Dogs Trust > Information > Poppy's Opinions > Breed Legislation >
Did you know that if I was a certain dog breed I would be illegal in the UK? If I was a pit bull type, Fila Brasiliero, Dogo Argentino or Japanese Tosa, the police could seize me and put me to sleep just for being me, – even if I hadn’t done anything to deserve it. These breeds have been banned by the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) – a very unfair law. It wouldn’t matter if I was the nicest, friendliest dog in the entire universe without an aggressive bone in my body – they could kill me just for being born one of these breeds, or for being imported into the country.
Dog experts generally accept that the environment (i.e. the way a dog is brought up and the conditions around it) probably has a greater effect on the temperament and behaviour of a dog than his genetic make-up, or breed. Put simply, the way a dog is brought up, socialised and trained, exposed to punishment or praise and generally treated etc has much more to do with how aggressive he/she may turn out to be, than his actual breeding. It may be true to say that some breeds can be more easily trained than others to be aggressive towards people (inadvertently or on purpose), but this doesn’t mean that we can assume that every individual of that breed will turn out to be like that.
The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) was introduced very quickly in 1991 following a spate of high-profile, headline-grabbing dog attacks on children. At first the media concentrated on the Rottweiler and German Shepherd Dog – although neither breeds ended up being banned. Later the pit bull became the centre of media attention; used for illegal dog fighting, as well as a family pet. The pit bull is one of the most popular breed types in the USA and the majority live as cherished family pets, so why was the pit bull (and three other breeds with few, if any, individuals in the country) singled out in this country?
One of the problems with pit bull types is the fact that their jaws and facial muscles are so strong that they do a lot more damage when they attack than other breeds. Actually, you’re far more likely to get bitten by a crossbreed or a dog you know than a pit bull type, but the damage caused is usually relatively minor and so we don’t hear about it. The media also love the whole ‘devil dog’ or ‘hound from hell’ image, which is so much more shocking to the public; a big, strong dog provides a better story and photo-opportunity than, say, a small lap-dog!
The DDA is unfair because it assumes that any dog suspected of being a pit bull type is guilty and it is up to the owners to disprove this; a case of “guilty till proven innocent”. The Pit Bull Terrier is not a Kennel Club recognised breed, so without an ‘official’ pedigree and breed standard it is difficult to prove or disprove that a dog is a pit bull, and how do you prove the parentage of a crossbreed dog? Many innocent crossbreeds, as well as purebred Kennel Club Registered Staffordshire Bull Terriers were taken away and destroyed or held by the police in secret kennels for long periods of time (even years) just for looking like a pit bull type. What makes it worse is that the description of the breed type used by police and ‘experts’ is so vague that many smooth-coated, muscular breeds of dog would fit most of it!
Surely every dog should be judged on his/her own behaviour, rather than his heritage or the way that he looks? After all, traditionally ‘gentle’ or ‘solid’ temperament dog breeds can be aggressive and attack humans if they’ve been badly bred, had the wrong upbringing with little or no socialisation, been treated badly, are provoked, are in pain or through irresponsible actions of the owner.
I really do think that dogs should be judged on their actions and not on their genes.
Do you agree with me? My question to you is, is breed-specific legislation (i.e. laws which ban certain breeds) sensible, or should the law be changed so that all types and breeds of dogs are allowed, but each individual dog is judged just by how he or she acts?
Please email me and let me know!
Until next time, when I'll be barking on about another hot hound topic,
Best woofishes,
poppy@dogstrust.org.uk
P.S. My human colleagues here at Dogs Trust, as part of the Dog Legislation Advisory Group, have written a discussion paper proposing to reform the current dangerous dogs law, so that it concentrates on an individual dog’s behaviour (regardless of breed) and its owner’s actions. It will also do much more to help prevent bites, as opposed to the current law, which only allows action to be taken following an incident.
In the future we will be lobbying MPs and the government to get a new Bill introduced. The legislative process is slow, so there will be no changes in the law any time soon, but we will keep you informed with more news as soon as we get it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
Yes, I agree most strongly that we should punish the deed not the breed because I think that if a dog has done nothing wrong then it should not be punished. People are judging dogs by their appearance not their personality - this is terrible as you could get bitten by any dog at all but bull pit types (and other banned dogs) get punished for it.
I think all dogs should be allowed in all countries.
love deanna
xxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Poppy
Yes I do agree with you that breed-specific legislation should be changed, individual dogs should be judged by their acts not a whole breed be condemned.
I was bitten many years ago by a German Shepherd Dog, but I still think as a breed they are beautiful and would certainly not want to condemn the whole breed it is most unfair. I used to be afraid of Rottweiler's because of their bad press but a friend of mine had one & he was lovely so from experience I would back you 100% I wish you every success in your campaign.
Happy tail wagging.
Mary Rowe (Mrs)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Poppy
Nice to meet you, let me introduce myself, I'm an eleven month old Rottweiler bitch called Cleo - I'm told that's short for Cleopatra because of my black rimmed eyes . I am an extremely well mannered dog, I haven't a nasty bone in my body - yes sure I bark at the post man or anyone else that come near our home but in reality I'm more likely to lick him to death than bite him ! My owner Vicki or Mum as I call her sees red when people say that rottweiler should be list under the dangerous dogs act (actually my mum should be on that list as when she hears that sort of talk she goes ballistic!). Any help or support she can give she would be happy to help.
Regards
Cleo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here in Northern Ireland we have an example of breed-specific legislation which is unique in the UK and Ireland, probably in the entire world.
The Control of Greyhounds, etc Act (NI) 1950 discriminates against greyhounds (whippets and lurchers too) by requiring them to be muzzled in public places, in other words just about everywhere outside their owner's home.
The very existence of this law reinforces stereotyped perceptions of greyhounds as vicious, dangerous dogs. At the same time, it seriously hampers efforts to promote them as the wonderful companion animals they actually are by means of, for example, public get-togethers, walks, reunions, etc. Never mind the risk pet greyhound owners might run of a hefty fine or even imprisonment (!) for failing to comply. How do you set about promoting dogs that are wearing muzzles as potential pets?
It would be wonderful if Dogs Trust and the Dog Legislation Advisory Group could look into this unparalleled situation and press for the Act to be urgently repealed. After all, it must be more straightforward to have a law removed from the statute book than to go through the complex process of proposing, drafting and lobbying for new laws?
I agree with all you have to say about breed-specific legislation such as the DDA. The Control of Greyhounds, etc Act is every bit as unfair and unreasonable as the DDA.
Best wishes
Mel Fraser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that the dangerous dogs act is fair. I’ve heard about so many pit bulls, or just look-alikes being taken away from their families and being held in terrible conditions until proven guilty or not guilty. Most of the time, the dog had been found guilty, or died from, quite simply, stress. No dog should be put through all that, even the dangerous ones. The laws that ban breed should be focusing on any dangerous dog of any breed, not innocent dogs that happen to be, or look like a certain breed. I
know that its not just pit bull types that can be dangerous. my dog, a mix breed could be thought of as dangerous (although it is just fear of people and dogs that she doesn’t know. My point is, any dog could be potentially dangerous, and I agree that the DDA should be changed. I also agree that it is the way that the dogs brought up has the biggest effect on its temperament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
After reading your article featured in this months wag magazine I felt so sad about the certain breeds such as pit bulls being banned from this country. A dog cannot be allowed to be judged just because of its breed type. The majority of the time an animal is only vicious due to the human responsible for training it!!!! If a dog is brought up in a caring and loving environment then that is how the dog shall behave. I have a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, who is as soft as a brush and the thought of her being banned breaks my heart so I can fully understand how the owner of Dempsey must've felt. I work as a postlady and I can definitely say that the nastiest dogs I have come across have always been crossbreeds and never Staffies, Rottweilers, Dobermanns etc... The government needs to sort this out!!
Woof woof x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
I think it is a ridiculous and totally unjust state of affairs to ban all dogs within certain breeds, regardless of temperament and behaviour.
In the past I have encountered dogs that are aggressive and quite frankly rather frightening, yet in these instances the dogs were either of a miniature status or a crossbreed, which it would seem that by definition of not being banned, must place them in the category of safe dog status.
The majority of behavioural issues expressed by dogs can be traced back to issues with the owners, not the breed of dog. Even if one dog of a certain breed does have problems with behaviour and causes concern, it does not mean that every single dog within that breed will be subject to the same problem.
This is a typical response by the Government in this country, bowing to the relentless pressure from an idiotic media witch-hunt. Once the media get bored with targeting and harassing one subject matter, they move on to crucify someone or something else, leaving all of the victims of their persecution behind them.
It's about time the Government started looking at issues subjectively and not making sweeping gestures.
I wish you every success with your campaign; I really hope that one day the people of this country will once again be allowed to enjoy these beautiful animals.
Mrs L Turner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
I have just read all the emails on the subject of the dangerous dogs act. I whole heartedly agree with every thing they said so I won't repeat all that has been said. One thing I will say though and that is, it is the owners of the dogs who turn nasty that are to blame they are the ones who ought to be "put down" for treating the dogs so badly. It’s always the poor animal that has to suffer for human mistakes and cruelty and it’s not fair. I know that’s the way its always been and always will be, but there must be more severe punishment for cruelty to dogs other than a fine or a ban from keep a dog for life.
Good luck with your campaign and I hope the law gets change sooner rather than later,
I have lovely collie named Omar who we roomed from Wickhamford rehoming centre in Evesham. We had him after our
own collie Bejai died when he was sixteen; we had him from an eight week old pup. I never wanted another one but Omar is wonderful he keeps us very entertained with his antics,
Best wishes Jacqui Broadhurst
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree wholeheartedly that we should punish the breed not the deed.
I lived in a household with three German Shepherds throughout the 1980s, many people's attitudes towards the breed at that time were shaped by one or two very high profile attacks on children. Unfortunately this kind of attack appeals to the non-dog-loving public and mindless knee-jerk legislation is the result.
With our current party political system such legislation is a good vote winner; if you can win the hearts of the "what about the children?" brigade you stand a good chance of staying in power.
I could never have described our 3 lovely girls as 'dangerous animals' - Breed specific legislation is an inappropriate tool.
Mark Tanner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
In response to the article in the current Wag! magazine, I agree with breed-specific legislation, banning certain breeds, I am ok with most dogs, if under control, but, as an adult, I feel uneasy around Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Alsatians.
Yours sincerely
Wendy Day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
I wanted to respond to your article in the last issue of Wag about breed specific legislation - shouldn't we punish the deed, but not the breed?
I am a fanatical dog lover and truly believe that no dog is born aggressive and violent but that if owners bring their dogs up with out love and kindness then they will grow up to be aggressive animals at times unfortunately. I know several Staffordshire Bull Terriers and one English Bull Terrier owned by friends of mine and they are all real softies, however I also do know that breeds such as these have the capacity to do serious damage to another dog or a person because of their strong jaws and the ability they have to lock their jaws. I live in Liverpool unfortunately the two breeds I have mentioned above in particular have become very fashionable with young men to own and have become some kind of status symbol for them to own. I work very close to a large park and frequently see groups of teenagers with these dogs off the lead deliberately intimidating other dog walkers. I know lots of people who don't feel they can take their dogs to parks in Liverpool now as they have heard stories about people’s dogs being savaged by staffs in the parks. I myself know of two incidents, one where a neighbours Yorkshire Terrier was killed when a gang of young men let their staff off the lead and deliberately set the dog on the Yorkshire Terrier and then walked away laughing, another where a friend witness a women and man with two staffs bait the dogs to wind them up and then watch on when the dogs eventually attacked one another, these incidents are not isolated and happening underground but in public parks in broad daylight. The problem has got so severe that our local newspaper the Liverpool echo has started a petition about the issue to try to lobby the council to do more about it.
In my opinion there are only a couple of options - one all of these types of breeds with the ability to do this sort of damage should have to wear a muzzle in public, however this law would have to be enforced and all of these dog's owners should have to have a license, unfortunately unless these laws are enforced people will continue to flout the law. Finally the only other option in my eyes is to ban the breeds and insist that all of these dogs are neutered so no more can be born, I wouldn't like to see any healthy dogs put down, I know this seems very extreme but sometimes think it is the only option to stop this rain of terror in some areas of our city and feel that these dogs are being used as a tool for some peoples anti social behaviour.
Thanks
J Pearson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
I entirely agree with you that we should punish the deed and not the breed. And this only after careful consideration, as there are more bad owners than bad dogs.
Yours sincerely, J Rusher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wholeheartedly agree that dogs such as pit bull terriers should be judged on their actions, individually, not their breed collectively. After all, a number of human beings have committed murder over theyears, but the rest of the human race has not been annihilated because of this.
In my (humble) opinion this law was instigated as the result of a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to newspaper reports which had very often been sensationalised by the press.
I fully support any action which would reform the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Yours faithfully, G. Heslop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
I have just read your article on DDA, I totally agree with you - it has to be judged on the deed and not the breed. Last year our young boisterous American Bulldog got into a scrap with a Golden Retriever (nothing serious - as the Goldie has 1 puncture wound in his scruff) however, the owner of the Goldie decided to bodily throw himself into the middle of this scrap - needless to say he got bitten (I suspect by his own dog). However the police were called, we were visited and given three options 1) that we have him destroyed immediately, 2) that we go to court, but in the meantime they would take him and hold in kennels - but not tell us where and 3) that they take him there and then and have him destroyed. At no time were we allowed to give a statement about the incident! You can imagine the heartbreak when we had our baby boy put to sleep one week after his third birthday. Four weeks later the police arrived to take our statement and when they were told what had happened their words were 'that puts a different light on things doesnt it?', anyway what were you doing owning a pit bull?
Good Luck with you campaign. Regards. Margaret Elms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fully support this new adaption to the Dangerous Dog Act (DDA). Even though I am now in my early thirties, when I was about 4 years old, I was bitten by an Old English Sheepdog. That was mainly because I had been teasing the dog, stopped, the dog laid down and then I sneezed which caused the dog to jump up. I have also been bitten by several types of breeds over the years yet none of them have been the ones which are mentioned in the DDA. A dog only bites because of the way it has been treated and brought up. At the end of the day we are responsible for how a dog reacts. Therefore, people need to act responsibly, if your dog bites then we need to look at the circumstances surrounding the issue. i.e could it be that a child may have teased the dog to the point where the dog had enough and the only way the dog can say its had enough is to snap!! Most people tend to blame the dog. But its mainly circumstances and the dogs own natural instinct to let us know it has had enough. If us humans are backed into a corner through bullying or an argument, then we come out lashing to everyone. The dog is only doing the same. Let us give the dogs the same justice as us.
About four years ago, I had a lovely collie/belgium shepherd cross who I did agility displays with across the country. I had an unfortunate incident that where I lived someone who only lived a few streets away purposely went back to their house to get their dog when they saw me out with my dog. And deliberately enticed their dog to attack my dog. In that case, yes the dog was a rottweiler look alike. But I don't blame the dog, I blame the owner who enticed the dog to attack other dogs. About 9-12 months later, I sadly lost my dog. This I can only put down to the stress that my dog suffered at the time and the energy that the attack took out of her as she had multiple (at least 20) puncture wounds. And she still tried to put on a brave face so that I wouldn't fuss her. This I can only put down to the same fate that these dogs that are taken away from their owners because they look like a particular breed. They suffer so much stress because they are taken away from their owners, put in strange surroundings without any loving attention and then are expected to just get on with it. No wondered some dogs pass away. I hope the dogs win. Kerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the main thing is mutual respect. If people are not familiar with or frightened by big dogs/small dogs/certain breeds then the dog owner should respect that. Maybe their dog is the softest, friendliest big lump in the planet but that doesn’t mean that someone wants it jumping up on them, bounding over towards them or licking/slobbering all over them or whatever else they do. After all we don’t know your dog’s intention. How do I know whether your dogs going to lick me to death (in a friendly way) or is going to kill me if I don’t know it and have never met it before. Just because you’re comfortable with your dog doesn’t mean everybody else is.
I agree with the above comments by the lady who is 5ft 2. If she is not happy with it then the dog’s owner should appreciate that and give due consideration – as should the owner of any size dog small or large. I also agree with the owner with the Big dog getting terrorised by 2 small dogs. Also wherever I walk my dog I make sure it doesn’t run at people, make sure it’s under control and clean up after it - from experience I can’t say that the majority of dog owners do. The people I am talking about are not young thugs or hoodlums but middle aged people who have had dogs all their lives.
We wouldn't need dog control if people took more control and more responsibility for their and their dogs actions. The dogs are'nt the problem - the owners are. I don't agree with the saying "treat people how you want to be treated yourself" I prefer treat people how THEY want treated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
I used to live in a small village called marsden in yorkshire, a man who lived down the street from me owned a labrador cross rotwieller puppy. tThe puppy was the gentlest dog you could have known friendly and playful as all puppies are but never hurt a fly. The owner on the other hand was a bully, he frequently hit the dog when it misbehaved. On one of these occations the dog hit back ( or i should say bit back) abd cause alot of damage. The police found the dog guilty and had him put down put the owner was never charged.
I disagree with breed-specific legislation, i think that dog should be judged on a behavior not breed and that owners who abuse their dogs and cause them to go to such extremes should be punishable by law. I dont know whether or not the puppy could have been rehomed or retrained, but i believe with with love, care and attention that dog wouldnt have had to be put down. Maili
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would totally agree with you, I think the DDA needs revising as i have just had a situation of my own. Last Friday my Doberman who was only 18 months old turned on me. Although he had become aggressive more and more over the past couple of months i put it down to his previous owners (I mean plural). The poor dog only had 6 months with us and had 2 previous owners not the best start in life. He was caged most of the time in his last home and so we gave him free rome of our home. He soon became the alpha male and would not be told what to do, so on Friday when being told off for harassing the local wildlife i went to put on his lead and he bit my hand and leg just missing my artery. When we called the police to help me control the dog as he was agitated, they came out but just for a statement, they nor the dog warden could remove him as he wasn't (under the dangerous dogs act) classed as a dangerous dog (i begged to differ now bleeding profusely) and was contained away from the public. 4 days later the RSPCA kindly came and put him to sleep it was so heart breaking as dangerous as he had become he was still my little boy. So yes i agree it is very unfair to stereo type dogs for their breed it should be on the crime/temperament. I really do think it needs to be changed.
Shanna.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree that the dangerous dog act needs to be changed. The act was brought in with very little thought and has caused many owners much heart ache by having their dogs taken from them. Owners of other breeds also need to be concerned as we live in this increasingly anti dog country. What breed will be next on the list? As a family we have owned 6 Staffies over the past 28 years four of these dogs were rescues. Not once has any of our dogs even attempted in biting anyone and not once has any of them growled in aggression toward us. As the regular saying goes PUNISH the DEED, not the BREED. Maybe our Politians should use this saying as the basis in changing the present legislation. Regards. Paul and Gill Fisher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is absolutley no way a breed should be banned just because a handful of them have done something wrong. It engenders fear for completely the wrong reason. I'm uneasy around little ankle biting terrier types because a Bichon Frise on our street attacked my large cross breed, but I don't want them all banned, I just keep an eye on them & make sure they don't get too close unless they're friendly.
A few months ago a little girl came upto my dog while we were walking, I was disgusted to hear her mother shout (at the top of her voice) 'Don't touch the dog, it'll bite!' My dog (from Roden) is not a biter & loves fusses, from anyone. I pulled the woman up for her comment, advising her that a dog is more likely to bite people who shout at them than approach them from the front gently (as her child did). Hopefully the child is not scared of dogs as a result of the mothers actions.
My neighbours daughter was horrified at the size of our dog when we moved in as she had been chased by a big dog on her apaper round & thought all big dogs were vicious. She now fusses him half to death, comes on walks with us & even goes in the back of the car with him if we take her out with us.
Good Luck getting this law changed! Lisa, Lyndon & Mutley xxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Poppy - the Dangerous Dogs Act is another example of badly thought out legislation which was implemented as a knee-jerk reaction to media hype and fear-mongering. If any dog becomes dangerous or causes a nuisance then that particular dog and its owners should be dealt with appropriately. If possible I believe the first course of action should be training of both the dog and the owners as poor training and socialisation may be the cause of aggression. Obviously if the behaviour continues other measures may be necessary but whatever happens no dog should be allowed to suffer.
I hope that the Dogs Trust are able to initiate the reform of this law.
Karen Webb, Brentwood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While i agree it should be the deed not the breed that is punished i also think that maybe the answer lies in punishing the owner and so forcing only responsible people to be dog owners. maybe by making it law that all dogs are microchipped and registered and also insured at least third party to cover damage to other people, their animals and property. give dog wardens police etc the power to do spot checks scanning the microchip and making the owners produce the insurance certificate.this may seem drastic but only this afternoon i witnessed two staffordshire bull terriers attack and injure the donkeys on southport beach in merseyside. i was sat on the beach with my two dogs who were playing with another dog and some children when i saw two staffies off their leads and out of control walking towards us with the owner not taking any notice of them,i got my dogs and myself off the beach, the parents and children and the other dog owner and dog followed suite, we had just got over the sea wall when we heard shouting and looked back to see one of the staffies attacking the donkeys.three times the lady with the donkeys shouted to the dog owner to get his dog off and he took no notice. she had to pull the dog off herself and gave it to the owner who just walked off without even an apology. this in my opinion is total irresponsibility and has to be stopped because while this sort of thing happens the councils then ban all dogs from places they enjoy and the majority suffer for the idiots. from eileen ,danny and phoebe send lots of licks and wags to poppy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the overall opinion in Poppy's article that dogs should be judged on their actions and not on their genes, but I also picked up on a separate point you made about the pit bull terrier. You say they were used for illegal dog fighting and I suspect that this would still go on if the breed were allowed again in the uk. Of course the vast majority of these dogs would make loving family pets but unfortunately while there are the unscrupulous who use these dogs for fighting or as some sort of macho mascot perhaps it would be kinder to spare the pit bull from this possible ordeal even if the ill treated dogs are in the minority. They should however be a kennel club recognised breed; it seems quite ridiculous that a breed can be banned without actually knowing what constitutes that particular breed. Dogs are wonderful companion animals and the majority of those who turn aggresive do so because of the actions or ignorance of their owners. If only there could be an education programme in schools so that the next generation learn't how to care for and respect our faithful friends. Nicole Watson
Poppy says: Dogs Trust Education Officers offer FREE interactive workshops for 7-11 year olds in schools and youth groups. They encourage young people to explore problems of irresponsible dog ownership as part of our aim to reduce the number of stray and abandoned dogs in key areas of the UK. Please visit the 'Ways we help' then 'Education' part of this site x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
I completely agree that this law should be changed. Dogs are not born dangerous and if they do become vicious in later life it is usually due to outside influences. Any dog whether it be pedigree, mongrel, large or small can attack it is nothing to do with breed. We have a German Shepherd who has been very timid ever since she was a puppy. While in the house with the family she is the softest dog you have ever met, but she is very wary of strangers and would possibly bite given the chance. Because of this we make very sure she is under control when strangers come into the house. Our other German Shepherd on the other hand would let anyone in as long as they can throw a ball. It all depends on the individual dog.
Love from Dawn, Tasha and Cassie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
I'm afraid I do agree with breed specific legislation. Sadly certain people are drawn to owning the more aggressive breeds of dog, perhaps to enhance their own image. These people are not responsible owners and seem to positively encourage their dog's aggression. My own dog was recently attacked by a staffordshire bull terrier, luckily he was pulled off quickly and my dog survived. However, the speed and power that the staffie displayed was a real eye opener. I feared for my own safety and that of my young son. My vet told me that they regularly see dogs attacked by staffoirdshire bull terriers in my area. What if it had been my child? I think the breeding of these breeds should be discouraged and that they should, at the very least, be muzzled in public places. I would support a ban on these breeds, after all, our children are more important than our pets surely? yours sincerly H. Skinner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Poppy, hi everyone. My Jack Russel was innocently running about with doggy friends in the park and she was struck down by a brindle staffie and i was absolutely terrified. I had to jump on this staffie to get him off my dog. I also took a bite from this dog and am now scared for life. I'm a voluntary worker for Dogs Trust Merseyside and i see hundreds of dogs all the time, and i have walked into a kennel with a staffie and hugged it. It is the way they are brought up by owners, thy are not born evil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Poppy. I always believe that if a dog comes from a home i.e. family it should be them that is punished never the animal! I believe this due to the fact how can a dog be held responsible for its behaviour when most of the behaviour traits have originated from humans breeding them for that exact trait. If a dog is dangerous they should look at the owners, as any responsible pet owner would always ensure that there 'baby' is 'well cared for and brought up right' like any normal parents would do! My 'baby' Snoopdog is the most respectable, decent and loving animal that could ever be (Especially with her big brown eyes). I took my time instilling good manners and understanding my Snoops needs. This law should be stopped and the owners should be prosecuted! Any dog from a 'family' should be looked upon as a child is, not responsible for their actions, as it us that train our dogs to act in this way. Maggie Macdonald
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi. I agree with one of the previous E-mails from J.Pearson, stating that the dogs in question are in some cases purely being used as a status symbol by young men. These dogs are taught from a young age to be aggressive to both dogs and humans and praised for doing so. So when they do attack, it’s down to the owner and not the animal, but unfortunately it is the dog that gets the bad press. For this reason I feel that dog owners should be vetted by the Police Authority for suitability before certain breeds of dogs are allowed to be owned and dog training courses should be mandatory for certain breeds of dogs, after all an eight stone dog can do a lot of damage if not controlled properly. This would hopefully go someway to help prevent the local yobs from owning these dogs but at the same time allow true responsible dog lovers to own these breeds. G Mitchell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you. I think that a dog is moulded on its training and so forth. I think the american pit bull is a wounderful breed and if legal would be my choice of dog. It is unfair to tar all dogs with the same brush, and if it as a group of people there would soon be descrimination laws against it. So yes. revoke these laws and be more strict on the owners that can have them. Or at least change the law so they have to be muzzled when out. That way you are only putting yourself at risk and not other people or dogs. x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe, and have always believed that some breeds and cross-breeds of dog should not be owned by members of the general public. My aunt owned a Rottweiler which was completely socialised, in a very large-family environment, and rose from a pup in a house where there were people coming and going all the time, and it never did any harm to any human. My aunt was also the owner of a black Alsatian from the same environment which almost tore the arm off somebody who merely came to the front door of their home. So, yes, dogs are all individuals, and 99% of the time, when a dog attacks somebody, it is the fault of the owner rather than the dog. However, this is of little comfort to people who are afraid of these animals, and to anyone who has been attacked or menaced by one. Many people are very scared of these dogs, and should not have to face these very powerful animals in parks and on the streets.
I myself would love to own a Rottweiler; they are an extremely attractive dog but having had lengthy conversations with two owners, one of which is a reputable and well-known breeder, I have decided against - as I know that by the time the dog was 6 months old, it would be beyond my control. The breeder is a middle-aged woman who has no problem whatsoever in controlling any of the number of dogs living with her, but she has a personality which lends itself to the dogs' acceptance of her authority. My own personality would not.
At the very least these dogs should always be muzzled in public, and breeding of said animals should be limited to a very few breeders, thus cutting off the supply of puppies to unsuitable people, whilst allowing the breed to be still maintained among people who really do understand and love this breed of dog
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Poppy
I wholeheartedly agree with you that Breed Specific Legislation is a bad solution to the problem. The problem is not any particular breed. Pomeranians can kill babies! The real problem are owners who are too ignorant of their dogs' needs and too thoughtless to find out what they are! The real problem are breeders who produce puppies from unstable lines and sell them to the unsuspecting public just to make a quick buck. Most difficult to challenge is the public perceptions of dogs. People see dogs as little furry humans. They are not. We do not confer any civic or civil rights on thee animals, but when a dog attacks, it is the dg that is damned, not the owner, and not the parents. It is time that the law in this country was changed to require dog owners to attend training classes. We do not let people drive without attend lessons first, but we expect people to simply know how to look after a dog? Madness. The law should also be changed to put more responsibility on the humans for a dogs actions. If we do not start doing this, people will never get rid of the myth in their minds that dogs are 'safe, cuddly little people'.
Yours
Rebecca Fitzgerald
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiya Poppy. I too live in Liverpool and also have witnessed the ‘yob culture’ growing where young men are buying staffys and bull terriers, irish blues etc to parade around as status symbols. They don’t all treat their dogs well and set them on other dogs in the parks and set them after rabbits and squirrels in the cemetery near me.
These dogs are being ruined, badly trained to be of a nasty temperament. I’m not sure what we should do about this, our local paper, as mentioned by the other scouser, is holding a campaign to try to do something about the behaviour of the owners of these dogs. Once a dog has the instinct to kill another animal they really cannot be re-homed, so how do we go about stopping the ‘yob’ type of dog owner buying these animals? I think there should be compulsory ID chipping and a dog license for every dog. I think that any dog without a license should be taken away from the owner, I also think that on a dog license there should be ‘named people’ who will take that dog out in public and they should be over a certain age for the particular breeds. The dog should be taken away if the person walking that dog is not one of the people listed on the license. Something has to be done to stop these nasty people owning a dog for the reason of intimidation and baiting. I’m sure this isn’t just a Liverpool thing, I’m sure it happens in many inner cities.
I have a lot of children and work outside the home but one day I hope to be able to offer a home to a rescue dog, but hand on heart, I don’t think I could ever trust a pre-owned Staffy or bull terrior.
H McAloon
Hi Poppy, I read you article "Breed Specific Legislation" on the dogstrust website, and i have been against them for years now. My opinions are: Just Because one dog has attacked a peron, that doesnt mean that the whole breed is "dangerous".
A Labrador can bite, but they aren't a banned breed are they? All dogs can bite, not just Pittbull's, Rottwiellers or Dobermans. We all need to stop BSL before another breed is considered "Dangerous". I actually consider BSL as bad as racism, it is like they are banning a dog because THEY think they are lower than themselves. I have stated my view on message boards ect. And alot of people disagree with BSL.
Thankyou for reading this, Love Tammi xxx
I couldnt agree more.
Basically, I think the Breed legislation banning certain dogs for their looks and breeds, is obsurd. I know about 8 American Pitbull Terriers, they are the nicest dogs i know. Have been brought up around children and socialised by decent owners.
The UK government seem obsessed with banning anything that goes wrong, there are other solutions. I am such a ranter when it comes to anything with animal cruelty or just being treated unfairly. Its discrimination of 'mans best friend' but then some 'man' destroy these dogs, thats why they have such a bad reputation of fighting, killing etc. To be honest, the laws might as well be racist, because they are discriminating because of how something looks or what it's like..
I totally think punish the breed not the breed.
Also.
I actually just got an American pitbull puppy, Just waiting until its about 8 weeks, old enough to leave the parents. The parents of the dog, ive known for a long time and trust them. They are both wonderful dogs with other animals, humans, children and in every situation imaginable. I cant wait to get my dog. However, if i neuter it, micro-chip it, get insurance, leash and muzzle in public i've read that they cant really do anything to stop me. I will put up such a fight, especially if my dog hasn't done anything wrong. Actually i cant stand it when anything happens to innocent dogs.
Since i was 10. Im now 17, Ive dreamt of working with the police, government, dog rehoming, RSPCA, breeders and owners, towards saving these beautiful dogs. I want to set up a rehabilitation for ''Dangerous Dogs'' So if police or anyone take or can't handle a potentially dangerous dog, I can assess it, and try to help. Retrain and give the dog the care they need, rehome them to respectable and experienced dog owners. Who knows, in 10years there could be many of what i create all over the UK, bringing a change to the restrictions. Another thing i get so passionate about is when dogs have been bred to fight, they're injured but can easily be treated, and they are destroyed because of them fighting. One pitbull i know was a fighter in london from 3 months old to 2 years. My friend rescued him, gave him TLC and training, however the dog was a bit uneasy to the lifestyle at first, didn't understand everything and how things worked. Now i am very happy to say, 2 years on, he is exactly the same as the other pitbulls i know. Thats also why im so strong in my beliefs. I am so desperate to do this, but i dont know where to start!
Anyway. Change needs to happen, petitions, letters etc. I know people who would gladly sign anything like that. But before any more innocent dogs are destroyed by irrational and pathetic people who think they are helping, but are really not.
Thanks for your time.
My email is x-gawjus-minxy-x@hotmail.co.uk I would be grateful for any replies.
