Pit bull terriers

con1888

The dog which bit my hand wasn't put down, we didn't report it I just knew to keep away after that. I tend to dislike small dogs now so maybe that's why- I would never ever be cruel to them and I think some are cute but I wouldn't want to own a smaller dog.

We had a GSD taken away when I was younger (about 3 so I can't remember much) she was a big gentle giant but a little boy who was a bit older than my brother was hitting my brother and the dog bit the other boy, it didn't do any harm, he didn't need any stitches or that but it was reported and taken away. They didn't put her down as she was only about 6months old, they took her to be a forces dog, we did get to visit her for a while and then she was relocated to England so I guess it's not the worst outcome, she could have been put down like many dogs are.

GonzoAston

con1888 wrote: »

The dog which bit my hand wasn't put down, we didn't report it I just knew to keep away after that. I tend to dislike small dogs now so maybe that's why- I would never ever be cruel to them and I think some are cute but I wouldn't want to own a smaller dog.

We didnt report it either. It was my Uncles (well, my grandads brothers dog). They made the decission to have him put down. I think something to do with he had done something before or just after too.

Gingham_R

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

Basically, bad press looking for a breed or two to blame attacks on and a government ruled by what the papers decided was the suitable moral outrage for the season.

This.

Knee jerk reaction from a government kowtowing to the press.

The law around 'dangerous' dogs hasn't reduced the incidence of dog attacks.

There are too many irresponsible people with badly trained or frightened dogs that are a danger to others. This has nothing to do with breed, but obviously the stronger the dog the more risk to the public.

My answer would be to stop nutters owning dogs and put breed legislation in the bin where it belongs.

ben501

I'm not expert but since the act has been in place for over 20 years and it seems to be illegal to breed them or buy/sell/exchange them then anyone in possession of one must have broken the law to obtain it. Or they've got a very old dog.

Since the dogs aren't being controlled can't we at least castrate the owners to keep them under control.

Caroline_a

ben501 wrote: »

Since the dogs aren't being controlled can't we at least castrate the owners to keep them under control.

Excellent idea!

However, the programme last night was upsetting, I stopped watching it halfway through because I struggled with a lot of the concepts. Particularly the one that said 'pit bulls bite without warning'. No they don't, you just don't know how to spot it. A friend of mine who was a groomer some years ago said that in her experience Westies were the most vicious dogs and would bite with very little warning. Can't see them being on the Dangerous Dogs list.

Isn't it so much more about the owners, why can't the powers that be see that? That poor woman who lived in that tower block wasn't capable of taking care of any dog - she could barely look after herself.

Kinski

I watched the programme last night and my heart was breaking for these poor dogs especially Tyson the pit pup, it's a farce that these dogs are banned. These poor dogs on the programme were terrified at being pulled about by strangers and being taken away from they're family's, if the police came barging into here they would have a hellava fight on their hands trying to control my sheltie. Interestingly Trevor Cooper was interviewed for the show but it wasn't shown, anyone think he was the voice of reason which the B.B.C. obviously weren't interested in, Beverly Cuddy also has something about it on her cold wet nose blog http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/2012/01/wheres-my-muzzle.html

Jay_Tee

Person_one wrote: »

The banning of pitbulls hasn't stopped these owners acquiring powerful dogs that aren't pitbulls.

Sorry, but its a completely nonsensical approach.

Where have I said anything about banning them?

You seem to be taking a very defensive politicians approach of answering questions that don't appear in my posts.

So far all I've said is that there is a problem, and I agree it's one that the Dangerous Dogs Act is spectacularly failing to address but the combination of unsuitable owners and powerful dogs is a problem, and one that shouldn't be ignored.

So I would be interested to know what your solution to the problem is?

vax2002

They are a dog bred for one purpose, to attack and kill other dogs.
My advice is if you buy a pitbull, make damned sure you can fight as well as the dog.
Real hard men dont need hard dogs......

Sezzler

what program was this ?

I can understand that how a dog is raised will have the biggest impact on its temperament, but surely the genetics of certain breeds will make them more likely to be aggressive ? After all dogs were bred and the breed refined in order to achieve desirable traits - either physical or temperament wise.

budgetboo

Why did they get rid of the old dog licence system? Me thinks bringing it back would solve so many problems.

Cost - no more than £20 per year per dog to avoid penalising pensioners/disabled for whom their gentle toy breed is often their ONLY companion.

To get a licence

1/ ALL dogs should attend a basic training class within the 1st year of ownership and when a dog changes hands throughout it's life (to cover adult rehoming).
Sample Course contents:-
Owners should be made aware of their legal obligations e.g if if your dog damages someone else or their property YOU are legally responsible.
Dog should come to heel when called by the end of the course, as you the owner are responsible for their behavior in public/aroudn kids etc.
Dog owners should pick up poop!
Basc understanding should be shown of the specific issues to do with that owners specific breed (ALL breeds have their foibles whether it be an extra strong jaw, speed, yapping etc, hip problems etc).

For 1st time owners a 12 week course should cover the BASICS, and for experenced owners a 3- 6 week refresher on a saturday morning won't kill em. So many dangerous dogs belong to owners who are unaware of the simplest training/ownership requirements. At the end of the course the trainer should make available info on more advanced courses such as agility, managing large breeds etc but advanced courses should be at the discretion of the owner to avoid the usual overkill nanny state stuff.

2/ Proof of 3rd party legal insurance should be shown to get an annual licence. This would cover the vets bills of those dogs attacked in the park. The law allows for this but is not currently enforced.

Currently dog owners are not held accountable until a human is seriously injured - the baliffs knocking to cover the vets bills of the injuries to next doors cat would in many cases wake up irresponsible owners.

3/ Proof of microchipping for dog - so the owners can be immediately traced when an attack or damage to property does occur.

Dogs shown to have poor temperments should have their kennel club registration removed - this would help improve ALL breeds of dogs over time. Dogs in the UK have to cope with people, we are too densley populated to guarantee toal isolation of any animal. At the moment breeding is mostly done for looks. I'm suggesting this only for dogs KNOWN to have attacked people/pets or that scare the local vet. I'm not suggesting a nanny state "test".

Apart from the cost of the initial training course, £20 a year would more than cover the cost of a non-profit database and a small processing fee to the post office, given the number of dogs in the UK.