Pit bull terriers

Sagz_2

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf

Have a look at page 14,

I think the biggest problem is that the law focuses on the breed, and not the deed.... as poor Tyson found out in the tv prog last night.

Croatoan

I've always thought everyone should need have to have a dog licence and it should be strictly enforced. You are seen with a dog you have to have a licence on you or produce it a police station within a week. I'd set the price of a licence at £500 - which I understand would mean many people couldn't afford a dog (though £500 isn't that much compared to say a holiday and most people manage to get away once a year, you save up for it, a dog should be something special). It would cut down on bad owners, and especially impulse buyers, puppy farming, BYBs and the number of dogs. Perhaps a discount could be made for pensioners and those who take on rescue dogs. Draconian certainly, but for me it's just too easy to get a dog and many people simply don't think twice about it.

D&DD

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

Seeing as the Shar Pei was originally bred as a fighting dog, and the folds were encouraged as it made severe wounding from bites less likely, are you sure about this?

One lived round the corner from me when I was in a council flat. Definitely an idiot - she bred full SPs for the money and crossed with Bull types for the 'other' market. Mid to late 1990s, and I think it was also to increase the incidence of 'blues' in the 'other' market.

The folds were so they could still be able to turn round and bite when something had hold of their neck.
I do agree as I said in the wrong hands they can be a scary breed..I am worried for just that reason that they are being bred everywhere now.They could well be next on the list.

Sorry don't want to go off topic
We currently have pits being bred on here it's just getting out of control everywhere sadly.

Jay_Tee

D&#8517 wrote: »

http://www.doggroups.com/community/banned-dogs-in-germany/

Is this a legit site where the list came from Jaytee,just asking as it lists golden retrievers too
and hairless dogs???

Blimey if they bring in these rules my park will be deserted :rotfl:

Several sites gave that list, I think it's fairly legitimate. The dogs in the second group have to have temperament tests rather than completely banned.

Person_one

Croatoan wrote: »

I've always thought everyone should need have to have a dog licence and it should be strictly enforced. You are seen with a dog you have to have a licence on you or produce it a police station within a week. I'd set the price of a licence at £500 - which I understand would mean many people couldn't afford a dog (though £500 isn't that much compared to say a holiday and most people manage to get away once a year, you save up for it, a dog should be something special). It would cut down on bad owners, and especially impulse buyers, puppy farming, BYBs and the number of dogs. Perhaps a discount could be made for pensioners and those who take on rescue dogs. Draconian certainly, but for me it's just too easy to get a dog and many people simply don't think twice about it.

Being able to get £500 together does not make you better or more responsible than someone who can't. Plenty of the idiots who train their dogs to be aggressive make that kind of money easily through illegal means.

Dog ownership shouldn't be out of reach for those of us who are less well off.

faerie~spangles

Just watched the prog'. OMG that woman who owned Tyson was an abomination.

I'm glad he was put to sleep better that than left to suffer a life of abuse and misery from those terrible terrible people.


I'm also deeply saddened he couldn't be rehomed into a loving forever home.

con1888

I wanted him to be rehomed, he was a beautiful dog. I wish I had a big house with lots of land as I would just rehome as many animals as I possibly could.

Croatoan

Person_one wrote: »

Being able to get £500 together does not make you better or more responsible than someone who can't. Plenty of the idiots who train their dogs to be aggressive make that kind of money easily through illegal means.

Dog ownership shouldn't be out of reach for those of us who are less well off.

It would cut down on impulse buyers thereby cutting down on the amount of dogs provided by BYBs. If someone really wants a dog and can't afford one right now, then they'll save for one and at least have time to think about what they're doing. As things stand anyone can spend less than a hundred pounds and have a puppy - or just get one for free without any thought being put in about how they will provide for the dog. Plenty of the idiots who train their dogs to be aggressive, or don't train their dogs at all, would not have a dog if something as simple as a licence was brought in.
If one could not save £500, and I believe most people would be able to save £500 if they really want a dog, then it's arguable whether they could, or would, afford insurance, vet's bills and all the other costs involved with owning a dog. Of course some good owners would decide against owning a dog, but many more bad owners will do without, and that's a good thing.

Jay_Tee

Croatoan wrote: »

It would cut down on impulse buyers thereby cutting down on the amount of dogs provided by BYBs. If someone really wants a dog and can't afford one right now, then they'll save for one and at least have time to think about what they're doing. As things stand anyone can spend less than a hundred pounds and have a puppy - or just get one for free without any thought being put in about how they will provide for the dog. Plenty of the idiots who train their dogs to be aggressive, or don't train their dogs at all, would not have a dog if something as simple as a licence was brought in.
If one could not save £500, and I believe most people would be able to save £500 if they really want a dog, then it's arguable whether they could, or would, afford insurance, vet's bills and all the other costs involved with owning a dog. Of course some good owners would decide against owning a dog, but many more bad owners will do without, and that's a good thing.

A dog licence is a annual thing so it'll be £500 a year not an insignificant sum.

My little dog was £750, I already pay £250 a year in pet insurance plus food and all the things that aren't covered by insurance, inoculations flea and worm treatment. Plus we go to two obedience clubs a week, another cost of £500 a year would make it difficult financially for me (I'm retired) and how would that be a good thing?

Plus the owners that you're trying to target would just not bother.

I think your proposals would make thing a lot worse, with a huge increase in dogs in rescue.

Person_one

Croatoan wrote: »

It would cut down on impulse buyers thereby cutting down on the amount of dogs provided by BYBs. If someone really wants a dog and can't afford one right now, then they'll save for one and at least have time to think about what they're doing. As things stand anyone can spend less than a hundred pounds and have a puppy - or just get one for free without any thought being put in about how they will provide for the dog. Plenty of the idiots who train their dogs to be aggressive, or don't train their dogs at all, would not have a dog if something as simple as a licence was brought in.
If one could not save £500, and I believe most people would be able to save £500 if they really want a dog, then it's arguable whether they could, or would, afford insurance, vet's bills and all the other costs involved with owning a dog. Of course some good owners would decide against owning a dog, but many more bad owners will do without, and that's a good thing.

No, sorry. Having money is no indicator of character or responsibility at all.

Insurance and food etc. are small monthly costs that can be budgeted for even on a very low salary. £500 is more than half my monthly wage, but I can still afford to look after my dogs properly thank you very much!