Identify these 2 breeds, both on the banned list!

Paradigm

No cheating






In all the years of keeping dogs I've never seen either in the flesh & must always have been rarer than rocking horse poo....yet they are banned. Why?

jenhug

Top, Fila Brasileiro
bottom, dogo argentino.

jenhug

They must be banned for a reason, perhaps they were used for underground fighting?

Paradigm

jenhug wrote: »

Top, Fila Brasileiro
bottom, dogo argentino.

Yep

jenhug wrote: »

They must be banned for a reason, perhaps they were used for underground fighting?

They were included in the Dangerous dogs act (1991) in a kneejerk reaction by the Government at the same time they banned Pitbulls but, as there were so few in the country & none have ever caused a problem, I don't know if that's a reason or not?

As far as I'm aware the DDA was introduced to protect the public, not to combat dog fighting!

jenhug

Well I can't say I know the reasons.
I have 2 Mastiffs myself. Lovely dogs but seem to be feared by many.

tandraig

er - i thought the top two were great danes crossed with greyhounds! which to my mind would end up with soppy dogs who can move faster!
the bottom one - bit more difficult - it looks sort of english bull terrier crossed with staffy crossed with ???? and may be a bit feisty?

tbh - dont usualy judge a dog by its breed - there are nice pit bulls and nasty golden retrievers! its just a guide as to dogs possible temperament isnt it?

MrsTinks

Let's be fair... the DDA was created as a reaction to people who had bought certain dogs for the wrong reasons... not because the breed is dangerous, but because people are stupid and got them for the wrong reasons and MADE individual dogs dangerous
Bring in DOA I say (Dangerous Owners Act) :rotfl: let's ban those... much more sensible

Indie_Kid

tandraig wrote: »

the bottom one - bit more difficult - it looks sort of english bull terrier crossed with staffy crossed with ???? and may be a bit feisty?

My first thought was a bull terrier too.

gill5blue

Hi
They are banned because they are extremely family protective-even judges at show dog shows are allowed to touch them. Anymore informtion, look up the kennel club and it will tell you,
gill5blue

Paradigm

gill5blue wrote: »

Hi
They are banned because they are extremely family protective-gill5blue

The same can be said for many dogs, certainly all Mastiff breeds are protective to a greater or lesser degree.

The thing with the DDA is that it was hastily drawn up & implemented in response to media hysteria with no real thought.

Going back a few years you couldn't open a paper without reading about a German Shepherd attack. Then it moved on to Rotties (remember the "Devil dog" headlines) yet neither of these are banned! Imagine the public outcry if they had been!
Instead the Govenment picked three obscure breeds (Fila, Dogo & Tosa), of which there can't have been more than a handful in the UK at the time & no record of any attacks that I can find!

To my mind the DDA was a limp wristed public relations exercise that has actually done nothing to solve the problem of the wrong people owning dogs... it was an oppertunity missed.

MrsTine wrote: »

Let's be fair... the DDA was created as a reaction to people who had bought certain dogs for the wrong reasons... not because the breed is dangerous, but because people are stupid and got them for the wrong reasons and MADE individual dogs dangerous
Bring in DOA I say (Dangerous Owners Act) :rotfl: let's ban those... much more sensible

& that's exactly right.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

I believe they were banned because the Daily Mail et al demanded it, and the people charged with the task decided they were more dangerous, possibly because of their bite strength and their instincts to 'lock on'?

The most aggressive dogs in my experience, towards people/children/other animals, have been small terriers. I don't know whether this is because they have a naturally nasty temperament or because idiot owners think that little dogs are funny when they snap. However, whilst they have been more aggressive, they don't tend to do as much damage as the larger dogs when they lose it - more scarring for life rather than being killed.

So I understand the logic. I just don't agree that this is necessarily the right course of action.