge roll, last year it was all about rotweilers and how they're vicious monsters. Really annoys me as I had a rotty as a child and she was the most wonderful soppy dog.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

yes its bad handling/keeping too that causes bad snake reputation, in america their classing people as *snake people*. giving people a whole new catergory or seperation if you like.


Pitbulls - American Pit bull Terrier | Pitbull pictures and videos

read that regarding pitbulls.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

this gives some pretty brutal information


Dangerous dogs in the UK


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

"Who kills - the gun, or the man who pulls the trigger?" Amen!

It says somthing that Pitbulls attact alot less people then other speices.. is that true :whistling2: if it is then that is definitly interesting!


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

boidae said:


> this gives some pretty brutal information
> 
> 
> Dangerous dogs in the UK


Brakes my heart.


----------



## daisyleo (Nov 23, 2006)

I obviously care about pitbulls being banned but what is at the forefront of my mind right now is the impending ban on other breeds that the law is trying to bring into force, now dont quote me but not so long ago I got sent a petition to sign that was trying to stop the ban on about 11 breeds of dogs, on that last were rotties, dobermans, GSD's, and staffies, I think this ban was already in place in ?? Ireland maybe?? and if it's happening there where does it head next you think???

As for making pitbulls DWA no point whatsoever, they are illegal now and does it stop people? do you think making the DWA will make people go out and buy a licence? me thinks not especially with the price it would be and also the "communities" that have pitbulls as illegal dogs now aren't the "communities" that can afford to buy a licence to put in place.
And as Meko I think said what you gonna do make it a viv and put a lock on it? lol :lol2:

I think that the ban should be left, it was obviously proven that these dogs were a MAJORITY that were nasty otherwise it would never have been put into place, I agree there are more nasty dogs I mean if you broke into my house you are more likely to be bitten by the jack russells than the staffs!!! 

But it's not the breed it's the owners to a certain extent when it comes to attacks in public.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

well the thing with pitbulls is they wont stop. other dogs have a bite then thats it, but pitbulls just keep coming and coming. giving a nastyer outcome and a feircer reputation.
i think theyve got split personalitys too. (they seem calm then can suddenly attack) unless thats *Rottweilers*.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

boidae said:


> this gives some pretty brutal information
> 
> 
> Dangerous dogs in the UK


 
also very biased.


----------



## daisyleo (Nov 23, 2006)

I would love you to see my mom's jack russell that stands about 8" high, when he gets his teeth into something he wants (he has never viciously attacked a person) i.e. socks. toys. etc etc he don't let go!!!!! and I am more scared of him than I am my 4 stone staffy, it's not the size of the dog that bothers me but the mentality, I have been attacked once by a dog and it was my border collie that we'd had for 8 years and he was 12 weeks old when he came to us, one day he just lost his marbles and attacked me, now the only breed I fear is collies yet I would pet someones rotty or DDB or infact any breed other than collies lol


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

Anyone watching the documentary on them a while back should understand why they are and should be banned from this country.

Whilst there are idiots out there willing to use, abuse and murder these dogs they are safer out of this country, for there own sake.

As for there being lots of them in this country :whistling2: I doubt it very much, many years ago there were. Now there are just allot of idiots crossing different breeds and calling them Pits.

As for there temps a dog is what you make it...

TBH something seriously needs to be done about the amount of Bull breeds in this country and the numpties owning them.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

its hard to have a say though if i dont know anything about the dogs that made the attacks and the owners keeper skills.

would take like 6 months or longer for someone to read everything up on the species and the attacks to come to there own verdict.


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> its the owners, not the dogs.
> anything can be tamed.


That's not strictly true, though. Certain breeds have a greater capacity to inflict damage, and a greater willingness to do so, than certain other breeds. This is our fault because we've selectively bred them to have those capabilities and dispositions.

People say its down to the bad owners, and to an extent that is true...but there is also a reason why certain types of people buy certain types of dogs in the first place; its a two way street. An irrisponsible chav probably makes his pit bull a worse animal than it would be if it was owned by a middle aged couple, but the reason chav's are attracted to these dogs in the first place is because they are a "hard mans dog" to begin with and as a result have more street cred than say a poodle or a Jack Russell.

cheers

Stuart


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

YouTube - The True Pit Bull


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

marthaMoo said:


> Anyone watching the documentary on them a while back should understand why they are and should be banned from this country.
> 
> Whilst there are idiots out there willing to use, abuse and murder these dogs they are safer out of this country, for there own sake.
> 
> ...


The documentary was made to persaude the ban on them tho.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

daisyleo said:


> I got sent a petition to sign that was trying to stop the ban on about 11 breeds of dogs, on that last were rotties, dobermans, GSD's, and staffies, I think this ban was already in place in ?? Ireland maybe?? and if it's happening there where does it head next you think???
> 
> .


Aye.. lets ban the nanny dogs (staffies) and GSD's an watch the police / security guards wander round with a jack russell giving criminals a nasty nip.


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ocAKbsQ95zc


> YouTube - The True Pit Bull


http://youtube.com/watch?v=ocAKbsQ95zc

But that does beg the quest of why, if they are so placid and such good pets, would people choose that breed to mold into a fighting dog? Surely the breed has some innate qualities that predispose it to this type of violent behaviour? Also, if pits bulls are no more aggressive and violent than other breeds why is it always pit bull v pit bull and never pitbull v golden retriever, for example?


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

i have to admit i hate the way theres laws on animals. humans have been right prats in the past and people at this age suffer from their consequences. 
all them upper classes killing untame animals for sport like rhinos etc. 
all them lower class's training a tame animal to be untame.

im proud to be neither upper class or lower class. i feel seperated from society because of it though.


----------



## The Chillinator (Jun 26, 2008)

I work in a kennels/stables and I've seen one or two pitbulls come in and out and I even had to walk one once, they were very gentle and placid and I think that it's the owners, not the dogs, who are to blame. Young men around the age of 18 seem to think that owning a dog such as a pitbull or a rottweiler will make them look tough, they are quite wrong, both breeds are quite gentle if properly trained and I don't think they should be illegal, the government should just crack down on those who train these dogs to be aggressive and potentially be used against someone.

Small dogs like terriers (for example Yorkshire terriers) can be yappy and will probably nip, the best small dog in my opinion is the Cocker spaniel. Larger dogs can have more aloof personalities and are usually very gentle, despite their size and won't yap or bite unlike a smaller dog.

I have two dogs, Bailey, is an 8 year old Golden retriever and Molly, is a 5 year old Lakeland terrier. My Auntie keeps and used to breed Miniature Schnauzers and my Mum used to have dogs when she was my age.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

essexchondro said:


> But that does beg the quest of why, if they are so placid and such good pets, would people choose that breed to mold into a fighting dog? Surely the breed has some innate qualities that predispose it to this type of violent behaviour? Also, if pits bulls are no more aggressive and violent than other breeds why is it always pit bull v pit bull and never pitbull v golden retriever, for example?


 


bull terriers have an iron like grip when they get their jaws around something and a high pain threshold which makes for a more exciting fight. For them to get people to bet on it they need 2 equally strong animals or everybody would bet on the pit bull, the pit bull would beat the lab and the people running the book would pay out more money than they took in bets. with 2 equal dogs the bets are spread.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

fights wre for making mony
all fights have to be close to equal to be able to get people to make a bet.
other wise everyone would bet on the same dog.


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

YouTube - The ORIGINAL "Pit Bull Problem" Video


----------



## The Chillinator (Jun 26, 2008)

Dog fights are simply cruel and are unnecessary IMO. Why would someone want to use an animal like that for entertainment?


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

Pleccy22 said:


> Dog fights are simply cruel and are unnecessary IMO. Why would someone want to use an animal like that for entertainment?


very true.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

if a discussion like this was on an american forums it would have exploded into flame.

this forum seems quite controlled with intelligence and no personal attacks are made.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

boidae said:


> if a discussion like this was on an american forums it would have exploded into flame.
> 
> this forum seems quite controlled with intelligence and no personal attacks are made.


not yet but just wait till somebody comes out with an absolutely pointless load of crap, then it'll start to go off..


----------



## The Chillinator (Jun 26, 2008)

American forums can be more aggressive (tell me about it!), I once joined a US fishing forum, all I asked was a simple question and I got a mouthful of virtual abuse within 10 minutes, no mods either... :whistling2:


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Pleccy22 said:


> Dog fights are simply cruel and are unnecessary IMO. Why would someone want to use an animal like that for entertainment?


 
different people see different things differently. In Korea they'd read this thread and wonder why people are talking about keeping the dogs as pets instead of eating them.
Why do people rape kids / adults / old people.. Why do people murder / torture people.... not everybody is made from the same mould and have their own opinions and ideas about what's acceptable.


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

Pleccy22 said:


> Dog fights are simply cruel and are unnecessary IMO. Why would someone want to use an animal like that for entertainment?



Because theirs alot on money in dog fighting,


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

too much time in prison if caught.


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

boidae said:


> if a discussion like this was on an american forums it would have exploded into flame.
> 
> this forum seems quite controlled with intelligence and no personal attacks are made.



Why does it matter what would happen in an American forum this is a Uk forum.

Yeah i'm glad it didn't turn into a slagging match this is not what i wanted


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

I wonder if someone could get an American Staffordshire Bull Terrier imported legally?


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

be good to know if it's possible there are ways you can have pitbulls here but they have to be neuterd etc :\


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> I wonder if someone could get an American Staffordshire Bull Terrier imported legally?


Im sure, they derived from the irish bull terrier...dont quote me on that tho!


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

Pleccy22 said:


> Dog fights are simply cruel and are unnecessary IMO. Why would someone want to use an animal like that for entertainment?


Because those people are sick in the head.

If they can do that to a dog, what else are they capable of doing?


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

Bull and Terrier Breeds (American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit bull terrier, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier)


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

SNAKEWISPERA said:


> Im sure, they derived from the irish bull terrier...dont quote me on that tho!


Many American Pit Bull Terriers (Which is the only breed *I* will accept as a "Pit bull" - anything else is a randombred mutt... but nobody's banning terrier-like mongrels) are registered with the AKC as American Staffordshire Terriers... and many AmStaffs are registered with the UKC as APBTs.


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

Ceratophrys said:


> be good to know if it's possible there are ways you can have pitbulls here but they have to be neuterd etc :\


That would be a huge risk to take.
If you did have a type you would have to hand that dog over to the aurthorities, it would then be temprement tested and you would have to go to court (This could take many months). If the dog is of sound temp you may be given the dog back (Neutered, tattooed, muzzled at all times when out and placed on a register) if not it will be destroyed. Also keep in mind owning one is illegal and you can face a large fine and a prison centence.

SNAKEWISPERA Irish staffies are not AM staffies. 

What ever the argument owning one of these dogs is a huge risk, the dog could end up being distroyed and in my opinion no owner who loved there dogs would put there dog in that much risk.
People who knowingly breed these dogs, sell them and buy them dont care about them, if they didnt they wouldnt risk the dogs lives.

Yes there are people out there who have these dogs but didnt know what there pup would turn into and were sold the dogs as something else.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

boidae said:


> this gives some pretty brutal information
> 
> 
> Dangerous dogs in the UK


And is a load of poo unfortunately. Interestingly spaniles are reported to be the breed that bites the most people in the UK but we arent callig for them to be banned.



daisyleo said:


> I think that the ban should be left, it was obviously proven that these dogs were a MAJORITY that were nasty


I can catergorically say that the majority of pitbulls are NOT nasty and were never proven to be. It was just a knee jerk reaction fuelled by the media hype about the breed in the early 90's that made them into the devil dogs people think they are.



marthaMoo said:


> TBH something seriously needs to be done about the amount of Bull breeds in this country and the numpties owning them.


What about all the other breeds that bite people? Banning a breed only makes the problem worse. You ban a dog and it instantly becomes a status symbol for the idiots who shouldnt own the breed in the first place. Which in turn drives the breed even more underground, people breed them without scruples not caring about the temerament of the dog so you end up with lots of unregistered half breed,untrained dogs in the hands of idiots.



essexchondro said:


> But that does beg the quest of why, if they are so placid and such good pets, would people choose that breed to mold into a fighting dog? Surely the breed has some innate qualities that predispose it to this type of violent behaviour? Also, if pits bulls are no more aggressive and violent than other breeds why is it always pit bull v pit bull and never pitbull v golden retriever, for example?


No-one can honestly say pitbulls are placid as a rule. They are tenacious,devoted and loyal and will try their best to please their owner. So that means if we train a pitbull to fight, it will give everything its got to do its best to please you. They have stamina and strength in bundles so make good fighting dogs.


Banning pitbulls quite clearly didnt work. The proof is that we still see pitbulls on the streets and still hear of attacks. All the ban has doen has driven the breed underground directly into the hands of people who dont care about the law. Staffords for example may of been bred for fighting, but fighting other dogs. If the Stafford showed any aggresion to humans they were destroyed instantly therefore as a breed they are usually non-human agressive. When you push a breed undergorund the breeders are not bothered sbout this sort of thing so over generation you may get human aggresive pits,Staffs etc.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

IMO they should not have been banned, the DDA was a knee jerk reaction to some horrific attacks. Not thought through, just done to keep the public happy etc.

Pit bulls were bred to have stable temprements. They were bred to be friendly towards people and are known for being very protective over children.

Poor breeding has churned out many unstable dogs that have caused problems coupled with the way they were treated/trained/raised by some people.

They have a natural aggression for sure but towards other animals, not people.

I do believe some kind of lisence could help the situation, ie you go for an assesment yourself, you'll be judged as to your suitability etc.

As far as i am aware the GSD is responsible for more human deaths than any other breed.
Rotweilers were supposed to go on the list but didnt as so many people keep them it would have caused major problems.

daisleo wrote..........''I think that the ban should be left, it was obviously proven that these dogs were a MAJORITY that were nasty otherwise it would never have been put into place''
-it was just trown in place and the majority of pits are very well natured. Its the poor breeding and then poor handling that should have been addressed.

boidae wrote..........well the thing with pitbulls is they wont stop. other dogs have a bite then thats it, but pitbulls just keep coming and coming. giving a nastyer outcome and a feircer reputation.
i think theyve got split personalitys too. (they seem calm then can suddenly attack)
-this is true in a way....again its the poor breeding bringing out unstable temprements.

Somebody else said why do people chose the likes of pits if they are so chilled etc, they must have something in them etc.
-they were purpose bred to fight dogs and be friendly towards humans, then the dog fighting communities started breeding dogs that had unstable temprements and were super aggressive, a true pit should be very good with people but not with other animals.

and somebody else said they wonder if there is a way of keeping pits legally.....the answer is no, not even muzzled etc. You first have to break the law and get one, and once caught, the dogs fate is up to the court. The law is written so that the dog could be tested and returned to you under special conditions but like i said, you have to be on the wrong side of the law first, go through months fighting etc, and these days i think the chance of it being returned is small.

My opinion
I know this post is a bit of a mess so basically.........

No they shouldnt be illegal, there should be strict control over the breeding and keeping of all dogs based on the individual, not breed.

And to show how the dda is such a poor law.......tell me how,when compared to the 4 so called ''dangerous dogs'', my dog, a Presa Canario is any less dangerous than a dogo argentino, for example????? it baffles me.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Very good post Rakpeterson : victory:


----------



## Shelley66 (Feb 19, 2007)

I thought pit bulls were banned under the DDA in the early 90's. If the breed wasn't banned, the breeding of them was, so it always amazes me that there seem to be so many around some 10-15 years later!


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Shelley66 said:


> I thought pit bulls were banned under the DDA in the early 90's. If the breed wasn't banned, the breeding of them was, so it always amazes me that there seem to be so many around some 10-15 years later!


guns are also illegal. No disrespect obviously but it does take a certain amount of naivety to think that making things illegal will wipe out a 'problem'


----------



## weelad (Jul 25, 2006)

Shelley66 said:


> I thought pit bulls were banned under the DDA in the early 90's. If the breed wasn't banned, the breeding of them was, so it always amazes me that there seem to be so many around some 10-15 years later!


i saw something that said they are brought in on fake papers easyily .. cant remember the exact thing that was said but its not hard aparently


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

weelad said:


> i saw something that said they are brought in on fake papers easyily .. cant remember the exact thing that was said but its not hard aparently


They can be brought in from the EU classed as StaffxLab etc. They are still at risk of being siezed though as they can be deemed as 'type'. Even verified cross breeds have been siezed by over zealous councils and police. Disgusting how they can take someones family pet even though its never shown any agression just because it looks a bit like a pitbull.


----------



## ishotthesherifswife (Jun 10, 2008)

ban the deed not the breed. any dogs can be trained to attack, or are vicious


----------



## Shelley66 (Feb 19, 2007)

Meko said:


> guns are also illegal. No disrespect obviously but it does take a certain amount of naivety to think that making things illegal will wipe out a 'problem'


But what I am pointing out is the op said should they be banned, well as I said, I thought they already were.


----------



## ip3kid (May 21, 2008)

Pitbulls are alright if they are brought up correct, but if they have abused when you stroke em and you you get to the "Awwww..." line they grab your face and jawlock you


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Shelley66 said:


> But what I am pointing out is the op said should they be banned, well as I said, I thought they already were.


yep, they are banned to keep legally but people will keep them illegally


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

Andy said:


> Very good post Rakpeterson : victory:


Cheers!

and as andy said they can be imported on fake papers and all it takes is for someone to deem it as a pit 'type'. Thats what makes the law so poor, the way its written means that say you own a staff of a certain conformation that resembles a pit in some way it can be siezed, even if it is non aggressive, you have papers, chipped etc, they can still take it. Many authorities have done this to law abiding people all over the uk, infact this week a man won his case after his dog was seized for being a pit type.....the dog in question was a dogue de bordeaux cross that had never shown any signs of aggression but his local council took the dog and went to court, the battle raged on for a whole year, the family were seperated from the dog for all this time...............infact this quote explains it better than i can............


An East Midlands dog owner is celebrating today after being told he can have his dog back.

Jason Singh had his case heard at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court where it was deemed his dog, Zeke, was not a pit bull terrier type.

Mr Singh will be reunited with the dog who was described as ‘delightful’ by the judge in the case.

“Zeke is clearly a delightful, friendly dog and shows no sign of aggression at all,” said Judge Morris Cooper.

Zeke was seized by Ruschliffe Borough Council who claimed he was a prohibited pit bull type dog, which are banned under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. The council said it was ‘disapointed’ at the decision, saying they had never claimed the dog was dangerous but that it was a banned ‘type’ dog.

Zeke was deemed to be a Dogue de Bordeaux cross.

“It has been over a year - and it’s been absolute hell but it’s been worth it and I’ve had a lot of people supporting me,” Mr Singh said.

Mr Singh has been without his dog for over a year, Zeke was seized in June 2007.

—

And within this case is, a very prominent message.

The council were dissapointed as they had never claimed Zeke was dangerous.

I’ll just repeat that.

They had never claimed he was dangerous.

The Dangerous Dogs Act, don’t you just love it?


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

ip3kid said:


> Pitbulls are alright if they are brought up correct, but if they have abused when you stroke em and you you get to the "Awwww..." line they grab your face and jawlock you


and i realise you may not have been being 100% serious but i have to point out that pitbulls dont lock their jaws, their is no mechanism that allows them to lock their jaws, sure they may have a strong bite and it might be hard to open their mouths but there definately is no lock there. The structure of their jaw is no different to any other breed.


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

the myths and lies about the pitbulls are what tears them away from being legal


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

It makes me sick it really does. People just put too much faith in newspapers and TV programmes. OK no-one is denying in the wrong hands these dogs can be dangerous, or any dog for that matter, but banning them only stops law abiding citizen keeping them and makes them more appealing to the dodgy people in society.

On a side note I was out in the dog field near me last night with my Stafford who isn't even a year old and my mate and his Dogue De Bordeaux. A woman came on the field, which had about 10-15 dogs all running loose, with a little Collie puppy. My Staffy ran over to have a sniff and the women started screaming that he was attacking her and her puppy! Luckily there were about 8 people who saw and told her she was lying and she then turned around and said I shouldnt have a pitbull off the lead as their vicious! I told her it was a Staffy and she said "well it just bit my hand I am ringing the police". If there hadnt been so many people there to tell her she was full of shit then she could of rang the police and my dog would of ben likely taken away and siezed all because of a stupid, ignorant person who doesnt know better.

Ah rant over!:lol2:


----------



## Alpha Dog (Jan 3, 2008)

Pits are not for everyone as a pet, I know this because I have owned 1.

I had to give it away after the third time it bite me!


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> bull terriers have an iron like grip when they get their jaws around something and a high pain threshold which makes for a more exciting fight. For them to get people to bet on it they need 2 equally strong animals or everybody would bet on the pit bull, the pit bull would beat the lab and the people running the book would pay out more money than they took in bets. with 2 equal dogs the bets are spread.


So that just supports the argument that pitbulls have greater capacity to inflict damage than other dog breeds (which was the point i was making). 

This seems to be the point that a lot of people that come out in support of pit bulls as pets forget. Yes there are loads of specimens that make great pets and are great with kids etc etc but its a fact that this breed has a greater capacity to inflict damage is it chooses (or is provoked) to do so compared to other breeds.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

Ceratophrys said:


> the myths and lies about the pitbulls are what tears them away from being legal


exactly mate. I doubt the DDA will ever be abolished but all the time people believe the myths then there is no chance. If anything i believe that the DDA will be added to as more and more people take on dogs they arent fully commited to, and for the wrong reasons etc. and unfortunately my dog will go on the list if there are any changes, i cant even get mine insured, if you look at the T&C of all the major pet insurers they have written in several breeds they wont cover for many reasons and mine is usually the first on the list. Petplan actually told me that it was already illegal, another company said they'd be illegal in May '08????? and their rep all came from one death, a lady called Diane Whipple in SF. the press jumped on it with the usual ''killer dog'' headlines but failed to mention that they were owned by an inmate at Pelican Bay, the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood. They were being bred by 'outsiders' to sell to the mexican mafia, and to protect methamphetamine labs........PUNISH THE DEED, NOT THE BREED!


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

essexchondro said:


> So that just supports the argument that pitbulls have greater capacity to inflict damage than other dog breeds (which was the point i was making).


as far as i'm away and as my post says its 'bull terrier' breeds and not jut pit bulls.


----------



## weelad (Jul 25, 2006)

ip3kid said:


> Pitbulls are alright if they are brought up correct, but if they have abused when you stroke em and you you get to the "Awwww..." line they grab your face and jawlock you


i think someone has pointed out they don't lock their jaws lol , but you shouldnt stroke a dog without asking the owner if its ok anyway


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

essexchondro said:


> So that just supports the argument that pitbulls have greater capacity to inflict damage than other dog breeds (which was the point i was making).
> 
> This seems to be the point that a lot of people that come out in support of pit bulls as pets forget. Yes there are loads of specimens that make great pets and are great with kids etc etc but its a fact that this breed has a greater capacity to inflict damage is it chooses (or is provoked) to do so compared to other breeds.


I wouldn't say that is true either. Rotties,Staffies,GSDs,Mastiffs,Bulldogs,St Bernards,Dogue De Bordeaux,Spaniels,Beagles etc etc all are just as capable as inflicting serious injuries. Most dogs have the capability to kill or maim the difference with pitbulls is you hear about the attacks in the papers and on the news because its more sensationlist than 'Spaniel Bites Boy'.

I know where you are coming from saying that they are capable of causing damage when they do turn bad but my point is so is every other dog.


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> as far as i'm away and as my post says its 'bull terrier' breeds and not jut pit bulls.


Ok, point taken. But the general point I'm making still stands i.e that some breeds have greater capacity to inflict damage and a greater willingness (off its own back or to please its owner) to do so compared to others.

That to me is the real issue. There are docile and aggressive specimens in all the breeds but its this greater _potential_ to do damage that concerns me.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

essexchondro said:


> So that just supports the argument that pitbulls have greater capacity to inflict damage than other dog breeds (which was the point i was making).
> 
> This seems to be the point that a lot of people that come out in support of pit bulls as pets forget. Yes there are loads of specimens that make great pets and are great with kids etc etc but its a fact that this breed has a greater capacity to inflict damage is it chooses (or is provoked) to do so compared to other breeds.


You are completely right, but there are so many breeds that are just the same and even worse IMO that you can legally keep. That is why i believe there should be laws in place regarding keeping ANY dog, but it should not be breed specific. Authorities could then asses the suitability of a particular person and their circumstances to a particular breed of dog. The main problem is that dogs like these require more than your 'average' dog, for example, socialization, knowing its place in the 'pack' as well as a responsible keeper who knows when the dog should be on a lead etc. and this is where people go wrong, they buy the dog and dont do the other things that go with dog ownership, and when its not done properly and it all goes pear shaped then obviously just the size alone makes the banned 4 able to inflict alot more damage than my aunts westie etc, but i can do these things with my dog, i am a responsible owner and if i can proove that i should be able to keep what i want, same as someone keeping venomous reptiles or indeed primates.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Thats what gets me you can pretty much keep any animal in the UK except 4 types of dog. I mean fine I can get mambas,crocs,monkeys you name it but if I want to get a pitbull there is no legal way. OK you dont see people walking mambas down the street but it all points back to responsible ownership. People can keep a King Cobra in their spare room as long as they can satisfy the authorities that they can keep it safely so why cant we have something similar for dogs? If you want one of the 4 banned dogs you can apply and prove your a sensible owner?


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

Alpha Dog said:


> Pits are not for everyone as a pet, I know this because I have owned 1.
> 
> I had to give it away after the third time it bite me!



Behave!!! you brought your dog from a dodgy guy under a bridge no wonder it wasnt well behaved it was proper abused by the guy.


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> I wouldn't say that is true either. Rotties,Staffies,GSDs,Mastiffs,Bulldogs,St Bernards,Dogue De Bordeaux,Spaniels,Beagles etc etc all are just as capable as inflicting serious injuries. Most dogs have the capability to kill or maim the difference with pitbulls is you hear about the attacks in the papers and on the news because its more sensationlist than 'Spaniel Bites Boy'.
> 
> I know where you are coming from saying that they are capable of causing damage when they do turn bad but my point is so is every other dog


But are these other species just as capable of inflicting the same level of damage as pit bulls? If they are, as you seem to suggest, why is it only pit bull attacks that the papers sensationalise? What is it about the pit bull that makes it the target of such bad press if they're no more dangerous than Spaniels and Beagles that as you correctly noted do also attack people?

There must be something pretty unique about the pitbull to a) make it the only breed that is involved in illegal fights and, b) make it demonised by the press etc more than other breeds that do frequently attack people. Someone mentioned that they have massively powerful jaws; is it because most breeds that bite let go straight afterwards were as pit bull don't let go?


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

Meko said:


> as far as i'm away and as my post says its 'bull terrier' breeds and not jut pit bulls.


This post confused me a little so forgive me if im on the wrong end of the stick here....

If you mean, as far as your _aware _'bull terrier' breeds are illegal, that is not true, as i can go and buy a bull terrier as a breed in its own right, its 'pit bull' type.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

it confused me when i re-read it but that's just my spelling.

you need to read a bit further up, its not the bull terrier breeds that i think are illegal but the the jaw _'locking'_ when they bite and not just pit bulls that do it.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

essexchondro said:


> But are these other species just as capable of inflicting the same level of damage as pit bulls? If they are, as you seem to suggest, why is it only pit bull attacks that the papers sensationalise? What is it about the pit bull that makes it the target of such bad press if they're no more dangerous than Spaniels and Beagles that as you correctly noted do also attack people?
> 
> There must be something pretty unique about the pitbull to a) make it the only breed that is involved in illegal fights and, b) make it demonised by the press etc more than other breeds that do frequently attack people. Someone mentioned that they have massively powerful jaws; is it because most breeds that bite let go straight afterwards were as pit bull don't let go?



Alot of the other breed mentioned were not bred purely for fighting and so dont have the history behind them quite so much, yes the other breed were used for fighting but they were not its sole task. The pit was bred to fight and so has that appeal that the others dont, and plus they are good fighters dog on dog, its what they are, but i would rather get attacked by a pit that a large DdB or a Neopolitan mastiff like this one

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/-/n/worlds_biggest_dog.jpg


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

essexchondro said:


> But are these other species just as capable of inflicting the same level of damage as pit bulls? If they are, as you seem to suggest, why is it only pit bull attacks that the papers sensationalise? What is it about the pit bull that makes it the target of such bad press if they're no more dangerous than Spaniels and Beagles that as you correctly noted do also attack people?
> 
> There must be something pretty unique about the pitbull to a) make it the only breed that is involved in illegal fights and, b) make it demonised by the press etc more than other breeds that do frequently attack people. Someone mentioned that they have massively powerful jaws; is it because most breeds that bite let go straight afterwards were as pit bull don't let go?



They are in the press because of there history and the rumours spread about them.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

essexchondro said:


> But are these other species just as capable of inflicting the same level of damage as pit bulls? If they are, as you seem to suggest, why is it only pit bull attacks that the papers sensationalise? What is it about the pit bull that makes it the target of such bad press if they're no more dangerous than Spaniels and Beagles that as you correctly noted do also attack people?
> 
> There must be something pretty unique about the pitbull to a) make it the only breed that is involved in illegal fights and, b) make it demonised by the press etc more than other breeds that do frequently attack people. Someone mentioned that they have massively powerful jaws; is it because most breeds that bite let go straight afterwards were as pit bull don't let go?


I think its because they have killed children to be honest. They managed to demonise Rotties and GSDs after incidents where they have killed children. I am pretty sure they are not the only breeds to have ever killed children but I cant say that as fact. Pitbulls look pretty mean and muscular which I suppose makes them look the part of 'devil dogs' which helps sell newspapers.


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/-/n/worlds_biggest_dog.jpg

That dogs HUGE!!!! OMG!!:mf_dribble:


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> I think its because they have killed children to be honest. They managed to demonise Rotties and GSDs after incidents where they have killed children. I am pretty sure they are not the only breeds to have ever killed children but I cant say that as fact. Pitbulls look pretty mean and muscular which I suppose makes them look the part of 'devil dogs' which helps sell newspapers


The stigma associated with rotties and GSD doesn't really seem to have stuck. though. It seems to be firmly lodged in place with pit bulls.


----------



## PRS (Dec 31, 2007)

I think pitbulls shouldnt be illegal or need liscenses etc, any dog can be bad, but most of the time it is the owners fault. 

For example rottweilers have got bad reputation, but most rottweilers are good tempered or if they are bad tempered its still not there fault imo, who here would leave a child with any large dog even if its really soppy/good tempered etc? its your responsibility to look after the child, so is your fault if you leave the child alone with he dog. 

I have been biten badly by a dog and it was the owners fault they knew it was aggressive and they let it in the room, even though it had bitten a few people, and even they're own children before they still kept the dog, but the bad thing mainly is they let it in knowing there was a strong chance it would bite. 

If you bring a dog up from a pup and look after it well then sometimes its still not the dogs fault if it does bite, if they are not well socialised then they can be aggressive around other people and dogs.
Peter.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

I think alot of people dont realise that when people say bred for fighting they actually mean fighting dogs. I am not clued up on the history of Pits but Staffords became popular after bear-baiting was outlawed and dog fighting became popular. As it was the working class who kept and trained fighting dogs they had to keep them in the house as obviously they didnt have much room. the dogs over time became very human friendly due to them living in close proximity to children etc and if they showed any aggresion to humans they would be destroyed therefore only human-friendly bloodlines were bred. I imagine with Pitbulls its similar to Staffords, when they fight they lock onto each other and almost wrestle. If they lock on and do not fight they have to split the dogs up which meant putting your hands near the dogs. So again you could not have human-aggresive fighting dogs. Plus after the fight they owners would stich the dogs up and treat them so you needed a calm non bitey dog there too. basically fighting dogs are bred to fight dogs and any signs of biting humans they were never bred from. Now they are illegal this wont be continued and they will be bred FOR this aggression to humans if anything.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

Ceratophrys said:


> http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/-/n/worlds_biggest_dog.jpg
> 
> That dogs HUGE!!!! OMG!!:mf_dribble:


I just realised thatweb addy has 'urbanlegends' in it, maybe its not real but you get my point.

This is a good bit of info and they have a small bit on the lock jaw.

It also seems that if your are caught with a pit that passes their tests you may well get to keep it, but that would be risky, and your dog would be in constant danger of being PTS.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

essexchondro said:


> The stigma associated with rotties and GSD doesn't really seem to have stuck. though. It seems to be firmly lodged in place with pit bulls.


Because they are illegal and still being kept by criminals whose intention is not to bring up a well trained and socialised dog possibly the opposite. If GSDs or rotties were illegal and were subject to the amoount of backyard breeding as Pitbulls you would see more attacks and then more sensationlist headlines about them IMO.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

The Gecko King :) said:


> I think pitbulls shouldnt be illegal or need liscenses etc, any dog can be bad, but most of the time it is the owners fault.


Your right IMO, but how would you ensure that only responsible people kept them. I dont think any dog should be illegal for the very same reason as you but i do realise that some people for whatever reason wont be able to cope with some breeds, i couldnt handle a husky for example, so i think their should be something in place to ensure you are responsible, know what the animal needs and aswell as knowing it, are able to provide it


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

Can I just ask a newbie question, Is it possible to get them made legal again?


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

> Can I just ask a newbie question, Is it possible to get them made legal again


Of course, if the government change the law.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

rakpeterson said:


> I just realised thatweb addy has 'urbanlegends' in it, maybe its not real but you get my point.
> 
> This is a good bit of info and they have a small bit on the lock jaw.
> 
> It also seems that if your are caught with a pit that passes their tests you may well get to keep it, but that would be risky, and your dog would be in constant danger of being PTS.



Forgot to add the link on this post

Dangerous Dogs advice for owners - The Kennel Club


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Ceratophrys said:


> Can I just ask a newbie question, Is it possible to get them made legal again?


probably not but even the Kennel Club and suprisingly the RSPCA are against the Dangerous Dogs Act and are against adding any more species to it. As a side note i dont think either of these organisations were consulted in the drafting of the DDA.


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

sorry, it was a silly question.


----------



## Ceratophrys (Jul 14, 2008)

Andy said:


> probably not but even the Kennel Club and suprisingly the RSPCA are against the Dangerous Dogs Act and are against adding any more species to it. As a side note i dont think either of these organisations were consulted in the drafting of the DDA.


Wow, you really know your stuff!! 
Can we not help persaude them to change it?


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Well we can't get them to lower petrol prices so we don't go into a recession so i think getting them to relax the DDA is going to be impossible.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

Ceratophrys said:


> sorry, it was a silly question.


Not at all silly mate.

It is technically possible, they can remove the law, but i doubt it will happen. Lets just hope andy is right about the kennel club and RSPCA and they dont end up adding more.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Ceratophrys said:


> Wow, you really know your stuff!!
> Can we not help persaude them to change it?


i dont really know that much but as an owner of a Staffy you come across people everyday who presume its a pitbull and therefore its going to eat their kids! There is a book called 'Celebrating Staffords' that has a great section about breed specific legislation and goes into it in great detail.


----------



## charliet (Mar 24, 2007)

Andy said:


> What about all the other breeds that bite people? Banning a breed only makes the problem worse. You ban a dog and it instantly becomes a status symbol for the idiots who shouldnt own the breed in the first place. Which in turn drives the breed even more underground, people breed them without scruples not caring about the temerament of the dog so you end up with lots of unregistered half breed,untrained dogs in the hands of idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Absolutely.



essexchondro said:


> Ok, point taken. But the general point I'm making still stands i.e that some breeds have greater capacity to inflict damage and a greater willingness (off its own back or to please its owner) to do so compared to others.
> 
> That to me is the real issue. There are docile and aggressive specimens in all the breeds but its this greater _potential_ to do damage that concerns me.


The ability to do damage is all relative. As has already been said in this thread, any breed of dog can do serious damage given the conditions, and many other breeds are capable of killing people. But once you ban one, the "slippery slope" kicks in, and more and more breeds are added unnecessarily. I was speaking to a Rhodesian Ridgeback breeder recently who said there were moves to attempt to get *them* on the DDA. And anyone who has any experience of Ridgebacks will know that is completely unjustified. 

What it boils down to is our freedom to get on with our lives without undue interference from the state. Granted, some people should not be allowed to keep pitbulls, but then there are a huge amount of people who should not be allowed to keep dogs full stop. I endorse a licencing system as described below:



rakpeterson said:


> there should be laws in place regarding keeping ANY dog, but it should not be breed specific. Authorities could then asses the suitability of a particular person and their circumstances to a particular breed of dog. The main problem is that dogs like these require more than your 'average' dog, for example, socialization, knowing its place in the 'pack' as well as a responsible keeper who knows when the dog should be on a lead etc. and this is where people go wrong, they buy the dog and dont do the other things that go with dog ownership, and when its not done properly and it all goes pear shaped then obviously just the size alone makes the banned 4 able to inflict alot more damage than my aunts westie etc, but i can do these things with my dog, i am a responsible owner and if i can proove that i should be able to keep what i want, same as someone keeping venomous reptiles or indeed primates.


Charlie


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

now my mrs is showing signs of aggression because iv been on here to long so im off......now she should be on the DDA!!


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

rakpeterson said:


> Not at all silly mate.
> 
> It is technically possible, they can remove the law, but i doubt it will happen. Lets just hope andy is right about the kennel club and RSPCA and they dont end up adding more.


I think that these days there are more organisations that are against the DDA some with some political power i.e. RSPCA. The RSPCA website even has a little section for Deed Not Breed. I can imagine why as the dod sheltoers are crammed with Bull breeds because people believe every thing they read in the Sun.


----------



## charliet (Mar 24, 2007)

Andy said:


> Because they are illegal and still being kept by criminals whose intention is not to bring up a well trained and socialised dog possibly the opposite. If GSDs or rotties were illegal and were subject to the amoount of backyard breeding as Pitbulls you would see more attacks and then more sensationlist headlines about them IMO.


Amen.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Andy said:


> I think that these days there are more organisations that are against the DDA some with some political power i.e. RSPCA. The RSPCA website even has a little section for Deed Not Breed. I can imagine why as the dod sheltoers are crammed with Bull breeds because people believe every thing they read in the Sun.


 
you're telling me. Shortly after that little girl got killed by a pit bull (cross ?) on New Years Eve I was walking Rio and some little chavvy scrotes asked me what dog he was. When i said he was a staffy cross they asked if he was crossed with a pit bull. Somebody must have read the paper to them.


----------



## inkyjoe (Mar 31, 2008)

I might have a biased opinion on this as I hate dogs, but I think pitbulls should be put on DWA, requiring the same licensing and strict regulations that are required to keep many animals who are on there and probably less dangerous and probably responsible for fewer serious attacks/fatalities. That would certainly prevent most of the human filth who keep them, from being able to.
At the end of the day, they were created by man, so I dont see a problem with them being exterminated by man
I know, Im cold.....but Im right!


----------



## twinklu (Mar 12, 2008)

Andy said:


> i dont really know that much but as an owner of a Staffy you come across people everyday who presume its a pitbull and therefore its going to eat their kids! There is a book called 'Celebrating Staffords' that has a great section about breed specific legislation and goes into it in great detail.


Know the feeling, one time when me and the OH were out with twinkletoes and lucy a gang of kids started screaming pit bulls pit bulls and running up and down the street, now my dogs are my babies and no dog is going to attack my babies if i can help it, so there we were trying to pick up a pair of Neapolitan Mastiffs weighing in at 72kg and a 65kg so the pit bulls couldn't get them and the prats (kids) were talking about our dogs, how you can mistake 2 Neos (one Mahogany and one Ash Blonde) for bull terriers of any type is beyond me but thats the mentality of the kids today.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

inkyjoe said:


> I might have a biased opinion on this as I hate dogs, but I think pitbulls should be put on DWA, requiring the same licensing and strict regulations that are required to keep many animals who are on there and probably less dangerous and probably responsible for fewer serious attacks/fatalities. That would certainly prevent most of the human filth who keep them, from being able to.
> At the end of the day, they were created by man, so I dont see a problem with them being exterminated by man
> I know, Im cold.....but Im right!


 
how can you be right if you want them to be put on the DWA?
you think they should be caged if people own them? 

and how can you be right if you think they are DANGEROUS WILD animals?


Pretty sure you were created by 'man' so its ok to exterminate you as well?


----------



## muskrat (Jun 8, 2008)

My vet told me that the most dangerous of all breeds was the labrador. 

Why you ask.

If they turn nasty, which they can and do, no one really expects it so they can do more damage.

Now I've been around dogs of various breeds, most of which are the type that are classed as dangerous, and have never been bitten or attacked by any, but they were all owned or train by sensible and responsible people.

Mind you I did have a rottie extract affection through menace, it started growling evry time I stopped stroking it!!!!


----------



## inkyjoe (Mar 31, 2008)

Meko said:


> how can you be right if you want them to be put on the DWA?
> you think they should be caged if people own them?
> 
> and how can you be right if you think they are DANGEROUS WILD animals?
> ...


I think I am right, as I said there are animals on DWA which are probably less dangerous than pitbulls. These dangerous animals, when kept in captivity, are caged. They are kept caged for a reason....they are dangerous. they are kept caged to prevent attacks on both the keepers, the keepers friends and family and of course the public.
Good point though, they are not dangerous wild animals, but dangerous domestic animals
I was created by man, with a big help from woman aswell (well done:2thumb though to put it in a similar light to what I said, I evolved from apes. If I had a reputation for killing and mauling kids, then I suppose I would have to expect to deserve to be exterminated
x


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

inkyjoe said:


> I think I am right, as I said there are animals on DWA which are probably less dangerous than pitbulls. These dangerous animals, when kept in captivity, are caged. They are kept caged for a reason....they are dangerous. they are kept caged to prevent attacks on both the keepers, the keepers friends and family and of course the public.
> Good point though, they are not dangerous wild animals, but dangerous domestic animals
> I was created by man, with a big help from woman aswell (well done:2thumb though to put it in a similar light to what I said, I evolved from apes. If I had a reputation for killing and mauling kids, then I suppose I would have to expect to deserve to be exterminated
> x


A prime example of ignorance and believing everything you read in the papers is true.


----------



## The Wanderer (Sep 14, 2007)

Andy said:


> A prime example of ignorance and believing everything you read in the papers is true.


 Agreed. The writer starts from a biased pov by admitting he hates dogs. PB's are not anymore inherenly evil or dangerous than an other breed. They are a wonderful breed in the right hands.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

By DWA i mean you have to have a licensce to buy one and have background checks etc. so criminals can't use them. They can be kept the same as any other dog though.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

inkyjoe said:


> Good point though, they are not dangerous wild animals, but dangerous domestic animals


 
i covered that on page 2, post 11 




Meko said:


> how can they be DWA? kept in an enclosure and away from the public etc etc? it wouldn't be a pet just a 'symbol' which makes it worse.
> 
> 
> *and since when have they been wild? so should they have a PDDA? (Possibly Dangerous Domestic Animal)*


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

The Wanderer said:


> Agreed. The writer starts from a biased pov by admitting he hates dogs. PB's are not anymore inherenly evil or dangerous than an other breed. They are a wonderful breed in the right hands.


I am just wondering what he thinks is on the DWAA list that he thinks is safer than a dog?I cant think of many that i would rather be in a locked room with than a pooch!


----------



## inkyjoe (Mar 31, 2008)

Andy said:


> A prime example of ignorance and believing everything you read in the papers is true.


As I said in my first post, I may have a biased opinion. I dont like dogs, I especially dont like dogs famed on both sides of the atlantic, for savage behaviour, being BRED (not coincidence, but had bloodlines followed for muscle, dexterity and sheer aggression)purely for the purpose of tearing things apart, and having an unreasonable mentality and a brain the size of a wallnut!
Im sure the parents of children who were attacked and possibly maimed to death by these dogs you are so tenaciously defending, will agree that the media have given these poor misunderstood dogs a 'bloody hard time'.
been fun chatting with you, have to go to bed, im tattooing a portrait of a bullterrier on someone tomorrow:lol2:


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Again, a good example of ignorance of the breed.: victory:


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

inkyjoe said:


> Im sure the parents of children who were attacked and possibly maimed to death by these dogs you are so tenaciously defending, will agree that the media have given these poor misunderstood dogs a 'bloody hard time'.


 
Now i do feel sympathetic to the people who have lost a child after being killed by a dog but i also see them as highly hypocritical. In many cases they think its ok to leave their kids with a potentially 'dangerous weapon' and then complain when the weapon goes off.
These people wouldn't leave their kids alone with a loaded gun but will leave them alone with a dog.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

No sure if this has been said already but..............
Pitbulls were bred for just that to go down pits!
Also its a fact that if one of them are hurt their owners are never harmed when tending to them 
IMO they got worse press than the staffords, i bet half of the people on this thread wouldnt know a pit bull if it bit them on the backside!
I have people cross the road because of our stafford its stupidness.
Do i trust my dog with my kids oh god yes do i leave my kids alone with the dog well yes when i make coffee go to the loo etc the kids are in the living room with the dog laying on the floor falling asleep with her.
Would it be my fault if my dog bit someone well that would depend who that someone was.


***********EDIT*********

Here is a link *DONT CHEAT* which one is the Pitbull (Meko your not allowed to say)

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Faith said:


> Do i trust my dog with my kids oh god yes do i leave my kids alone with the dog well yes when i make coffee go to the loo etc the kids are in the living room with the dog laying on the floor falling asleep with her.


i've always said i'd cover a baby in dog food and let Rio babysit i trust him that much 




> Here is a link *DONT CHEAT* which one is the Pitbull (Meko your not allowed to say)
> 
> Pet Pitbull - Find the Pit Bull


 
good cos i'm kinda stumped..... narrowed it down to 2 but probably wrong on them both but pretty sure on the winner.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

bradhollands999 said:


> They should be DWA... it will help deter people getting them for protection or to attack people...


A DWA won't deter any one :lol2: C'MON you really think it that simple.The type of person that owns a pitbull for the sole perpose of biting people are highly likly into drugs/random crime and likly dogfighting'etc.You really think these type of people care about a little thing called a DWA licence:whistling2:I THINK NOT.A pitbull is NO! differant than any other breed of dog it is nercher not nature i know this coz i am a staffie owner who's ancestory was also pitfighting and my staffie is SWEET AS! :no1: and she has NEVER shown any bad temperment in her life.Pitbulls are just over grown staffies if rase right that's soppy and cheeky and yes some individuals maybe a$$hole as dogs have personalities too but if where going to judge all by one.That's shorely pretty much all the dog breeds on DWA as people have been bitten by most breeds over the years.

You and I and anyone could get a pitbull tomorrow if you really wanted too.You and I and anyone could if they really wanted to get a DWA reptile.I'm shore there people out there now with somthing they shouldn't really have.Any licence only stops law abiding citizens the rest do what they like till they get caught and half the time they just do it again.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Meko said:


> i've always said i'd cover a baby in dog food and let Rio babysit i trust him that much
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My staff is just plain DUMB i mean seriously dumb wont even chase a cat out the garden although she dont like birds lol.
I have a godchild who was born at 24 weeks when she came out of hospital her and her mum came and stayed with me for 3 months. 
She used to sit in her bouncy chair on the floor with the dog as close as it could get to her and if the baby didnt move or make a noise my stafford would nudge her with its nose to make sure she was ok.

I have only ever met one other dog that i would trust 100% with my kids and thats the dog i grew up with of all things it was a German shepard X Collie!


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Faith said:


> No sure if this has been said already but..............
> Pitbulls were bred for just that to go down pits!
> Also its a fact that if one of them are hurt their owners are never harmed when tending to them
> IMO they got worse press than the staffords, i bet half of the people on this thread wouldnt know a pit bull if it bit them on the backside!
> ...


I got it on the third guess...:lol2:


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

bradhollands999 said:


> I got it on the third guess...:lol2:


Lol which one did you click first?


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

The big issue with pitbulls is not just the way in which they are raised.

It has long been proven that genetic memory is just as important as the physical result of genetics.

Pitbulls were bred to fight, pure and simple. They have been outlawed for a very good reason.

Their genetic breeding does not allow for friendly association with any living creature. They have been "evolved" to be a killing machine.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Faith said:


> No sure if this has been said already but..............
> Pitbulls were bred for just that to go down pits!
> Also its a fact that if one of them are hurt their owners are never harmed when tending to them
> IMO they got worse press than the staffords, i bet half of the people on this thread wouldnt know a pit bull if it bit them on the backside!
> ...


took me 4 guesses


----------



## charliet (Mar 24, 2007)

inkyjoe said:


> I especially dont like dogs famed on both sides of the atlantic, for savage behaviour, being BRED (not coincidence, but had bloodlines followed for muscle, dexterity and sheer aggression)purely for the purpose of tearing things apart, and having an unreasonable mentality and a brain the size of a wallnut!





ian14 said:


> The big issue with pitbulls is not just the way in which they are raised.
> 
> It has long been proven that genetic memory is just as important as the physical result of genetics.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but have either of you actually met an APBT? And if you have, did you actually spend any time with them before passing judgement? The (well-socialised) pits that I have had first hand experience of have been model dogs. 

Do you really think dog fighting comes naturally to *any* dog? It requires a twisted personality (for both the dog and the keeper) to make them kill. Why else do dogfighters feel the need to brutally abuse dogs to "toughen" them up and make them aggressive. If you do this to any breed of dog you will produce a monster. The reason pits have been used for fighting is because of their size, their physique, and their utter devotion to anything their keeper and their steadfast commitment to do anything that they are instructed to do. 

In the right hands these traits make the breed the perfect pet. In the wrong hands they can be *made* dangerous. So where does the repsonsibility lie? With the keeper of course. Hence the need for non-breed specific legislation.

Inkyjoe: Firstly pitbulls do not have a brain the size of a walnut. Whilst they are not as bright as collies, for example, they are very aware and perceptive, and can display quite a degree of intelligence. Secondly, as no dogs are "reasonable", pitbulls specifically cannot have an "unreasonable mentality". Dogs don't reason. They simply do not work that way. They respond to authority, hierarchy, and training. All through repetition. 


Charlie


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

ian14 said:


> Their genetic breeding does not allow for friendly association with any living creature. They have been "evolved" to be a killing machine.


Yeah look at this 'killer' go!
YouTube - Pit Bull & Chicks - HAPPY EASTER !!! 

As for the genetics arguement please read the following quote taken from the Kennel Club website.

*Genetics and Behaviour*​ Genetics (breed) plays only a part in the temperament of an individual dog and _scientific studies from around the world show_ that environment probably has a far greater effect. A large percentage of dog biting incidents are due to the irresponsible actions of owners, who have either not taken the time and trouble to train their dog correctly, or have indeed trained them to behave aggressively. Consequently any legislation based on genetics that ignores the influence of the dog’s keeper on its behaviour is likely to be ineffective.


----------



## ferretlad (Mar 6, 2008)

I cant make my mind up about this thread, I have never met a Pit Bull or know any one that has one...but I see what has happened in the news when a Pit Bull has attacked, I suspect these dogs were in the wrong hands. So i can only say they need close supervision by the owners...maybe not a total ban.


----------



## Schip (Mar 31, 2007)

Not read all the posts on this topic so apologise if I'm repeating whats already been stated. I have lived in the States for a while, shown, trained and handled dogs of various breeds for both security work and showing.

Should they be banned NO as has been said punish the deed not the breed ie the owner has created the scenario that lead to the deed breed is not an issue. 

Many an owner that I visited during my time in the US had their pits in long kennel runs, infact a lot of dogs are kept that way out there. 100% of them told me I wouldn't be able to enter that run without the dog 'guarding their territory' Rubbish as I showed them by walking in giving the dog a command and rewarding them when they followed the command by taking their own food from their bowl under their noses. Now I'm sorry a dangerous dog would have soon told me where to get off without needing to resort to physical aggression, they give out signals via body language which is down to us to read and take note of. Dogs recognise confidence and domminance regardless of what a lot of behaviouralist tell you, a dog will give respect when its demanded ie by mentally deciding you ARE the boss they smell the hormones, recognise the calmness, body language etc without you needing to open your mouth.

The mistake many many dog owners make is when they have puppies and find certain behaviours cute - I say to my puppy buyers - Cute now as an 8 wk old pup how cute when its a 6mth old teething pup or a yr old hormonal mess similar to their own teenage children? As for bites from larger dogs doing more damage let me assure you a small dog can bite and create just as large a wound as they bite at a faster rate due to their smaller size and of course they are more spoiled because of their size making control as adult dogs more difficult. 

The only time I've been bitten in over 40 yrs was by a Springer Spaniel that I collected to take to the vets for pts on the owners behalf, damned dog had chased her and the children out of the house, a pm showed a massive brain tumor was the problem not the breed or the rearing of that dog.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

The consistent opinion of most people who discuss this subject is that it is down to the owner.
So if we acknowledge that some breeds are a) more powerful, b) higher drive and c) bred for aggressive traits which can be enhanced or suppressed depending on how they are reared, we can then address the issue sensibly.
If the general concensus is that it is people that create the problems for these dogs then it makes sense that if a person wants to own a breed with 'potential' they should have to attend a course which teaches resposibility, the law, training and behaviour. I concede that this type of short course wouldn't teach anyone everything they need to know, but, it would prevent the spur of the moment, lazy arses who think you can just get a dog and put no work or effort into raising it, from getting a dog at all. It would also protect many of our breeds from being the victim of the next 'big mans dog' trend.
It would be a lot easier for the police to check acurately whether or not the law had been broken. At the moment they struggle with identification which leaves many innocent dogs spending 12 months or more in kennels while their owners struggle to prove their breed. The huge amount of time spent in kennels has to damage them phsycologically to some extent.
I watched with dismay the tv program on Tuesday about police dogs and was disgusted to see an SBT being hauled off on 2 grasping poles, screaming. The dog was described as a pit bull by the tv program - no wonder people are confused.


----------



## charliet (Mar 24, 2007)

Evie said:


> So if we acknowledge that some breeds are a) more powerful, b) higher drive and c) bred for aggressive traits which can be enhanced or suppressed depending on how they are reared, we can then address the issue sensibly.
> If the general concensus is that it is people that create the problems for these dogs then it makes sense that if a person wants to own a breed with 'potential' they should have to attend a course which teaches resposibility, the law, training and behaviour.


But all breeds have "potential". Singling out specific breeds for control goes some way to addressing the problem, but if the aim is to reduce the number of "dangerous dogs", all breeds should be subject to different degrees of control, depending upon traits characteristic of types of breed. In this way, a person's suitability for keeping certain breeds may be assessed - perhaps in the way that driving licenses are issued, passing a test which deems you fit to keep certain breeds, with tougher tests for more challenging breeds.

This may be justified by a shift in mindset from that of having a *right* to own a dog, to it being a choice that entails certain obligations (such as exercise, training and socialisation, etc.). By doing this, a dog is no longer seen as a person's property (an object to do with as I please), but an animal with needs, which demands understanding and a responsible keeper.


----------



## Evie (Jan 28, 2008)

charliet said:


> But all breeds have "potential". Singling out specific breeds for control goes some way to addressing the problem, but if the aim is to reduce the number of "dangerous dogs", all breeds should be subject to different degrees of control, depending upon traits characteristic of types of breed. In this way, a person's suitability for keeping certain breeds may be assessed - perhaps in the way that driving licenses are issued, passing a test which deems you fit to keep certain breeds, with tougher tests for more challenging breeds.
> 
> This may be justified by a shift in mindset from that of having a *right* to own a dog, to it being a choice that entails certain obligations (such as exercise, training and socialisation, etc.). By doing this, a dog is no longer seen as a person's property (an object to do with as I please), but an animal with needs, which demands understanding and a responsible keeper.


I don't think that the aim should to reduce the number of 'dangerous dogs'. It should be to reduce the number of dogs in the wrong hands. 
I have always felt that all dog owners should have to have some degree of training/education. 
Like driving we have differing levels starting with cycling proficiency which might = Cavalier King Charles level, up to HGV or PSV = Pit bulls, Rotties etc. 
I also think that NOBODY should be allowed to breed dogs without proving that they have a wealth of knowledge.
And I wholeheartedly agree that owning a dog should not be a right, but an earned privilege.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Evie said:


> I watched with dismay the tv program on Tuesday about police dogs and was disgusted to see an SBT being hauled off on 2 grasping poles, screaming. The dog was described as a pit bull by the tv program - no wonder people are confused.


Yes i saw that the poor bloody thing. The police dog handlers were saying how its a pitbull and possibly the most dangerous breed in the world. It was actually quite a small SBT. Poor thing was terrified too.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

inkyjoe said:


> bloodlines followed for muscle, dexterity and sheer aggression)purely for the purpose of tearing things apart, and having an unreasonable mentality and a brain the size of a wallnut!


Actually, if you knew anything about dog fights, you'd know that the dogs are NOT bred to "tear each other apart" - they fight until ONE of the dogs will not cross a 'scratch line' to meet its opponent (i.e. the weaker/less game dog gives up). Because the original dogs were game bred and bred for tenacity, desire to please and strength, they COULD kill each other - but that wasn't the goal of a dog fight.

And American Pit Bull Terriers make very good "people" dogs - a properly bred one is the product of generations of selection for NO human aggressiveness whatsoever. They may be ANIMAL aggressive but it is not generalised to "broad spectrum" aggression. They are very intelligent and eager to please - combine that with their small size (thirty to sixty pounds for a typical one - they are NOT big dogs) and their strength they make very good search and rescue dogs.

A real Pit Bull is more likely to invite a stranger into the house and lick him to death than maul him. I've met two dogs that were real APBTs - and they were both the sweetest dogs I'd ever known.

By comparison, we knew a miniature Dachshund that went bonkers and mauled someone when they tried to take a dead bird away from him; I've been bitten by a Basset Hound and a randombred mutt (but never by a Rottweiler)... and I wouldn't trust a red or blonde Cocker Spaniel around anyone who doesn't significantly outweigh it.



ian14 said:


> The big issue with pitbulls is not just the way in which they are raised.
> 
> It has long been proven that genetic memory is just as important as the physical result of genetics.
> 
> ...


That's not true. They were BRED to be completely nonaggressive to humans - when part of the rules of fighting dogs is that the handler has to be able to get down into the ring and unclamp his dog's jaws from the other dog to put them back into their corner to start a 'new round' ... any dog that bit a handler (his or the other dog's) was immediately and permanently removed from the gene pool. A dog that bites humans is no good for fighting; they were also FAMILY dogs.

I know at least one APBT who is doing PAT work - Pet-Assisted Therapy. They certainly can have friendly association with people, even if they were specifically bred for dog-aggression and may show aggression to small animals (but then, I know some sighthounds can't be allowed offlead when there are small dogs around, because they'll treat them as "rabbit")...


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Faith said:


> Lol which one did you click first?


15 then 17:lol2:


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Andy said:


> Yes i saw that the poor bloody thing. The police dog handlers were saying how its a pitbull and possibly the most dangerous breed in the world. It was actually quite a small SBT. Poor thing was terrified too.


I saw that too and while i agree with you mostly you have to take the view of a policeman for a minute. Your raiding the flat of a drug dealer and he has a dog that starts barking and attacking the raiders as soon as they enter. It does what any dog does, protect its owner and territory, but they don't know its temperament and so can't afford to take the risk.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Faith said:


> No sure if this has been said already but..............
> Pitbulls were bred for just that to go down pits!
> Also its a fact that if one of them are hurt their owners are never harmed when tending to them
> IMO they got worse press than the staffords, i bet half of the people on this thread wouldnt know a pit bull if it bit them on the backside!
> ...


 
so are other dogs in those pics on the dangerous dogs act in the UK?


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

If you click on each pic it tells you the breed... match it to the 4 banned ones...


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

I dont even know what the banned ones are tbh.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

SiUK said:


> I dont even know what the banned ones are tbh.


7, 13 and 16 are and the other is the Japanese Tosa... i think thats right.


----------



## Andy b 1 (May 14, 2007)

yes they should be illegal, they are little bastards!! they were bred for one purpose....dont even try to 'flame' me or whatever because im not the only one thinking it... they are put on the dangerous dog act for a reason

sorry i just feel really strongly about illegal dogs...


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

I think in my experience the most aggressive dog is the Jack Russell Terrier...


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

13 arnt a banned breed are they? and the number 7 dogs look mean as fook.


----------



## Andy b 1 (May 14, 2007)

boidae said:


> its the owners, not the dogs.
> anything can be tamed.


such as scorpions... with little brain capacity so they pyhsically cannot be tamed :lol2:

and the thing is..they dont just maul children, they maul EVERYTHING that people dont see... one of my mum's mates at the police dog training centre in essex looked at a pitbull and it went for him...no reason whatsoever... he said he was happy to put a boot in that dog's face because it just couldnt control itself even with training, ive always said they wouldnt be on the DDA if they are harmless (near enough like other dogs) like people think.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

I think so... i'll check quickly...:lol2:


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

SiUK said:


> 13 arnt a banned breed are they? and the number 7 dogs look mean as fook.


Sorry its 11 not 13.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

bradhollands999 said:


> I saw that too and while i agree with you mostly you have to take the view of a policeman for a minute. Your raiding the flat of a drug dealer and he has a dog that starts barking and attacking the raiders as soon as they enter. It does what any dog does, protect its owner and territory, but they don't know its temperament and so can't afford to take the risk.


yes but as supposed dog handling experts (their words not mine) you would think they would know the dog is not a pitbull. The narrator was saying 'A pitbull the most vicous dog known to man' than showed footage of the poor STB screaming with fear while being dragged out of the van probably to be put to sleep.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Andy b 1 said:


> such as scorpions... with little brain capacity so they pyhsically cannot be tamed :lol2:
> 
> and the thing is..they dont just maul children, they maul EVERYTHING that people dont see... one of my mum's mates at the police dog training centre in essex looked at a pitbull and it went for him...no reason whatsoever... he said he was happy to put a boot in that dog's face because it just couldnt control itself even with training, ive always said they wouldnt be on the DDA if they are harmless (near enough like other dogs) like people think.


So pitbulls cannot be tamed?

And they maul everything they see?

Thats a strong claim I am sure you have lots of evidence to back that up....


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Andy said:


> yes but as supposed dog handling experts (their words not mine) you would think they would know the dog is not a pitbull. The narrator was saying 'A pitbull the most vicous dog known to man' than showed footage of the poor STB screaming with fear while being dragged out of the van probably to be put to sleep.


Yeah it was a bit harsh, but the press (and it was the reporter and not the policeman that said it was the most dangerous dog known to man) always bullshit. It wouldn't have been put down unless they could prove it was a certain per cent APBT which like you said it wasn't so he probably got it back.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Andy said:


> So pitbulls cannot be tamed?
> 
> And they maul everything they see?
> 
> Thats a strong claim I am sure you have lots of evidence to back that up....


not only a strong one, an absolutely ridiculous one with no backing


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

SiUK said:


> not only a strong one, an absolutely ridiculous one with no backing


I just realised who it was who posted that comment, a 16 boy who has probably never seen an APBT.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Andy said:


> I just realised who it was who posted that comment, a 16 boy who has probably never seen an APBT.


exactly, when your making comments so stupid, you got to expect people to pick you up on it, although if I was naive enough to believe everything in the press I might think that too.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

SiUK said:


> exactly, when your making comments so stupid, you got to expect people to pick you up on it, although if I was naive enough to believe everything in the press I might think that too.


You have got to question people who come out with ridiculous comments as its these sort of people who got them banned in the first place.

Andy b 1 do some research on the breeds on the DDA and then tell us why they are on there and not spaniels who bite and attack and hospitalise more people a year than any other breed.


----------



## Declan123 (Dec 29, 2007)

People keep saying Such and Such of Breed of Dog should be banned...Wether it being a Rotty or a PitBull.... 

Whats usually the case, a big, strong Dog bites somone, (Owners Fault, due to non-training) Then Its blasted all over the newspapers etc, left right and centre...

But

How many people here have been bitten by a small Sh**ty dog... They yap and bite more people than big dogs... But dont do a massive deal of damage.. due to size...

But in the rare cases when a big dog bites, its publicitisied... Giving the dog a bad name... Ive been bitten numberous times by Poodles, Jack Russels etc.... But never by a Bigger Dog...

Im sorry if ive offended anyone, But i keep a Rottweiler, and its quite frankly the softest thing ever...


----------



## charliet (Mar 24, 2007)

Andy b 1 said:


> yes they should be illegal, they are little bastards!! they were bred for one purpose....dont even try to 'flame' me or whatever because im not the only one thinking it... they are put on the dangerous dog act for a reason
> 
> sorry i just feel really strongly about illegal dogs...


Your ignorance astounds me.

They have been put on the DDA as a reactionary measure as a result of a couple of attacks, and the public's insatiable need for a "bogeyman". It's common knowledge that they are still readily available, and a lot of the time will be in irresponsible hands. Despite this how often do you hear of an attack?



Andy b 1 said:


> such as scorpions... with little brain capacity so they pyhsically cannot be tamed :lol2:
> 
> and the thing is..they dont just maul children, they maul EVERYTHING that people dont see... one of my mum's mates at the police dog training centre in essex looked at a pitbull and it went for him...no reason whatsoever... he said he was happy to put a boot in that dog's face because it just couldnt control itself even with training, ive always said they wouldnt be on the DDA if they are harmless (near enough like other dogs) like people think.


If he put his boot in the dogs face I sincerely hope he lost his job. People who have the capacity to something so horrific shouldnt work with animals, if at all. Moreover, he obviously does not have what it takes to work with dogs if he cannot be calm and authoritative, but resorts to violence. 

You make the argument twice that they are on the DDA for a reason. Will you be using the same argument when your reptiles are banned by this government?


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Declan123 said:


> People keep saying Such and Such of Breed of Dog should be banned...Wether it being a Rotty or a PitBull....
> 
> Whats usually the case, a big, strong Dog bites somone, (Owners Fault, due to non-training) Then Its blasted all over the newspapers etc, left right and centre...
> 
> ...


Totally agree... yappy little shits, i'd love to punt a Jack Russell down the road... i got attacked by one on my paperround a couple of years ago so i whacked it with a paper round the head and ran... the owner just watched and did nothing. i vowed from then on that if it attacked me again i would kick it as hard as i could in the head and then headbutt the owner.:2thumb:


----------



## weelad (Jul 25, 2006)

Faith said:


> No sure if this has been said already but..............
> Pitbulls were bred for just that to go down pits!
> Also its a fact that if one of them are hurt their owners are never harmed when tending to them
> IMO they got worse press than the staffords, i bet half of the people on this thread wouldnt know a pit bull if it bit them on the backside!
> ...


 i have had 2 people have ago at me and a freind walking our dogs as their "dangerous pitbulls ":lol2: mines a staffie and my friends is a staff x boxer .. wich looks more like a boxer then anything.. even though their dogs were the ones trying to bite our dogs and our dogs were sitting their playing with a stick lol


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

jack russels get a hard time from people but they are just territorial and dont like strange people/things entering their domain. Make good little guard dogs around the house as they bark their heads of if something or someone makes a noise outside. They actually think they are big dogs in a small body.: victory:


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Andy b 1 said:


> yes they should be illegal, they are little bastards!! ...


 
you're a little bastard as well but whenever you get banned they let you back so why do you think dogs should stay banned?




Andy b 1 said:


> one of my mum's mates at the police dog training centre in essex looked at a pitbull and it went for him...no reason whatsoever... .


how do you know it was for no reason whatsoever? did the dog laugh and say he felt like doing it?
You can train dog to do a lot of things. A bloke in Austria (or Germany) called his dog Adolf and taught it to give a Nazi salute on command. I'm taking it your mums friend was a policeman if he was at the dog training centre? Who was the owner of the pit bull? was it one bred from a puppy surrounded by a loving family or was it owned by a possible criminal who may have dressed in a police uniform and beaten it to give the dog an associate with the police and violence towards it?


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Andy said:


> jack russels get a hard time from people but they are just territorial and dont like strange people/things entering their domain. Make good little guard dogs around the house as they bark their heads of if something or someone makes a noise outside. They actually think they are big dogs in a small body.: victory:


I'm only the paperboy...:lol2: I wouldn't mind as much if the owner could control it, but he let it attack me... it didn't hurt and didn't break the skin or anything, but thats not the point...


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

bradhollands999 said:


> I'm only the paperboy...:lol2: I wouldn't mind as much if the owner could control it, but he let it attack me... it didn't hurt and didn't break the skin or anything, but thats not the point...


They are generally all mouth and no bite luckily! My Jack Russells will sort of make out they are attacking you with all the noise and actions but not actually bite you!


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Meko said:


> you're a little bastard as well but whenever you get banned they let you back so why do you think dogs should stay banned?


LMFAO :2thumb:


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Meko said:


> you're a little bastard as well but whenever you get banned they let you back so why do you think dogs should stay banned?


:lol2::lol2::lol2::no1::no1:


----------



## Declan123 (Dec 29, 2007)

Meko said:


> you're a little bastard as well but whenever you get banned they let you back so why do you think dogs should stay banned?



Very Very Good

:notworthy::notworthy:


----------



## Buriram (Jul 17, 2006)

*Matthew (Viper and Vine).*

I have two pitbulls on the farm in Thailand (our entrance even has them in mosaic tiles on the wall)! They are very strong dogs but I have found them well mannered and biddable - I would also say quite trainable. There is no doubt about the potential damage they could cause, however. They are now banned from import to Thaialnd and I think this is a good thing due to the popularity of dog fighting in our part of Thailand. Rather than banning breeds, it would be better from banning prats from owning dogs ... but then how do we legally define a prat?


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

ian14 said:


> The big issue with pitbulls is not just the way in which they are raised.
> 
> It has long been proven that genetic memory is just as important as the physical result of genetics.
> 
> ...



:lol2::bash: Do you know what your talking about?
Pitbulls were not bred for fighting at all they were bred as baiting and mining dogs, they were fought to get the strongest genes to be re bred in to the lines!!!

Oh and have you ever been licked to death by a bull breed? considering every single bull breed in the UK was mixed together not one of them are a "pure" breed.



SiUK said:


> so are other dogs in those pics on the dangerous dogs act in the UK?


Some of them yes hun



SiUK said:


> 13 arnt a banned breed are they? and the number 7 dogs look mean as fook.


These are on the dangerous dogs act 


Pit Bull Terrier (a description which has led to some confusion, as the "Pit bull" is not a breed in and of itself but encompasses a range of breeds)
Japanese Tosa
Dogo Argentino
Fila Brasileiro


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Dogo Argentino are mental dogs


----------



## Declan123 (Dec 29, 2007)

The Japanese Tosser lol


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Declan123 said:


> The Japanese Tosser lol


:lol2::lol2: My brother wanted one of them dogs once and he said to my mum, "I want a Japanese Tosser mum!"


----------



## bannyian (Jun 13, 2007)

reading the 18 pages of this thread it appears to me that the people who have worked with the breed think they should be off the dangerous dog act and the people who read the papers and believe everything in them "know" how dangerous they really are


----------



## miss_honey (Apr 13, 2008)

I have never met a pit bull, but I know some one that used to own one around 20years ago, he said that she was the lovelyest little dog he had ever had. Though when they were out he kept her on the lead, not because she would go for another dog, but he didnt want to take the risk.

Ive seen many programs regarding pit bulls, many fighting dogs and everytime they went in the remove the dogs they were licked stupid. I also own 3 jack russels who are seen as nippy, one of them is but hes 13, my 12 year old will lick you to death and the 2 year old likes to watch you and when she feels you are good enough for a hug she makes you give her kisses (she puts her cheeck against your Face). As every one states every dog has the ability to be mean.

Another point, an owner of a training kennels for aggressive dogs said that the most common breed he has in are spanials, they are so loyal that they can take badly to new people. Then again ive not met a mean spanial, so its down the individual and the owners.

Sorry to babble


----------



## Andy b 1 (May 14, 2007)

bannyian said:


> reading the 18 pages of this thread it appears to me that the people who have worked with the breed think they should be off the dangerous dog act and the people who read the papers and believe everything in them "know" how dangerous they really are


 such as the government then? :lol2: why the f***k do you think they are on an act of parliament for bieng a dangerous breed? wake up people...if the government sees them as a dangeous dog after months and months of research...they wouldnt just be put on an act like that for no reason would they?


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Andy b 1 said:


> such as the government then? :lol2: why the f***k do you think they are on an act of parliament for bieng a dangerous breed? wake up people...if the government sees them as a dangeous dog after months and months of research...they wouldnt just be put on an act like that for no reason would they?


Lol Andy you are always seen commenting in threads you know nothing about!
The govenment see a lot of things as dangerous people still do it, or do you think we should bow down and allow them to compleatly dictate everything we do.

Have you even had the pleasure of meeting a Bull breed?


----------



## Andy b 1 (May 14, 2007)

Faith said:


> Lol Andy you are always seen commenting in threads you know nothing about!
> The govenment see a lot of things as dangerous people still do it, or do you think we should bow down and allow them to compleatly dictate everything we do.
> 
> Have you even had the pleasure of meeting a Bull breed?


 yes lol , well now thinking about it i think bull terriers are the worst lil bastards out there. ok heres my dog hate list which ive actually seen

jack russell
bull terrier
staff X rottie - got up and snarled at everything when people walked past it :roll: 
pitbull


----------



## LIZARD (Oct 31, 2007)

:lol2:i know a lot of bull breeds that HATE andys lol


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Andy b 1 said:


> yes lol , well now thinking about it i think bull terriers are the worst lil bastards out there. ok heres my dog hate list which ive actually seen
> 
> jack russell
> bull terrier
> ...


Are you sure the pit bull was a pure bred bull and not a cross as is so often the case,
Your what 17? so when 1991 was here you were only a baby tell me how you met a pitbull lmao

Its also not just Pitbulls that are on the DDA its pit bull "type" dogs!

And what type of bull terrier there are at least 10 on the KC list with "Bull terrier" at the end.


----------



## charliet (Mar 24, 2007)

bannyian said:


> reading the 18 pages of this thread it appears to me that the people who have worked with the breed think they should be off the dangerous dog act and the people who read the papers and believe everything in them "know" how dangerous they really are


Bingo. So who do you believe?


----------



## ichis-mom (May 25, 2008)

*banned owners altogether*



Ceratophrys said:


> I was just wondering what peoples veiws are on pitbulls being illegal, I mean making them illegal doesnt really get rid of the problem and it's still possible to get those dogs, furthermore I think the people that have pitbulls now are more likely to be the ones that don't care about braking the law and do anything to use a dog to look 'Hard'. Although I had a friend with a pitbull and it was such a nice dog it's a shame that they have mauled children etc. I do honestly believe that if a pitbull is brung up correctly and isnt abused/use for fighting etc they can make excellent pets. I don't agree with making them illegal, However i'm not sure how I would feel had it been my child being bitten etc. How do you feel?


i think that pitbulls should not be banned yes they are a fighting breed but so are akitas rottwilers etc but its the way there are brought up and i think rather than ban breeds that anyone who has a dangerous dog or has been convicted of animal cruelty should be banned from keeping any animals altogether.


----------



## bannyian (Jun 13, 2007)

Andy b 1 said:


> such as the government then? :lol2: why the f***k do you think they are on an act of parliament for bieng a dangerous breed? wake up people...if the government sees them as a dangeous dog after months and months of research...they wouldnt just be put on an act like that for no reason would they?


underage drinking is seen as dangerous too, but i am sure i have read recently you were drinking "vodka" and lager, that is illegal yet you still done it. it is only dangerous when you make it dangerous, same could be said about the pitbull?


----------



## bannyian (Jun 13, 2007)

charliet said:


> Bingo. So who do you believe?


 i would have to see it for myself before making a decision, the previous owners could be biased


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

Andy b 1 said:


> such as the government then? :lol2: why the f***k do you think they are on an act of parliament for bieng a dangerous breed? wake up people...if the government sees them as a dangeous dog after months and months of research...they wouldnt just be put on an act like that for no reason would they?


That is a 100% false statement.

You are the one who needs to wake up if you really believe what you say.

Tell me about the months of research that went into their decision??? - you cant because it didnt happen.

I really cant be bothered to go into it here but if you like i can show you the years (roughly 8) research i have done in to the downfalls, mistakes, criminal activity etc of this and all previous governments, just come to my house, honestly, its an invitation to you. If you can prove that just one of the many cases i have of government acting in a way that they shouldnt then i have wasted the last 8 years of my life, thats roughly half your life, it aint gonna happen, but your welcome to have a look and give it a shot.

In this case the goverment did what they do best. They passed some shody law to keep the majority happy, the majority like you who believed all they read. Media has warped your perception, thats what its there for. Ever heard of propaganda, its used as much today, if not more, as it was during the wars. Im not saying you were deliberately mislead about the DDA by the government, but you really should be more careful about who and what you believe.

In time (probably around the same time as you begin to pay tax etc. and become a fully fledged member of this messed up society) you too will realise that the government, past or present, does not always act as they should.

Its nice that you do have faith in our government and you should be able to, but, the truth is that they dont give a toss about you.

Do some research of your own, maybe if you find it of your own accord, rather than being told by a bunch of morons like us who obviously know nothing, it may be a bit more believable for you.


----------



## ogawa only (Jun 4, 2008)

am pitbulls were a very nice dog , and like all dogs , if trained properly and kept as any dog should .were very good family pets 
the problem came when the select groupe of morons got hold of them , now these people cant have them , they've got the so called irish stafford (legal pit bull), also these people have got hold of the sbt , and changed it from the breed standard , to now mimic the pit , like a sudo dog of sorts . 
the breed council are well aware of the risk the sbt's face due to bad press , and every dog whether it be a cross or a pit is now reffered to a sbt .
the poor old pit fell into the wronge hands ,and the dda didn't help the situation , just pushing futher under ground and now they don't exist on paper ,as such , they will drag down other breed's as the gov never wants to be wrong !!! 
just to be clear i dont think all owner's of the irish stafford are morons , i was implicateing the drug dealer's , robber , wanna be gangster's and the like .that keep these dogs for a reason !!! other than a family pet these along with all dogs , if kept how dogs should be make great pet , and a loyal family member


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Andy b 1 said:


> such as the government then? :lol2: why the f***k do you think they are on an act of parliament for bieng a dangerous breed? wake up people...if the government sees them as a dangeous dog after months and months of research...they wouldnt just be put on an act like that for no reason would they?


 
showing your age there Andy.. must be the same government that has experts conducting months of experiments on cannabis to find it wasn't as dangerous as the government believed but they re-classified it anyway.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Meko said:


> showing your age there Andy.. must be the same government that has experts conducting months of experiments on cannabis to find it wasn't as dangerous as the government believed but they re-classified it anyway.


I dont think the government did months of research into the DDA anyway. I will dig out a book I have about the DDA and find out exactly what went on because i cant remember. From memory it was a knee jerk reaction to introduce the DDA after a couple of serious attacks on children.


----------



## PIMP (Jun 18, 2008)

American Pit Bull Terrier was the first dog to recieve an award whilst in service. Many states in the US still use pit bulls as service dogs for police, mountain rescue, drug, etc. This is because of their determination to reach a goal, once a pit bull has made its mind up that it wants 'something' or 'someone' it will not stop to get it, quite similar to Staffy's, BUT this can be a curse. For instance if the pit bull decides it wants YOU it wont stop till it gets you. On the other hand they wont stop until they have found some one, took down a criminal on the run, sniffed out narcotics etc.

Personally i have nothing against pit bulls, have known many that were loyal, loving and caring family dogs and still are. I also own a staffordshire with same temperament. I blame the press and the idiots who are determined to ruin the breed through fighting and training to be all round evil dogs. A similar situation is occuring with the staffordshire breed.

As above its the dog as an individual that should be looked at not the breed. My Staffordshire and myself have been attacked for no reason by labradors, poodles, westy's, yorkies - but this is not read in the press?!?!?!?!

personally i would like to the Breed DWA, but same with staffordshire's,rottie's, akita's etc. Just to stop total prats owning the dog and ruinin the breed and a perfecly good breed of dog!!!!


----------



## PIMP (Jun 18, 2008)

Also these arenot what i consider good healthy pit bulls, what i call 'obese!!!' very unhealthy and often have serious breathing problems because of being overweight, obviously their owners take a similar approach to their own lifestyle!!



















this a proper pit bull

note the slender agile build and floppy ears!!!










YouTube - The Great American Pit Bull Terrier

YouTube - AN AMERICAN HERO

video's say it all!!

"what man doesn't know man fears, and what man fears he destroy's....."

a fan of Pit bulls or not videos should be watched by all!!


----------



## RST (Jan 23, 2008)

bradhollands999 said:


> They should be DWA... it will help deter people getting them for protection or to attack people...


it would be nearly impossible to make them illegal or DWA. pitbull share very similar genes to staffys, english bulls etc. soi people could just say its a staffy not a pit and no one could prove different


----------



## charliet (Mar 24, 2007)

PIMP said:


> once a pit bull has made its mind up that it wants 'something' or 'someone' it will not stop to get it, quite similar to Staffy's, BUT this can be a curse. For instance if the pit bull decides it wants YOU it wont stop till it gets you. On the other hand they wont stop until they have found some one, took down a criminal on the run, sniffed out narcotics etc.


I agree with you, but this drive can be easily controlled by an authoritative keeper, if the dog is well trained to the "LEAVE" command, for example. 





PIMP said:


>


Do you think the handler feeds him his leftover pizza?! Obese dogs are one of my pet peeves. That and dog clothes. And what is the point of that collar?


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

charliet said:


> I agree with you, but this drive can be easily controlled by an authoritative keeper, if the dog is well trained to the "LEAVE" command, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesn't look like the guy leaves much pizza for the dog...:whistling2:


----------



## PIMP (Jun 18, 2008)

who knows about that collar, very true about the 'leave' command but that should never be relied on, more of a back up with any powerful dog, as for yorkshire terriers if leave doesnt work just pick it up :lol2:


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

PIMP said:


>


on the bright side.. if that dog wasn't brought up properly and had a vicious temperament you've a bloody good chance of outrunning it.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Meko said:


> on the bright side.. if that dog wasn't brought up properly and had a vicious temperament you've a bloody good chance of outrunning it.


Good point... or just give it a Big Mac...:lol2:


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

ogawa only said:


> now these people cant have them , they've got the so called irish stafford (legal pit bull), also these people have got hold of the sbt , and changed it from the breed standard , to now mimic the pit , like a sudo dog of sorts .


Sorry i cant agree with the above statment the Irish stafford is now just classed as a STB by the KC they are staffords just leggy. 
As for changing the breed standard of staffords on occasion this is a good thing giving a longer snout to stop breathing problems etc, if any breed needs to be changed its the bulldog imo talk about way off the breed standard its disgracefull.

Pitbulls are fantastic dogs ill agree with that :lol2:


----------



## lukendaniel (Jan 10, 2007)

if people think they should be put on dwa then a hell of alot of dogs need putting on lol.

just a point what about german shepards they are used as police dogs and army dogs and are just as nasty when trained if the handlers did not tell the dogs to stop then i think you would be in a very bad state after being attacked by one 

just saying any dog can be trained to attack all because these are the only ones in the news and everthing at the min does not mean they should go on dwa. because if they did thousands of dogs would be put down also they would just move onto another breed 


luke


----------



## bannyian (Jun 13, 2007)

Shocking dog fight breaks out in Boro Centre Square - Gazette Live

also i would like to know the figures for the amount of each breed of dog put down for biting


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

lukendaniel said:


> if people think they should be put on dwa then a hell of alot of dogs need putting on lol.
> 
> just a point what about german shepards they are used as police dogs and army dogs and are just as nasty when trained if the handlers did not tell the dogs to stop then i think you would be in a very bad state after being attacked by one
> 
> ...


They'll do exactly what the trainer tells them to and they can mess you up pretty bad. The criminals proper shit themselves if they think the police have dogs with them.: victory:


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

I know someone who has 2 pits a brother and a sister 

she walked into a fight and payed £1000 just to take the 2 dogs as 1 was on deaths door due to being fought 

they both live together very happily and and fantastic dogs even with what they have been through they are just grateful of a peaceful life and love 

They are nervous and aggressive towards other dogs due to nerves not aggressivness as such but she knows this and walks them and ungodly hours to avoid bumping into any other dogs walkers she also plans her routes with them too 

I cried when i saw the pictures of wat the male looked like when she got him home from his hell.............his sister was lucky she was saved before her schedueled fight 

i wasnt going to mention this but thought i would seeing as most people have it in their head they are pure evil.............not all pitts are evil there can be acceptions to the rules


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Emmaj said:


> I know someone who has 2 pits a brother and a sister
> 
> she walked into a fight and payed £1000 just to take the 2 dogs as 1 was on deaths door due to being fought
> 
> ...


Which strengthens my point about them being 110% loyal to their owners.


----------



## PIMP (Jun 18, 2008)

Emmaj said:


> I know someone who has 2 pits a brother and a sister
> 
> she walked into a fight and payed £1000 just to take the 2 dogs as 1 was on deaths door due to being fought
> 
> ...


that woman is a hero, well done to her and thanks for saving the dogs!!! :2thumb:


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

Faith said:


> Which strengthens my point about them being 110% loyal to their owners.


 
Oh they definately are they worship the ground she walks on do those dogs :flrt:

and they are as soft as shizer too


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

PIMP said:


> that woman is a hero, well done to her and thanks for saving the dogs!!! :2thumb:


she definately is though there were 3 dogs 2 brothers and the sister 

she only got to the 2 she saved just intime the other brother had already been fought and he didnt survive so the remaing 2 are the luckest dogs i have ever met 

she did take the dead dog and had him burried in the respectful way that he so deserved 

it was heartbreaking but so damn rewarding watching her pull them dogs through what a terrible ordeal they had been through 

and to look at them today you wouldnt think they were the same dogs as when she brought them home 

starved near to death so the smell of blood was appitising to them and they fought poor poor babies 

but the ending was such a happy one for the 2 she managed to save :flrt:


----------



## diamondlil (May 7, 2008)

I met a rescued pit years ago, he'd been used to train other dogs because he wouldn't fight. He was an absolute mess of scarring, but one of the softest and most loving dogs I've ever met. The family that rescued him had to keep him hidden after the DDA, there was no way he was ever leaving their care.


----------



## gtm (Jan 23, 2008)

As a matter of interest how did she 'walk into a fight'?


----------



## ferretmuppet (Jul 20, 2008)

in the nicest possible wayh, those dogs look like they have had anaboic steroids


----------



## JPReptiles (Dec 2, 2007)

I wouldn't say they should be banned as i think there are amazing dogs, what i would say is that it should be made near impossible/impossible for idiots that wish to fight them or buy them to look hard to get them..

If it is made harder for these kinds of people to get them i think it would put some of them off.

John


----------



## lenemily (Jul 7, 2008)

we have a 7yr old stafy girl and an 8 month old staffy x pitbull 
both are fantastic dogs loyal and loving and a great part of our family 
the pitt x is very strong and also strong minded and it has taken alot to train her to the level our staffy is

i dont think pitbulls should be banned at all i think the people that are abusing them for their strengh and loyalty should be put in prison for a very long time 
its a shame that these dogs have such a stigma attatched to them 

would post a pic of our babies but dont know how to 
:bash:


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

gtm said:


> As a matter of interest how did she 'walk into a fight'?


he brother knew of some dodgey people and he informed her of the fight


----------



## charliet (Mar 24, 2007)

Just seen an interesting rant regarding this topic. I think the author makes the point well:


I HATE dog fighting and would be the first to condemn anyone who contributes to or enjoys such a barbaric and disgusting 'sport', but I am a firm believer that you can't condemn a breed for the ignorance of a small disturbed portion of humanity

Many people who are responsible and loving owners of 'illegal' breeds have proved with their PETS that pitbulls and other breeds considered dangerous are in fact loving and loyal dogs who are no more dangerous to society than your child's pet hamster. 

Hundreds of 'pitbull types' are needlessly destroyed because us humans prefer the idea of condemning them to regulating the people who own them. *This in itself is just as cruel as the so-called sport of dog fighting that we are claiming to be disgusted by. *

You wouldn't jail the grandson of a murderer just incase he became a murderer, this would be inhuman and unfair, so why do we extend this judgement to the animals that we as humans are meant to protect?

...a breed that is wrongly persecuted by those who would rather erradicate it's very existence than admit their failure to these beautiful and loving creatures. You supposed mr/mrs animal lover should be ashamed of your reinforcement of this misconception when you could be advocated to impose tougher laws on WHO OWNS this breed rather than advocating the erradication of the breed itself... you can't be an 'animal lover' if you advocate the needless killing of hundreds of innocent animals. As an true animal lover you try to find a soloution to the problem which does not involve this....Don't condemn the breed, condemn the people who have given the breed it's reputation!​


----------



## Buriram (Jul 17, 2006)

rakpeterson said:


> That is a 100% false statement.
> 
> You are the one who needs to wake up if you really believe what you say.
> 
> ...


Quite simply put, that was great. I liked that.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

For hundreds of years Pit Bulls were bred to fight dogs, certain traits were bred into the bloodlines for that purpose, high pain tolerance, high prey drive, etc. However a quality that was never bred into Pit Bulls was human aggression. Human "aggressive" dogs were undesirable as these dogs required extensive handling prior to and during their fights AND most of these dogs were also family pets so no human aggression was ever tolerated. ​ 
www.understand-a-bull.com - Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)​ 

with that said, if they do not have other dogs to fight would they not need something else to fight like 'humans'?
theres no way you can deplete the fight from the specie as a whole when its been put into the dogs bloodline.

even if that article was true, how come pitbulls have caused over 60% of all dog attack fatalities?

obviously societys reacting on the 60% from a single breed of about 400+ breeds (correct that if you know exact amount).

60% of fatalites caused by one breeds immense.
60% of the 400 dog breeds is 240 different dogs!
for one dog breed to kill for all of the 60% (240 dog breeds) is crazy.
that leaves 40% deaths caused by 160 different breeds.
that could be 0.25% fatality to each breed left.
that could mean they kill 239 times the amount of people than any other dog breed.

obviously thats why there not wanted in most civillians place of home.


im not against the dogs. just the genes and blood lines imprinted in their makeup.


----------



## shelley_draven (Jul 5, 2008)

I think that owners should come under scrutinisation, not the dogs.

No dog should ever be made illegal, tighter controls should be placed on owners. Pit bulls have been demonised for years. I remember in the mid 1980s, I was with my mom walking her staffordshire bull terrier and people would run into their house and lock their doors having confused the two! The do induce a certain level of hysteria, due to the media portraying only the perceived bad in the breed. 

If it was up to me, I would reintroduce dog licences. Part of the licence conditions would be mandatory dog training and socialisation for all owners of all breeds. If owners can't be @rsed to do these basic things then why do they bother getting dogs at all? From what I have heard about pit bulls, they need a firm experienced hand. They are strong minded dogs and problems occur when the owners don't have the experience or training to cope with their nature.

The breeding of dogs is also another important factor which I believe needs a rethink. At present, any fool can buy a couple of dogs and breed them. At the other end of the spectrum in the Kennel Club inbreeding dogs to death. Neither of these extremes has the dog at heart. A quick look on preloved threw up someone selling a person selling a staffy crossed with a springer spaniel. My question is why the hell would someone do that? A staffy is a staffy, a springer is a springer, what's the point of mixing them? The answer to that is obviously that breeding dogs is seen as a fast track to some easy ££££££. I read part of an article on the BBC which said that the majority of incidents of staffordshire bull terriers biting humans involved dogs that were staffy crosses (when i stop rambling i'll find a linky). What's to say that this isn't also true of pit bulls? My point being that breeding should advance the breed in question and not make it weaker. 

Staffies have been in my family for donkeys years. I've been around all manner of "dangerous" dogs, dobes, rottweilers, gsd etc. All decent dogs, well cared for and looked after by owners who care about their health and social well being. My only incident in being hurt by one is actually a vicious yorkshire terrier, he was an untrained lunatic who believed biting people's heels was acceptable.

If the goverment go down the route of making certain breeds illegal then it's a slippery slope to all dogs being banned. It will start with pit bulls, then staffies, then rottweillers until eventually every breed has been destroyed. Us humans should learn that dogs aren't disposeable commodities, we need to be as responsible for them as we are for our children and that to allow whole breeds to be destroyed is to admit our fundamental failure as owners.


----------



## browner93 (Dec 17, 2007)

they should be illegal people who wants them for what they are but not to if some one wants one cuz they love the breed and it was be a family dog!

Josh


----------



## repti-mon (Aug 31, 2007)

Ceratophrys said:


> I was just wondering what peoples veiws are on pitbulls being illegal, I mean making them illegal doesnt really get rid of the problem and it's still possible to get those dogs, furthermore I think the people that have pitbulls now are more likely to be the ones that don't care about braking the law and do anything to use a dog to look 'Hard'. Although I had a friend with a pitbull and it was such a nice dog it's a shame that they have mauled children etc. I do honestly believe that if a pitbull is brung up correctly and isnt abused/use for fighting etc they can make excellent pets. I don't agree with making them illegal, However i'm not sure how I would feel had it been my child being bitten etc. How do you feel?


 
Havent read the whole thread but.....pitbulls shouldn't be made illegal, the owners who corrupt them should though :2thumb:

Nick


----------



## Marinam2 (Sep 4, 2007)

Here's an interesting point of view. How about keeping them ilegal in order to save the breed!!

Marina


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Marinam2 said:


> Here's an interesting point of view. How about keeping them ilegal in order to save the breed!!
> 
> Marina


I dont get it? How is keeping them illegal going to save the breed?


----------



## Avo (Jan 19, 2008)

Dangerous dogs are not born they are created! We should be saying dangerous owners!

Look at some results from temperament evaluations -

*Percentage of safe dogs tested*

AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 84.3%
GOLDEN RETRIEVER 84.2%
AKITA 74.0%
BULLMASTIFF 77.0%
COLLIE 79.4%
DALMATIAN 81.8%
GERMAN SHEPHERD 83.5%
WEIMARANER 80.1%

I own two Weimaraners, so they are more likely to turn on me than Pit Bull!

More info here- ATTS - American Temperament Test Society, Inc. - Home


----------



## Moshpitviper (Oct 21, 2005)

the dangerous dogs act was a media circus and nothing more. tis still perfectly legal to own the most dangerous animals on earth with the correct licence and insurance. yet in almost all instances it is illegal to own a pitbull terrier.

btw.... pitties arent banned in italy, border collies however.... ARE.


----------



## Bonkers! (May 27, 2007)

No, the dog isn't bad, the people that train them to be bad are bad. The breed itself isn't dangerous, the morons that train them to be dangerous are dangerous. Pitbulls have a nice temperament, they're just, you could say, easily led along?


----------



## BecciBoo (Aug 31, 2007)

We had a pitbull come into work the other day...you find that most vets don't report them (especially in the liverpool area) because they make up the bulk of there clients. We learnt about it in college too, whether they should be reported for owning one or just treated and sent on there way because the practice wouldn't have any animals to treat. Its different when they pitbull has to be referred to a big hospital such as ours though, the nurses instantly knew it was a pitbull even though the records had it referred to us as a Staffy...there was talk of reporting it but I dont think anyone did. 

It was a lovely dog...WITH PEOPLE!!!...but as soon as it saw another animal it completely changed. But you do see it with Staffy's and other breed types also...they are the most loving dogs one minute and you can do anything with them...but put another animal near them and they turn in the evillest creature. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of what I've seen...either animal, person, child...it scares me.

I think the four dogs that are on the Dangerous Dogs list are there for a reason...they are pure bred fighting dogs. But more dogs will follow that route because people are irresponsible when it comes to animals. 


(I haven't read the whole thread)


----------



## BecciBoo (Aug 31, 2007)

Moshpitviper said:


> btw.... pitties arent banned in italy, border collies however.... ARE.


lol...thats because they are so unpredictable when they are in veterinary practices! I wouldn't trust a border collie as far as I can throw it.


----------



## Marinam2 (Sep 4, 2007)

I said ban them to save them from the cruelty a small group of numbnuts !!

Marina


----------



## MELINDAGIBSON (Sep 8, 2007)

*hi*

my friend has one and he is lovely but i wouldnt have one but there is someone who breeds them in england and he is an ass hole


----------



## gnipper (Feb 13, 2007)

I reckon you'll find theres a lot more than one person breeds them in england:lol2:
Whats everyones views on staffies then? Should they be banned? They are just as bad if not brought up well and socialised with other dogs and animals.
The dog that becci wrote about was more than likely owned by an arsehole who could make a spaniel be a nuisance, doesn't matter wether they have an english bull, am bull, rottie, staffy etc etc the dogs will always be bad if dragged up by a chav.
You only have to search the net to see how good these dogs can be as family dogs if brought up in that environment and the terrible things they suffer due to their owners, cesar milan has a few in with his pack there and you don't see them attacking people or ripping the other dogs to bits?


----------



## Twiisted (Mar 15, 2008)

I dont think making them illegal would ever happen..

Maybe having to apply for a license before owning a 'dangerous' dog would work.

Check your responsible, gonna train the dog etc..


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Marinam2 said:


> I said ban them to save them from the cruelty a small group of numbnuts !!
> 
> Marina


banning them has just driven them into the hands of criminals who dont have any regard for the laws.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

they shouldn't be banned....but i lol'ed at this line:

"Many people who are responsible and loving owners of 'illegal' breeds have proved with their PETS that pitbulls and other breeds considered dangerous are in fact loving and loyal dogs who are no more dangerous to society than your child's *pet hamster*."

yeah but how many people have hamsters killed over the past 5 years?:lol2::lol2:


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

I think they should stay banned. For there own safety.

As for Staffies, all I know is that pounds and rescue centres are overflowing with them and there are allot that are being destroyed. And for what? because they end up being bred, bought and sold by idiots.

A breeding ban should be put in place for all Staffies and types untill we can cope with the huge number of them and they stop having to die becaus of us.

Although I think along the lines of a dog is what you make it, there is a percentage of dogs that have been bred with certain lines in that would never make good pets.

I agree something needs to be put into place and that all dog owners should be held responsable for there dogs actions.


----------



## Rage Quan (Aug 24, 2008)

I had a pit x lab she was wonderfull i recued her from person who was keeping her in a out house toilet.

from what i could gather she was there from a pup and evry time it was walkieys she would cower on the floor and if i did manage to get het out side it would she cower evry few steps.

i eventually got her over whatever problems she had but if any thing being locked up in a toilet did not help the fighting side of the story evry other dog was a walking happy meal...so i took to erliey walks / late night.. 

unfortunatley all the bonding me and her did....she tuned very posesive over me...ie getting inbetween cuddles with my missus ocasionally barking at her trying to push her away 1 she even whent to nip her so we had to get rid of her....lucky for me my pall next door took her in so i get to see her most days

as the questions is should they be allowed yes they should but with a dangerous animals licence / like the wild animals licence.
in the right hands they are loving dogs / in the wrong hands they can be monsters with devastating impact as we all know to ll thanks to the papers....i havent a clue how to link sites but if you are inerested in the breed take a look at.......wally the pit bull.......a site dedecatid to a competing APBT and you will soon see what theses guys are capable of in show terms...


----------



## marty.twigs (Jul 15, 2008)

i HATE te fact pitbulls have been banned
makes me so annoyed
what did the dog do wrong? its the bloody owners that are the problem


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

marthaMoo said:


> I think they should stay banned. For there own safety.
> 
> As for Staffies, all I know is that pounds and rescue centres are overflowing with them and there are allot that are being destroyed. And for what? because they end up being bred, bought and sold by idiots.
> 
> ...


Sorry i dont agree you cant tar all stafford owners and breeders with the same brush.
A DECENT breeder will have homes for the pups lined up before the mating will have a forever home to come back to and not be put in a rescue EVER.
A staffy and a pit are worlds apart, yes there are loads in rescues but its also partly down to the rescues that they can not rehome them.
How do i know well because i know for a fact most of them wont rehome to familys with children under 10 and that they wont rehome to people who are out at work etc etc etc.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

pits are banned here in the states only in some areas. each town or city makes it's own laws. and that's how it should be. each community makes up it's own mind.... that way you can own what you want... just don't live where it's illegal... people who don't want pits around can live where they aren't allowed.... why have sweeping, nationwide laws?.... that leaves many people alienated. no states here have banned pits. when i lived in cincinnati they were banned.... not where i now live...


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

also I know many 'chavs' thats staffies are perfectly well trained and behaved, also a guy with a pittbull X thats the softest dog ever.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

gnipper said:


> I reckon you'll find theres a lot more than one person breeds them in england:lol2:
> Whats everyones views on staffies then? Should they be banned? They are just as bad if not brought up well and socialised with other dogs and animals.
> The dog that becci wrote about was more than likely owned by an arsehole who could make a spaniel be a nuisance, doesn't matter wether they have an english bull, am bull, rottie, staffy etc etc the dogs will always be bad if dragged up by a chav.
> You only have to search the net to see how good these dogs can be as family dogs if brought up in that environment and the terrible things they suffer due to their owners, cesar milan has a few in with his pack there and you don't see them attacking people or ripping the other dogs to bits?


Staffs are a compleatly different ball game a bloody pug can be agressive if not raised correctly.
I have an out of this world idea how about we just ban all dogs!
Or how about getting rid of the BYB that sell to idiots who think its ok to have a dog as a status symbol


----------



## Magik (Jul 22, 2008)

SiUK said:


> also I know many 'chavs' thats staffies are perfectly well trained and behaved, also a guy with a pittbull X thats the softest dog ever.


Thank you SiUK I suppose you could call me a Chav and yes I love Pitbulls I have heard so many wonderful (and bad) stories about them they fascinate me.I have had many Dangerous Dogs over the years nearly all of them were my Dads but he showed me how to train a dog how to be dominant over a dog and still enjoy their great companionship I have never owned a dog or wanted to own a dog as a status symbol but needless to say I get extremely funny looks when i walk down the road with my Rottie or my Akita!!Now i have seen arseholes all over the place with similar kinds of dogs who have them for status sybols I know of a guy who has a Pitbull x Boxer that never gets off a balcony outside a flat NEVER!!Where as I walk my dogs every day feed them train them play with them brush them do everything i can for them yet i stil get tared with the same brush!!


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

boidae said:


> well the thing with pitbulls is they wont stop. other dogs have a bite then thats it, but pitbulls just keep coming and coming. giving a nastyer outcome and a feircer reputation.
> i think theyve got split personalitys too. (they seem calm then can suddenly attack) unless thats *Rottweilers*.


 I think you have been reading too many sensational headlines.
I once had a sweet little mini dachshund. He was calm and the next minute was savage. Once had a cocker like that too and have known several retrievers the same. It's called 'rage syndrome' and is bloody scary.
In the right hands, Rottweilers are fantastic dogs. The problem is that macho morons are atracted to so called 'hard' breeds. Mostly, they have less IQ than the dog does and isn't bothered about socialising, training and excersizing. With this sort of home, any breed of dog will go crazy and get out of control and dangerous.
Oh and while pitbulls are illegal, they still exist in this country in as many numbers as before the ban. It's just that they are now called 'amstaffs' or 'irish staffs'.


----------



## Pliskens_Chains (Jun 8, 2008)

i knew someone that had a pitbull bitch, now whilst i know very little about the breed from personal experience, this dog was exceptionally obediant. obediant to the point where it would stay where it was told to without doing more than twitch his ears, it wouldnt even turn its head to look away from her owner or from where her owner had left its line of vision.
the dogs owner told me that the breed was pretty much, from his experience, a one owner type dog. the dog wouldnt respond well to commands from anybody else and he found this true of other pitbulls he had owned and his friends had. this behaviour could make for a very dangerous dog, not the dogs fault if its a breed trait , but because imagine the damage an owner could do if the owner is as irresponsible as some have been.

i agree with what has been mentioned before......DWA seems like a fair treatment rather than the all out ban that is already in effect and is also impossible to impose.

and yes some people do still have these dogs,.


----------



## Magik (Jul 22, 2008)

My Akita and my Rottie wont take commands from my girlfriend they follow me wherever I go and they are one man dogs why is this dangerous??I understand how it COULD be dangerous my dogs have never showed aggression towards anyone BUT I still make sure I am in control of THEM!I think the ban is stupid and not very well thought out It didnt do what it was supposed to and all it has done is give the banned dogs even worse press then they have already gotten!!These dogs are powerful these dogs are smart these dogs are loyal to the bone but what people fail to realize is that these dogs need interaction (not just to feed them) they need exercise they need to exert themselves or else they go mad!I have seen dog owners who trea their dogs like lawn ornaments and I have seen some of the most responsible Pit owners you could ever meet with some of the most friendly dogs you would ever see and yet there banned?!?!


----------



## Magik (Jul 22, 2008)

Its not fair that a bunch of arseholes who think there mad have had peoples pet pits destroyed because of the ban!In my own opinion there shop be no ban but it should be up to the breeders of the dogs who their dogs go to and that the breeders themselves should be vetted by the government BEFORE they are allowed to breed ANY dog at least this way people are guaranteed to get a pitbull or a Dogo or any of the other banned breeds IF the breeder deems them worthy!


----------



## Marinam2 (Sep 4, 2007)

Magik said:


> My Akita and my Rottie wont take commands from my girlfriend they follow me wherever I go


I'll tell you shall i. It is clear from what you have said that these dogs have no repect for your girlfriend. They obvously do not see her below you in the pack order they see themselves first. Should she happen to make a rash hand gesture one day they might see it as a threat. Or you might be having a tumble on the bed and you might tickle her and she might scream they may come running to your defense with nasty consequesces.

You are playing with fire allowing them to put themselves ahead of her.

One day something will happen and you'll pay for it greatly.

Marina


----------



## Nebbz (Jan 27, 2008)

as a staffy owner im forever having to stick up for him as people think he is a pittbull

personally 

dont bann the dog, ban the retards who get hold of them and make them the way they are, any one who has ever met a staff or owned one would agree with me that the bull terrier type is the best type of dog going, the original nanny dog, i personally dont like pittbulls but im sure owners who own them would feel the same, i hate when people automatically think my dog is vicsouse because of how he looks, hes a tall bulky staff. and hes the biggest softy i know. my nephew rides him like a horse for god sake


IMO ban the idiots, and get people to have a permit for owning dangerous breets as people have to with exotics (as im lead to belive)


rant over  much love lol :flrt:


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Nebbz said:


> as a staffy owner im forever having to stick up for him as people think he is a pittbull
> 
> any one who has ever met a staff or owned one would agree with me that the bull terrier type is the best type of dog going, the original nanny dog,



Ummmm im a staffy owner and i love them great bundles of bounce, but id still like a collie x gsd again :flrt:


----------



## Pliskens_Chains (Jun 8, 2008)

Marinam2 said:


> I'll tell you shall i. It is clear from what you have said that these dogs have no repect for your girlfriend. They obvously do not see her below you in the pack order they see themselves first. Should she happen to make a rash hand gesture one day they might see it as a threat. Or you might be having a tumble on the bed and you might tickle her and she might scream they may come running to your defense with nasty consequesces.
> 
> You are playing with fire allowing them to put themselves ahead of her.
> 
> ...


EXACTLY!!!!
Dogs who are a one person dog are dangerous in the fact that they respect nobody but that one person.
they see that owner as Alpha and themselves as beta, there is no room for anybody else above them in the pack structure. Dogs with instincts such as these will fight to maintain their position.
They are not a house pet or a family pooch....i do not agree with the ban but i do think they should be DWA licenced.
The pack structure can be the same with all dogs and that is where the problem comes in, children can get bitten because the dog percieves a child to have done something thats above his/her station and so there fore the dog punishes the child.... And theres more bad press for rotties etc etc.
Pitbulls were banned because they were classified as dangerous dogs, they were right!! pitbulls have these fighting pack postion and pack protection instincts so very strong that they are dangerous belonging to the wrong owners.

but the fact remains that pitbulls are still owned in the UK illegally and owners are passing them off as staffys or other similar looking breeds.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

pitbulls are a collective group not a single breed.

although pitbulls are loyal to there owner/s, there nearly always hostile towards strangers. and especially other dogs.
im sure pitbulls are most keepers last choice of dog.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

boidae said:


> pitbulls are a collective group not a single breed.
> 
> although pitbulls are loyal to there owner/s, there nearly always hostile towards strangers. and especially other dogs.
> im sure pitbulls are most keepers last choice of dog.


Where do you find this info from? Every website and book and person I have spoke to about the APBT has said how good family dogs they are and how easily they are trained.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

i searched *are pitbulls hostile pets*.

Pitbull Rottweiler Mix


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

boidae said:


> i searched *are pitbulls hostile pets*.
> 
> Pitbull Rottweiler Mix


 
but that is just 1 person's opinion on the breed..............there are 1000's of other people out there that would disagree with that opinion on pitbulls as a breed


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

When we went to america we met quite a few pitbulls and they were amazing family dogs, very loyal and they were fine with us who were strangers and other dogs. Yes, they may have been bred to fight, but that doesn't mean they all do. Upbringing and training is alot to do with it. Do I think they should be illegal...no, you can own a tiger with the correct licensing but not an american pit bull terrier. That to me is blooming ridiculous!


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

Katiexx said:


> When we went to america we met quite a few pitbulls and they were amazing family dogs, very loyal and they were fine with us who were strangers and other dogs. Yes, they may have been bred to fight, but that doesn't mean they all do. Upbringing and training is alot to do with it. Do I think they should be illegal...no, you can own a tiger with the correct licensing but not an american pit bull terrier. That to me is blooming ridiculous!


 
totally agree katie 

i have an american friend who has and breeds pitts and they are fantastic her dogs and pups alike are all fantastic family pets so loving and caring and not an ounce of aggression in them cos they have been bred in a family home with love care and respect


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

Emmaj said:


> totally agree katie
> 
> i have an american friend who has and breeds pitts and they are fantastic her dogs and pups alike are all fantastic family pets so loving and caring and not an ounce of aggression in them cos they have been bred in a family home with love care and respect



Exactley. I'm a firm believer that no dog is born bad, no matter what the breed. The dogs we met were brought up in family homes with other pets and dogs. Even young children throwing themselves over the dogs. And all the dogs ever did were wag their tails and lick the kids...how very fierce.

The dangerous dogs act was a knee jerk reaction by the government that was fuelled by the media only reporting certain attacks. Just like last year it was all about rottweiler attacks. They didn't mention the thousands of other cases involving spaniels, retrievers, terriers etc. Just rotties and staffs. I for one would hate for rottys & staffys to get banned just because of idiots who purchase them. The dogs shouldn't suffer for peoples ignorance. I had a beautiful rotty growing up and she was the most amazing dog. A few friends of ours also had rottys, and they were magnificant animals, so gentle & loyal.

On tv the other week they were discussing the dangerous dogs act and saying should it be removed? And should people be judged on individual cases and take responsibility for their own animals rather than tarring whole breeds with the same dirty brush. Can't see it happening though.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

Katiexx said:


> Exactley. I'm a firm believer that no dog is born bad, no matter what the breed. The dogs we met were brought up in family homes with other pets and dogs. Even young children throwing themselves over the dogs. And all the dogs ever did were wag their tails and lick the kids...how very fierce.
> 
> The dangerous dogs act was a knee jerk reaction by the government that was fuelled by the media only reporting certain attacks. Just like last year it was all about rottweiler attacks. They didn't mention the thousands of other cases involving spaniels, retrievers, terriers etc. Just rotties and staffs. I for one would hate for rottys & staffys to get banned just because of idiots who purchase them. The dogs shouldn't suffer for peoples ignorance. I had a beautiful rotty growing up and she was the most amazing dog. A few friends of ours also had rottys, and they were magnificant animals, so gentle & loyal.
> 
> On tv the other week they were discussing the dangerous dogs act and saying should it be removed? And should people be judged on individual cases and take responsibility for their own animals rather than tarring whole breeds with the same dirty brush. Can't see it happening though.


 
I blooming would too being i own 1 of each of the breeds you have mentioned 

i also have the same beliefs as you katie its not the dog its how its brought up 

i have an 8 year old son and my rottie an the staff pup both adore him as do all the other dogs 

out of all my dogs the most feisty of them all not towards people just towards my pack is the sweet an innocent lookin springer she can be a nightmare in thinking she is 10 men but knows her place with me she knows when i say no it means no


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

boidae said:


> i searched *are pitbulls hostile pets*.
> 
> Pitbull Rottweiler Mix


I could write an article on that site but it wouldn't make it true. That article has been written by someone who is claiming that a pitbull would be a better breed if bred to a rotty.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

Andy said:


> I could write an article on that site but it wouldn't make it true. That article has been written by someone who is claiming that a pitbull would be a better breed if bred to a rotty.


 
yips thats exactly what i was thinking when i saw the title of the artical :bash::lol2:


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

LOL 2 breeds with the worst and most publicity and not good at that and they want to put them together :lol2::lol2::lol2:

what a great idea hey :whistling2::bash::censor:


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

it can't be an opinion if he says there renowned for being hostile. that would mean there hostile in general.

it looks like its mostly children that are mauled to death by pit bulls.
that's enough to make parent's think there a bad dog type and would prefer them out of a community.


why do you people buy animals from illegal breeders?
how can you trust that the breeders breed them for good temperaments and not the other way round?
after all it seems its mainly the breeders to blame for the dogs final outcomes.


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

WARNING some disturbing images (not of fighting I hasten to add). Not sure if the video has been posted but figured I would show it.
YouTube - The Great American Pit Bull Terrier

There are thousands more videos and articles of what fantastic dogs pitt bulls make in the right homes. If they were so vicious they wouldn't have been used in search and rescue would they? Pitt bulls helped find survivors of 9/11...if they were the dangerous dog they're portrayed to be there is no way they would be trusted with such a task.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

pitbulls are working dogs

http://www.pitbulllovers.com/pitbull-articles/pitbulls-working-dogs.html

*A few jobs Pit Bulls excel at are:*


Drug Detection
Explosive Detection
Search and Rescue
Water Safety Dogs
Therapy Dogs


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

People really shouldnt post when they know nothing about the subject IMO.
Its actually labs that are the most common to bite with children.
I believe unless you have had first hand experience with a terrier bull breed or such like then your not truely going to know the breed as a whole at all.
Crossing a pit with a rotty is pathetic, if your going to cross a breed at least do it with something that is already present in the dog.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

boidae said:


> pitbulls are working dogs
> 
> PitBulls as Working Dogs
> 
> ...


How can they be good therapy dogs if they are hostile towards other people? They are either hostile dogs that dont like strangers or they aren't you cant have it both ways.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

boidae said:


> it can't be an opinion if he says there renowned for being hostile. that would mean there hostile in general.


Of course it can be an opinion. If I say they are reknowned for being friendly does that make it true?


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

Boidae you always baffle me, you always seem to contradict yourself one minute your saying they're renowned for being aggressive and mauling kids...then a second later when you've googled a bit more information you're stating their working dogs.. Yes they are working dogs, my point is that if they were innately vicious and the bans were justified they would not be working dogs would they? Any found would be destroyed surely? Last thing you want is a dog renowned for mauling people working as a therapy dog surely!?


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

im sure the majority of people niglect everything they come by. and pitbulls obviously react the worse when niglected and become hostile rather than lethargic.
if they werent niglected they would obviously be good companians, but since the majority of you niglect animals you keep the best thing to do is bann them, after all humans are renowned for taking advantage of everything.

cant be wrong about either.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

boidae said:


> it can't be an opinion if he says there renowned for being hostile. that would mean there hostile in general.
> 
> it looks like its mostly children that are mauled to death by pit bulls.
> that's enough to make parent's think there a bad dog type and would prefer them out of a community.
> ...


 
erm i aint bought no animal from an illegal breeder all my animals have been bought from reputable people other than my rehomes i have taken in they were from family situations that couldnt cater for them any longer 

and yes its is an opinion from that artical..............otherwise it wouldnt have been pulished 

you know what makes me laff you only ever pop up on thread where you know your gonna get an argument 

am i the only person thats noticed that :whistling2::lol2:


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

boidae said:


> pitbulls are working dogs
> 
> PitBulls as Working Dogs
> 
> ...


LOL your really contradicting yourself in a fact that you state they are dangerous and shouldnt be kept as pets and should be illegal cos they maul kids

then you post something that states they are excellant ant certain jobs 

your confusing me now :lol2:


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

boidae said:


> im sure the majority of people niglect everything they come by. and pitbulls obviously react the worse when niglected and become hostile rather than lethargic.
> if they werent niglected they would obviously be good companians, but since the majority of you niglect animals you keep the best thing to do is bann them, after all humans are renowned for taking advantage of everything.
> 
> cant be wrong about either.


I don't own any illegal animals thank you very much. Nor do I neglect any of my animals, nor do I believe that the majority of people do. If that's what you believe why are you on an animal forum, surely by your reckoning most of us neglect our animals and treat them disgracefully...so why be apart of that?

Yes EmmaJ i've noticed that he only pops up where he can start an argument. Poor soul.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

boidae said:


> im sure the majority of people niglect everything they come by. and pitbulls obviously react the worse when niglected and become hostile rather than lethargic.
> if they werent niglected they would obviously be good companians, but since the majority of you niglect animals you keep the best thing to do is bann them, after all humans are renowned for taking advantage of everything.
> 
> cant be wrong about either.


Who are you accusing of neglecting their animals?I hope you dont mean me. You seem to be incapable of stringing together a coherent train of thought so please enlighten me.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

thanks, but i havent argued once.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Emmaj said:


> you know what makes me laff you only ever pop up on thread where you know your gonna get an argument
> 
> am i the only person thats noticed that :whistling2::lol2:


No hun your not and you are correct the member does pop on on topics he knows nothing about googles a little and then contradicts everything he has said with a sweeping statement about neglect. 
Its not the animals that should be banned its the keepers!
But because the rspca had so much to do with the DDA and the BSL it wont be turned around unless we get a govenment that realises what the rspca are doing!


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

The RSPCA even have a Deed Not The Breed bit on their website. I dont think even the RSPCA agree with BSL.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

boidae said:


> thanks, but i havent argued once.


 
LOOOOOOOOL OMG you really do make me laugh :bash::lol2::lol2::lol2:


you make a post saying we buy illegal animals and neglect them...................... and your not trying to start an argument hey lol


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

boidae said:


> im sure the majority of people niglect everything they come by. and pitbulls obviously react the worse when niglected and become hostile rather than lethargic.
> if they werent niglected they would obviously be good companians, but since the majority of you niglect animals you keep the best thing to do is bann them, after all humans are renowned for taking advantage of everything.
> 
> cant be wrong about either.


:lol2: google a little more and you will find the pits that are neglected the most, the ones that have fought in a pit are the most loyal ones to their owners out the lot!
With no other dog would you be able to walk in the middle of a dog fight and just carry one out! With pit bulls you can.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

Faith said:


> No hun your not and you are correct the member does pop on on topics he knows nothing about googles a little and then contradicts everything he has said with a sweeping statement about neglect.
> Its not the animals that should be banned its the keepers!
> But because the rspca had so much to do with the DDA and the BSL it wont be turned around unless we get a govenment that realises what the rspca are doing!


 
thank god for that im glad am not the only one who noticed : victory:


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Andy said:


> The RSPCA even have a Deed Not The Breed bit on their website. I dont think even the RSPCA agree with BSL.


Um i wouldnt be so sure about that one they were responsible for putting down 100's of "pit bull type" dogs over the last 3 yrs.
They also have a care sheet that states calci sand is the best substrate for leos but we dont believe that either lol


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

i couldnt care less if your the minority who dont take advantage. i was talking on the majority, as it says.

your all fast to get personal.


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

Majority? What states the majority? Yes their are some bad owners. But that's not the majority by any stretch of the imagination


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

Katiexx said:


> Majority? What states the majority? Yes their are some bad owners. But that's not the majority by any stretch of the imagination


why are they illegal then?


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

boidae said:


> i couldnt care less if your the minority who dont take advantage. i was talking on the majority, as it says.
> 
> your all fast to get personal.


 
yeah you was sayin the majority of people neglect their animals you will find you got that the wrong way round and its the majority of people that do look after their animals and the minority neglect them :bash:


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

boidae said:


> why are they illegal then?


 
you dont make sense when you posted what you posted about animals being illegally bought you didnt round it up to pitts you stated it as all animals


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

boidae said:


> why are they illegal then?


Because the press gave them such a bad name over the years and the govenment couldnt be bothered to work out another way for the responsible owners to keep them.
Google a little more im sure it will give you all the answers you think you need


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

you mean the 60%+ of all dog human fatalitys that the pitbulls are responsible for are from bad press?


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

They are illegal because the governments panicking...and because, and this is the sick part of it, how loyal they are to their humans. They will do anything for their human companions and some F wits made them fight. 

Dog fighting in the US is big business, is usually linked to drug networks, and is illegal. In America at least, part of the reason of the ban was to try to stop the dog fighting..not because they're innately vicious to humans, but because of what humans made them do. Of course now it's underground. Over here there were a few attacks at the same time were people were maimed by pit bulls. Yes these attacks should never have happened. But most of them were due to dogs who had not been trained properly or were used as guard dogs. They were doing what came naturally, due to what little training they had.

Our government banned the breed rather than just punishing the individual deeds, as the press were up in arms about the breed. Like I said before, last year they chose to report alot of rottweiler attacks, and ignore all the others. I think spaniels contribute to more dog attacks than any other type of dog. But you don't see the press reporting on these.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

boidae said:


> you mean the 60%+ of all dog human fatalitys that the pitbulls are responsible for are from bad press?


Those are pure bred pit bulls are they ..............no they are corsses where people havent bothered to look in to the breed correctly. You will find it very very hard to find a decnt percentage of fatalitys from a pure bred pit bull and not a "pit bull type" dog.
The people that id these dogs wouldnt know a pit if it bit them on the arse!

Here you go lets see if you can do it not that i expect you to give a truthfull answer as to which number dog is the pit bull
Pet Pitbull - Find the Pit Bull


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

boidae said:


> you mean the 60%+ of all dog human fatalitys that the pitbulls are responsible for are from bad press?


 
no we wasnt saying that what we were saying these are the only dogs along with staffs and rotties that get the bad press 

any other dog attacks from other breeds rarely get covered by the press 

so thats what we mean by the bad press ..........................read our replys properly !!!!!!


----------



## Rain (Oct 9, 2007)

Faith said:


> Those are pure bred pit bulls are they ..............no they are corsses where people havent bothered to look in to the breed correctly. You will find it very very hard to find a decnt percentage of fatalitys from a pure bred pit bull and not a "pit bull type" dog.
> The people that id these dogs wouldnt know a pit if it bit them on the arse!
> 
> Here you go lets see if you can do it not that i expect you to give a truthfull answer as to which number dog is the pit bull
> Pet Pitbull - Find the Pit Bull


Number 16, had it on the first guess, but thats exactly what it was, a guess.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Correct, although the Q was aimed at boidea, and considering i has taken him so long to answer im guessing he is still trying to work it out


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

i just didnt want to do something you asked me to do.
especially when you claim i would lie.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Um im sure you didnt, not because i asked you to do it, I did it to prove a point you are nothing more than a google queen who likes to post snippets of incorrect information on the forum.
Which gets peoples backs up because you cant be bothered to find out information from the people that really have experience with what you are posting about.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

boidae said:


> i just didnt want to do something you asked me to do.


You always cause an argument with some silly comment that is usually absolute bollocks. Then you just don't explain yourself or you write a sentence where people have to keep re-reading it to see what the point of it was, only to find most of your posts have no valid points.


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

your an internet drama queen who want internet attention.
everything ive said is on topic it doesnt matter if its supposedly incorrect. i do not need you attacking me, i thought you put me ignore?

i havent been argumentative in any way.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

boidae said:


> your an internet drama queen who want internet attention.
> everything ive said is on topic it doesnt matter if its supposedly incorrect. i do not need you attacking me, i thought you put me ignore?


She's an internet drama queen?

All you do on this forum is cause arguments, post incorrect information and then start crying when you run out of ammo to defend yourself.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

boidae said:


> your an internet drama queen who want internet attention.
> everything ive said is on topic it doesnt matter if its supposedly incorrect. i do not need you attacking me, i thought you put me ignore?


I dont need internet attention, my posts are based on fact and experience of the species hence why i dont post in the inverts or tort sections as i have no experience with those species,
My posts are not attacking you they are simply stating all your info comes from google, the only experience you need for that is to click a mouse.
It matters very much that your information is incorrect especially when your trying to make a point with information which is not valid.
I dont need to put you on ignore, im able to walk away from the internet in to the real world.........


----------



## boidae (Jul 14, 2008)

Faith said:


> I dont need internet attention, my posts are based on fact and experience of the species hence why i dont post in the inverts or tort sections as i have no experience with those species,
> My posts are not attacking you they are simply stating all your info comes from google, the only experience you need for that is to click a mouse.
> It matters very much that your information is incorrect especially when your trying to make a point with information which is not valid.
> I dont need to put you on ignore, im able to walk away from the internet in to the real world.........


the experience that killed 5 royal pythons? and you didnt know what was wrong with them? oh and the experience that caused someone to call animal welfare on you?
you sure? nearly all your posts call me names or belittle me in some way.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

boidae said:


> the experience that killed 5 royal pythons? and you didnt know what was wrong with them? oh and the experience that caused someone to call animal welfare on you?
> you sure? *nearly all your posts call me names or belittle me in some way*.


Oh very good post! So you're telling me your not trying to start and argument with this post?

*Why does that surprise you? *


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

boidae said:


> the experience that killed 5 royal pythons? and you didnt know what was wrong with them? oh and the experience that caused someone to call animal welfare on you?
> you sure? nearly all your posts call me names or belittle me in some way.


:lol2: 4 royal pythons and one put to sleep for further testing.
Thought all of your posts were on topic umm ok then maybe im reading something different.
nearly all my posts righty ho all 5 thousand odd of them :whistling2:considering that most of them are in the lizard section and you are a prodomiant snake keeper.........
Yes i have experience with royal pythons which is why i know it was not us at fault, funny thing is i have paper work from a patholoigst to say the same, but i guess google has more experience.


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

boidae said:


> the experience that killed 5 royal pythons? and you didnt know what was wrong with them? oh and the experience that caused someone to call animal welfare on you?
> you sure? nearly all your posts call me names or belittle me in some way.


Faith didn't kill the royal pythons. She has a pathology report to prove that she did no wrong doing. As for someone calling animal welfare. No offense but Faith & Diablo have been attacked by a few people over the months, whom seem to show nothing but jealousy...so no it doesn't suprise me that someone called animal welfare.

If there animals were in a terrible state they would have been confiscated...as it was they had a clean bill of health and no improvements had to be made!

Faith doesn't belittle you, you are the one bringing up information that now resides in a LOCKED thread. You're the one who seems to swarm to threads she's involved in. You were the one taking this thread miles off topic and getting personal.

Now kindly get back onto the topic of this thread before this thread suffers the same fate due to stupidity and irrelevence!

So pittbulls.
Say it with me, 1, 2, 3 ...awwwwwww


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Katiexx said:


> Faith doesn't belittle you, you are the one bringing up information that now resides in a LOCKED thread. You're the one who seems to swarm to threads she's involved in.
> So pittbulls.
> Say it with me, 1, 2, 3 ...awwwwwww


Oh o you think i have an internet stalker woooooo hoooooo:2thumb:

I want the middle pup with the blue eyes  one of the left of the scrunched up face


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Katiexx said:


> So pittbulls.
> Say it with me, 1, 2, 3 ...awwwwwww


I want the black one in the bottom right!!:no1:


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

aw now this is cute 
YouTube - pit bull puppies


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

boidae said:


> the experience that killed 5 royal pythons? and you didnt know what was wrong with them? oh and the experience that caused someone to call animal welfare on you?
> you sure? nearly all your posts call me names or belittle me in some way.


 
LOL that made me laff...............calling faith a drama queen 

thats rich coming from someone who posted on her thread glad that they had the animal welfare called on them................

The royals were ill they died of an illness they were not mistreat they were ILL


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Em its fine hun you know i dont give a monkies about peoples opinions if i did i would have left here a while ago lol 
Look at the pup vid they are soooooooooooo cute


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

Faith said:


> Em its fine hun you know i dont give a monkies about peoples opinions if i did i would have left here a while ago lol
> Look at the pup vid they are soooooooooooo cute


I know i have seen an the pics too OMG just toooooooooooo cute for words :flrt::flrt::flrt:


i have to give him 10 outta 10 for a good argument though sorry an hillarious argument 

but i deffo agree i think ya have ya own internet stalker hun :lol2::lol2:


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Whoooooo hoooooo im special aint it great  
before seeing those pics i seriously forgot how cute they are as pups look EXACTLY like my kc reg staffy when she was a baby.


----------



## NikkiB (Aug 10, 2008)

the whole pit bull barny will go on and on, it wont ever be answered, as there are to many opinions.....

they are peoples 'opinions' and having a go at a lady that obviously cares alot about her PETS, is childish!!

Pitbulls - in my opinion - when i have a house and a garden big enough, we will have one for a pet! NO dog should be left with children, not just pit bulls! I think its the ignorance of SOME owners, usually the ones that seem to use having a staff (or simular) as a penis extention!!!!! :whistling2:


ALL dogs need training, (they deserve training) - you arent allowed to have a child and not have them educated so why should people be allowed to not educate their dogs??:censor:


----------



## Young_Gun (Jan 6, 2007)

Nowt wrong with Pit Bulls, plus when you get ones that look like this, who can say you shouldn't have one:


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

Young_Gun said:


> Nowt wrong with Pit Bulls, plus when you get ones that look like this, who can say you shouldn't have one:


Exactly. I've seen Jack Russels that look scarier!!:lol2:


----------



## NikkiB (Aug 10, 2008)

bradhollands999 said:


> Exactly. I've seen Jack Russels that look scarier!!:lol2:


Ive known two jack russells that would have ya arm off :lol2:


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

Faith said:


> Whoooooo hoooooo im special aint it great
> before seeing those pics i seriously forgot how cute they are as pups look EXACTLY like my kc reg staffy when she was a baby.


 
awwwwwwwww faith course your special hun :flrt:


i know they are sooooo cute as puppies :flrt:


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

The RSPCA have to destroy Pits as they are illegal.

The register is not open for every dog to be registered.

Only the ones going through the courts can be registered, but thats only if they are seen to be fit, healthy non aggressive dogs with responsable owners. If not they are destroyed. And its quite a risk to be taking.

I would hope no one knowingly would go out and by a Pit in this country. Because your risking the dogs life and its not worth it just for something you feel you need. Plus the people breeding them would know this and they wouldnt be the type of person you should be buying a dog from.

I have a friend who runs a rescue, he has spent many years dealing with pits and is possibly one of a handful of people in this country who would be able to tell a pit from a non pit.

Like I said any dog has the potential to cause damage to a person or another dog, some more so than others.
I have met some lovely Bull breeds in my time, but I have also met ones who are in serious torment and would do damage if given the chance.

Whilst things like this still go on I cant agree for PB to be legal and believe there should be a breeding ban placed on all bull breeds untill something can be sorted out as to who can own these dogs.


----------



## Young_Gun (Jan 6, 2007)

It isn't the Bull breeds that should be punished for this, Dobes/Rotties/Ridgebacks/Akitas/Lurcher-Greyhound Crosses/GSD are all treated along the same lines by idiots who own them, it is not the breed, it is the owner.

If I want a Pit Bull I would buy one, just like my next dog is going to be an EBT, that doesn't make me a bad owner or a 'thug' it means I love the breed and will treat the dog like I treat every other animal, with the utmost respect and care.

It is the people who keep them, not the breed, once Bulls are banned, it will move on to other breeds, so you will end up with nothing around but Yorkies being turned into attack dogs by muppets are there is nothing else.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

marthaMoo said:


> *The RSPCA have to destroy Pits as they are illegal.*
> The register is not open for every dog to be registered.
> 
> Only the ones going through the courts can be registered, but thats only if they are seen to be fit, healthy non aggressive dogs with responsable owners. If not they are destroyed. And its quite a risk to be taking.
> ...


I agree with most of your points apart from the 2 in bold.
The rspca put down "pit bull type" dogs as well as some pure pits yes but most of them were pit bull type, that includes staffy crosses and such like because they couldnt tell the difference.

As for the ban on all bull breeds that includes breeds like the british bull dog, the english bull terrier and such like. I dont agree maybe a ban on all breeding yes until the dam and sire are temprement tested i can agree but its the owners that need to be band not the breed


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Its not just bull breeds that need sorting out its all dogs. A breed ban wouldn't help I dont think because all that would do is stop the responsible breeders and leave the criminals to carry on their back yard breeding.


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

Andy said:


> Its not just bull breeds that need sorting out its all dogs. A breed ban wouldn't help I dont think because all that would do is stop the responsible breeders and leave the criminals to carry on their back yard breeding.


Completely agree with this statement.


----------



## Daredevil (Jul 10, 2007)

But the thing is, if a criminal wanted a APBT, he would obtain it whether it was legal or not. So by banning breeds, they are just keeping them from families that would love and respect them for what they are, and are instead helping criminals get them on the cheap from illegal breeders.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Young_Gun said:


> It isn't the Bull breeds that should be punished for this, Dobes/Rotties/Ridgebacks/Akitas/*Lurcher-Greyhound Crosses*/GSD are all treated along the same lines by idiots who own them, it is not the breed, it is the owner.
> 
> If I want a Pit Bull I would buy one, just like my next dog is going to be an EBT, that doesn't make me a bad owner or a 'thug' it means I love the breed and will treat the dog like I treat every other animal, with the utmost respect and care.
> 
> It is the people who keep them, not the breed, once Bulls are banned, it will move on to other breeds, so you will end up with nothing around but Yorkies being turned into attack dogs by muppets are there is nothing else.


I had to :lol2: ive never met an evil lurcher or greyhound 

Question for you though Roy, do you prefer the ETB the way it is now or the way it was ment to be?
Nothing to do with this topic more so the other one.


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

Faith I do know they have put down types as well, including litters of puppies I tried to help, but they werent having any of it. I know why they do it, but that doesnt mean I agree with them.

I'm not talking about banning breeds I'm talking about a breeding ban put in place for the moment untill some sort of working group can come together to sort out a way forward. And your right it should be on all dogs atm as 12,000 + dogs a year being distroyed is way too many.

Which would mean Young_Gun some sort of licence being brought in with a mandatory course in dog care which everyone would have to do. You would also be looking at having to register your dog before breeding, and hopefully tougher sentences for animal cruelty.
Although its very hard to monitor every single person who has a dog.

TBH its all going to cost too much money unless allot of groups are behind it and willing to work together. It will be easier and cheaper for the government to ban certain breeds. Wether it works or not.


----------



## Young_Gun (Jan 6, 2007)

Faith said:


> I had to :lol2: ive never met an evil lurcher or greyhound
> 
> Question for you though Roy, do you prefer the ETB the way it is now or the way it was ment to be?
> Nothing to do with this topic more so the other one.


I meant all the Lurcher x Rottie, Greyhound x Staff crosses goin about that are trained to be pyschos.

I don't think more legislation will do anything other than stopping people who are law abiding from having the chance of having a pet.


----------



## Rage Quan (Aug 24, 2008)

Just look at......WALLY THE PITBULL.... google it any doubts will be gone
about its just the breed...there monsters etc....etc...

i would love another from a pup but the missus has spoken so i cant!!!

even better im looking into getting a bnw tegu soon :2thumb:


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

marthaMoo said:


> Faith I do know they have put down types as well, including litters of puppies I tried to help, but they werent having any of it. I know why they do it, but that doesnt mean I agree with them.
> 
> I'm not talking about banning breeds I'm talking about a breeding ban put in place for the moment untill some sort of working group can come together to sort out a way forward. And your right it should be on all dogs atm as 12,000 + dogs a year being distroyed is way too many.
> 
> ...


Thats the sad thing about it hun they dont have a clue what dog is in front of them 
I whole heartedly agree with you a ban on breeding unless you have a license and have passed certian testing etc, also no breeding unless those pups have homes before the mating would work wonders.
The problem is the KC say they are not able to do anything like this as breeders will leave and go under ground. 
The RSPCA would be able to do a little but then most people have lost all respect for them in recent years and recent news releases.
If i could id be giving most of those poor doggies a forever home but most rescues wont entertain a family with children under 10 as their policy says they cant no matter how friendly the actual dog is.


----------



## Faith (May 17, 2007)

Young_Gun said:


> I meant all the Lurcher x Rottie, Greyhound x Staff crosses goin about that are trained to be pyschos.
> 
> I don't think more legislation will do anything other than stopping people who are law abiding from having the chance of having a pet.


But if you passed all the testing etc like the DWA licences then there wouldnt be a problem about having one as a pet .
You didnt answer my Q on ETBs the way they are now or the way they were orignaly?


----------



## Young_Gun (Jan 6, 2007)

Faith said:


> But if you passed all the testing etc like the DWA licences then there wouldnt be a problem about having one as a pet .
> You didnt answer my Q on ETBs the way they are now or the way they were orignaly?


There would be, because it puts an animal out of reach of a lot of people when it shouldn't really be, just like the DWA.

I don't think more legislation helps anything other than to limit the amount of law abiding people who own said animals.

The way they are now personally, but they were mint beforehand aswell, I just prefer the 'new' version.


----------



## HantsLex (Jun 27, 2008)

I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if this has been mentiond but the police can sieze a dog they belive to be dangerous so don't see why need to bad the whole breed if they have been bred and trained responsably. IMHO.


----------

