Pit bull terriers

krlyr

con1888 wrote: »

I understand these are illegal in the UK but can be lawfully owned with a license.

Getting a license isn't that easy though - you were able to apply if you had a Pitbull when the ban came into effect but the register was closed, I think back in 1993. Nowadays you can only apply to go on the register if you admit you have a banned breed and let it go to court - where the courts may decide that the dog is to be euthanised. You have to prove that it's not a danger to the public - which I imagine is a hard one to prove, especially giving the recent cases like Lennox where the dogs were intensively tested by behaviourists etc. and had fab bite inhibition even when pushed over their threshold, yet still deemed to be a danger and ordered to be euthanised. I'm not sure I would be in a hurry to voluntary hand that decision to a judge if I had a Pitbull!

Jay_Tee wrote: »

They do have a bad press, but when you look at the US dog fatalities statistics Pit bulls (which are a lot more common there) do feature in a high percentage of the attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

The problem with statistics is that they're obviously going to be skewed by the fact that the Pitbull is the dog of choice by many for dog fighting - these dogs are encouraged to show aggression by people who want the dog for the status. It's like saying that there are more crashes amongst younger people in cars like the Ford Focus, or a Golf or something. Are these cars more unsafe than other cars, or are they more popular to the kind of person who will drive them unsafely?

vax2002 wrote: »

They are a dog bred for one purpose, to attack and kill other dogs.

Hint is in the name, Pit bull terrier. Bull breeds were bred for bull baiting, and when this "sport" was banned, they were used for dog fighting and in pits, e.g. ratting. They were actually shaped to have a good temperament in terms of not showing aggression to humans - it was important that a dog with the strength and tenacity of a Pit bull was obedient to its owner. Being used for protection, as well as hunting and driving livestock, they needed to be easily trained to respond to humans.
Unfortunately, many unsavoury characters have bred the breed indisciminately and the temperament in many lines has suffered - but this could have happened to any breed.
In a way, yes, they are one of the more dangerous dogs, due to their strength and the poor breeding as mentioned, but I don't think a breed ban is the way forward. We are still seeing the breed around despite the ban - and often being hidden away for fear of being seized, so missing out on vital socialisation that would actually help their temperament. Many of the dog attacks we hear about turn out to be dogs that have been shut in a shed or back room, and then put in a situation with no escape, often with a relative that they're not entirely used to.
I definately agree with "deed not breed" - people need to realise that any dog has the potential to bite, they are living animals not robots, and we cannot predict their every move. Encourage better socialisation, educate people on the importance of avoiding BYBs and puppyfarms that do not concentrate on selecting a good temperament in their dogs, and also teach people to have a healthy respect for dogs. The amount of times a kid has just run over to one of my dogs, with no parent in sight/paying attention, I've lost count - and I own a Rottweiler cross and a GSD! Fortunately both fantastic with people, but if a child was to run over and pull my dog's fur/ears or jump on it, and my dog was to give a warning grumble because of the pain, I bet the parents would be quick to blame me for having a "dangerous" dog, rather than consider that their child was the one out of control. Dogs are living things, not toys to be played with, bought on a whim or given away when they're no longer a novelty, I think a healthier attitude towards the responsibilities that dog ownership brings about, and to sharing our world with dogs, would go a long way, more than a breed ban.

dawnie1972

I have not watched this programme yet but recorded it as need to be in the right mindset to watch it however this is a subject I feel very strongly about. My situation : I have an 8.5yr old staffi x lab, 30kgs, was in the pound aged just 8 weeks old and had been beaten and abused by men, I rehomed him and have had him ever since. During his time with me he has been attacked by other dogs 3 times - on all occasions he was on lead the other dogs werent - he never retaliated. He has never bitten or harmed a human or dog. A "family friend" who works for the police met him for the first time last year and his first comment was "he's a pitbull"!! I was furious. I take my ownership of him very responsibly, I ensure that if we are in a situation where we meet other dogs or humans he is on lead. I would like to see the license brought back but it has to be properly managed, and not be another Microchip situation whereby details arent updated etc etc, it would have to be checked and renewed annually. Whilst I agree most of the bad dog problems are owner related I cannot change what my dog thinks/feels or is in his head, I can only help him by working with him and understanding his issues.

Jay_Tee

krlyr wrote: »

The problem with statistics is that they're obviously going to be skewed by the fact that the Pitbull is the dog of choice by many for dog fighting - these dogs are encouraged to show aggression by people who want the dog for the status. It's like saying that there are more crashes amongst younger people in cars like the Ford Focus, or a Golf or something. Are these cars more unsafe than other cars, or are they more popular to the kind of person who will drive them unsafely?

I accept what you're saying, but your car example doesn't really stack up, if Focus or Golf cars are involved in more crashes the insurance premiums for young people will reflect this.

The problem is that the people attracted to Pit Bulls have little to prevent them obtaining one, it's not like a car where other factors come into play.

The idea proposed by someone else for Dog Licences on the surface seems sound, but in reality people who have the banned dog breeds are hardly likely to worry about dog licences.

Why is there a need for Pit Bull Terriers in this country? It's not a British breed, it was bred for a purpose that no longer exists, we have a similar (but much nicer breed the Staffie) and it's a breed along with the Staffie which far too often is to be found in rescue.

My feeling is that sentencing for out of control dogs ought to be far more draconian, and as a dog owner I should be fully responsible for the actions of my dog.

krlyr

Jay_Tee wrote: »

I accept what you're saying, but your car example doesn't really stack up, if Focus or Golf cars are involved in more crashes the insurance premiums for young people will reflect this.

The problem is that the people attracted to Pit Bulls have little to prevent them obtaining one, it's not like a car where other factors come into play.

In this vein, you could say that car insurance isn't really going to stop those acting illegally anyway. Anyway, it wasn't meant to be an identical example but just to show that the statistics do not prove that Pitbulls are a dangerous breed - I agree that they can be dangerous in the wrong hands but so can a pair of scissors or a baseball base, but we do not ban those items entirely.

Jay_Tee wrote: »

The idea proposed by someone else for Dog Licences on the surface seems sound, but in reality people who have the banned dog breeds are hardly likely to worry about dog licences.

True, and I have mixed views on the idea of dog licenses, it will most likely penalise the responsible owners and have no effect on the irresponsible ones. But you could argue the same about many systems - car tax, for example. Should we scrap the idea because many people drive without tax? Plenty of people drive without a car license or insurance too, but we don't just say "well, what's the point if you can't enforce it 100%". Dog licensing could work, but I would worry that it could become a slippery slide. But perhaps it's something we have to accept in return for owning pets - they are a luxury for most rather than a necessity, and I pay up tax and insurance on my car, as well as having gotten a driving license, to have the luxury of using that.

Jay_Tee wrote: »

Why is there a need for Pit Bull Terriers in this country? It's not a British breed, it was bred for a purpose that no longer exists, we have a similar (but much nicer breed the Staffie) and it's a breed along with the Staffie which far too often is to be found in rescue.

Why the need for the Border Collie in urban households? For GSDs or Rottweilers when you have no flock to guard? Newfoundlands if you're not a fisherman? Why not just reduce the dog species to one "nice" breed, e.g. the Labrador? Different people prefer the looks and temperament of different breeds, why should they be punished for that because of idiotic owners? Going back to the cars - I drive a Ford Focus myself, the size of it suited me perfectly, family have found them to be reliable, and it's got enough power without being overly powerful for me. Doesn't make me a "girl racer" who donuts it in carparks at the weekends.
Anyway, you get rid of the Pitbull and it doesn't get rid of the idiots that dog fight. They'll move on to the next breed - like the Staffie is often used as a status dog or for fighting, despite being a "nicer" breed. Then it'll be Mastiffs, Boxers, Bulldogs, EBTs, etc. - or they'll forgoe the "tough" look for the size and it'll be the Rottie, the GSD, the Dobermann, etc. Get rid of Ford Focuses and Golfs and you don't eradicate boy racer drivers, they just go and buy a similar car and make that the "cool" thing.

Jay_Tee wrote: »

My feeling is that sentencing for out of control dogs ought to be far more draconian, and as a dog owner I should be fully responsible for the actions of my dog.

Exactly - out of control dogs, not a particular breed that may or may not be out of control. I've met lovely Staffies, I've met some with issues. Ditto with GSDs, Rottweilers, Labradors, JRTs, I've even been bitten by a Dachshund! I've yet to meet a Pitbull, but I believe that there are many nice ones - especially in countries where they are legal, I've seen many on pet forums belonging to members in the USA etc. who have well-trained Pitbulls who are fantastic with other dogs and people, we're just less likely to see them here because they're banned and the people that do have them either have them for status (so encourage the bad behaviour) or fear for their dog being seized and don't advertise the fact that they own them (even if they're the best behaved, most friendly dogs you could meet)

Youdontseeme

There must be a way somehow to link up licenses and insurance with microchipping and make it law? (I am not claiming to know how this would work in reality!!) I also think it should cost a lot more than £20 perhaps with a discount for OAPs.

Any dog found unchipped would be removed from owner and while I admit it is not an ideal situation the dog rehomed or destroyed (Yes I know I will get stick for that but I cant think of another way?!)

The idea of making owners do a course of some kind in an ideal world is great but how much would it cost, how would you inforce it? What about the people who have had dogs their whole lives with no issues do you have to do it with every dog you ever own? etc..

Im not a fan of bull breeds mainly as they aren't "my" kind of dog and I find them on the whole rather ugly looking but that prgram last night left me in tears.

Perhaps first we need more legislation about who is allowed to have children then the dog problem would greatly be reduced naturally!

YDSM

con1888

Caroline_a wrote: »

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.

Was she the one who was banned from having animals and it was her sons dog but he was being really uncooperative?

I feel so sorry for the poor dogs.

con1888

To the legality of owning them, the person I know who has one had to declare that it is a pure bred pit bull, it had to be neutered (it's a female) I assume it went to court as they have to hold a license and the dog was given a tatoo to say it is licensed. It's such a gentle dog, it's 3 years old and still a big puppy.

I can see why people would want to own them, she is a beautiful dog. He didn't go in search to get one, he was in a house ( friend of a friend I guess) and the pups were only a few weeks old and he fell in love with it, asked his parents who said no at first but eventually said okay. The dog is a family dog, kept in the house although it does have a kennel in garden that it wont use, it gets frequent exercise and is fine around children (probably wouldn't leave it unsupervised around small kids but same can be said about a yorkie).
It really is down to the owners.

Jay_Tee

krlyr wrote: »

In this vein, you could say that car insurance isn't really going to stop those acting illegally anyway. Anyway, it wasn't meant to be an identical example but just to show that the statistics do not prove that Pitbulls are a dangerous breed - I agree that they can be dangerous in the wrong hands but so can a pair of scissors or a baseball base, but we do not ban those items entirely.

Yet if you go out into a public place with those items the Police can charge you with carrying an offensive weapon so I don't accept that your argument hold water in this instance. I feel that a Pit Bull can be seen in that way, especially as there are reports of them being used in muggings.

krlyr wrote: »

True, and I have mixed views on the idea of dog licenses, it will most likely penalise the responsible owners and have no effect on the irresponsible ones. But you could argue the same about many systems - car tax, for example. Should we scrap the idea because many people drive without tax? Plenty of people drive without a car license or insurance too, but we don't just say "well, what's the point if you can't enforce it 100%". Dog licensing could work, but I would worry that it could become a slippery slide. But perhaps it's something we have to accept in return for owning pets - they are a luxury for most rather than a necessity, and I pay up tax and insurance on my car, as well as having gotten a driving license, to have the luxury of using that.

Car Tax/insurance is much easier to police than a dog licence would be, and would the Police be prepared to put as much time and effort in as they do with vehicles I doubt it.

krlyr wrote: »

Why the need for the Border Collie in urban households? For GSDs or Rottweilers when you have no flock to guard? Newfoundlands if you're not a fisherman? Why not just reduce the dog species to one "nice" breed, e.g. the Labrador? Different people prefer the looks and temperament of different breeds, why should they be punished for that because of idiotic owners? Going back to the cars - I drive a Ford Focus myself, the size of it suited me perfectly, family have found them to be reliable, and it's got enough power without being overly powerful for me. Doesn't make me a "girl racer" who donuts it in carparks at the weekends.

Have the breeds you mention have a particular issue like Pit Bulls have with unsuitable owners? Do you feel they should be banned? I have only commented on one breed, one that is presently illegal in this (and many other countries) a breed responsible for 53% (18 deaths) of dog bite deaths in the US in 2010 (I suspect that rather less than 53% of dogs in the US are Pit Bulls).

I like a huge number of dog breeds not just one, how does banning four breeds of dog punish genuine dog lovers?

krlyr wrote: »

Exactly - out of control dogs, not a particular breed that may or may not be out of control. I've met lovely Staffies, I've met some with issues. Ditto with GSDs, Rottweilers, Labradors, JRTs, I've even been bitten by a Dachshund! I've yet to meet a Pitbull, but I believe that there are many nice ones - especially in countries where they are legal, I've seen many on pet forums belonging to members in the USA etc. who have well-trained Pitbulls who are fantastic with other dogs and people, we're just less likely to see them here because they're banned and the people that do have them either have them for status (so encourage the bad behaviour) or fear for their dog being seized and don't advertise the fact that they own them (even if they're the best behaved, most friendly dogs you could meet)

I've had similar experiences with the breeds you mention.

However I cannot see that people who buy dogs as a status symbol or hide what they know as an illegal breed are people who we should relax the law for.

I can see the difficulties caused by the issue that it's very difficult to determine if a particular dog is a Pit Bull and this has resulted in the siezure and probably the destruction of dogs that weren't Pit Bulls, which is why I don't support the Dangerous Dogs Act.

con1888

Jay_Tee wrote: »

Yet if you go out into a public place with





Have the breeds you mention have a particular issue like Pit Bulls have with unsuitable owners? Do you feel they should be banned? I have only commented on one breed, one that is presently illegal in this (and many other countries) a breed responsible for 53% (18 deaths) of dog bite deaths in the US in 2010 (I suspect that rather less than 53% of dogs in the US are Pit Bulls).

Can I just say, the link about the dog deaths in the US isn't really great to go by as it states it is deaths reported by the media. The media are hot to report these types of dog killings as 'Pit Bull kills child' is more favourable than ' Labrador kills child'. I'm not saying these dogs don't account for more killings than other dogs (again down to how these dogs are kept) but we have to remember that the press seem to latch on to these dogs killings.

krlyr

con1888 wrote: »

Can I just say, the link about the dog deaths in the US isn't really great to go by as it states it is deaths reported by the media. The media are hot to report these types of dog killings as 'Pit Bull kills child' is more favourable than ' Labrador kills child'. I'm not saying these dogs don't account for more killings than other dogs (again down to how these dogs are kept) but we have to remember that the press seem to latch on to these dogs killings.

Good point if that's the case. I know of someone on another forum who posted up an article about two "Bull breed type" (as stated by several newspapers) dogs that had attacked an elderly woman's dog in the park. Someone on the thread was actually from the town it happened in and pointed out that it was actually two Huskies - not exactly similar looking breeds.

Also interesting to see that the Wikipedia page lists the breed as "Pit bull-type", not APBT. What makes a dog a Pit bull "type" - can it all be pinned on the Pit bull as a breed, how many of these "types" even have Pit bull in them, can that be guaranteed? The seizure of many crossbreeds in the UK goes to show how hard it is to prove what breed/cross a dog actually is, by teams put together for that very purpose - how much effort will a newspaper put into correctly identifying a dog's breed? There are no other bull breeds listed in there - so are the other bull breeds being lumped together as "pit bull-type" and giving a false representation? How many of them are going to be Staffies, EBTs, and other bull breeds?