# Should pitbulls be banned?



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Or should they be allowed?

We all know the DDA is a useless piece of legislation but should pits be allowed?

Your thoughts..


----------



## Jugsmalone (Apr 11, 2011)

Yes they should be allowed. I don't see why any dog should be banned. All dogs have teeth and can bite.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

I am possibly going to get flamed for this but...

I think they should stay banned.

Not because of the breed being bad, but because chavs will overbreed and ruin the breed like they have with staffies. More dogs will be put to sleep, more people injured because idiots get hold of these lovely dogs and train them to attack.

I love all dogs and would love nothing more than to see the pit in the UK as they are very nice but it will become the same issue we have with staff's.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

I deal with dangerous dogs in my line of work and also vets/expert witnesses on the subject. 

One of the expert witnesses who deals with both sides of the argument said that the trouble with pittbulls is they can turn for no reason. This is not something other breeds suffer with. But Aparently pits do. 

I don't think we should be allowed to have them. People are just not responsible enough and get them for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

DEED NOT BREED

a dog is only as dangerous as its handler allows it to be


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

I think the ban should be lifted, banning them hasn't stopped them being bred, or attempting to crossbreed dogs to create dogs of a similar 'type' & it certainly hasn't stopped people being bitten. I also think there's an element of 'glamour' in their being illegal, which appeals to all the wrong types of people


----------



## Mophie (Sep 20, 2011)

I say no they shouldn't be banned however I do think if they were made legal something would need to be done similar to a license.

I would actually give my right arm to own a pit, but in a bid to try and prevent idiots getting them other laws and restrictions would HAVE to be implemented.


----------



## Quinzell (Mar 14, 2011)

I think most pitt bull type owners should be banned!

I would say that most of the dogs labeled as "pitt bulls" are incorrectly labeled. Often its more newsworthy to label a dog as a "hated" breed to drum up more emotion.

My honest opinion is yes, keep pitts as being banned but my reason isn't because I think they are the most dangerous. My reason is because they are a dog that will always be owned by the wrong people. They are a dog that now has a huge stigma attached to them. They are a dog that someone will always hate and want to destroy.

There are too many dogs sitting in detention centres around the country waiting for a decision to be made as to whether they should be destroyed or not. There would just be so many people waiting for the right moment to cease a pitt bull and prove that the initial ruling to ban them was a correct one.


----------



## 2Hounds (Jun 24, 2009)

I don't think banning has worked so i think all breeds should be allowed and we should look at other measures to control irresponsible owners instead.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

I think breed specific legislation should be scrapped although I think legislation on breeding should be introduced beforehand, something along the lines of all breeders required to have a licence and have to meet minimum welfare standards like those the KC's ABS requires so there isn't an explosion of badly bred APBTs when they become the latest 'status dog'.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

goodvic2 said:


> I deal with dangerous dogs in my line of work and also vets/expert witnesses on the subject.
> 
> One of the expert witnesses who deals with both sides of the argument said that the trouble with pittbulls is *they can turn for no reason*. This is not something other breeds suffer with. But Aparently pits do.
> 
> I don't think we should be allowed to have them. People are just not responsible enough and get them for the wrong reasons.


Really? Is that just not another myth like with rotties and dobes?


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

There is a reason why they are banned, it wouldn't have been done if it wasn't necessary. 
I agree that its more 'deed than breed' but in the wrong hands they are very dangerous - for that reason I believe they should stay banned. 

I think a better option would be to make it harder for people to get dogs so that would iron out the chavs....... hopefully or maybe not!


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

goodvic2 said:


> I deal with dangerous dogs in my line of work and also vets/expert witnesses on the subject.
> 
> *One of the expert witnesses who deals with both sides of the argument said that the trouble with pittbulls is they can turn for no reason. This is not something other breeds suffer with. But Aparently pits do. *
> 
> I don't think we should be allowed to have them. People are just not responsible enough and get them for the wrong reasons.


In that case, i would question the knowledge/intelligence of this so called "expert".

Never heard such rubbish in my life.

Banning an animal, labelling it dangerous, based purely on how it looks, rather than how it's bred, kept, socialised, trained etc, seems utterly ludicrous to me and always has done.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

dandogman said:


> There is a reason why they are banned, it wouldn't have been done if it wasn't necessary.
> I agree that its more 'deed than breed' but *in the wrong hands they are very dangerous* - for that reason I believe they should stay banned.
> 
> I think a better option would be to make it harder for people to get dogs so that would iron out the chavs....... hopefully or maybe not!


But so are all powerful dogs, I think rotties and german shepherds have been shown to have more bite force than an APBT - should they be banned?

ETA:


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Galadriel17 said:


> Really? Is that just not another myth like with rotties and dobes?


Not according to the expert witness..

I can't back it up. It's just what I've been told..


----------



## peds (Oct 15, 2011)

dandogman said:


> There is a reason why they are banned, it wouldn't have been done if it wasn't necessary.


Lots of things have been banned for no good reason. Legislation is sometimes suggested by people who don't have a clue, and brought into being by a crowd of people who are scared to say otherwise.


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

dandogman said:


> There is a reason why they are banned, it wouldn't have been done if it wasn't necessary.
> I agree that its more 'deed than breed' but in the wrong hands they are very dangerous - for that reason I believe they should stay banned.
> 
> I think a better option would be to make it harder for people to get dogs so that would iron out the chavs....... hopefully or maybe not!


A knee jerk reaction by ignorant politicians is hardly a justifiable reason.

Before the DDA there hadn't been a single human fatality attributed to a pit bull.

How many have there been since the ban?


Galadriel17 said:


> But so are all powerful dogs, I think rotties and german shepherds have been shown to have more bite force than an APBT - should they be banned?


Bite force is related to the size of the head. The larger the head, the greater the force. The pit bull is no more powerful than a breed with a similar sized skull. Nor any more dangerous.

Amazes me that even in this day and age, people are so heavily influenced by the media and willing to believe "facts" without doing any half-arsed research.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

Yes- Because of what people do with them

No- because they are just a dog and to be honest there are prob more pit and pit crosses in the country now then before the ban!


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> I deal with dangerous dogs in my line of work and also vets/expert witnesses on the subject.
> 
> One of the expert witnesses who deals with both sides of the argument said that the trouble with pittbulls is they can turn for no reason. This is not something other breeds suffer with. But Aparently pits do.
> 
> I don't think we should be allowed to have them. People are just not responsible enough and get them for the wrong reasons.


The expert should tender their resignation.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

I don't think they should be banned. Any breed has the potential to be dangerous, it's the owners that are the problem. Pitts have just fallen prey to the stereotypical mind plus the fact that there are a lot of d*cks in the world who use them for status/fighting. IMO this can happen with any powerful breed, I think that more and more breeds will be victims of this stereotypical attitude as time progresses. Especially considering how easy it is these days to breed/sell/buy dogs

I think something needs to be done regarding dog ownership as a whole, not sure what, but something definitely needs to be done.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

dandogman said:


> There is a reason why they are banned, it wouldn't have been done if it wasn't necessary.
> I agree that its more 'deed than breed' but in the wrong hands they are very dangerous - for that reason I believe they should stay banned.
> 
> I think a better option would be to make it harder for people to get dogs so that would iron out the chavs....... hopefully or maybe not!


They were banned due to public media fuelled hysteria following two high profile attacks on a young girl and an adult male. In both instances neither dog was either captured or formerly identified but simply attributed to being pitbulls in the media. There were no hard facts to support or give reason to a ban.


----------



## rottie (Jan 1, 2012)

Linden_Tree said:


> Bite force is related to the size of the head. The larger the head, the greater the force. The pit bull is no more powerful than a breed with a similar sized skull. Nor any more dangerous.


true, this is why rotties have the most powerful bite. I've read a study about this, but I don't remember the link, it was just a something I've read about my breed.

No breed should be banned, but I think all owners should be tested before allowing them to have a dog... any dog, any breed, any size


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

Snoringbear said:


> The expert should tender their resignation.


Ha ha ha agreed... rubbish. Breed characteristics one thing, owner/nature/nurture one thing, INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER another.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rottie said:


> true, this is why rotties have the most powerful bite. I've read a study about this, but I don't remember the link, it was just a something I've read about my breed.
> 
> No breed should be banned, but I think all owners should be tested before allowing them to have a dog... any dog, any breed, any size


They don't as there are dogs with bigger heads. From the two dogs tested on Nationsl Geographic the rottie had 328lbs and a mastiff 556lbs.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

rottie said:


> true, this is why rotties have the most powerful bite. I've read a study about this, but I don't remember the link, it was just a something I've read about my breed.
> 
> No breed should be banned, but I think all owners should be tested before allowing them to have a dog... any dog, any breed, any size


I used to like the idea of owners being tested but the more I thought about it, the more I decided against it, it would be too costly to implement.

Also if you had to pass a test to own a dog then surely you should have to pass a test to have kids too, after all, there are a lot more dangerous humans out there than dangerous dogs  but think of the implications of that!


----------



## DogLove3 (Mar 1, 2012)

I don't think they should be banned. I do not think it is fair to discriminate against all pit bulls because a couple have caused problems. If owners make responsible effort for owning a powerful pitbull dog, for example; wearing a muzzle and keeping on a lead at all times, then there is a smaller opportunity for any potential problems and responsible pit bull owners do not have to miss out on owning one.


----------



## portiaa (Dec 10, 2010)

Yes-I think the ban should be lifted, pitbulls should not be banned. 

DEED NOT BREED. 

Banning them has made them much more desirable for the wrong type of people, if the ban was lifted then breed standards could be worked on and healthy dogs with sound temperaments would be produced rather than BYBs overbreeding dogs for money rather than to further the breed and produce dogs with sound temperament and health. 

I'd love to one day own an American pit bull terrier, beautiful dogs. Unfortunately it's unlikely this will ever happen due to irresponsible owners.


----------



## OctodonDegus (Nov 30, 2011)

Hey, non-dog owner coming through 

I'm not going to say either way if I think they should be banned or not, because I really don't have enough information just yet. I thought this might add to the discussion though. Before I knew about the DDA, I never thought of one breed being more or less dangerous than any other, when I was told about the DDA my attitude changed, I started to become scared of all pit bull looking dogs thinking they were really dangerous and would hurt me, just based on the fact they looked like pit bulls. I think when something is banned and deemed dangerous most people who have no experience with dogs just kind of "go with" it, and make assumptions about breeds based on what they look most like. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, all the ban has done really is scare people into thinking certain breeds are particularly dangerous, and make them prejudice to other dogs. Non-dog owners rely on others to tell them things, because you don't tend to research animals unless you are interested in them. I don't like how breeds get labelled because of there looks, it took me a long time to realise I was making unfair assumptions about staffies! Like I said, not sure if I would want the ban lifted or not since I've not researched the subject just yet.


----------



## rottie (Jan 1, 2012)

Snoringbear said:


> They don't as there are dogs with bigger heads. From the two dogs tested on Nationsl Geographic the rottie had 328lbs and a mastiff 556lbs.


I see. Now I feel more safe at home :laugh:
I didn't researched it because it's not important for me 



Galadriel17 said:


> I used to like the idea of owners being tested but the more I thought about it, the more I decided against it, it would be too costly to implement.
> 
> Also if you had to pass a test to own a dog then surely you should have to pass a test to have kids too, after all, there are a lot more dangerous humans out there than dangerous dogs  but think of the implications of that!


this is true


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Galadriel17 said:


> But so are all powerful dogs, I think rotties and german shepherds have been shown to have more bite force than an APBT - should they be banned?
> 
> ETA: Bite force competition Between Rottweiler, German Shepherd, and Pitbull. - YouTube


This vicious German shepherd says
'please don't ban me!':crying:


----------



## IndysMamma (Jan 15, 2009)

randomly - do you think this would act as a deterrent for 'bad owners' if the ban was lifted:

"If convicted of owning a dangerous/out of control dog or of using a dog to cause distress and/or intimidation the owner and/or handler of said dog will be castrated/spayed and banned from owning animals for life"



oh and I think they shouldn't be banned but heavy licencing brought in for *anyone* breeding/selling dogs of any breed and that breeders should be able to 'run' a buyers name through a database allowing them to check for any animal or violence related convictions


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

I've often pondered this one, and to be honest, I really don't know.

On the one hand, I agree they are no more dangerous than any other breed. I like pits, I wouldn't be opposed to having one. I don't believe they're any more likely to attack anyone than any other breed. 

But imagine if the ban were lifted tomorrow, how many of the wrong people would be rushing out to get a pitbull, and, as someone said earlier in the thread, what has happened to staffies will just happen to pits. I could foresee a lot of suffering for that breed. Even if it were only in the short term until it 'settled down' and pits became old hat.

I do wonder if its just too late to go back now. Pits have a 'glamorous' reputation to the wrong people and the ban has only fuelled this, and I do wonder if lifting that ban now would just cause an explosion in the suffering of pits.
Its like anything else; when people have been denied something for a long time, when it is once again allowed, people go crazy with it.
In an ideal world, the ban would never have been implemented to begin with, but it has, and I don't know if we can go back now without massive suffering, neglect and abuse of this breed....more so.
I know people already have pits anyway, but to make them legal would certainly increase the numbers, and thus the suffering, more. I'd just be wary of it.

Though it would be bloody lovely not to have to worry about any cross breed that looks remotely pit-like being seized and murdered  I think if they were made legal, there would have to be some serious shake up in how dog ownership works, and tighter regulations for all dogs. 

So I really don't know. I'd hate to see the situation with staffs increase and happen to another breed, which is definitely would if pits were legalised. 
Its a tough one.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> This vicious German shepherd says
> 'please don't ban me!':crying:


Aww, I don't think any breed should be banned  was just making a point.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Galadriel17 said:


> Aww, I don't think any breed should be banned  was just making a point.


I know, I just wanted to show her 'sad face'
Sadly there are a lot of people who would be happy to see GSDs on the list


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> Or should they be allowed?
> 
> We all know the DDA is a useless piece of legislation but should pits be allowed?
> 
> Your thoughts..


I don't think any breed should be banned. I have only ever seen pitbulls on telly from America and they seem like nice enough dogs in the right hands, just like any other.



goodvic2 said:


> I deal with dangerous dogs in my line of work and also vets/expert witnesses on the subject.
> 
> One of the expert witnesses who deals with both sides of the argument said that *the trouble with pittbulls is they can turn for no reason*. This is not something other breeds suffer with. But Aparently pits do.
> 
> I don't think we should be allowed to have them. People are just not responsible enough and get them for the wrong reasons.


I have often heard the exact same comment about GSDs and Rotties, but they are not banned and now the devil dog image is slowly receding, they are proving to be nice family dogs.

I don't believe that any dog will turn for no reason, there always has to be one, whether we can see it or not. Could be some subtle provocation or could be something medical, but there is always a reason.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

I don't think any breed should be banned but I wouldn't be against some form of dog liscence. Scary that any chav can own a cane corso or a presa canario but nobody can own an ickle pit bull. I know which one I'd rather be defending myself from if it was having a bad day !


----------



## marleysmum2012 (Mar 25, 2012)

No
More like the thugs who got this breed a bad name should be banned !


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Shadowrat said:


> I've often pondered this one, and to be honest, I really don't know.
> 
> On the one hand, I agree they are no more dangerous than any other breed. I like pits, I wouldn't be opposed to having one. I don't believe they're any more likely to attack anyone than any other breed.
> 
> ...


I used to feel like that too. Do you not think an introduction of legislation surounding breeding would help prevent what's happened with the staffy to the pit?

I think BSL has played a big part in the large number of staffys being bred badly and being used as 'status dogs' because they are the next best thing looks wise.

If something is labeled as illegal, it suddenly becomes more desirable to the undesirables!


----------



## Netpon (Feb 21, 2012)

I think a lot more leigslation for breeders would go a long way. At the moment any Tom Dick or Harry can breed and are only in it for the money and don't give a hoot what home the pups are going to. A decent breeder will thoroughly interrogate a prospective owner and would hopefully be able to wean out the people only after a dog for its reputation. I'm a rottweiler owner and my breed have been teetering on the edge of being banned for years. Looking back on the stories of rotty attacks most have been owned by chavs or kept as "guard dogs" (who are actually dogs that have just been left in a yard and not socialised/trained rather than actual trained guard dogs) and the good rotty breeders will not only grill prospective new onwers, most won't home a pup to someone who hasn't had the breed (or a similar type) before. I bet you any money the dogs involved in attacks haven't come from top show/working breeders!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

IndysMamma said:


> randomly - do you think this would act as a deterrent for 'bad owners' if the ban was lifted:
> 
> "If convicted of owning a dangerous/out of control dog or of using a dog to cause distress and/or intimidation the owner and/or handler of said dog will be castrated/spayed and banned from owning animals for life"
> 
> ...


But then they would have to get rid of the Data Protection Act or the breeders who looked them up would be in violation of that. That is obviously more important to the powers that be than the safety and welfare of dogs.


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

with the amount of bull terrier types already in rescue, what would be the purpose of lifting the ban?

I aint trying to be awkward, just really don't know what lifting the ban would achieve. 

Like all things that are currently banned there are laws in place (although as we know not always effectively enforced). remove these laws to replace them with a license seems ( to me) pointless


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Galadriel17 said:


> I used to like the idea of owners being tested but the more I thought about it, the more I decided against it, it would be too costly to implement.
> 
> *Also if you had to pass a test to own a dog then surely you should have to pass a test to have kids too, after all, there are a lot more dangerous humans out there than dangerous dogs  but think of the implications of that!*


Hmm...every now and then, I see parents that lead me to the conviction that everyone should be fitted with contraceptive implants at the onset of adolescence, then made to undergo rigorous testing to earn the right to have it removed to reproduce....then I remember that it's kind of a fascist idea that's open to abuse 
The trouble with testing is that it would tend to test other things than the actual ability to look after a dog, and that's where it would be unfair.
On the other hand, I'd like to see some sort of traceability, accountability, whatever, to hold people to account for their lack of responsibility. How that would be enforced I have no idea!
As so many others have said, I don't think the ban improves anything. I came across a few pitts when I lived in Manchester, and not one of them was under control. One of them treated me to what I can honestly say was the most frightening moment of my life. The ban has made them very attractive to a certain sort of pond life, and hasn't reduced the numbers of pitts owned by the wrong kind of person at all - illegality makes their ownership more attractive to the low-lifes.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2012)

goodvic2 said:


> One of the expert witnesses who deals with both sides of the argument said that *the trouble with pittbulls is they can turn for no reason*. This is not something other breeds suffer with. But Aparently pits do.


Haven't read past this post, so forgive me if this has already been addressed.

Do the people who assert this "turn for no reason" trait in pit bulls have the statistics to back it up? How exactly do you measure "turn for no reason"?

Sounds to me like one of the fairy tales like they have locking jaws and other such nonsense. Pit bulls are anatomically no different than any other breed of dog. There is no "locking" mechanism in their jaw, and they don't "turn" any more than any other badly managed/trained/bred dog out there.

Historically in this country, they were indeed bred to fight other dogs. They were selectively bred for a high prey drive, low tolerance of other dogs, few warning signals, and high pain threshold. They were also selectively bred to NOT turn on humans. Remember, these were dogs who were bred to be handled while in the middle of a life or death fight and NOT re-direct on to the humans in the ring, even when they stepped in to end the fight. Man biters were routinely culled.

FWIW, statistics collected after bans do not show BSL legislation to be effective at all.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> Or should they be allowed?
> 
> We all know the DDA is a useless piece of legislation but should pits be allowed?
> 
> Your thoughts..


Should they be Banned in a word probably NO.

Just some of the Stupid people that own them.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> with the amount of bull terrier types already in rescue, what would be the purpose of lifting the ban?
> 
> *I aint trying to be awkward, just really don't know what lifting the ban would achieve. *
> 
> Like all things that are currently banned there are laws in place (although as we know not always effectively enforced). remove these laws to replace them with a license seems ( to me) pointless


To me, lifting the ban hasn't got that much to do with rescues at all. It is sending out a signal that no one breed is any more dangerous than the next and that it is down to individual owners to be responsible. There is actually a post in this very thread saying how the DDA made them wary of dogs that the poster wasn't wary of before!

Personally, breed lists are completely arbitrary and the DDA needs to be scrapped. IF there really were dogs that were objectively more dangerous than others, all breed lists across the world would be the same. Alas, they are not which says it all, really.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

I don't really know anything about pitbulls.. but this reminds me a little of Christian the lion ( look him up on youtube if you don't remember ), In the right hands with the right upbringing even the king of the beasts becomes a licking machine. If you're quick and pop down to Harrods I think they've still got a couple left....


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

All the ban has done is:

1)Glorified ownership of the Pitt
2)Made it into a status dog
3)Made it cool for idiots to own a 'banned' breed.
4)Made prices ridiculous for the 'banned' breeds.

Lifting the ban imo would end all of the above as then it would just be another dog.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

terencesmum said:


> To me, lifting the ban hasn't got that much to do with rescues at all. It is sending out a signal that no one breed is any more dangerous than the next and that it is down to individual owners to be responsible. There is actually a post in this very thread saying how the DDA made them wary of dogs that the poster wasn't wary of before!
> 
> Personally, breed lists are completely arbitrary and the DDA needs to be scrapped. *IF there really were dogs that were objectively more dangerous than others, all breed lists across the world would be the same. Alas, they are not which says it all, really.*


Well said.

I bring this link up a fair bit on here. But look at this list of banned or restricted breeds across America. You will be surprised at some of the breeds on there.

Dog Politics: List Of 75 Banned Or Restricted Breeds - Is Your Dog On The List?


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Im kinda on the fence. Im glad they are banned just coz there is a higher percentage of idiots that want to own them as opposed to Poodles for example.
Not sure banning does much good though coz the idiots will always be out there...
I would be more worried in case they banned Staffies as the next chav dog of choice here would be an American Bulldog which is much bigger!


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> Im kinda on the fence. Im glad they are banned just coz there is a higher percentage of idiots that want to own them as opposed to Poodles for example.
> Not sure banning does much good though coz the idiots will always be out there...
> I would be more worried in case they banned Staffies as the next chav dog of choice here would be an American Bulldog which is much bigger!


Thats a fair point. But it hasnt stopped idiots from owning them. You can easily get a Pitt or Pitt type if you want one. The people that want to own them do own them. So the legislation is a flop. All it has done is stopped responsible law abiding people from owning them and in turn these responsible people were the only ones that could have given the breed a good name.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

No dog breed should be banned as someone said they all have teeth, they can all do damage.


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

No I dont think they should be banned.

I have so far met two really sweet ones (one at the beach and one on the bus)

Funny to walk into one who was also being walked with a small dog. We went to introduce Sophie had the lady said the pitbull was great with pups but the other dog hated other dogs, so the lady kept him away while we met the pitbull


----------



## mytia (Mar 27, 2012)

I dont think pitbulls should be banned after all they are a victum of there own breeding and human minipulation, but i do agree that there should be strict legislation for who owns them. Often seen as the ultimate status dog they end up in the hands of people who have no idea how to deal or control them and it is for this reason they become a danger. We must remember that the pitbull and its cuzin the staffy were nicknamed the nanny dogs many years ago often being left to care for the children in poor families this proves that in the right hands they can be like any other family pet but if raised wrong are a massive danger to all around them.


----------



## martmart (Jan 26, 2012)

my tuppence worth. 

I say no way should they be banned... banned, means mass killing of these dogs right? My belief is that there are far more decent responsible pitbull owners with well trained, well looked after, relatively safe stable pitbulls than there are druggy idiots with these dogs. (totally uneducated guess)

A ban would also cause the mis identification of a safe breed as a pitbull....as we saw in a thread not too long ago "spot the pitbull"....how many got that wrong??? I did! (although that means nothing as Im not great with identifying breeds) .... there are some people who have actually insisted that the dog I found abandoned a couple of months ago, (which most people say is a staffy x) is definately, without any doubt a pitbull which I don't believe. Now...if theres a ban, this will cause a lot of pain for a lot of innocent people, possibly even myself as there is that risk that she could be misidentified as a pitbull in my humble opinion. 

Absolute NO. Have them seized by professional dog handlers , from irresponsible ignorant druggy chavvy type idiot owners, and placed with good responsible people who know the breed, know how to handle them and can give them their full love and attention. 

just my tuppence worth.


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

NO. It is not the breed that is wrong, but a small number of dodgy breeders that breed them for the wrong reason thus giving the breed a bad name. As Barbra Woodhouse once said.
"There is no such thing as a bad dog, just bad dog owners."


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Miss.PuddyCat said:


> No I dont think they should be banned.
> 
> I have so far met two really sweet ones (one at the beach and one on the bus)
> 
> Funny to walk into one who was also being walked with a small dog. We went to introduce Sophie had the lady said the pitbull was great with pups but the other dog hated other dogs, so the lady kept him away while we met the pitbull


You are in Canada, are you not? Wherever they are not banned, they are usually owned by responsible people, but here they get into the wrong hands simply because they are banned.


----------



## MGarland (Aug 23, 2010)

I am a strong believer in that issue with all 'dangerous dogs' falling squarely on the humans.

Take for example this recent dog attack on policemen. This is obviously horrible and I am never going to side with anyone in that situation. Having said that if police officers had better intelligence about the property they should have bought a dog team. The way I see it, my Mother's JRTs would try to bite anyone that burst into the house screaming POLICE! they are just less physically capable to do damage. 

I think many dog issues could be solved with 2-3 hours in total of dog education at school. Kids are taught about parliament, safe sex and all other manner of things to help them function in the UK, why not dogs? They are a huge part of our culture yet we are not taught anything about them at school. Would it be so hard to put dogs into the national curriculum? 

I am also a very strong believer in tougher restrictions on who can have and breed dogs. I think more licensing is needed to weed out the yobos, failing that adopt Germany's approach and make puppy training school mandatory for all dog owners (Need to check my sources on this one, my dog trainer told me that was the case)

tl;dr - Look at the other end of the lead for answers, not the dog.


----------



## MGarland (Aug 23, 2010)

Also this: http://i.imgur.com/tFdWG.jpg


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> They were banned due to public media fuelled hysteria following two high profile attacks on a young girl and an adult male. In both instances neither dog was either captured or formerly identified but simply attributed to being pitbulls in the media. There were no hard facts to support or give reason to a ban.


They were banned at the time of these attacks, but there was a more significant reason (according to a MP with whom I discussed it), and that was to make the breeds mainly used for organised dog fighting less available. There were fears that the 'sport' of dog fighting was getting to the stage where it would be impossible to control, along with its links to gambling and organised crime.

Personally, I can see no legitimate reason for someone wanting to own one of the banned breeds. If a responsible owner wants a pet dog, there are plenty of other breeds to choose from.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

MGarland said:


> I am a strong believer in that issue with all 'dangerous dogs' falling squarely on the humans.
> 
> Take for example this recent dog attack on policemen. This is obviously horrible and I am never going to side with anyone in that situation. Having said that if police officers had better intelligence about the property they should have bought a dog team. The way I see it, my Mother's JRTs would try to bite anyone that burst into the house screaming POLICE! they are just less physically capable to do damage.
> 
> ...


Not true. 
You have to have a license to own a dog and most states have some form of DDA. One state has recently abolished the breed list but there are requirements on the owners to take a test to show you are a responsible dog owner and your dog might have to prove they are of sound temperament.

I do agree with your suggestion about teaching kids how to behave properly around dogs. The lack of appropriate behaviour around dogs both by adults and kids is pretty shocking.


----------



## MGarland (Aug 23, 2010)

terencesmum said:


> Not true.
> You have to have a license to own a dog and most states have some form of DDA. One state has recently abolished the breed list but there are requirements on the owners to take a test to show you are a responsible dog owner and your dog might have to prove they are of sound temperament.
> 
> I do agree with your suggestion about teaching kids how to behave properly around dogs. The lack of appropriate behaviour around dogs both by adults and kids is pretty shocking.


Yea I was not sure on it, that is why I disclaimed myself! 

Education is the key!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

MGarland said:


> Yea I was not sure on it, that is why I disclaimed myself!
> 
> Education is the key!


I did see your little disclaimer which was very good of you. Many people would have just stated it as fact. So was just correcting it, not trying to offend.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

MGarland said:


> I am a strong believer in that issue with all 'dangerous dogs' falling squarely on the humans.
> 
> Take for example this recent dog attack on policemen. This is obviously horrible and I am never going to side with anyone in that situation. Having said that if police officers had better intelligence about the property they should have bought a dog team. The way I see it, my Mother's JRTs would try to bite anyone that burst into the house screaming POLICE! they are just less physically capable to do damage.
> 
> ...


Certainly there should be far more education in schools regarding dogs. At the moment it is only children from dog loving families who know anything about how to behave around them, whilst children from non pet owning families grow up thinking like their parents.

I will never support compulsory puppy training. It is not right to tell me my puppy has to go to training classes when I am quite capable of training them myself and not the way some so called "trainer" would do.

I like to do my own puppy training and I see no reason why that desire should be denied because of a few idiots who think that dogs come ready trained.


----------



## MGarland (Aug 23, 2010)

terencesmum said:


> I did see your little disclaimer which was very good of you. Many people would have just stated it as fact. So was just correcting it, not trying to offend.


It's fine  everyday is a school day!


----------



## MGarland (Aug 23, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Certainly there should be far more education in schools regarding dogs. At the moment it is only children from dog loving families who know anything about how to behave around them, whilst children from non pet owning families grow up thinking like their parents.
> 
> I will never support compulsory puppy training. It is not right to tell me my puppy has to go to training classes when I am quite capable of training them myself and not the way some so called "trainer" would do.
> 
> I like to do my own puppy training and I see no reason why that desire should be denied because of a few idiots who think that dogs come ready trained.


You are the minority though...

I would argue that the vast majority of dog owners are in the

Noclue - Verylittleclue

Bracket and need guidance. I am also sure that say a 6 week course of an hour a week would not exactly get in the way of your methods but would put off many idiots from bothering and make your dogs life better in time.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

MGarland said:


> You are the minority though...
> 
> I would argue that the vast majority of dog owners are in the
> 
> ...


I agree with the statement that a lot of dog owners seem bl**dy clueless, BUT 6 weeks isn't going to do anything. Many people just do nothing with their dogs and will see the fact that their dog isn't impeccably behaved as proof the compulsory dog training doesn't work.
People need to understand that it takes a long time to train your dog properly. They won't, but there you go. :rolleyes5:


----------



## MGarland (Aug 23, 2010)

terencesmum said:


> I agree with the statement that a lot of dog owners seem bl**dy clueless, BUT 6 weeks isn't going to do anything. Many people just do nothing with their dogs and will see the fact that their dog isn't impeccably behaved as proof the compulsory dog training doesn't work.
> People need to understand that it takes a long time to train your dog properly. They won't, but there you go. :rolleyes5:


Yes well going to dog classes is to teach the human how to train the dog. Not to train your dog for you. Any semi-decent trainer would explain that.

Also a compulsory 6 week course would put many people who lack the effort to train there dog from bothering to get one. It would be a fantastic barrier for wallys.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

MGarland said:


> You are the minority though...
> 
> I would argue that the vast majority of dog owners are in the
> 
> ...


I can see both sides, but perhaps it would be better to have puppy training classes compulsory for people who have 1) never owned a dog before and 2) have a history of giving up a dog because it got out of control.

It would also have to be classes run by qualified trainers, members of the recognised associations. There are too many no-clue trainers running puppy classes as well, so the situation could be made worse instead of better.

I would not want anyone telling me what I can and can't do with my dogs any more than I would have someone telling me what I could and couldn't do with my children. I fought a lot of interference from so-called "experts" when my son was younger, because he is brain damaged, and all these childless people thought they knew him better than me. They learned not to argue in the end.

There is a lot to be said for both sides, but I don't think compulsory puppy training should be for everybody.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Dog on dog attacks is not a training issue IMO it is a behavioural one. People do not socialise their dogs when they are young and this can cause a big problem with dogs like staffies who are more prone to DA. 

A training class will not stop it. 

Dog licences are what is needed. No licence, no dog..


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

MGarland said:


> Yes well going to dog classes is to teach the human how to train the dog. Not to train your dog for you. Any semi-decent trainer would explain that.
> 
> Also a compulsory 6 week course would put many people who lack the effort to train there dog from bothering to get one. It would be a fantastic barrier for wallys.


That would work for people who actually care and don't have the IQ of a slice of bread. 
We attend an excellent training class with lovely trainers who say again and again that most of the training is done at home, but most of the people don't do anything at home. They expect their dog's training to be finished after a few weeks and don't see that the owner of the best-performing pup in class spends time every day training said pup.
People are thicker than you think.


----------



## MGarland (Aug 23, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> I can see both sides, but perhaps it would be better to have puppy training classes compulsory for people who have 1) never owned a dog before and 2) have a history of giving up a dog because it got out of control.
> 
> It would also have to be classes run by qualified trainers, members of the recognised associations. There are too many no-clue trainers running puppy classes as well, so the situation could be made worse instead of better.
> 
> ...


Well as for the children example... There are many many many laws out there that tell you how to raise your kids. If you like it or not.

A perfect example, if it not ok for you to spank your child and that is legally the case. Yet you can physically educate your puppy which we all know is not the right way to do it!

However a swift wack on the nose is not against any legislation.

I also totally agree with the registered trainers. The main issue that comes with all this stuff is the money the government would have to spend we would end up being taxed to own our dogs. That is the only way that it would ever happen. I would be fine with paynig tax on my dog but I imagine for many this would be a problem.

So we can safely say no government would ever implement this stuff, sad really. Votes > Public safety and always will be. Power hungry people make bad leaders.


----------



## MGarland (Aug 23, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> Dog on dog attacks is not a training issue IMO it is a behavioural one. People do not socialise their dogs when they are young and this can cause a big problem with dogs like staffies who are more prone to DA.
> 
> A training class will not stop it.
> 
> Dog licences are what is needed. No licence, no dog..


How will a group class not help with socialising?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> Dog on dog attacks is not a training issue IMO it is a behavioural one. People do not socialise their dogs when they are young and this can cause a big problem with dogs like staffies who are more prone to DA.
> 
> A training class will not stop it.
> 
> Dog licences are what is needed. No licence, no dog..


I suppose if it is done properly it could do something toward the problem of bad owners, but bad owners are not going to bother getting a licence. Breeders could be made by law to notify the licencing authorities of who has bought a puppy and what breed etc, but again, bad breeders won't bother. In fact, they can put their prices up because it will be under the table.

Last time we had dog licences, you went in the post office, paid your 7 shillings and 6 pence and away you went, no questions asked, no breed mentioned, nothing.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Compulsory training would penalise those who take on rescue dogs that have socialisation problems. My male greyhound would not have coped (and probably still wouldn't) with that sort of environment so if it was compulsory we would have to pay for a series of one on one classes at considerable expense. Considering we were also paying a behaviourist to help work through his issues we wouldn't have been able to afford it and so would have had to return him to the rescue.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Burrowzig said:


> They were banned at the time of these attacks, but there was a more significant reason (according to a MP with whom I discussed it), and that was to make the breeds mainly used for organised dog fighting less available. There were fears that the 'sport' of dog fighting was getting to the stage where it would be impossible to control, along with its links to gambling and organised crime.
> 
> Personally, I can see no legitimate reason for someone wanting to own one of the banned breeds. If a responsible owner wants a pet dog, there are plenty of other breeds to choose from.


I can't agree or see any credence in the MP's comments. The DDA was a concern about public safety, nothing to do with other animals as is reflected in the legislation. Much like the gun restrictions following Dunblane, it was driven by public outcry and rushed through to satisfy that.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> I can't agree or see any credence in the MP's comments. The DDA was a concern about public safety, nothing to do with other animals as is reflected in the legislation. Much like the gun restrictions following Dunblane, it was driven by public outcry and rushed through to satisfy that.


So why the breeds other than pit bulls being banned then? None of those was involved in any attacks. There was a public outcry at the time, and it was easy to get a piece of legislation through on the back of that. Doesn't mean there wasn't another purpose behind it, or that there was no previous discussion about how to get on top of the growing culture of dog fighting.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Just a thought...

Surely if you get into compulsory training then there would have to be one method of training settled on or at least a minimum standard at where a dog would 'graduate'. 

I think we all know at least one dog that has it's KC Gold Award yet still has problems in the 'real world'?


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I can see both sides, but perhaps it would be better to have puppy training classes compulsory for people who have 1) never owned a dog before and 2) have a history of giving up a dog because it got out of control.


Number 2 I'd go with, but number 1 I'd still find a bit unfair.
I have never owned a dog before, but it doesn't mean Im clueless. I worked with them most of my adult life in a variety of roles, I just never had one of my own until now. 
But I, too, feel Im perfectly capable of training my own dog, and as of yet, haven't had any issues. He will go to puppy class, but thats mainly for socialisation purposes, not training. After working in the veterinary profession and the rescue world for a while, I met a lot of people calling themselves dog trainers, even a few who ran their own classes. 
And lots of them were people I wouldn't want having influence on my dog.
Without going into too much detail, one I know actually hit an animal in front of me one time, quite shamelessly. 
Im not saying that makes them a bad trainer, as it was not a dog they hit, but still......someone who is that quick to 'snap' and use physical force on an animal just because it isn't co-operating isn't someone I'd necessarily want having an influence on my animal.
Plus, I wonder if the choice of trainer would be set for you, or whether you'd get to choose?

I do think first time dog owners are often spoken about as if they're clueless. And Im sure many are. In fact, I know many are.
But not all of us. Some of us have had a long old time of working with dogs in other capacities, researching, training ourselves, and just haven't been in the right situation to responsibly have a dog until now.

But with the second one, I'd definitely go with that. If someone has a history of giving up dogs because they're not properly trained, I'd see little issue with those individuals having to attend training classes.


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

I don't think they should have been banned. The fact that it has led to cases of non-pitbulls being seized and held or destroyed due to them apparently 'looking' like pitbulls is just unacceptable. The people who are seizing these dogs most likely only have a rough idea of what a APBT even looks like. Plus the place that the pitbull dogs would have taken in the hands of certain bad owners has just been filled with other breeds who are getting an equally bad rep.

Perhaps if they had not been banned but there was a law that APBT's had to wear a muzzle in public? The dog would be restricted somewhat but at least it wouldn't be dead.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> So why the breeds other than pit bulls being banned then? None of those was involved in any attacks. There was a public outcry at the time, and it was easy to get a piece of legislation through on the back of that. Doesn't mean there wasn't another purpose behind it, or that there was no previous discussion about how to get on top of the growing culture of dog fighting.


There may be some truth in what you're saying but there was no solid proof that pit bulls involved in the attacks either I don't think.

Maybe just a case of picking a handful of 'scary' looking breeds, some bred for fighting to make it look like the government was doing something drastic to calm the hysteria?


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

They def should remain banned as the majority of people who will want to own them are likely to be the kinda [email protected] that are currently owning Staffies at the mo - and I don't mean the kind who are on here and are decent dog owners who adore their Staffies. All that will happen is our own dogs will be more at risk of attack and the rescues will just be full of Pitts as well as Staffs!

Leave it as it is and hopefully they won't be used purely as status dogs and suffer the same fate as our poor Staffs!

ETA - These are the kind of people who will want the Pitts and obviously still have them. Rukshana was one of the victims and I believe it was the attack on her that prompted the DDA to be set up. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6976011.stm
Best they remain banned I think!


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Burrowzig said:


> So why the breeds other than pit bulls being banned then? None of those was involved in any attacks. There was a public outcry at the time, and it was easy to get a piece of legislation through on the back of that. Doesn't mean there wasn't another purpose behind it, or that there was no previous discussion about how to get on top of the growing culture of dog fighting.


Baker intended it to prevent the importation of dogs he saw as bred to fight. At the time there was one Tosa bitch in the country and absolutley no Dogos and Filas. Dogos and Filas weren't even intended for dogfighting. Dogos were bred to be the ultimate boar hunting dogs and Filas were bred to guard and chase down predators encroaching on their owners properties. Either way, western dog fighting centers around using smaller more manageable dogs like a pitbull, not large man stopping mastiffs.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Malmum said:


> They def should remain banned as the majority of people who will want to own them are likely to be the kinda [email protected] that are currently owning Staffies at the mo - and I don't mean the kind who are on here and are decent dog owners who adore their Staffies. All that will happen is our own dogs will be more at risk of attack and the rescues will just be full of Pitts as well as Staffs!
> 
> Leave it as it is and hopefully they won't be used purely as status dogs and suffer the same fate as our poor Staffs!
> 
> ...


If the DDA never existed, you wouldn't have the pitbull and staff problem we have today.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the dog which attacked that girl was never captured of formerly identified as a pitbull, it was just called one by the media.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> Number 2 I'd go with, but number 1 I'd still find a bit unfair.
> I have never owned a dog before, but it doesn't mean Im clueless. I worked with them most of my adult life in a variety of roles, I just never had one of my own until now.
> But I, too, feel Im perfectly capable of training my own dog, and as of yet, haven't had any issues. He will go to puppy class, but thats mainly for socialisation purposes, not training. After working in the veterinary profession and the rescue world for a while, I met a lot of people calling themselves dog trainers, even a few who ran their own classes.
> And lots of them were people I wouldn't want having influence on my dog.
> ...


I was just attempting a compromise to be honest, as I don't believe in compulsory anything much and as you say, as I said in my post, there are too many people calling themselves trainers who don't have a clue.

Someone on this forum once, new member didn't last long, suggested that all dogs who were not properly trained should be confiscated! What is properly trained anyway? Why should a dog be taken from a caring, loving home and shoved into a kennel because they are not trained to the standards of some government nobody who knows sod all about dogs?

This is how compulsory puppy training would evolve, I think, where you have clueless individuals given the job of deciding who should do the job.

We have enough interference in our lives in this country, being told what we should and shouldn't eat (can't even get decent greasy chips any more) I would certainly be against this.

I still think it is breeders that need to be regulated, licenced and approved by people who know what they are doing, to prevent puppy farmers and byb's and therefore be a little more discerning about where their puppies are going.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

im with newfies mum.

i dont need to go to training classes because there are idiot owners who make their dogs into weapons etc.

ive had dogs all my life and they have all been non aggressive pleasurable loving dogs and not one of them has been to training classes. my dogs can always do what i want or need them to with my work on them, sit, stay, come, wait at a kerb, lay down and are very good around people and other animals too!

just because there are idiot owners means that everyone should be tarred with the same brush!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

also i really dont see the need to lift the ban on pitbulls.

there are more then enough bull breeds around that anyone who wanted a pitbull could just get a different but legal bull breed instead. 

i dont really understand the allure of them anyway, is it just because they are the forbidden dog, tell people they cant have something and its the one thing they want, as you could get any number of legal dogs!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Malmum said:


> They def should remain banned as the majority of people who will want to own them are likely to be the kinda [email protected] that are currently owning Staffies at the mo - and I don't mean the kind who are on here and are decent dog owners who adore their Staffies. All that will happen is our own dogs will be more at risk of attack and the rescues will just be full of Pitts as well as Staffs!
> 
> Leave it as it is and hopefully they won't be used purely as status dogs and suffer the same fate as our poor Staffs!
> 
> ...


Hmm, I would say that people who want them for fighting already have them. Let's face it, there are plenty of pits around. Or at least dogs that people THINK are pits. Terence got mistaken for a pitbull once. :yikes:

The whole thought process behind "There will be some people who will do untoward things, so let's ban *insert your own*, to protect everyone else", really irritates me, actually. :incazzato:
There are car accidents, pissed people who commit crimes, knife and gun attacks every day. Are any of those things banned because a small minority can't handle them appropriately? No! How come it is acceptable to do this with dogs? :thumbdown:

Rant over.


----------



## Maistaff (Dec 27, 2009)

Firstly IMO they need to be able to classify the breed . Right now the vast numbers of dogs labelled as a Pit bull are actually a cross breeds. Something that many years ago would have been classed as a mutt.

If they do anything it should be to ban the Muppets that breed "types" and keep them in disgusting conditions and environments training them to be nasty - start with the people and gain control on them first and then deal with the dogs


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> also i really dont see the need to lift the ban on pitbulls.
> 
> there are more then enough bull breeds around that anyone who wanted a pitbull could just get a different but legal bull breed instead.
> 
> i dont really understand the allure of them anyway, is it just because they are the forbidden dog, tell people they cant have something and its the one thing they want, as you could get any number of legal dogs!


Why have any breeds at all? Why not just breed for one general type of dog?Why do you get the breed you own? You cant have a go at people for preferring one breed over another.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

There was meant to be a report published on changes to Dog Laws by last night, but ministers failed to meet the deadline. We now have to wait until after the Easter break.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

goodvic2 said:


> I deal with dangerous dogs in my line of work and also vets/expert witnesses on the subject.
> 
> One of the expert witnesses who deals with both sides of the argument said that the trouble with pittbulls is they can turn for no reason. This is not something other breeds suffer with. But Aparently pits do.
> 
> I don't think we should be allowed to have them. People are just not responsible enough and get them for the wrong reasons.


Really? I dont believe that for one moment, that they "just turn". No more dangerous than any other dog of similar size IMO, there are plenty living with families in the states with NO issues at all. Should we ban useless scum owners who want to fight them, and as such teach them to act aggressively- YES


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Why are Pitts banned anyway? Cant be for human attacks as there was only a couple when they got banned and they certainly arent bred to be human aggressive.


----------



## Miss (Mar 27, 2012)

I think they should remain banned I adore the breed but until we sort out the problem with staffies and other dogs over here they are just going to get abused and just get the same reputation as the staffies.
Higher fine and prison sentences needs to be introduce, just higher penalties for causing these gorgeous dogs to be so aggressive.


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

Yes I'm afraid they should stay banned.

Whether it was right to ban them to start with is a whole different issue but as they have been banned they need to stay banned. Can you imagine the rush to buy "legal" Pits by the slack-jawed knuckle dragging muppets who seem to inhabit most of this country now?

Until we've found a way of eliminating the "chav" gene altogether it's safer to keep the breed specific ban in place.

Personally I'm not a fan of the bull breeds (English Bull Terrier apart), I just don't like the look of them. I'm sure many peopple hate giant breeds and big hairy dogs too, each to their own, but if the "bull breeds" didn't exist I wouldn't shed any tears. Sorry.


----------



## Jugsmalone (Apr 11, 2011)

Miss said:


> I think they should remain banned I adore the breed but until we sort out the problem with staffies and other dogs over here they are just going to get abused and just get the same reputation as the staffies.
> Higher fine and* prison sentences needs to be introduce*, just higher penalties for causing these gorgeous dogs to be so aggressive.


The prisons are over populated and prison is not a deterrent, its a holiday camp at the tax payers expense. However, I agree that something needs to be done to these irresponsible owner's who give these dogs a bad reputation.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Magnus said:


> Yes I'm afraid they should stay banned.
> 
> Whether it was right to ban them to start with is a whole different issue but as they have been banned they need to stay banned. Can you imagine the rush to buy "legal" Pits by the slack-jawed knuckle dragging muppets who seem to inhabit most of this country now?
> 
> Until we've found a way of eliminating the "chav" gene altogether it's safer to keep the breed specific ban in place.


No. there would not be a rush- as half the appeal is that they are a banned breed.Hence why all said muppets are trying to breed dogs that look a bit like a Pitt so they can sell em to their mates for lots of cash- if they could pick one up from anywhere that would reduce the status thing attached.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Magnus said:


> Yes I'm afraid they should stay banned.
> 
> Whether it was right to ban them to start with is a whole different issue but as they have been banned they need to stay banned. *Can you imagine the rush to buy "legal" Pits by the slack-jawed knuckle dragging muppets who seem to inhabit most of this country now?*
> 
> ...


Rest assured, they already own them. 
And I find your last comment a bit offensive. You wouldn't shed any tears if they were all extinct? You'd be up in arms, too, if, after they've banned all bullbreeds, they went on to victimise your breed of choice. :nonod:
But not your problem. 
YET!


----------



## Maistaff (Dec 27, 2009)

Magnus said:


> Yes I'm afraid they should stay banned.
> 
> Whether it was right to ban them to start with is a whole different issue but as they have been banned they need to stay banned. Can you imagine the rush to buy "legal" Pits by the slack-jawed knuckle dragging muppets who seem to inhabit most of this country now?
> 
> ...


100% each to their own , if we were all the same then the wolrd would be very dull 

My problem with banning any breed of dog especially the Pit bull is that the vast number of dogs classed as pit bulls are not pit bulls they are cross breeds and the end result of crossing two different dogs ends up with a "type" classed as a Pit Bull.

It would be like trying to classify and ban JRT's. With so many varying "types" where would you start, ban them all or just a select few for looking more "type" than some others?

To ban any breed of dog is a minefield. In reality with the Pit bull types they need to start with the breeders ( not that i would class them as breeders) first and work from there. It won't be a quick fix but it would do more good and be much quicker than trying to eradicate an entire breed.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Wonder how the Daily Mail would cover the ban being lifted and a Pitbull going on to win BIS at Crufts. 

(If it could happen).


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

terencesmum said:


> Rest assured, they already own them.
> And I find your last comment a bit offensive. You wouldn't shed any tears if they were all extinct? You'd be up in arms, too, if, after they've banned all bullbreeds, they went on to victimise your breed of choice. :nonod:
> But not your problem.
> YET!


I'm sorry you were offended by my comment but I did say that I'm sure other people didn't like the sort of dogs I like (giant and hairy!)

I was being honest; I don't like bull breeds (except the EBT) and unfortunately many bull breed owners do nothing to endear the breed to other people. 
Of course there are responsible bull breed owners who love and nurture their dogs and it is very sad that the over breeding, of Staffies for example, by idiots has meant that rescue centres are full of them and their chances of rehoming are damaged by an undeserved reputation caused by stupid / chav owners.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Magnus said:


> I'm sorry you were offended by my comment but I did say that I'm sure other people didn't like the sort of dogs I like (giant and hairy!)


See, but I don't want those dogs to disappear either. (Although, I do happen to like your dogs  )
I am assuming, this is one of those things that sounded worse to me written down than you intended. 
Can you tell I am very protective over my Bully?


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

I meant no offense I assure you but our forum tends to lean a little towards the "safe" side when it comes to these sorts of issues. I hope we can be honest and can disagree but still be polite.

If chavs suddenly decided that their weapon of choice was a Leonberger (_they'd have a lot less money to spend on themselves after feeding one_) I would be worried about how my chosen breed would be viewed by non-Leo owners. Without a doubt society's perception of the bull breeds has been massively influenced by the oik, thug, chav, criminal, scrote etc. that you rarely see without one.

I'm sure that I would not have wanted to own a bull breed dog if this had never happened but I'm equally sure that my actual "dislike" for those breeds is down to these owners and less so to the dogs themselves.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Magnus said:


> I meant no offense I assure you but our forum tends to lean a little towards the "safe" side when it comes to these sorts of issues. I hope we can be honest and can disagree but still be polite.
> 
> If chavs suddenly decided that their weapon of choice was a Leonberger (_they'd have a lot less money to spend on themselves after feeding one_) I would be worried about how my chosen breed would be viewed by non-Leo owners. Without a doubt society's perception of the bull breeds has been massively influenced by the oik, thug, chav, criminal, scrote etc. that you rarely see without one.
> 
> I'm sure that I would not have wanted to own a bull breed dog if this had never happened but I'm equally sure that my actual "dislike" for those breeds is down to these owners and less so to the dogs themselves.


See, this I can completely agree with. 
There are certain dogs I wouldn't have, they just aren't for me which is perfectly fine.
A Leo is actually on my dream list of dogs I would like to own in the future.


----------



## Maistaff (Dec 27, 2009)

I feel sorry for the breeds that these chav owners move on to after the Pit bull / bull breeds .

WOnder what will be the dog of choice next as its only a matter of time before things change a new generation of chavs are born :rolleyes5:


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

DoggieBag said:


> Well said.
> 
> I bring this link up a fair bit on here. But look at this list of banned or restricted breeds across America. You will be surprised at some of the breeds on there.
> 
> Dog Politics: List Of 75 Banned Or Restricted Breeds - Is Your Dog On The List?


WTF, Alaskan Malamutes are on that list!!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Maistaff said:


> I feel sorry for the breeds that these chav owners move on to after the Pit bull / bull breeds .
> 
> WOnder what will be the dog of choice next as its only a matter of time before things change a new generation of chavs are born :rolleyes5:


Round here, it's Sibes and Malamutes.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Starlite said:


> WTF, Alaskan Malamutes are on that list!!


And you didn't spot the Goldies and the Labs?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> Why are Pitts banned anyway? Cant be for human attacks as there was only a couple when they got banned and they certainly arent bred to be human aggressive.


I believe there was only one single Tosa Inu living in the UK when the Act came in, so why put him on the list?



terencesmum said:


> Rest assured, they already own them.
> And I find your last comment a bit offensive. You wouldn't shed any tears if they were all extinct? You'd be up in arms, too, if, after they've banned all bullbreeds, they went on to victimise your breed of choice. :nonod:
> But not your problem.
> YET!


Agreed. I am not a lover of bullbreeds, either, but I don't think they are any more dangerous than any other breed and I would never want to see them disappear. Where will it end? They will be banning all giant breeds because they are too big.



Magnus said:


> I meant no offense I assure you but our forum tends to lean a little towards the "safe" side when it comes to these sorts of issues. I hope we can be honest and can disagree but still be polite.
> 
> If chavs suddenly decided that their weapon of choice was a Leonberger (_they'd have a lot less money to spend on themselves after feeding one_) I would be worried about how my chosen breed would be viewed by non-Leo owners. Without a doubt society's perception of the bull breeds has been massively influenced by the oik, thug, chav, criminal, scrote etc. that you rarely see without one.
> 
> I'm sure that I would not have wanted to own a bull breed dog if this had never happened but I'm equally sure that my actual "dislike" for those breeds is down to these owners and less so to the dogs themselves.


I don't see a Leonberger being much of a weapon, to be honest; daft as a brush most of them.



Starlite said:


> WTF, Alaskan Malamutes are on that list!!


And Goldies, Leonbergers, and Newfoundlands for heavens sake! They are not called the gentle giant for nothing! They even have Great Danes, another soppy dog. It is pathetic.


----------



## IndysMamma (Jan 15, 2009)

I still think it's time for the Great Neutering Act to come into play

I'm actually -slightly- serious (not really, not hunting men down with rohypnol and garden shears) - there should be a way to get the population lower and the idiots are a good place to start - if you can't trust someone to raise a child to be a benefit to society they should get the snip 

In the case of the 'stereotypical hard man with muscle dog' (bully, gsd or rottie or whatever) castration would potentially reduce the testosterone and aggression too

double bonus!

(I'm not being hypocritical here - I know I have *no right* to raise children as in my case I am way too neurotic and would do a crap job of it - therefore I am never ever procreating)


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

IndysMamma said:


> I still think it's time for the Great Neutering Act to come into play
> 
> I'm actually -slightly- serious (not really, not hunting men down with rohypnol and garden shears) - there should be a way to get the population lower and the idiots are a good place to start - if you can't trust someone to raise a child to be a benefit to society they should get the snip
> 
> ...


It has been done, actually. It was done in Virginia, I believe, and only ended as late as the 1970's. They gathered up all the women some government know-all decided would not produce offspring to benefit society, and sterilised them, most of them without their knowledge.

From women who were a bit slow, to unmarried mothers who were considered immoral and their future offspring would also be immoral. They even included the poor in the scheme.

You don't really want to see that done here, do you?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

5rivers79 said:


> Why have any breeds at all? Why not just breed for one general type of dog?Why do you get the breed you own? You cant have a go at people for preferring one breed over another.


i love my breed as they are clever, very clean, you dont really have to house train them, they are glamorous and unique, gentle and mostly they are great people dogs and companions and not very high maintenance.

what unique features does a pit bull possess that another bull breed doesnt, im not really sure there is any you couldnt get elsewhere.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

no dog breed should be banned. An irresponsible owner could just as easily turn a labrador into a killing machine as he could a pit.
there are no bad dogs, only bad owners. i know its a cliche but its true.


----------



## IndysMamma (Jan 15, 2009)

I don't mean the underhanded sneaky way that it was done - hell offer people £200 to get sterilised, it's cheaper than the child benefits they'd be collecting

and it's voluntary and have all the pros and cons in a book - the people I want to see not breeding probably couldn't be bothered to read it they'd just want their beer/*** money



(please note another fairly facetious note)


I wonder if castration worked when it *was* used as a punishment? most of the ancient world used it for violent prisoners but was stopped as a practice during the dark ages after the collapse of the roman empire


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> i love my breed as they are clever, very clean, you dont really have to house train them, they are glamorous and unique, gentle and mostly they are great people dogs and companions and not very high maintenance.
> 
> *what unique features does a pit bull possess that another bull breed doesnt, im not really sure there is any you couldnt get elsewhere*.


What unique feature does your breed have that a "normal" Collie doesn't have?

Your statement is quite ignorant. With that logic, why would I have a SBT when surely an English Bullterrier has very similar attributes.
Just because you think they are all similar doesn't make them similar to others.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> i love my breed as they are clever, very clean, you dont really have to house train them, they are glamorous and unique, gentle and mostly they are great people dogs and companions and not very high maintenance.
> 
> what unique features does a pit bull possess that another bull breed doesnt, im not really sure there is any you couldnt get elsewhere.


As someone who is not into bull breeds, I think they are better looking than all the others and to my mind do not look quite so threatening. I doubt the average person in the street would know a pitbull if they came across one, but they all think they are threatened by staffies.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> i love my breed as they are clever, very clean, you dont really have to house train them, they are glamorous and unique, gentle and mostly they are great people dogs and companions and not very high maintenance.
> 
> what unique features does a pit bull possess that another bull breed doesnt, im not really sure there is any you couldnt get elsewhere.


What an odd thing to say you could get ALL the traits you listed from your breed in other breeds, as you could with any dog.

Wait- My bull breed is erm clever, very clean (I did not have to house train him), glamorous, and unique in that he is a cross so there is not another identical to him, he is very gentle, he is great with people and probably lower maintenance than your dog as he is short coated.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

IndysMamma said:


> I don't mean the underhanded sneaky way that it was done - hell offer people £200 to get sterilised, it's cheaper than the child benefits they'd be collecting
> 
> and it's voluntary and have all the pros and cons in a book - the people I want to see not breeding probably couldn't be bothered to read it they'd just want their beer/*** money
> 
> ...


I know Henry II castrated rapists, and there was no anaesthetic in the 12th century! I think we could do with Henry II today actually.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

terencesmum said:


> What unique feature does your breed have that a "normal" Collie doesn't have?
> 
> Your statement is quite ignorant. With that logic, why would I have a SBT when surely an English Bullterrier has very similar attributes.
> Just because you think they are all similar doesn't make them similar to others.


i dont know what a normal collie is if you mean border collie, they need more exercise and are quite different from a rough collie actually.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> i dont know what a normal collie is if you mean border collie, they need more exercise and are quite different from a rough collie actually.


As a Staff is very different from an EBT :rolleyes5:


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> What an odd thing to say you could get ALL the traits you listed from your breed in other breeds, as you could with any dog.
> 
> Wait- My bull breed is erm clever, very clean (I did not have to house train him), glamorous, and unique in that he is a cross so there is not another identical to him, he is very gentle, he is great with people and probably lower maintenance than your dog as he is short coated.


the same look and coat and colour only is unique to a rough collie and the smaller sheltie. they also dont have a doggy smell to them and dont need to be bathed.

say a rough collie was banned i would have a sheltie. i dont see a pit bull is that very different that people really need them.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> i dont know what a normal collie is if you mean border collie, they need more exercise and are quite different from a rough collie actually.


Exactly my point. 
There might be a huge difference to you, but to me, they all look the same. Why have all those different breeds? Let's just lump all those Collies together and have a type. After all, makes no difference to me.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> i love my breed as they are clever, very clean, you dont really have to house train them, they are glamorous and unique, gentle and mostly they are great people dogs and companions and not very high maintenance.
> 
> what unique features does a pit bull possess that another bull breed doesnt, im not really sure there is any you couldnt get elsewhere.


As far as a Pitbull is concerned, I can't think of a breed that is so versatile and capable of excelling in any field.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> the same look and coat and colour only is unique to a rough collie and the smaller sheltie.
> 
> say a rough collie was banned i would have a sheltie. i dont see a pit bull is that very different that people really need them.


A true Pitt (which to be honest most people would not know if it came up and bit them on the ass) is VERY different to a Staff/EBT/Mastiff with a google search of images anyone can see that. :rolleyes5:


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

terencesmum said:


> Exactly my point.
> There might be a huge difference to you, but to me, they all look the same. Why have all those different breeds? Let's just lump all those Collies together and have a type. After all, makes no difference to me.


well then you are as much at fault as i am.

but then what stands out about a pit bull?


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> well then you are as much at fault as i am.
> 
> but then what stands out about a pit bull?


Unlike your statement, my statement was supposed to be sarcastic. I already stated elsewhere that I do not want to see the demise of any breeds. 

You've been given plenty of opinions about why Pitts are "special" to people. Just read the earlier posts.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> A true Pitt (which to be honest most people would not know if it came up and bit them on the ass) is VERY different to a Staff/EBT/Mastiff with a google search of images anyone can see that. :rolleyes5:


a google search of the news for pit bulls maybe suggests why they may be banned in the first place!

i just dont really see a need for the ban to be lifted, thats all.

if you like a breed but its banned, find another one, i would, im sure there are other breeds out there that can fit a criteria, thats all im saying.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Anyone would think Rough Collies had never seriously injured/attacked another dog or a human. :thumbdown:


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> Anyone would think Rough Collies had never seriously injured/attacked another dog or a human. :thumbdown:


Above poster will tell you that indeed they haven't.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> well then you are as much at fault as i am.
> 
> but then what stands out about a pit bull?


I mentioned their versatility earlier which you seemed to have missed.

War hero - The Worlds Bravest Dog Sgt.Stubby

SAR dogs - FOR PITS' SAKE // Search & Rescue

Helen Kellers guide dog - http://www.cesarsway.com/node/1893

An ex Vick fighting dog, now a therapy dog despite the abuse - Leo, one of the Michael Vick dogs, now therapy dog! - YouTube

My favourite, Bandog Dread, holder of more working titles than any other dog THE BULLY BLOG - This is Pit Bull Ch. Bandog

I can't think of any other breed that capable.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> Anyone would think Rough Collies had never seriously injured/attacked another dog or a human. :thumbdown:


im sorry i wasnt saying that, i was saying that there are other dogs that meet the best parts of a pitbull in legal breeds, no need to personally insult me, i didnt say anything of the sort.

they do attack, im aware of that, however they are not easily taught to attack.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> i love my breed as they are clever, very clean, you dont really have to house train them, they are glamorous and unique, gentle and mostly they are great people dogs and companions and not very high maintenance.
> 
> what unique features does a pit bull possess that another bull breed doesnt, im not really sure there is any you couldnt get elsewhere.


The thing is, we all love our own dogs / types of breed - and cannot see the appeal of others. I cannot see the appeal of Rough Collies in terms of desiring to own one and I am fairly certain that you cannot find any redeeming features in a ridgie - although I happen to believe that they are clever, very clean, glamorous and unique too - and definitely not high maintenance .

Whenever there is any kind of breed debate, you always say that a Rough Collie is better than all others and totally unique. To you they are. I understand your passion for them as they are obviously your favourite breed by a long way - but sometimes I feel that you do need to take a step back and understand that many others feel just as passionately about their own breeds / mixes as you do about yours.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> im sorry i wasnt saying that, i was saying that there are other dogs that meet the best parts of a pitbull in legal breeds, no need to personally insult me, i didnt say anything of the sort.
> 
> they do attack, im aware of that, however they are not easily taught to attack.


I don't think anyone meant to insult you. 

The big point about Bullys in my mind is that they are incredibly human friendly. That's what it says in the breed standard. Their reactive threshold is incredibly HIGH contrary to what people believe.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> im sorry i wasnt saying that, i was saying that there are other dogs that meet the best parts of a pitbull in legal breeds, no need to personally insult me, i didnt say anything of the sort.
> 
> they do attack, im aware of that, however they are not easily taught to attack.


I did not mean to insult you. Dogless has said it already, but with these kind of threads you always come across as anti anything not a Rough Collie, as if they are a super dog.

If that is not your intention then sorry, but like with any forum post you can not get a true feeling how the words are meant to come across.


----------



## MGarland (Aug 23, 2010)

Well this has turned sour.

Re-rail the thread me thinks.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

just to fuel the fire, my elder sister was bitten by our own rough collie as a small child (before i was born actually so im afraid i dont know the intricate details or anything about the dog)
Therefore rough collies are dangerous and should be banned? right?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> the same look and coat and colour only is unique to a rough collie and the smaller sheltie. *they also dont have a doggy smell to them and dont need to be bathed.*say a rough collie was banned i would have a sheltie. i dont see a pit bull is that very different that people really need them.


You should have met my mum's rough collie!



emmaviolet said:


> a google search of the news for pit bulls maybe suggests why they may be banned in the first place!
> 
> i just dont really see a need for the ban to be lifted, thats all.
> 
> if you like a breed but its banned, find another one, i would, im sure there are other breeds out there that can fit a criteria, thats all im saying.


I don't think you can really say that, to be honest. There are no other breeds to compare in my eyes to a newfie. If they banned them, I would be devastated.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> a google search of the news for pit bulls maybe suggests why they may be banned in the first place!
> 
> i just dont really see a need for the ban to be lifted, thats all.
> 
> if you like a breed but its banned, find another one, i would, im sure there are other breeds out there that can fit a criteria, thats all im saying.


News for True APBT or for random cross breeds that look a bit like a Pit?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Dogless said:


> The thing is, we all love our own dogs / types of breed - and cannot see the appeal of others. I cannot see the appeal of Rough Collies in terms of desiring to own one and I am fairly certain that you cannot find any redeeming features in a ridgie - although I happen to believe that they are clever, very clean, glamorous and unique too - and definitely not high maintenance .
> 
> Whenever there is any kind of breed debate, you always say that a Rough Collie is better than all others and totally unique. To you they are. I understand your passion for them as they are obviously your favourite breed by a long way - but sometimes I feel that you do need to take a step back and understand that many others feel just as passionately about their own breeds / mixes as you do about yours.


im sorry but this was a response when someone asked me why i chose my breed.

actually they are my favourite breed but i have others, i am looking into getting a Tibetan terrier actually and i only answered a question there.

all im saying is you may love a breed but you can find others that fit what you like about dogs into another breed that isnt illegal.


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't see a Leonberger being much of a weapon, to be honest; daft as a brush most of them.


Agreed. Although you wouldn't want someone to hit you with an 85kg Leonberger!


----------



## Netpon (Feb 21, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> a google search of the news for pit bulls maybe suggests why they may be banned in the first place!
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> all im saying is you may love a breed but you can find others that fit what you like about dogs into another breed that isnt illegal.


fair comment.... so if they were to ban dogs completely thats fine cos you can always find another pet that isnt illegal...

Having an alternative doesnt justify the ban.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> im sorry but this was a response when someone asked me why i chose my breed.
> 
> actually they are my favourite breed but i have others, i am looking into getting a Tibetan terrier actually and i only answered a question there.
> 
> all im saying is you may love a breed but you can find others that fit what you like about dogs into another breed that isnt illegal.


No need to be sorry . I think people (myself included) just get a little tired at times of your criticism of many different breeds but seeming belief that RCs can do no wrong at all. You probably don't mean it, realise you do it, or I may have the wrong impression as it's the internet after all and we can't always derive complete meaning from posts. I just know that if anyone posts anything negative about a dog that you will respond with 'a rough collie would never do that'.

I do see what you are trying to get at I think; just not with the arguments you use for it!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Dogless said:


> No need to be sorry . I think people (myself included) just get a little tired at times of your criticism of many different breeds but seeming belief that RCs can do no wrong at all. You probably don't mean it, realise you do it, or I may have the wrong impression as it's the internet after all and we can't always derive complete meaning from posts. I just know that if anyone posts anything negative about a dog that you will respond with 'a rough collie would never do that'.
> 
> I do see what you are trying to get at I think; just not with the arguments you use for it!


actually i never said a rough collie wouldnt do it, i just answered why i love my chosen breed.

i praise my breed, yes but everyone does it, in fact the people who own the bull breeds prob more often in defence. i say they cant be taught to attack, its a fact in ww2 they tried to no avail, there are rouges in the breed as with all.

i am proud to say that none of mine have ever attacked anyone or animal and been a joy but i think there are people with westies who know the same to be true for them and their breed.

i love many breeds though, would love a sammy, i have said that alot and a tibetan terrier and love many others too. i think i remember you posting the same thing before anyway.

i never brought up my breed, others did. someone else had said exactly the same as me, there are other bull breeds to chose from yet its me and my breed others want to jump on.

you love your breed, everyone loves their chosen breed prob above others or why else chose them, doggiebag i know you love greyhounds. 
rough collie owners tend to be enthusiasts to the breed, just because sometimes you have to experience something in your life to understand it, but thats ok, i dont mind if i seem like i love my breed as i do!

i think i'll stay away from breed debates from now on, spend time with my great rough collie instead!


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> actually i never said a rough collie wouldnt do it, i just answered why i love my chosen breed.
> 
> i praise my breed, yes but everyone does it, in fact the people who own the bull breeds prob more often in defence. i say they cant be taught to attack, its a fact in ww2 they tried to no avail, there are rouges in the breed as with all.
> 
> ...


I love all breeds. My constant pushing of Greyhounds in the last few days, is in jest as I point out in the thread concerned.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> actually i never said a rough collie wouldnt do it, i just answered why i love my chosen breed.
> 
> i praise my breed, yes but everyone does it, in fact the people who own the bull breeds prob more often in defence. i say they cant be taught to attack, its a fact in ww2 they tried to no avail, there are rouges in the breed as with all.
> 
> ...


It is admirable that you love your breed - I'm not knocking that and no one could doubt it for one second.

I haven't meant to cause offense, as I am sure you don't really mean to with some of your comments which can cause offense too, just the perils of the internet I am sure.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Dogless said:


> It is admirable that you love your breed - I'm not knocking that and no one could doubt it for one second.
> 
> I haven't meant to cause offense, as I am sure you don't really mean to with some of your comments which can cause offense too, just the perils of the internet I am sure.


no more admirable then the many, many on here who love their chosen breed, many so much to have their profile pictures describing how great their breeds are!

yes some of my posts may have caused offence, however they are not directed to one poster, just the topic in general as i dont believe anyone to actually have a pit bull on here.

my views were on the topic at first until i was asked why i love my breed and then replied to it, no one was a target just the subject of pit bulls.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> no more admirable then the many, many on here who love their chosen breed, *many so much to have their profile pictures describing how great their breeds are*!
> 
> yes some of my posts may have caused offence, however they are not directed to one poster, just the topic in general as i dont believe anyone to actually have a pit bull on here.
> 
> my views were on the topic at first until i was asked why i love my breed and then replied to it, no one was a target just the subject of pit bulls.


I wonder who you are aiming that at?????  :ciappa:


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

I'd love a pittie or dogo


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Just to derail again in another direction 

Whoever was talking about castrating humans; they're doing it now to paedophiles in this country...

Paedophiles chemically castrated in British jail - Telegraph


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

porps said:


> no dog breed should be banned. An irresponsible owner could just as easily turn a labrador into a killing machine as he could a pit.
> there are no bad dogs, only bad owners. i know its a cliche but its true.


I don't agree. You could turn a labrador into a killing machine, but it would be a lot more difficult. Labradors are much better at giving warnings before they do anything, and are more natural appeasers. Any fighting dog that gave out the warnings would be ripped to bits by one that didn't - therefore the history of their breeding means they are selected for attacking without warning.
And I think some dogs are 'bad'. Why should pathological behaviour be restricted to the human species? The 'no bad dogs, only bad owners' is fluffy-bunny sentimentalism in my opinion.


----------



## bellasy (Mar 28, 2012)

Pitbulls shouldn't be banned. They are dogs still. Just don't teach your pitbulls to be harmful and don't engaged them to a dogfight. Teach your pitbull to protect you not to harm people.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't think any animal is born 'bad', human, dog or any other...


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Galadriel17 said:


> Just to derail again in another direction
> 
> Whoever was talking about castrating humans; they're doing it now to paedophiles in this country...
> 
> Paedophiles chemically castrated in British jail - Telegraph


Only with their consent, and reversed if the drug is stopped. Hardly the same thing.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> I don't agree. You could turn a labrador into a killing machine, but it would be a lot more difficult. Labradors are much better at giving warnings before they do anything, and are more natural appeasers. Any fighting dog that gave out the warnings would be ripped to bits by one that didn't - therefore the history of their breeding means they are selected for attacking without warning.
> And I think some dogs are 'bad'. Why should pathological behaviour be restricted to the human species? The 'no bad dogs, only bad owners' is fluffy-bunny sentimentalism in my opinion.


The no warning thing is a myth, it is not a trait carried through any bull/fighting breed.
It was trained into fighting dogs you are correct, but is not carried through genetics. Just like all GSD's do not get born wanting to chase people and grab their right arm, or all spaniels go looking for drugs.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

bellasy said:


> Pitbulls shouldn't be banned. They are dogs still. Just don't teach your pitbulls to be harmful and don't engaged them to a dogfight. Teach your pitbull to protect you not to harm people.


Interested by what you mean with "don't teach them to be harmful, but teach them to protect you".


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> Only with their consent, and reversed if the drug is stopped. Hardly the same thing.


Blimey  I know but it is an example of human castration happening in this country at the moment


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> As far as a Pitbull is concerned, I can't think of a breed that is so versatile and capable of excelling in any field.


labrador?  

I think it's working uses proves that - the most commonly used breed across many different areas.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> labrador?
> 
> I think it's working uses proves that - the most commonly used breed across many different areas.


Could this potentially be because there are so many of them? 

Sorry, just playing devil's advocate here.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> labrador?
> 
> I think it's working uses proves that - the most commonly used breed across many different areas.


I may be wrong, but I can't imagine a Labrador working as a catch dog or controlling cattle by gripping them by the nose. Are there many Labradors that have titles in schutzhund, herding, obedience and weight pulling (in the same dog)?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Burrowzig said:


> I don't agree. You could turn a labrador into a killing machine, but it would be a lot more difficult. Labradors are much better at giving warnings before they do anything, and are more natural appeasers. Any fighting dog that gave out the warnings would be ripped to bits by one that didn't - therefore the history of their breeding means they are selected for attacking without warning.
> And I think some dogs are 'bad'. Why should pathological behaviour be restricted to the human species? The 'no bad dogs, only bad owners' is fluffy-bunny sentimentalism in my opinion.


what do u mean attacking without warning? sure if you dock their tails and crop their ears they cant warn you as easily.... just as a lab would have trouble if it had a docked tail or cropped ears. But isnt tail docking and ear cropping illegal now? (thankfully). Are you telling me that pitbulls dont growl? that their hair doesnt stand up? that they dont use their tails and ears to communicate? cos if you are, with all due respect, you are talking out of your rectum.
How many pitbulls have you actually known? Any? cos it sounds like youve never met one and are simply basing your misguided posts on media scaremongering.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

DoggieBag said:


> The no warning thing is a myth, it is not a trait carried through any bull/fighting breed.
> It was trained into fighting dogs you are correct, but is not carried through genetics. Just like all GSD's do not get born wanting to chase people and grab their right arm, or all spaniels go looking for drugs.


Correct. I own a breed with a fighting history and their signals and communication is no different to any other dog.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Could this potentially be because there are so many of them?


The other way round - there are so many of them because they are so versatile 

As far as a working dog goes, they are the most commonly used - assistance dogs (guide dogs/disabled etc), search and rescue, water rescue, tracking, detection etc in addition to the work they were bred for. It is their versatility, work ethic and biddability that makes them a popular choice. After all, it's no use having a working dog if it won't do what you ask of it 



> Are there many Labradors that have titles in schutzhund, herding, obedience and weight pulling (in the same dog)?


Shutzhund, not that I'm aware of but many do have working trial titles which is very similar and includes man work. Obedience yes, herding - it more of specialist role - and why would you want to use anything other than a herding breed? And weight pulling?  why would anyone do that


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> The other way round - there are so many of them because they are so versatile
> 
> As far as a working dog goes, they are the most commonly used - assistance dogs (guide dogs/disabled etc), search and rescue, water rescue, tracking, detection etc in addition to the work they were bred for. It is their versatility, work ethic and biddability that makes them a popular choice. After all, it's no use having a working dog if it won't do what you ask of it


I was only messing. On the vino over here.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

It is easy to say lift the ban, because in the hands of a responsible dog owner Pitbulls are a loving and affectionate family pets. The problem is these dogs attract the wrong type of owners.

Having said that the ban has simply caused another problem with Staffies, ban Staffies and these morons will choose another breed and another.

We are not dealing with the real problem we are simply shifting the problem to a different breed.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Galadriel17 said:


> Blimey  I know but it is an example of human castration happening in this country at the moment


Castration is a surgical operation, non-reversible. Chemical 'castration' is just giving a drug to reduce sex drive, it's nothing like the same thing and to even use the word 'castration' for it is misleading.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

sskmick said:


> It is easy to say lift the ban, because in the hands of a responsible dog owner Pitbulls are a loving and affectionate family pets. The problem is these dogs attract the wrong type of owners.


BECAUSE of the medias scaremongering. Banning them only serves to make them more desirable and ensure that the breeders will be the same kind of irresponsible people who you wouldnt even want owning such a dog (any dog).



sskmick said:


> Having said that the ban has simply caused another problem with Staffies, ban Staffies and these morons will choose another breed and another.
> We are not dealing with the real problem we are simply shifting the problem to a different breed.


true.. Wheres that person with the "what will you do when they come for your breed" sig that i love so much?


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> Castration is a surgical operation, non-reversible. Chemical 'castration' is just giving a drug to reduce sex drive, it's nothing like the same thing and to even use the word 'castration' for it is misleading.


And there's me thinking chemical castration was chemical castration and surgical castration was surgical castration...


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

porps said:


> BECAUSE of the medias scaremongering. Banning them only serves to make them more desirable and ensure that the breeders will be the same kind of irresponsible people who you wouldnt even want owning such a dog (any dog).
> 
> true.. *Wheres that person with the "what will you do when they come for your breed" sig that i love so much*?


SimplySardonic


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

No they should not be banned imo. Why should any breed be banned. 

I would love too own an american pitbull terrier if the banned ever got lifted i would have one in a heart beat. 

Dogs do not turn for no reason thats absolute rubbish. Dogs behave how they do because of their owners, they have made them that way. 

NO dog should be judged because a dog of that same breed was brought up incorrectly by idiots who dont have a clue. 
Dogs just like people are individuals you dont judge all white men on one white mans actions do we.....NO so why do it with dogs its wrong.
Ive met aggressive yappy little dogs but ive met lovely friendly not yappy little dogs it all depends on their upbrining imo. 

As someone mentioned before banning breeds dosnt solve any problems, its the owners that have too be tackled not the dogs, Dogs are not born aggressive they are brought up too be that way.


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Do people on here even research the truth or even read posts by other members??

*PITBULLS ARE NOT HUMAN AGGRESSIVE, THEY WERE NEVER BRED TO BE HUMAN AGGRESSIVE AS HUMANS HAD TO HANDLE THEM DURING FIGHTS.*


Could that have been said any clearer? lol

Any dog can be made to fight. Some idiots fight cockerals and chickens! Should we ban them too???


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> Do people on here even research the truth or even read posts by other members??
> 
> *PITBULLS ARE NOT HUMAN AGGRESSIVE, THEY WERE NEVER BRED TO BE HUMAN AGGRESSIVE AS HUMANS HAD TO HANDLE THEM DURING FIGHTS.*
> 
> ...


Not so long ago, a fiesty "teenage" cockerel decided to jump on my head - I don't think he was going for me, just wanted to be higher up 
I'd rather deal with a dog attack any day! :laugh:


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> Do people on here even research the truth or even read posts by other members??
> 
> *PITBULLS ARE NOT HUMAN AGGRESSIVE, THEY WERE NEVER BRED TO BE HUMAN AGGRESSIVE AS HUMANS HAD TO HANDLE THEM DURING FIGHTS.*
> 
> ...


As long as they are kept on a lead at _all_ times, I don't think a ban should be necessary. But, like Staffordshire Bull Terriers, they were bred for the purpose of fighting/baiting bulls and, when that was banned, to fight other dogs for entertainment.

Unfortunately, due to generations of breeding for this purpose, they have huge heads and massively powerful jaws and retain an unpredictable nature towards other dogs; and it's my dog's welfare that concerns me.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

samuelsmiles said:


> As long as they are kept on a lead at _all_ times, I don't think a ban should be necessary. But, like Staffordshire Bull Terriers, they were bred for the purpose of fighting/baiting bulls and, when that was banned, to fight other dogs for entertainment.
> 
> Unfortunately, due to generations of breeding for this purpose, they have huge heads and *massively powerful jaws* and retain an unpredictable nature towards other dogs; and it's my dog's welfare that concerns me.


How do their jaws differ from any other breed?


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

samuelsmiles said:


> As long as they are kept on a lead at _all_ times, I don't think a ban should be necessary. But, like Staffordshire Bull Terriers, they were bred for the purpose of fighting/baiting bulls and, when that was banned, to fight other dogs for entertainment.
> 
> Unfortunately, due to generations of breeding for this purpose, they have huge heads and massively powerful jaws and retain an unpredictable nature towards other dogs; and it's my dog's welfare that concerns me.


No they don't need to be kept on leads at all times, they are no different from any other breed IF brought up properly and correctly trained and socialised, like ALL dogs should


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> How do their jaws differ from any other breed?


Well, they are bigger and much more powerful. They were bred to be so because they had to fight bulls and then other dogs when that was banned. This, combined with their unpredictable nature, makes me think having them on a lead at all times would probably be a good idea.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

samuelsmiles said:


> Well, they are bigger and much more powerful. They were bred to be so because they had to fight bulls and then other dogs when that was banned. This, combined with their unpredictable nature, makes me think having them on a lead at all times would probably be a good idea.


You do know it's not just pits/staffs that were originally used in bull baiting etc so should all these breeds be banned NO! none of them should 

Neither are they any more unpredictable then any other, some of them can be DA that is all!


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

pogo said:


> No they don't need to be kept on leads at all times, they are no different from any other breed IF brought up properly and correctly trained and socialised, like ALL dogs should


Yes, they are completely different. A Border Collie, for example, was bred for its intelligence to herd sheep, not to fight like a Pitbull or Staffordshire Bull Terrier.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

samuelsmiles said:


> Well, they are bigger and much more powerful. They were bred to be so because they had to fight bulls and then other dogs when that was banned. This, combined with their unpredictable nature, makes me think having them on a lead at all times would probably be a good idea.


They are no different from the jaws of any breed of dog (especially a breed of the same size). So still do not get your point.

They are not the only breed that come from a history connected to Bulls or indeed any other animal such as Bears for example.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

samuelsmiles said:


> Yes, they are completely different. A Border Collie, for example, was bred for its intelligence to herd sheep, not to fight like a Pitbull or Staffordshire Bull Terrier.


They were never bred to be human OR dog aggressive, that is what idiots have done, so stop the staffy hating and grow up.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> and retain an unpredictable nature towards other dogs; and it's my dog's welfare that concerns me


.

Agree with this bit.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> *They are no different from the jaws of any breed of dog (especially a breed of the same size). *So still do not get your point.
> 
> They are not the only breed that come from a history connected to Bulls or indeed any other animal such as Bears for example.


What a silly thing to say. My Border Collie is the same height as a lot of Staffies but his jaw is tiny in comparison and he doesn't have the same aggresive tendencies. He was bred for his intelligence, so didn't need a jaw big and strong enough to fight other animals, be it bull, bear or dog.

I'm not saying Pitbulls or Staffies should be banned. Just kept on a lead at all times.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Tough **** they should not be kept on lead, and guess what MINE won't be 

Oh i could say the same about collies, keep your bloody dogs on leads, as 2 have now attacked my staff badly, who didn't once retaliate.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

samuelsmiles said:


> What a silly thing to say. My Border Collie is the same height as a lot of Staffies but his jaw is tiny in comparison and he doesn't have the same aggresive tendencies. He was bred for his intelligence, so didn't need a jaw big and strong enough to fight other animals, be it bull, bear or dog.
> 
> I'm not saying Pitbulls or Staffies should be banned. Just kept on a lead at all times.


Silly thing to say? I work in an area that deals with Dog Law and dog attacks. I know a fair bit about jaws of dogs, I have spent the time studying each and every breed that has attack either a human or another dog.

Take your Border Collie, oh the humble BC that does not have the right jaws to hurt a human, nor the frame of mind to want to hurt a human.

Then read this, just 2 examples of serious attacks by BC's

Cameron Whithers, 8, 'lucky to be alive' after Border Collie mauls his head | Mail Online

Family's border collie leaps into car and mauls baby | Mail Online

I could go on and on giving examples of attacks by each different breed. But maybe you should take some of your own time to research different breeds before coming out with false information.

Fair enough you do not have to like certain breeds, but use actual true facts to support your case, not ones supplied by the media.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

I haven't had chance to look at this but it is such a contentious issue can you all make your arguments for or against without getting personal or aggressive with each other.
If you can't the the thread will be closed.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> Silly thing to say? I work in an area that deals with Dog Law and dog attacks. I know a fair bit about jaws of dogs, I have spent the time studying each and every breed that has attack either a human or another dog.
> 
> Take your Border Collie, oh the humble BC that does not have the right jaws to hurt a human, nor the frame of mind to want to hurt a human.
> 
> ...


Like the two you've just used from the Daily Mail you mean?


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

samuelsmiles said:


> Like the two you've just used from the Daily Mail you mean?


Yes cos funny enough that is easier to get online, than scanning official legal documents, which of course I am not allowed to publish on a public forum.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

This conversation is amazingly similar to what has happened before, know matter what 'documents' you show him, staffs are bad, as his precious breed can't do anything wrong


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> Yes cos funny enough that is easier to get online, than scanning official legal documents, which of course I am not allowed to publish on a public forum.


Ok, so you're the perfect person to ask.

You would suggest I should be as fearful of any dog attacking and , God forbid, killing/injuring my dog?


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

samuelsmiles said:


> Ok, so you're the perfect person to ask.
> 
> You would suggest I should be as fearful of any dog attacking and , God forbid, killing/injuring my dog?


Yes you should, even more so if you do not know the owner and/or dog.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

pogo said:


> This conversation is amazingly similar to what has happened before, know matter what 'documents' you show him, staffs are bad, as his precious breed can't do anything wrong


I haven't read all the thread so not sure what this comment refers to. I know some lovely staffs but staffies can be prone to dog aggression regardless of socialisation and training. That said I have no problems with dog aggressive dogs of any breed, providing the owners are responsible and control them.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> I haven't read all the thread so not sure what this comment refers to. I know some lovely staffs but staffies can be prone to dog aggression regardless of socialisation and training. That said I have no problems with dog aggressive dogs of any breed, providing the owners are responsible and control them.


True it is the owners responsibility to know their dog and the correct way of dealing with it. Whether it's DA, HA or has a high prey drive etc.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

Oh Jesus...i go out for a drink and come home to this :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I haven't read all the thread so not sure what this comment refers to. I know some lovely staffs but staffies can be prone to dog aggression regardless of socialisation and training. That said I have no problems with dog aggressive dogs of any breed, providing the owners are responsible and control them.


The comment was aimed at samuel who seems amazingly similar to a member with a similar name who was banned for instigating arguments after a staff attacked his BC.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> True it is the owners responsibility to know their dog and the correct way of dealing with it. Whether it's DA, HA or has a high prey drive etc.


Yes, and I've worked so hard with my little fella, but I genuinely fear that because of his gentle nature he won't have the strength or courage to fight off a dog that was bred for the purpose to fight.

It's happened too often. It _is_ a problem.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> but I genuinely fear that because of his gentle nature he won't have the strength or courage to fight off a dog that was bred for the purpose to fight


Why should he need to? I protect my dogs I certainly don't expect them to fight off a dog. I have eyes in the back of my head and I walk them where I am unlikely to come across aggressive dogs. I get to know dogs and if there are iffy ones I avoid them.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

samuelsmiles said:


> Yes, and I've worked so hard with my little fella, but I genuinely fear that because of his gentle nature he won't have the strength or courage to fight off a dog that was bred for the purpose to fight.
> 
> It's happened too often. It _is_ a problem.


The point is there are ALOT bigger and ALOT stronger dogs out there, who were bred for similar working conditions and yet you seem to forget about them


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

samuelsmiles said:


> Yes, and I've worked so hard with my little fella, but I genuinely fear that because of his gentle nature he won't have the strength or courage to fight off a dog that was bred for the purpose to fight.
> 
> It's happened too often. It _is_ a problem.


yes and i have worked very hard with my little fella too..his setback was two collies running out of their garden onto the public footpath which we were walking on ...making him so afraid he peed where he stood ...

All dogs can be aggressive .....not just bull breeds


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Let's get together and BAN a seriously BAD BREED. They're a bl**dy sight worse than Pits. They're out of control, breed like rabbits and cause endless trouble. They're KNOWN for mindless violence.

Think you blokes call 'em chavs and I certainly call 'em bogans.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

samuelsmiles said:


> Yes, and I've worked so hard with my little fella, but I genuinely fear that because of his gentle nature he won't have the strength or courage to fight off a dog that was bred for the purpose to fight.
> 
> It's happened too often. It _is_ a problem.


But surely you can see it is unfair to be breedist?

It's understandable to be wary if you have had your dog attacked by another dog. But at the same time it remains unfair to tarnish every dog of the same breed with the same brush.

Take Labs for example they have a high record of attacks, does that stop people approaching them? No of course not because not every Lab is going to bite.

Same with a BC. Using those 2 links I posted, does that mean your BC might attack a small child? No of course it doesn't, and it would be unfair to make out your breed is dangerous.

Or to think of it another way if you were mugged by a man with a tattoo on his arm at night. Would you now ask for a law to be passed stating all men with tattoos on their arm must not go out after 6pm or without an escort?


----------



## vickieb (Nov 22, 2010)

I dont think any breed should be banned. If dogs are bred well and socialised well and trained well,then all dogs can be good dogs. 

I think issues are down to breeding from bad temperament dogs, dicks owning them and lack of training.

I see many aggressive dogs that kick off in my dog walking area and you would be surprised at the breeds. Non pit bull or anyother 'labeled' agressive dog


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

There are some good points on here about this, really making me think about pitbulls are banned but I could cross an American Bulldog with an Akita (just an example) two of the biggest most powerfull dogs I can think of and thats fine?


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> There are some good points on here about this, really making me think about pitbulls are banned but I could cross an American Bulldog with an Akita (just an example) two of the biggest most powerfull dogs I can think of and thats fine?


My point (not that i would ever want these breeds banned) but my Chance is an ambull and a hell of a lot stronger then a staff/pit and was also originally bred for similar purposes, and yet as they aren't in the news people don't see them as 'dangerous' dogs, well until chavs start to buy them anyway


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

dandogman said:


> *There is a reason why they are banned, it wouldn't have been done if it wasn't necessary. *
> I agree that its more 'deed than breed' but in the wrong hands they are very dangerous - for that reason I believe they should stay banned.
> 
> I think a better option would be to make it harder for people to get dogs so that would iron out the chavs....... hopefully or maybe not!


*I disagree with that statement.*

_Any_ dog in the wrong hands is dangerous.

My brother had an EBT, he was a bit 'mad', but the most damage he ever did was almost breaking my nose with his thick head - and that was because he was so excited to see me he headbutted me! They are solid dogs! But in the wrong hands he could have been lethal.

Anatolian Shepherd Dogs are huge. They are powerful. And in the wrong hands they could be lethal (especially as they are so loyal). I have spent a lot of time with ASDs, and with a lot of them at the same time. Never felt scared or nervous once - been pulled over a few times and dragged along on the end of a lead :blush: but only through excitement, not through aggression.

The only dog I have ever encountered and been nervous of is a friends Shih Tzu. That was snappy, snarly, and would go for you if you so much as moved.

So, no I dont think Pit Bulls should be banned. I do however, think certain owners should be banned.


----------



## coral. (May 11, 2011)

i have to admit videos and pictures of pit bulls i see do kinda scare me
i would never actually own one, and i surpose there must be a reason to why there banned, like i thought that one was bad not long in london attacking police and they had to shoot 4 times till it was dead - but then again we never got to see the owner!

i surpose any dog can be dangerous and snap at any moment, but i surpose its mostly down to the owners and if they treat there dogs like sh1t 

like there was rumours staffordshire bull terriers may get banned eventually one day i dont know if that will ever happen or not, but my OH has 2 Ruby and Ziggy, Ziggy is still a puppy though and learning, and Ruby well shes so kind and effectionate towards people she will run to get to people, when we have people round its a nightmare cause she wont sit still she will licking and wanting fuss haha!

but having 2 staffys seems to attract yobs, cause its always the breed that chavs sometimes have, and alot of the time its down to them the reason they have the reputation they've got, and i wont lie sometimes i can walk past them a little wary cause i look at the owner and then look at the dog, but theres probably nothing wrong with it 

hope this is making sense as i can barley keep my eyes open lol.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

DoggieBag said:


> Silly thing to say? I work in an area that deals with Dog Law and dog attacks. I know a fair bit about jaws of dogs, I have spent the time studying each and every breed that has attack either a human or another dog.
> 
> Take your Border Collie, oh the humble BC that does not have the right jaws to hurt a human, nor the frame of mind to want to hurt a human.
> 
> ...


In 9 years training at a club that dealt mainly in large guarding breeds the only 2 dogs that ever bit anyone were BCs. Quite a high number when you consider there were only ever 4 BCs come through the door


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

All dog breeds can have 'problems'. Breeding from "problems" generally leads to more little "problems". 

Add numpty owners; those who enjoy scary dogs, those who can never be brought to believe Fwuffy would hurt anyone even though Fwuffy has his teeth stuck in your leg at the time and those who simply don't care and there's trouble.

Personally I'd rather be bitten by Tess than Rex just from the point of view of their different sizes and strengths. A strong, grumpy dog does more damage than a weak, grumpy dog.

You can argue breed characteristics all day. It's kind of fun. The prey drive of the Border Collie vs the guarding of the GSD vs the bolshy attitude of the JRT etc etc. On an individual level.... some dogs bite.

Best to deal with the bitey ones.


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Id be more weary of the owner who thinks their dog/breed can do no harm.

Iv got a fighting breed, most commonly reffered to as "those Japanese fighting dogs". However, I choose to correct these numpties and tell them he is an Akita and one that is a big softy. Trouble is now that I have Lucky (AmBull) I hardly get approached at all lmao!


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

hawksport said:


> In 9 years training at a club that dealt mainly in large guarding breeds the only 2 dogs that ever bit anyone were BCs. Quite a high number when you consider there were only ever 4 BCs come through the door


Most of the dogs round here that you have to give a wide berth are BCs; do I think they should be banned? No. Do I think their owners need to spend more time socialising them and stimulating them? Yes.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> *Why should he need to?* I protect my dogs I certainly don't expect them to fight off a dog. I have eyes in the back of my head and I walk them where I am unlikely to come across aggressive dogs. I get to know dogs and if there are iffy ones I avoid them.


No, you're absolutely right, he shouldn't need to and he won't, so please don't insinuate that, in some way, I'm not protecting my dog, you won't find a more protective, caring owner.

Over the last year my life has been completely dedicated to bringing up my first dog to be happy, confident, obedient and respectful to other dogs and humans. It's been the most rewarding year of my life.

He's 16 months old and his recall is 100%; his reaction to other dogs if they approach him is submissive and utterly non-confrontational, and I always make sure that when he has meetings with other dogs I'm really, really close by.

Unfortunately, a dog that has been bred for generations to fight will always retain these traits and will forever be causing damage to other less powerful dogs. The chavs have chosen this breed because of this reputation and others may choose it because they think they have the will and strength to control this type of dog.

It's a fighting dog that has attacked my dog on at least 3 occassions. He has met thousands of other dogs with no problems. I won't be looking at this forum for advice on how to raise my dog.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

samuelsmiles said:


> No, you're absolutely right, he shouldn't need to and he won't, so please don't insinuate that, in some way, I'm not protecting my dog, you won't find a more protective, caring owner.
> 
> Over the last year my life has been completely dedicated to bringing up my first dog to be happy, confident, obedient and respectful to other dogs and humans. It's been the most rewarding year of my life.
> 
> ...


I would argue they chose the Stafford more for its looks rather than it's history. Cross a Stafford with the right breeds and you get a dog who looks like a APBT. If history was the main point, they could of choosen any breed with a guarding or fighting background.

If bull fighting was such a important factor, that would not explain the sudden increase in Huskies now be the dog of choice for some.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

no breed should be banned, no breed is bad, its bad owners and irresponsible breeders that need sorting out. Just look at the pitbulls rescued from the hands of evil Michael Vick's dog fighting ring, they were brutally treated but many were rehabilitated and some went on to become therapy dogs.






Michael Vick's unpaid dues: Why dog advocates aren't moving on

Our Pack Pit Bull Rescue


----------

