# pitbulls on dwa



## roll up boy (Jan 18, 2009)

i was thinking as people look at pitbulls as beasts could we get them put on dwa.

they are a very nice breed of dog and i think its the owners who make dogs viscous, so if they were put on the dwa register, then people who genuinely like the breed could keep them in a responsible way and get to enjoy the breed ?

could this work or has their reputation gone beyond saving


----------



## HantsLex (Jun 27, 2008)

I think its a good idea in theroy but the type of people that torment their dogs fight them etc to make them dangerous are in my opinion not the type of people that are going to bother getting a licence.


----------



## roll up boy (Jan 18, 2009)

true but they can still get the dogs illegally, it would be for people like myself and others that want to own the dog legally


----------



## Serious D (Apr 12, 2008)

Realy good idea.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

well it would be nice to see a rethink of the DDA in general, even the RSPCA has commented that the act is flawed and its the owners not the breed, any dog can be made aggressive.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

putting a pit bull on DWA would defeat the object of owning a dog and strengthen the case of them being banned.

DWA animals need to be secure, so having a DWA dog would be like having a tiger, you'd have to have it in a pen / cage which is no life for an animal that can be loyal and loving in the right hands.


----------



## Karl_1989 (Jan 19, 2007)

Meko said:


> DWA animals need to be secure, so having a DWA dog would be like having a tiger, you'd have to have it in a pen / cage which is no life for an animal that can be loyal and loving in the right hands.


Thats a very good point, It would be nice to see pitbulls in the right hands though. : victory:


----------



## roll up boy (Jan 18, 2009)

i wouldnt want them to have to live in cages, is there anyone i can write to about them being banned?


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

roll up boy said:


> i wouldnt want them to have to live in cages, is there anyone i can write to about them being banned?


to say what though mate?


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

roll up boy said:


> i wouldnt want them to have to live in cages, is there anyone i can write to about them being banned?


 
but then you couldn't have a DWA animal that's allowed to wander around the house and walk it down the street.


----------



## ipsilon (Oct 27, 2007)

I thought it wasn't illegal to own them only to breed them and that they had to be muzzled in public places, neutered, and their home environment be escape-"proofed".


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

that was the case when they were put on the DDA but that was years ago so they'd all have died out now and as they're on the DDA it's illegal to import them and breed them


----------



## fuzzielady (May 19, 2008)

roll up boy said:


> i wouldnt want them to have to live in cages, is there anyone i can write to about them being banned?


You would only get a similar response to this:

*Read the Government’s response*



The Government is aware that some dog welfare groups wish to see the Dangerous Dogs Acts repealed and replaced with non-breed specific legislation. This would be controversial as there is considerable evidence of a major world-wide trade in the banned pit bull type dogs for the purpose of dog fighting. 
Following the tragic dog attacks on children in 2007 the Government undertook a review of the dangerous dogs legislation. We consulted all chief officers of police in England and Wales to find out their views on how effective the dangerous dogs legislation is, what could be done to improve enforcement and whether any parts of the law need to be changed. The Scottish Executive undertook a similar consultation in Scotland. We discussed the results of the consultation with the Association of Chief Constables (ACPO). 
Having carefully considered what the police said, our view is that Parliament was correct to ban the possession of pit bull terriers, except where they are kept under strictly controlled conditions approved by a court. Pitbulls are not suitable animals to be kept as pets.
We believe that it is important that the existing law is more rigorously enforced rather than introducing new legislation. The police are now taking forward initiatives to ensure that from now on the law is enforced more effectively. We welcome this and we will work closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers in helping to implement these initiatives. To assist the police, local authorities and the general public, we are giving priority to revising the guidance that Defra has issued regarding the law on dangerous and unruly dogs. A new leaflet for members of the public, which explains the law on dangerous dogs in a clear and concise way is now available to download on the Defra website at: 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/domestic/dogs.htm 
Under the Dangerous Dogs Act it is also an offence to allow any dog, regardless of its breed or type, to be dangerously out of control in a public place or a place it has no right to be.
The Government therefore considers that the legislation, when enforced effectively, provides the necessary powers to take appropriate action against owners of dangerous dogs.


----------



## ern79 (Jul 26, 2007)

I think the op is missing the point, dwa, think about it, first off you are saying the animal is dangerous, not something that proponents of bull breeds want to do, then you are saying it is a wild animal which it is not.
I agree, suitable legislation should be in place for these dogs to be owned legally, but dwa is definitely not it.


----------



## ipsilon (Oct 27, 2007)

Meko said:


> that was the case when they were put on the DDA but that was years ago so they'd all have died out now and as they're on the DDA it's illegal to import them and breed them



Ah, did not realise that importing them was also banned.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

apparently there is a tiny chance that you could possibly get your pitbull back if confiscated but chances are slim


----------



## Lamprophis (Jun 12, 2008)

Under the dangerous dogs act 1991 they're banned due to their aggressive nature... therefore it's illegal to own them. Putting them on the DWA list would NOT deter the people who own them at present from keeping them as they do illegally anyway! Where I live these dogs are owned as trophies not loving pets, and I have seen them off the lead in the street and even know someone who was attacked by one... skin grafts the lot! The whole purpose of the DWA (dangerous WILD animals) license is to protect the public from their dangers. It's not just about vetting the owners.


----------



## roll up boy (Jan 18, 2009)

i dont think i thought about this properley :blush:, my apologies


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

Putting American pit bull terriers on DWA is implying there dangerous.American pit bull terrers are no more dangerous then mastiff's.And mastiff's aren't viewed as out right dangerous dogs.Though they are in the wrong hands like the American pit bull terrier is.A dog is as dangerous as YOU make it.I think you should do a exam for a licence of type like you do for a gun licence.If you invole this breed in any illgal act's-(Guarding drug dens,Dog fighting'etc'etc) that should come with a 10 years inside sentence minimum.

A dog trained to bite is a wheapon.The owner/s should be convited as such.


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

If pit bulls are banned because of their "Agressive Nature" (what a load of b0110x!) then so should Cocker spaniels. Border collies etc, no?


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

and my mexi black


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

LoveForLizards said:


> If pit bulls are banned because of their "Agressive Nature" (what a load of b0110x!) then so should Cocker spaniels. Border collies etc, no?


Yea but there so evil:lol2:.
AMAZING! PitBull, Cat & Chicks! "I Want You to Want Me" - Video


----------



## Lamprophis (Jun 12, 2008)

LoveForLizards said:


> If pit bulls are banned because of their "Agressive Nature" (what a load of b0110x!) then so should Cocker spaniels. Border collies etc, no?


No... these dogs can be highly strung but I haven't heard of either breed giving someone hours of surgery to rectify scar tissue, loss of feeling in the leg etc.... American pitbulls are bred for fighting... which makes them unpredictable in the wrong hands. I agree to a certain extent that owners make the dog... but the type of people that are attracted to pitbulls are generally attracted to them for all the wrong reasons as listed in my previous post


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Lamprophis said:


> No... these dogs can be highly strung but I haven't heard of either breed giving someone hours of surgery to rectify scar tissue, loss of feeling in the leg etc.... American pitbulls are bred for fighting... therefore they're hardly going to be ideal family pets. I agree to a certain extent that owners... but the type of people that are attracted to pitbulls are generally attracted to them for all the wrong reasons as listed in my previous post


if you look into the history of the APBT, then they were originally the poster dog for America, they were known for being good with children and other animals, a very loyal and couragous breed, they have now been demonised, yes they have very strong jaws and can do alot of damage, but there are other dogs out there that can do severe damage, most breeds have the power to harm to the point of reconstructive surgery.


----------



## Lucifus (Aug 30, 2007)

I dont get this at all. Ive met several pitbulls and all bar one were the most loving dogs known to mankind IF they were not pushed around and abused. One was batsh*t crazy but that was a rescue. Ive met more Alsatians that have went through guard dog training to the point they are taught to kill than i have pitbulls that are aggressive. Although individual dogs have individual personalitys and an aggressive pitbull is something that i would not like to come up against most of it can be pinned on the owner, NOT the dog.


----------



## ansell1991 (Mar 2, 2009)

tbh most pitballs iv seen are softies... they will play with my dog (dont ask bread... even the vet is confused....) and just have fun...

but on the over hand, iv got a few scares from where a police escaped from the van and tried to attack my dog (missing offcorse there for gettig me..) twas rather funny at time cos my dog turned round cos i shouted **** and then ripped this dogs leg apart... cop was lucky my dog was there or id iv had more then a bite on the arm...

but back to point... its the owner not the dog... tbh if you where to try and tame any animal it could work just take time and would be a risk to your life... so tbh pitballs should be alowed to be kept as pets... but it would neva happen cos of :censor: heads that make them fight. its dam right evil and the guy / girl that does it should be locked up for life...

and goin back to people saying there danguras... what aint?

i mean just think meny years ago, dogs WHERE wild, they romed around in the wild


----------



## Draven (Mar 7, 2009)

Meko said:


> putting a pit bull on DWA would defeat the object of owning a dog and strengthen the case of them being banned.
> 
> DWA animals need to be secure, so having a DWA dog would be like having a tiger, you'd have to have it in a pen / cage which is no life for an animal that can be loyal and loving in the right hands.


really good point.
its a shame what they're known for.. i stayed in american for over a year with a good friend of mine and his two pitbulls were fantasic dogs! 

Draven


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

No need to put them on the DWA. Most of the so called staffs seen about are pitbulls or crosses.


----------



## DRD (Nov 12, 2008)

i can see a day when all dogs are put on a license of some sort!!!

its a shame how licensing is taking over the world!!:devil:

but i do see a point in this im not keen on dogs doesnt help after bein attack by a jack russel, grey hound and staff!!!!!!!

all dogs have the potential to be dangerous and a license should be curated to ensure only sensable owners keep these animals.

but then again the amount of time that any snake or any hampster bites is the same should these be on licenses to?


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

Lamprophis said:


> No... these dogs can be highly strung but I haven't heard of either breed giving someone hours of surgery to rectify scar tissue, loss of feeling in the leg etc.... American pitbulls are bred for fighting... which makes them unpredictable in the wrong hands. I agree to a certain extent that owners make the dog... but the type of people that are attracted to pitbulls are generally attracted to them for all the wrong reasons as listed in my previous post


Those dogs mentioned have a lower tempermant test result then the Pitbull.
Yes they CAN cause SERIOUS damage, especially to a child. 
I have seen more lap/toy dogs (mini poodles, yorkies, chihuahuas and so on) be aggresive then I have ANY bull breed. As said alot of Staffys are labeled as pit bulls. Obviously it is just me that is forever seeing "pit bull type dog" in the press over dog attacks. FFS. There is no such thing as a pitbull type dog, its pit bull or it isnt. :bash:
American pit bulls are amongst the few dogs that are/were bred specifically
to be human/child/pet friendly, yet "the bad lads" spoiled that.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

LoveForLizards said:


> Those dogs mentioned have a lower tempermant test result then the Pitbull.
> Yes they CAN cause SERIOUS damage, especially to a child.
> I have seen more lap/toy dogs (mini poodles, yorkies, chihuahuas and so on) be aggresive then I have ANY bull breed. As said alot of Staffys are labeled as pit bulls. Obviously it is just me that is forever seeing "pit bull type dog" in the press over dog attacks. FFS. There is no such thing as a pitbull type dog, its pit bull or it isnt. :bash:
> American pit bulls are amongst the few dogs that are/were bred specifically
> to be human/child/pet friendly, yet "the bad lads" spoiled that.


by pitbull "type" I guess that could be a APBT X


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

SiUK said:


> by pitbull "type" I guess that could be a APBT X


Pitbull is differant than a American pit bull terrier.A pitbull is a cross breed of any (bull terrier type cross bull terrier type) of differant breeds.Or a (bull terrier type cross bulldog type).A American bull terrier is a pure breed of dog created in America with a long line of history.Pitbulls are all over the UK and are legal as long as they have NO! American pit bull terrier blood.American pitbull terrier are illegal in the UK and pitbulls are often mistaken for American pit bull terriers even by the police the RSPCA and the most of puplic.I'm sure there are SOME pure American pit bull terrier about the UK but they are not as common as most think.Most people ID pitbulls as American pit bull terriers when they are infact pitbull a crossbreed of a (bull terrier type cross bull terrier type) or a (bull terrier type cross bulldog type).


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

gazz said:


> Pitbull is differant than a American pit bull terrier.A pitbull is a cross breed of any (bull terrier type cross bull terrier type) of differant breeds.Or a (bull terrier type cross bulldog type).A American bull terrier is a pure breed of dog created in America with a long line of history.Pitbulls are all over the UK and are legal as long as they have NO! American pit bull terrier blood.American pitbull terrier are illegal in the UK and pitbulls are often mistaken for American pit bull terriers even by the police the RSPCA and the most of puplic.*I'm sure there are SOME pure American pit bull terrier about the UK* but they are not as common as most think.Most people ID pitbulls as American pit bull terriers when they are infact pitbull a crossbreed of a (bull terrier type cross bull terrier type) or a (bull terrier type cross bulldog type).


There are plenty around if you know the right / wrong people.


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

You should be carefull for what u wish for


----------



## Young_Gun (Jan 6, 2007)

Yay, lets ban more things, because we all know banning things is the way to stop things being used in the wrong way, hell look at the ban on handguns, that worked.


----------



## jon harvey (Aug 29, 2007)

The argument may be flawed as pitbulls etc are a domestic animal, ie not present in the wild. DWA covers species that are considered dangerous and originate in the wild.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

Caz said:


> There are plenty around if you know the right / wrong people.


Maybe but also don't confuse Amstaff's with American pit bull terrier.I've seen load of Amstaff's.And no there not the same breed the American pit bull terriers is a all though American breed.Amstaff wasn't developed ontill UK/Irish immigrats broght there Staffordshire bull terriers to America.The Staffordshire bull terrier was bred to the American pit bull terrier.Plus a bit of selective breeding = Amstaff.= TWO differant breeds.


----------



## Reptiles_Rock (Feb 17, 2008)

I got mixed feelings about this.. In a way yeah they should be on the DWA list, but then again alot of it is down to the owners too. Treat a dog right, train them properly and give them a good quality of life and they will respect you.
If they are not already on the DWA list,,A person should have to notify the authorities in advance of getting one so somebody can come out and interview them to see if they are confident enough and if they have the right mentality and facility to keep dogs like these.
They are a gorgeous dog, and can be a joy to keep, it would be a shame to see them on the DWA because of irresponsible owners and bad press.


----------



## Lamprophis (Jun 12, 2008)

LoveForLizards said:


> Those dogs mentioned have a lower tempermant test result then the Pitbull.
> Yes they CAN cause SERIOUS damage, especially to a child.
> I have seen more lap/toy dogs (mini poodles, yorkies, chihuahuas and so on) be aggresive then I have ANY bull breed. As said alot of Staffys are labeled as pit bulls. Obviously it is just me that is forever seeing "pit bull type dog" in the press over dog attacks. FFS. There is no such thing as a pitbull type dog, its pit bull or it isnt. :bash:
> American pit bulls are amongst the few dogs that are/were bred specifically
> to be human/child/pet friendly, yet "the bad lads" spoiled that.


Agreed.. my point is in the wrong hands they can be very dangerous, and I've never seen one not owned by a complete moron using it to look "cool", maybe I'm letting my personal experiences of them cloud my judgement and would happily ammend my views if I did. However if they're banned and have been since 1991 then surely there shouldn't be any left in England if everyone was law abiding? but that's slightly off topic..


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

Lamprophis said:


> Agreed.. my point is in the wrong hands they can be very dangerous, and I've never seen one not owned by a complete moron using it to look "cool", maybe I'm letting my personal experiences of them cloud my judgement and would happily ammend my views if I did. However if they're banned and have been since 1991 then surely there shouldn't be any left in England if everyone was law abiding? but that's slightly off topic..


They wern't banned in 1991. But by the end of november 1991 all American Pit Bull Terriers had to be registered, m.chipped, tattooed, insured and neutered. So there shouldnt be any left but they aren't banned.


----------



## Reptiles_Rock (Feb 17, 2008)

Any Irish people here will knwo that in Dublin, all the big housing estates either have bans, or are bringing them in for all the big and supposedly dangerous breeds.
And im sure that other counties around Ireland will follow and do the same thing. Which in a way is right, rather than banning them completely or placing them on a DWA list.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

LoveForLizards said:


> They wern't banned in 1991. But by the end of november 1991 all American Pit Bull Terriers had to be registered, m.chipped, tattooed, insured and neutered. So there shouldnt be any left but they aren't banned.


But it's not that fair from UK and the *Republic of Ireland* where American pit bull terriers are still legal and can be bred.So basically From American to Repubic of Ireland.Next bit just getting them to the UK witch is overly being done.As long as American pit bull terriers are legal in Repubic of Ireland they don't stand a chance of removing them from the UK EVER.


----------



## Lamprophis (Jun 12, 2008)

LoveForLizards said:


> They wern't banned in 1991. But by the end of november 1991 all American Pit Bull Terriers had to be registered, m.chipped, tattooed, insured and neutered. So there shouldnt be any left but they aren't banned.


My bad, apologies:blush:


----------



## djangel (Jan 26, 2007)

i understand this post i rly do, and yes owners/people :censor:mankind makes animals to what they are,

but pits ect are made to fight, not just that i would preff them being banned compeletly as of mankind now days,

nearly every boy, teenager, man ect in essex (ofc eveywhere) has a staffy/ staffy x pit pit x what ever they call it but everyone has one, and its not that "oh its such a quuuuute wooottty" its yeh look at me im wellhard with my staff /pit !!! they are used so much as a simble of hardness, gangs showing there hard sides, so yes these people are making them bad and bad names.
when i sit in the pdsa ect its always the dog dam staffs staff x pits, jack russle's ect that are giving it, and number of times it has a young male owner and ive even been there and his dog has attacked someone elses and he just laughed, so for the safety of people and these poor dogs they are best banned and kept away from :censor:'s

also i was talking to mates and my oh and i said they should bring out licencing, this will stop all this over breeding ect i was thinking like you have to have a lience and take your pets to the vets, have them spayed ect
have the owers have to attend a ... course on training as loads of people say "oh money so i cant" with the liencing it should be covered on it, i know in my head its the "i wish it would happen.. perfect thoughts" but if it ever happened i think it would work, would make people think more about the animal, dumping it, using as breeding michines ect
sorry if you think im chatting :censor: but some of you might see my point im saying  its bit late and im sad n tired so probs not coming out right
Danielle


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

To be honest Danielle, i don't think licensing would change anything. As you said yourself, you see all the Essex wideboys with their staffs and pits as a status symbol. Seeing as its illegal now do you think it would actually change if you needed a license?


----------



## edgley (Feb 7, 2009)

dogs much like people ARE a product of the environment


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

people are saying pits are bad tempered because of there owners but pitbull's ARE alot more highly strung than your average dog and ARE more aggressive. People have had "loyal" and "soft" pits for years and all of a sudden they can can turn on you!
As for putting them on the dangerous wild animals list, this would be pointless because im guessing probably 90% of pits are kept illegaly at the moment so licensing isnt going to change anythin and plus they are not "wild" animals.
Some are saying they would be kept in a pen but dogs need walking for exersise, if your where to keep a pit in a pen this is going to make it more exitable and potentialy more aggresive and agitated.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

sam1989 said:


> Some are saying they would be kept in a pen but dogs need walking for exersise, if your where to keep a pit in a pen this is going to make it more exitable and potentialy more aggresive and agitated.


 
that was me who said they'd be kept in a pen but i tihnk you might have mis-read it. For them to be DWA they'd have to be kept like a DWA wild mammal ie lions and tigers, and in a pen / cage which would make them more aggressive as they'd have less interaction and not behave like dogs.


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

Meko said:


> that was me who said they'd be kept in a pen but i tihnk you might have mis-read it. For them to be DWA they'd have to be kept like a DWA wild mammal ie lions and tigers, and in a pen / cage which would make them more aggressive as they'd have less interaction and not behave like dogs.


 yeh sorry must have misread it, got a bit carried away:2thumb:


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

sam1989 said:


> people are saying pits are bad tempered because of there owners but pitbull's ARE alot more highly strung than your average dog and ARE more aggressive. People have had "loyal" and "soft" pits for years and all of a sudden they can can turn on you!


there are plenty of more highly strung breeds that take a firm handler, I think your opinion has been influenced by the bad press these dogs get, dogs are a product of their upbringing nothing more.


----------



## charliet (Mar 24, 2007)

Some interesting discussion here.




SiUK said:


> well it would be nice to see a rethink of the DDA in general, even the RSPCA has commented that the act is flawed and its the owners not the breed, any dog can be made aggressive.


I agree and think it's criminal that the DDA has stood for so long. It is ill-thought out and unjustified, and the amount of pain and suffering it has caused to animals and their owners, not to mention the needless loss of life, demands that it be reviewed. Unfortunatley the government has declared no intention of doing so.



Meko said:


> putting a pit bull on DWA would defeat the object of owning a dog and strengthen the case of them being banned.
> 
> DWA animals need to be secure, so having a DWA dog would be like having a tiger, you'd have to have it in a pen / cage which is no life for an animal that can be loyal and loving in the right hands.






ern79 said:


> I think the op is missing the point, dwa, think about it, first off you are saying the animal is dangerous, not something that proponents of bull breeds want to do, then you are saying it is a wild animal which it is not.
> I agree, suitable legislation should be in place for these dogs to be owned legally, but dwa is definitely not it.





gazz said:


> Putting American pit bull terriers on DWA is implying there dangerous.American pit bull terrers are no more dangerous then mastiff's.And mastiff's aren't viewed as out right dangerous dogs.Though they are in the wrong hands like the American pit bull terrier is.A dog is as dangerous as YOU make it.I think you should do a exam for a licence of type like you do for a gun licence.If you invole this breed in any illgal act's-(Guarding drug dens,Dog fighting'etc'etc) that should come with a 10 years inside sentence minimum.
> 
> A dog trained to bite is a wheapon.The owner/s should be convited as such.


All three of you are right, and for these reasons these dogs should not be put on the DWA. However, there still remains a case for regulating them through some type of licensing regime.



Lamprophis said:


> No... these dogs can be highly strung but I haven't heard of either breed giving someone hours of surgery to rectify scar tissue, loss of feeling in the leg etc.... American pitbulls are bred for fighting... which makes them unpredictable in the wrong hands. I agree to a certain extent that owners make the dog... but the type of people that are attracted to pitbulls are generally attracted to them for all the wrong reasons as listed in my previous post


Yes, they can be highly strung (just like Stafordshire Bull Terriers, Collies and Cocker Spaniels) but American Pit Bulldogs (or whatever you want to call them) were not bred specifically for fighting. The purpose of dog fighting is and was one significant aspect of their breeding (and you have fighting lines of these dogs) but they are also bred to be family dogs, particularly in the States. 




gazz said:


> Maybe but also don't confuse Amstaff's with American pit bull terrier.I've seen load of Amstaff's.And no there not the same breed the American pit bull terriers is a all though American breed.Amstaff wasn't developed ontill UK/Irish immigrats broght there Staffordshire bull terriers to America.The Staffordshire bull terrier was bred to the American pit bull terrier.Plus a bit of selective breeding = Amstaff.= TWO differant breeds.


Actually, there is an argument that APBTs are not specifically an American breed. Diane Jessup makes a very strong case that actually the APBT is from English stock. Butchers used to use dogs who would catch bulls, flip them or hold them until the butcher could come and kill the animal. These dogs were "bulldogs" and were bred for this and for the related practice of bull baiting. APBTs and Staffordshire Bull Terriers (and not American, British, or "Old Tyme" Bulldogs) are the descended from this breed. So while the American Stafford is related to the English Stafford, it is through common descent rather than cross breeding.




Lamprophis said:


> Agreed.. my point is in the wrong hands they can be very dangerous, and I've never seen one not owned by a complete moron using it to look "cool", maybe I'm letting my personal experiences of them cloud my judgement and would happily ammend my views if I did. However if they're banned and have been since 1991 then surely there shouldn't be any left in England if everyone was law abiding? but that's slightly off topic..


Yes, they can be very dangerous. But so can a whole host of other dogs - Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Mastiffs, etc. Not to mention cars, alchohol, cigarettes, and many sports. I think we would all hate to live in a country where everything that might possibly be dangerous is banned. 

And yes, your judgement probably is clouded. How many responsible owners do you think would flout the fact they have a dog that could be seized and destroyed at no notice? 

The sad fact is, this is a wonderful breed that in the right hands can outperform and outshine any dog out there. They are loyal, devoted, incredibly determined and consistently impress any person that they meet. The public demonisation of them is utterly unwarranted, and in the end, will only be counter-productive. As the animals are pushed underground, the breed will increasingly be owned primarily by people who own them for the wrong reasons. This will lead to animals being bred simply because they can be and there is demand, with little or no consideration about the welfare of the animals or the breed, or the suitablity of character, temprament, or conformation.

I dislike the tendency of our government to license and regulate everything they think might present a threat, or that looks like it could contribute to the public coffers. But the fact of the matter is that dogs have certain requirements that need to be met. Moreover, to be controlled the owner needs to have at least a basic grasp of dog behaviour and psychology. My personal view is that different breeds of dogs should be graded along a scale of difficulty (perhaps with APBTs being near the top) and people should be assessed for their suitability to own them - how well do they understand dogs, what experience they have, the time they have to commit, what they want from a dog, etc.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

charliet said:


> All three of you are right, and for these reasons these dogs should not be put on the DWA. However, there still remains a case for regulating them through some type of licensing regime.


 
but wouldn't the amount of pits about already show that licensing wouldn't change anything? except for the people who really do want one as a family pet and are willing to go about it the right way.


----------



## Philcw (Feb 7, 2008)

My friend has two pitbulls, i didnt even know they were illegal.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

charliet said:


> Actually, there is an argument that APBTs are not specifically an American breed. Diane Jessup makes a very strong case that actually the APBT is from English stock. Butchers used to use dogs who would catch bulls, flip them or hold them until the butcher could come and kill the animal. These dogs were "bulldogs" and were bred for this and for the related practice of bull baiting. APBTs and Staffordshire Bull Terriers (and not American, British, or "Old Tyme" Bulldogs) are the descended from this breed. So while the American Stafford is related to the English Stafford, it is through common descent rather than cross breeding.


I know that they share ancestory ofcourse they do coz the british amoung other emigrated to America they ofcourse took there own dogs.But regardless of the ancestory a dog breed created in America is American and that the APBT AND the Amstaff (They evoled differantly Amstaff ancestor is't just the APBT).The really early settlers and so forth from Euorope took there dogs to America including breeds such as mastiff's,terriers,bulldogs'etc.Meny years after the first settlers in America the Staffordshire bull terriers was being deveoped in the UK using bulldogs and terriers that had long been in the UK.In America the APBT roots was already well set by using breeds of bulldog and terrier that was created in America.Though the ancestors of the American bulldogs and American terriers originated from European breeds of Bulldogs and terriers there all though America breeds-(made in America).Amstaff's didn't happen till SBT's was crossed to APBT's for the purpose of the showring as the AKC wouldn't take the pure APBT's.


----------



## gear21 (Dec 19, 2008)

i have 2 pits and they are very friendly and loving dogs , yes with other dogs they are very nasty but i think their is no problem with pits , i no people will have something 2say about me now but i love my dogs


----------



## kieran8143 (Mar 10, 2008)

gear21 said:


> i have 2 pits and they are very friendly and loving dogs , yes with other dogs they are very nasty but i think their is no problem with pits , i no people will have something 2say about me now but i love my dogs



why advertise the fact?


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

I know loads of people with pits, and they are like big staffs, Its the owner not the dog


----------



## kieran8143 (Mar 10, 2008)

SNAKEWISPERA said:


> I know loads of people with pits, and they are like big staffs, Its the owner not the dog



nothing like a staffy really. so many difference's. but agree with owner thing


----------



## SNAKEWISPERA (Aug 27, 2007)

whats the diffrences then?


----------



## gear21 (Dec 19, 2008)

kieran8143 said:


> why advertise the fact?


 im adversiting it because they are very lovely dogs and they are not trophy dogs they are my familky pets so wots the problem!!!


----------



## James King (Jan 2, 2009)

I think pits shouldnt even be illegal make brilliant pets its exactly how people say its the owner sometimes your gona get the odd dog whos a bit loopy other then that there great.


----------



## kieran8143 (Mar 10, 2008)

gear21 said:


> im adversiting it because they are very lovely dogs and they are not trophy dogs they are my familky pets so wots the problem!!!



why advertise something thats illegal. you wouldnt shout about drugs.

just why make the possible chances of your dogs being taken away greater??


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

SNAKEWISPERA said:


> whats the diffrences then?


Personality wise there the same as in a dog is what you rase it to be.

If you ment visually there way differant.A pure American pit bull terrier are long,lean and leggy IMO having a more pack hound look about them.Staffordshire bull terrers as you know are short,stocky bully power houses.And the American staffordshire bull terrier Tall,stocky bully power house.

American pit bull terrier.









Staffordshire bull terrier.









American staffordshire bull terrier.


----------



## nellyman89 (Mar 31, 2009)

you can get a licence for a pitbull or any dog on the DDA infact. Its just not governed by the dwa, more lenient in fact, just need to muzzle em for walks. dunno how youd go about getting the licence tho


----------



## dogmandango (Mar 31, 2009)

Ther are redoing the dda so that it is the dog that is destroyed not the breeed so all the pits that are hiding in this country are not going to be put down for it being a pit 

every one thinks ther dangerus but the nastist dog in the country are dashounds more people got bit in 2008 by them then any other dog its only because pits are band they get the bad publicity they do 

akitas are a fighting breed they still walk the streets and they can be loaded guns at times i know of 4 pits that have never shown a once of agresion to a person ther a dog that are high strung and only serten people should have who know what they can do and how to train them and show them what they can and cant do 

i have studied pits for a lot of years and they are very nice natured dogs every one says american pitbull but it was briten that made the do america just made them what they are to day 

people say a pit has no place in the country as dog fighting is out lawed that is true but and a big but 

rottis were made for hurding sheep dose every one hered sheep no standered poodles were hunters do people hunt the poodle ect ect 

at the end of the day a pit is a dog that can do damage in the wron hands and as they say

its not the gun that kills its the person behind it


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

dogmandango said:


> Ther are redoing the dda so that it is the dog that is destroyed not the breeed.


have Defra said that?


----------



## dogmandango (Mar 31, 2009)

no the rspca are pushing it ther is or was a post on the hunting life ill find it and copy and past it rspca are fed up of puting down frendly dogs


----------



## Mush (Jan 20, 2008)

I own a Staffyx rottweiler and i am ABSOLUTELY fed up of people assuming hes nasty because of what he looks like which does happen often.

Im a firm believer that a dogs behaviour is a product of its upbringing.

Harry is as soft as poo but VERY strong, I can also safely say my old labrador was much more dangerous than Harry.

no matter what people say EVERY dog has the ability to harm people or other animals, its just wether or not that animal has been taught to behave or not.

My old labrador couldnt be around children as he would try and bite them, he came from a rescue center and we know nothing of his past other than it wasnt nice.

I am a believer that dog licensing should be brought back, more so for the protection of the dog and liability issues surrounding the dog.

With the license there should be microchipping as compulsory and possibly a low cost public liability insurance.

for example if the dog would escape and maul someone the police could contain the animal and scan it and then the owners will be liable.

on the other side with the additional cost it may deter those who want them as merely status symbols and also if the animal is lost or stolen with compulsory microchipping will easily be returned to their rightful place.

This is my personal opinion, others may have a different view.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

yeah I have read a comment from the RSPCA along those lines, it wouldnt be any time soon though, and the RSPCA often push for things that never happen.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

dogmandango said:


> no the rspca are pushing it ther is or was a post on the hunting life ill find it and copy and past it rspca are fed up of puting down frendly dogs


but the RSPCA don't deal with putting down dogs on the DDA. they just put down dogs that they can't rehome because of their own policies.


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

SiUK said:


> there are plenty of more highly strung breeds that take a firm handler, I think your opinion has been influenced by the bad press these dogs get, dogs are a product of their upbringing nothing more.


 and your saying this is fact are you?


----------



## chris09abson (Mar 20, 2009)

*sorry to sound dumb*

sorry to sound dumb but what is dwa????


----------



## Clones (May 5, 2007)

chris09abson said:


> sorry to sound dumb but what is dwa????



Its the Dangerous WILD Animal list, which sort of makes the question a pointless one.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

sam1989 said:


> and your saying this is fact are you?


Well why are you saying it isnt?

The reasons I said this is purely because there are alot of breeds that in the wrong hands can be very dangerous, but theres plenty of pitbulls that are safe well adjusted dogs, which the press wouldnt like you to believe, its a sweeping statement to say they are all dangerous, they were once the poster dog for America they were known for being good with children and very loyal, its irresponsible owners and breeding that have seen them demonised like they are today.


----------

