# Pitbulls



## Little-moomin (Sep 28, 2008)

I wa in the park yesterday dog walking and was quite surprised to see an unneutered male pitbull, and then an hour later a pitbull cross. I'm not against them at all, I think the law is somewhat unfair that they are illegal because in my eyes any dog, regardless of breed can be aggressive, and most of it is down to the people who own the dogs.

But I was just surprised as I spoke to the owner who said he'd had him three years, and I was surprised he hadn't been stopped.

Beautiful dog though, hope no one does report it!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

How can you be sure they were PB's though?

Some people say they are just to sound 'ard!


----------



## Little-moomin (Sep 28, 2008)

Oh that's a good point, maybe they were just saying it (I asked them and they both said pits)! One looked very pitbull to me, but maybe it was a cross or something completely different! 

Lovely dogs regardless, makes me sad!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Lab X Staff "looks" like a Pit
Ambull X pretty much anything "looks" like a Pit
Boxer X Lab "looks" like a pit

Actually as defined by the utterly daft BSL pretty much ANY bullbreed/boxer x looks like a Pit and can be defined as "type" - which is of course TOTAL baloney

Owner is an idiot if he is going round claiming he owns an illegal breed.......


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

TBH, there are more in the country that ever, I know several people breeding them or deliberately breeding 'type' dogs (usually a muscly, red nosed mutt though).... I get cross, I don't support BSL but IMO it's selfish to break the law when the welfare of these dogs is at risk *sigh*


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

I have a mutt dog of unknown origin who apparently looks like a pit bull, though at 26 inches at the shoulder he makes for a very large pit bull, pitties are small little dogs, not 80 pound monsters like my dog.
People don't care though, he's big, he's black, he has a blocky head, slick coat, lots of muscle, people think pit bull.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

It seems in this country anything vaguely muscular with a red/brown/pink nose is most liable to be seized, some are quite clearly mastiff mixes, more than one has been labrador mix. 

So sad, and yet certain kinds of people keep churning them out and strutting around with them.... I despair sometimes!


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Seen them from time to time around here.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Muze said:


> TBH, there are more in the country that ever, I know several people breeding them or deliberately breeding 'type' dogs (usually a muscly, red nosed mutt though).... I get cross, I don't support BSL but IMO it's selfish to break the law when the welfare of these dogs is at risk *sigh*


I hope you are repeatedly reporting the breeders of the pitbulls.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> I hope you are repeatedly reporting the breeders of the pitbulls.


Why?


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

No I don't report them, and unless the dogs were neglected or dangerous I never would I'm afraid.
Right or wrong I couldn't live with myself


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Why?


I have a feeling your going to tell me im wrong but as pitbulls are a dangerous breed in this country and normally end up in the wrong hands my instinct would be to report a breeder. If there is nothing wrong with the breeder and the place or the animals then they will have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Doggiedelight said:


> I have a feeling your going to tell me im wrong but as pitbulls are a dangerous breed in this country and normally end up in the wrong hands my instinct would be to report a breeder. If there is nothing wrong with the breeder and the place or the animals then they will have nothing to worry about.


Many dogs end up in the wrong hands, not just Pitbulls.

Because some idiot has classed them as a 'Dangerous Breed' doesn't mean they are.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> I have a feeling your going to tell me im wrong but as pitbulls are a dangerous breed in this country and normally end up in the wrong hands my instinct would be to report a breeder. If there is nothing wrong with the breeder and the place or the animals then they will have nothing to worry about.


Why would I tell you you're wrong? I was genuinely curious why you think breeders need to be reported. Thank you for answering.

Though I do have to chuckle a bit at your first statement, that pitbulls are a dangerous breed in this country. Does that mean if you cross borders with them they become un-dangerous? 

If one is going to report a breeder, it would be any breeder of any breed who is not treating their dogs humanely.
Breeding mutts as far as I know is not illegal in the UK


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> I have a feeling your going to tell me im wrong but as pitbulls are a dangerous breed in this country and normally end up in the wrong hands my instinct would be to report a breeder. If there is nothing wrong with the breeder and the place og breeding and the animals then they will have nothing to worry about.


Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. In the UK "pitbulls" are not a breed, they're a type. This means that _any_ dog, regardless of its actual parentage, which fits within a certain set of measurements is deemed to be "of type" and therefore illegal. Poorly bred staffies, crosses of any number of bull or molosser type breeds, even lab crosses can end up fitting the criteria to be considered a "pitbull".


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Why would I tell you you're wrong? I was genuinely curious why you think breeders need to be reported. Thank you for answering.
> 
> Though I do have to chuckle a bit at your first statement, that pitbulls are a dangerous breed in this country. Does that mean if you cross borders with them they become un-dangerous?
> 
> ...


Yeah, cross one paw into wales or scotland and a growl becomes a smile and waggy tail LOLOL imagine! Hehe

I meant classed as dangerous dogs in the UK according to the dangerous dog act (pitbull terriers).

Breeding mutts is not banned no.

I awould report someone who bred Pitbulls.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

SingingWhippet said:


> Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. In the UK "pitbulls" are not a breed, they're a type. This means that _any_ dog, regardless of its actual parentage, which fits within a certain set of measurements is deemed to be "of type" and therefore illegal. Poorly bred staffies, crosses of any number of bull or molosser type breeds, even lab crosses can end up fitting the criteria to be considered a "pitbull".


I know that. I was quoting where Maze said "I know people breeding them" them being pitbulls.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Doggiedelight said:


> Yeah, cross one paw into wales or scotland and a growl becomes a smile and waggy tail LOLOL imagine! Hehe
> 
> I meant classed as dangerous dogs in the UK according to the dangerous dog act (pitbull terriers).
> 
> ...


Why would you report someone who bred Pitbulls?


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I have given out Trevor Cooper's business cards and leaflets about DDA Watch and dog owner's rights.... but unless there is an immediate danger, I won't put any dog's life at risk. 

I won't break a law I do not agree with, but I won't support it either


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Why would you report someone who bred Pitbulls?





Sweety said:


> Why would you report someone who bred Pitbulls?


I answered that above sweety


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> I awould report someone who bred Pitbulls.


Would you also report someone breeding taller, rangier staffies? Or staffy crosses? Or Ambulls? Or any bull breed crosses?

Because if any of those have a "substantial number" of the characteristics that make a dog a pitbull in the eyes of the law then they're just as illegal as an actual APBT.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Muze said:


> I have given out Trevor Cooper's business cards and leaflets about DDA Watch and dog owner's rights.... but unless there is an immediate danger, I won't put any dog's life at risk.
> 
> I won't break a law I do not agree with, but I won't support it either


Just cant understand why they would be breeding pitbulls if thats what they are and risking them falling into the wrong hands and being pts or used for baiting.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

SingingWhippet said:


> Would you also report someone breeding taller, rangier staffies? Or staffy crosses? Or Ambulls? Or any bull breed crosses?
> 
> Because if any of those have a "substantial number" of the characteristics that make a dog a pitbull in the eyes of the law then they're just as illegal as an actual APBT.


Bare in mind i was responding to a fact based comment where someone said the dogs being bred were pitbulls. My answer is if i was maze (nothing personal here maze, im using you as an example as thats what the threads about) and as its factual (in this thread) that someone is breeding pitbulls (its not in question that they of type in this example) then yes I would report.

If it was factual that they were another breed under the dangerous dog act then yes I would also report.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> If it was factual that they were another breed under the dangerous dog act then yes I would also report.


And the dogs get PTS....

See, that's one of the many issues with BSL - breed specific legislation.
I'm minding my own business walking my mutt dog of unknown origin who happens to look like a pit bull to some people. 
Someone decides he is a pit bull that needs to be reported.
Next time I go to the park to walk my dog, the police await me and seize my dog for no reason other than what he looks like. He has not endangered anyone, he has not behaved dangerously, he just looks like a banned breed.
Now I'm left having to figure out how to keep my dog from being PTS as an illegal breed.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> And the dogs get PTS....
> 
> See, that's one of the many issues with BSL - breed specific legislation.
> I'm minding my own business walking my mutt dog of unknown origin who happens to look like a pit bull to some people.
> ...


Your example isnt anything to do with what i was talking about though :/


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

Owner also ends up with a criminal record.

Plus the many month's of cruelty the seized dogs suffer at the holding kennels.


----------



## Ownedbymany (Nov 16, 2014)

I've been told by the owner of a couple of dogs in Withernsea that his dogs were pits. They were clearly Staffies and I'm no real expert on them regarding standards and that but I've seen enough to know the difference . 

I really dont know why anyone would claim to have a pit though.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> Your example isnt anything to do with what i was talking about though :/


But it does...
Reporting a dog for no reason other than what it looks like is the same as reporting a breeder for no reason other reason than what the dogs they are producing look like.

If the breeder were selling the dogs to dog fighters, if the breeder were mistreating their dogs, then yes, report them, but you're reporting based on behavior, not based on what the dog looks like.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> But it does...
> Reporting a dog for no reason other than what it looks like is the same as reporting a breeder for no reason other reason than what the dogs they are producing look like.
> 
> If the breeder were selling the dogs to dog fighters, if the breeder were mistreating their dogs, then yes, report them, but you're reporting based on behavior, not based on what the dog looks like.


No i would be reporting a uk breeder for breeding dogs which are under the dangerous dog act in the uk. As i have said this is based on what the breeder said, that they are pitbulls (as we are discussing mazes post here and that is what my response was to)


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Doggiedelight said:


> Bare in mind i was responding to a fact based comment where someone said the dogs being bred were pitbulls. My answer is if i was maze (nothing personal here maze, im using you as an example as thats what the threads about) and as its factual (in this thread) that someone is breeding pitbulls (its not in question that they of type in this example) then yes I would report.
> 
> If it was factual that they were another breed under the dangerous dog act then yes I would also report.


So, you support BSL. That's the bottom line and the reason why so many innocent dogs, deemed to be 'of type', are being seized, thrown into kennels and left there to rot whilst the courts decide what should be their fate.

We had a Staffy girl who was tall for the breed and, for years, I walked her with her pedigree and Kennel Club Registration in my pocket, I was so afraid that some ill-educated fool would attempt to take her under the DDA. It's people like you who perpetuate this myth that anything that may or may not have some Pitbull Terrier in it's make up is going to be dangerous.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

interesting discussion. How many people would report someone on benefits for doing cash in hand work. They are not doing any harm, they are keeping their head above water financially - but many people would report them. How do you differentiate between which laws should be upheld. Whether you agree with a law or not can you condone it being broken.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Sweety said:


> So, you support BSL. That's the bottom line and the reason why so many innocent dogs, deemed to be 'of type', are being seized, thrown into kennels and left there to rot whilst the courts decide what should be their fate.
> 
> We had a Staffy girl who was tall for the breed and, for years, I walked her with her pedigree and Kennel Club Registration in my pocket, I was so afraid that some ill-educated fool would attempt to take her under the DDA. It's people like you who perpetuate this myth that anything that may or may not have some Pitbull Terrier in it's make up is going to be dangerous.


Sweety your attitude towards me in this post absolutely stinks. I was replying to someone who said the breeder breeds pitbulls. If the breeder told me they were pitbulls i would report them. I made that clear. I dont walk around reporting dogs. Your post ans attitude is awful. We are ALL passionate and have opinions but your post towards me is not warranted in this thread.

I have volunteered maby years and see many staffies and crosses in rescues. It all stems from the irresponsible breeders.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Does it?

And you don't think your attitude is wrong?

You would report anyone breeding pups you consider to be 'dangerous'.

Do you have a mind of your own or do you believe what some Bod in a high place says, that some Breeds are dangerous?


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggie do you believe everything said to you? 
Obviously you support the dda and the cruelly inflicted on seized dog, regardless of whether or not they were innocent.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Does it?
> 
> And you don't think your attitude is wrong?
> 
> You would report anyone breeding pups you consider to be 'dangerous'.


Yes sweety it does. Im happy to have a discussion and for people to have a difference of opinion. Your post was aggressive and not callef for.

You are failing to read. I said i would report someone who said they were breeding under the dangerous dog act. I was actually responding to the OP based on the post.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Dumbo said:


> Doggie do you believe everything said to you?
> Obviously you support the dda and the cruelly inflicted on seized dog, regardless of whether or not they were..


 i was responding to the post in the opening thread. The OP knew they were pitbulls. If I knew i would report. Thats my decision. If i knew.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I find it surprising how many people including dog owners are totally clueless about bsl in the UK. I went to uni with one girl (doing animal management no less) who was determined to get a pit bull. When I pointed out the legal issues she was adamant that it was staffies that were banned, and pit bulls were legal. 
Another friend some years later was trying to help a family member with a dog. They had indeed been telling people the dog was a pit bull because they'd got mixed up and believed it was staffies that were illegal. In trying to protect the poor dog (very common staffy cross) they had been putting her at greater risk.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

@Doggiedelight do you agree with Breed Specific Laws then? Do you agree that pitbulls should be banned?


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

I'm surprised that some here are against reporting a breeder of pitbulls. Not pitbull types, but someone who claims to breed actual pitbulls as was the point in one of the first posts. Because these dogs are banned in the UK, surely this person would have unscrupulous breeding practises. Many times here on the forum BYB has been discussed and shamed, and surely the breeding of pitbulls would be the ultimate in BYB? Surely then it should be severely discouraged and yes, possibly reported. I don't really agree with banning this breed, I think it's probably creating more problems that it solves and the seizing of dogs is really sketchy IMO. I'm just surprised at some posters attitudes after extensive discussion of poor breeding practises.


----------



## XemzX (Dec 23, 2013)

There's a man and his son who we see in our local park with four stunning bull lurchers. We got chatting once and I asked just out of generel doggy chit chat what bull breed they were a mix of and he said looked a bit sheepish and said pitbull. I then went onto to say 'well its just a type' he then said that were a registered breed now  Lovely dogs however - all had amazing temperments.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Doggiedelight said:


> Yes sweety it does. Im happy to have a discussion and for people to have a difference of opinion. Your post was aggressive and not callef for.
> 
> You are failing to read. I said i would report someone who said they were breeding under the dangerous dog act. I was actually responding to the OP based on the post.


My post was not remotely aggressive.

I will speak my mind, just as you are doing.

As I said before, if you will 'report' someone for breeding a litter you deem to be 'Dangerous Dogs', then you support the DDA, which causes so much suffering and heartbreak.

I am simply responding to what you said. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but there it is.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Aahlly said:


> I'm surprised that some here are against reporting a breeder of pitbulls. Not pitbull types, but someone who claims to breed actual pitbulls as was the point in one of the first posts. Because these dogs are banned in the UK, surely this person would have unscrupulous breeding practises. Many times here on the forum BYB has been discussed and shamed, and surely the breeding of pitbulls would be the ultimate in BYB? Surely then it should be severely discouraged and yes, possibly reported. I don't really agree with banning this breed, I think it's probably creating more problems that it solves and the seizing of dogs is really sketchy IMO. I'm just surprised at some posters attitudes after extensive discussion of poor breeding practises.


I don't support BYBs or unscrupulous breeding practises ............ in any Breed, not just Pitbulls.

I wonder if people would be so concerned if it was a Breeder of Jack Russells or Lancashire Heelers?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Aahlly said:


> I'm surprised that some here are against reporting a breeder of pitbulls. Not pitbull types, but someone who claims to breed actual pitbulls as was the point in one of the first posts. Because these dogs are banned in the UK, surely this person would have unscrupulous breeding practises. Many times here on the forum BYB has been discussed and shamed, and surely the breeding of pitbulls would be the ultimate in BYB? Surely then it should be severely discouraged and yes, possibly reported. I don't really agree with banning this breed, I think it's probably creating more problems that it solves and the seizing of dogs is really sketchy IMO. I'm just surprised at some posters attitudes after extensive discussion of poor breeding practises.


the thing is...if you report a breeder of Chi's (for example) for poor breeding practices then the dogs can be helped.
If you report a breeder of "suspected" pit's...best case scenario is they are PTS then and there, worst case they are kept at secret kennels for how ever long (sometimes years) and then they are PTS and believe me when I say these secret kennels are not a nice place to be...I have yet to see a dog come out of them the same way they went in 

So whilst I don't agree with someone breeding a banned breed (I don't agree with BSL full stop, but whilst it is law it is irresponsible to breed them), I could never put the lives of countless dogs at risk


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

XemzX said:


> There's a man and his son who we see in our local park with four stunning bull lurchers. We got chatting once and I asked just out of generel doggy chit chat what bull breed they were a mix of and he said looked a bit sheepish and said pitbull. I then went onto to say 'well its just a type' he then said that were a registered breed now  Lovely dogs however - all had amazing temperments.


Registered with who I wonder lol
Me thinks someone was talking out of their squeaker


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Sweety said:


> My post was not remotely aggressive.
> 
> I will speak my mind, just as you are doing.
> 
> ...


Its not what I deem to be 'dangerous dogs'. They said they were breeding pitbulls. I said if this was factual, to maze, i would report.

There is a way to post, i feel you were aggressive and attacking.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Doggiedelight said:


> Yeah, cross one paw into wales or scotland and a growl becomes a smile and waggy tail LOLOL imagine! Hehe
> 
> I meant classed as dangerous dogs in the UK according to the dangerous dog act (pitbull terriers).
> 
> ...


youd struggle, as they are a "type" not a breed in the UK, and could be a cross of anything with a big head, and some bulk breed in it.....


----------



## Aahlly (Sep 12, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> the thing is...if you report a breeder of Chi's (for example) for poor breeding practices then the dogs can be helped.
> If you report a breeder of "suspected" pit's...best case scenario is they are PTS then and there, worst case they are kept at secret kennels for how ever long (sometimes years) and then they are PTS and believe me when I say these secret kennels are not a nice place to be...I have yet to see a dog come out of them the same way they went in
> 
> So whilst I don't agree with someone breeding a banned breed (I don't agree with BSL full stop, but whilst it is law it is irresponsible to breed them), I could never put the lives of countless dogs at risk


Okay, I see what you're saying. I never considered the fact that the dogs would be immediately PTS  I guess it's a difficult situation then, as you don't want those dogs to be bred poorly or end up in dangerous hands, but then hands are tied in regards to reporting them for the safety of the dog. This is why I don't really support the banning of this breed. It just creates more problems.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sweety said:


> My post was not remotely aggressive.
> 
> I will speak my mind, just as you are doing.
> 
> ...


I cannot see what you are saying here Sweety. If you report someone for breaking the law and breeding pitbulls why does that mean you support the DDA, it just means you are supporting staying within the law and objecting to someone breaking the law. I am not into reporting but in a lot of circles it certainly seems to be smiled upon to report anyone on benefits who is earning money (even though without that extra money the family might be really struggling to live to a reasonable standard) so what is the difference in reporting someone who is breeding dogs illegally.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

The ignorance surrounding bsl and the dda is astounding. On a local facebook page recently a guy was warning of a woman with and I quote " a staffie, a French mastiff and a lab" who attacked his gsd pup, ( no wounds, hair loss or injury) At least 10 people were utterly convinced that by law the staffie and the mastiff should be muzzled, for no other reason than their breeding. No mention of the blumming lab, who was apparently just as badly behaved as the other 2.......


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Sweety said:


> I don't support BYBs or unscrupulous breeding practises ............ in any Breed, not just Pitbulls.
> 
> I wonder if people would be so concerned if it was a Breeder of Jack Russells or Lancashire Heelers?


They are trying to explain (i apologise to aahlly if im wrong here) exactly what I was. Pitbulls are under the dangerous dog act. There is no reason in the uk for someone to be breeding them. Dogs like this will, as I already said likely end up in rescues, pts, used for baiting etc.
Maze created this thread saying she knew (therefore I answered based on her knowing as fact-and made this clear in all my posts) that the 'breeder' was breeding pitbulls.
I therefore said I hope as she factually knew this, that I hope she reports it.
2 scenarios 1) They are proven pitbulls and pts and the breeder banned, possibly fined etc
2) Could be crosses. Pts anyway as cant be proved they arent pitbulls. these dogs would more than likely still end up in rescues anyway or in the wrong hands.

Lets face it, its not going to be an amazing breeder is it who is breeding pitbull types on a regular basis. They stop him breeding and yes, unfortunately pts the bitch and her pups (if there are any with her on attendance). its one less bitch to be used and abused and one more human who might think twice next time. The bigger picture.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Doggiedelight said:


> Its not what I deem to be 'dangerous dogs'. They said they were breeding pitbulls. I said if this was factual, to maze, i would report.
> 
> There is a way to post, i feel you were aggressive and attacking.


Just out of curiosity hiw would you go about finding out if they were being "factual" or not?


----------



## XemzX (Dec 23, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Registered with who I wonder lol
> Me thinks someone was talking out of their squeaker


I did think that at the time! I would have said something but he wasn't the sort of guy you answer back to! lol


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> Just out of curiosity hiw would you go about finding out if they were being "factual" or not?


I was saying maze should report as she 'knew' they were pitbulls. I took the word 'knew' as factual. 
However I would report someone if they told me they were breeding pitbulls which is what this seems based around.
As i said, a responsible breeder wouldnt breed pitbull type.
If they had got it wrong and they weren't pitbulls they were breeding then im sorry but the breeder is clearly very irresponsible as 1, they dont even know what they are breeding!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

jeez, that's scary. Do you have to spend alot of Time on the phone because you take things you see/ hear as gospel?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I cannot see what you are saying here Sweety. If you report someone for breaking the law and breeding pitbulls why does that mean you support the DDA, it just means you are supporting staying within the law and objecting to someone breaking the law. I am not into reporting but in a lot of circles it certainly seems to be smiled upon to report anyone on benefits who is earning money (even though without that extra money the family might be really struggling to live to a reasonable standard) so what is the difference in reporting someone who is breeding dogs illegally.


Because, she doesn't appear to have a problem with someone breeding pups irresponsibly or even illegaly, she has a problem because it's a 'Dangerous' breed.

This is why I asked if she would have a similar problem were somebody breeding JRTs or Heelers irresponsibly.

Her issue is not the breeding practises, (or lack of them), it's the fact that they're Pitbulls.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> jeez, that's scary. Do you have to spend alot of Time on the phone because you take things you see/ hear as gospel?


I dont take anything as gospel.stop beinf so silly. Obviously if it was a passing comment i wouldnt be straight on the phone. It would be if it was someone I knew like maze did. Or had regular coversations with.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Because, she doesn't appear to have a problem with someone breeding pups irresponsibly or even illegaly, she has a problem because it's a 'Dangerous' breed.
> 
> This is why I asked if she would have a similar problem were somebody breeding JRTs or Heelers irresponsibly.
> 
> Her issue is not the breeding practises, (or lack of them), it's the fact that they're Pitbulls.


There are a hell of a lot of assumptions there and all wrong.

I do not agree with irresponsible breeding, by irresponsible Im going to point out that In this post I am specifically talking about breeding where the breeder does not look after the welfare of the bitch or pups and the future of the pups. Just to make it clear for this post.
I have spent many hours working in a cat charity (fostering) and dog reacue cleaning, fund raising and occasional fostering dogs to not not care about irresponsible breeding or ownership or welfare of animals.
Id appreciate it sweety if you do not make personal assumptions about me.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Doggiedelight said:


> I dont take anything as gospel.stop beinf so silly. Obviously if it was a passing comment i wouldnt be straight on the phone. It would be if it was someone I knew like maze did. Or had regular coversations with.


sorry, you actually said "if someone told me they were breeding pits then id report them" - just told you, not discussed at length. .........


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Blitz said:


> If you report someone for breaking the law and breeding pitbulls why does that mean you support the DDA, it just means you are supporting staying within the law and objecting to someone breaking the law.


It can be seen as someone being in favor of the law.

I would not report someone for breeding pit bulls.
I would report someone for breeding any breed unscrupulously - if that were illegal, which it's not.
I would report someone for mistreating any breed of dog, not just a pit bull.
I don't see the point of reporting someone for no other reason than that the dog they choose to breed is a pit bull or appears to be of type.

Laws that are easy to follow and make sense are one thing. Laws that are based on random measurements and hearsay and result in perfectly sound dogs being PTS are an entirely different matter.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> sorry, you actually said "if someone told me they were breeding pits then id report them" - just told you, not discussed at length. .........


I didnt go into specifics of a conversation with someone thats never happened, your right, i didnt.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> As i said, a responsible breeder wouldnt breed pitbull type.


What is a pit bull type though?
What if a staffy breeder is breeding dogs who look more pit than staffy? Maybe that's just the type that breeder prefers?

The underlying theme here is that no "nice" responsible family pet owner would want a pit bull, and that's simply not true. 
It's the same logic PeTA uses when they support BSL, that "nice" people don't breed pit bulls, that "nice" families don't go to shelters to adopt pit bulls... It's all baloney. 
Pit bulls are great dogs and make wonderful family pets that many people do want to own, and breed as great family pets. 
I personally know a pit bull breeder who's dogs are fantastic, one belongs to a family who's son is low functioning autistic. Since the dog has joined there home, the child has really blossomed. This is a great breed in general for a situation like this that many dogs would find stressful, and coming from a great breeder who really knows his lines and their temperaments, even better. 
Many veterans have pit bulls as PTSD assistance dogs because the breed seems to be able to handle stress in a human really well and with their penchant for getting in your face and enjoying body pressure they're really good for MH issues where you need an assertive but loving dog to interrupt the human behavior.

There are a lot of reasons why someone who is responsible would breed dogs "of type" (whatever that even means) and a lot of reasons why people would deliberately seek out this type of dog, none of which have to do with wanting to fight them or mistreat them in any way.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Because, she doesn't appear to have a problem with someone breeding pups irresponsibly or even illegaly, she has a problem because it's a 'Dangerous' breed.
> 
> This is why I asked if she would have a similar problem were somebody breeding JRTs or Heelers irresponsibly.
> 
> Her issue is not the breeding practises, (or lack of them), it's the fact that they're Pitbulls.


It is not against the law to breed irresponsibly - also very questionable as to what constitutes irresponsible breeding but that has been covered in other threads.
It is not against the law to to breed JRTs or Heelers.
It is against the law to breed Pit Bulls even supposing it was done in a way that everyone on here would agree was responsible breeding.



ouesi said:


> It can be seen as someone being in favor of the law.
> 
> I would not report someone for breeding pit bulls.
> I would report someone for breeding any breed unscrupulously - if that were illegal, which it's not.
> ...


The problem with that way of thinking is there could be complete anarchy if everyone only obeyed the laws they found reasonable. There are a lot of totally ridiculous laws that have often been made with just as stupid a knee jerk action as the DDA. Take gun laws in the UK for example and the latest extension to that which is the need now to have a license for an air gun. Totally ridiculous and a total pain in the neck for every farmer that keeps an air gun in a shed handy for shooting rats but it is still the law. To go one step further and be very controversial, what about the law that makes drunken sex repented at leisure over the next few days into rape and a human male life wrecked with a jail sentence and a lifetime of restrictions. The law is an ass and there is very little we can do about it except try and get stupid laws repealed - but while they are law we should not ignore them.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> What is a pit bull type though?
> What if a staffy breeder is breeding dogs who look more pit than staffy? Maybe that's just the type that breeder prefers?
> 
> The underlying theme here is that no "nice" responsible family pet owner would want a pit bull, and that's simply not true.
> ...


I think we have to accept a difference of opinions. There will always be good owners of all breeds. Good examples you have given. Im sure there are a thousand more who own and love the breed worldwide.
I stand by my first post, where i said i hope she reported the breeder.


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Registered with who I wonder lol
> Me thinks someone was talking out of their squeaker


The apbt was recognised & registered as a breed by the ukc & adba 40-50 years before the sbt or amstaff.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Blitz said:


> The problem with that way of thinking is there could be complete anarchy if everyone only obeyed the laws they found reasonable.


No, there wouldn't be. That's a logical fallacy to take something to an extreme like that.

And we're not talking about obeying the law, we're talking about reporting law breakers. 
In this country, in many southern communities, it used to be illegal for restaurants to serve black people. Many still did though, just quietly "out back". 
So if you went to a restaurant and saw that they were serving blacks would you report that restaurant? To what end? What would that accomplish? (Not saying you Blitz, just a general question.)
Now... if the restaurant was serving rotten food to the black people, then yes, absolutely, that would be worth reporting and it's for a good reason.

In the same way, reporting someone for breeding (or having) a dog who is "of type" accomplishes nothing in the dog's interest or the greater good of society. 
Laws are necessary I guess, but I would hope that we would be thoughtful about how we follow them and not just encourage obedience for obedience's sake.

You know, I wonder if those who would report a pit bull report people who speed, or text and drive? That is dangerous human behavior that causes real damage, but people flaunt those laws all the time.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> No, there wouldn't be. That's a logical fallacy to take something to an extreme like that.
> 
> And we're not talking about obeying the law, we're talking about reporting law breakers.
> In this country, in many southern communities, it used to be illegal for restaurants to serve black people. Many still did though, just quietly "out back".
> ...


I do think reporting a breeder who breeds pitbulls helps with the bigger picture. Your not supposed to breed pitbulls. Stop breeding of them, a hell of a lot of them will be irresponsible breeders, will help rescue centres as well as a lot of the types end up in rescues. Nip things in the bud.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

So because the law states "type" not breed would you report someone who was breeding lab/ staffie mix? Because they could clearly be classed as "type" so therefore dangerous and illegal under bsl


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> I do think reporting a breeder who breeds pitbulls helps with the bigger picture. Your not supposed to breed pitbulls. Stop breeding of them, a hell of a lot of them will be irresponsible breeders, will help rescue centres as well as a lot of the types end up in rescues. Nip things in the bud.


So just get rid of the breed?
Your starting point is still that the dogs are the problem. If you think getting rid of the dogs will "nip things in the bud", you're saying the dogs are the problem. The dogs are not the problem, the humans are. 
Deal with the human behavior (prosecute dog fighting, enforce owners having their dogs in control laws), then you're on to something. Getting rid of the pit bulls will not solve the issue, sadistic humans will just find another breed to fight. Any terrier will do really. They're all pretty scrappy.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Dumbo said:


> The apbt was recognised & registered as a breed by the ukc & adba 40-50 years before the sbt or amstaff.


And you think the UKC registers a banned breed?

It is irrelevant what bodies did or did not recognise as a breed decades ago. No one would be able to register a pit in the UK (unless on the exempt register of course, but in that case the dog would be neutered) so the "pits" in question would not have been registered


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> So just get rid of the breed?
> Your starting point is still that the dogs are the problem. If you think getting rid of the dogs will "nip things in the bud", you're saying the dogs are the problem. The dogs are not the problem, the humans are.
> Deal with the human behavior (prosecute dog fighting, enforce owners having their dogs in control laws), then you're on to something. Getting rid of the pit bulls will not solve the issue, sadistic humans will just find another breed to fight. Any terrier will do really. They're all pretty scrappy.


Yes of course, a dream, eradicate all the prats who are irresponsible breeders and owners. Life would be so much simpler. Taking the breeding bitch away I was hoping would make the irresponsible pitbull breeder think twice. May not. Possibly not. We can but hope.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> And you think the UKC registers a banned breed?
> 
> It is irrelevant what bodies did or did not recognise as a breed decades ago. No one would be able to register a pit in the UK (unless on the exempt register of course, but in that case the dog would be neutered) so the "pits" in question would not have been registered


I'm guessing since the poster also mentioned American Dog Breeder's Association, they mean United Kennel Club based in Michigan USA, and yes they do register APBT.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> Taking the breeding bitch away


What happens to that bitch who is taken away?


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> So because the law states "type" not breed would you report someone who was breeding lab/ staffie mix? Because they could clearly be classed as "type" so therefore dangerous and illegal under bsl


The original post was me responsing to someone who said they knew someone who bred pitbulls. I responded to that.

You are now asking me something else. My answer to your question is I think anyone who breeds staffies without having a waiting list and has done all the relevent health tests at the moment is irresponsible. Rescues are over run with staffies ans staffy crosses.

Let alone breeding a staffy with a lab. Would I report someone breeding a staffy who I knew was a staffy. Or a staffy with a lab where i knew it was a staffy and a lab. No. Unless I saw the bitch was overbred, living in bad conditions, looked to have bad health. Or if pups were born they had bad health etc..


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

A certain look isn't a breed and you apparantly have to be a "professional" having attending a course along with having woken up on the cranky side of the bed in the morning to be able to tell one from a dog which is not. Any reference to pitbull in terms of ownership in England is not to be taken seriously. There are potentially far worse dog breeds which are legal, There always will be so long as breeds are singled out and held responsible rather than owners.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I'm guessing since the poster also mentioned American Dog Breeder's Association, they mean United Kennel Club based in Michigan USA, and yes they do register APBT.


Good point. As the post I was referring too was in the UK that didn't twig as they certainly wouldn't register them as not recognised.
Should have picked that up lol


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> What happens to that bitch who is taken away?


The bitch taken away from the owner who maze knows who breeds pitbulls. She would probably be pts. Save her from further continuous breeding and her pups being passed around and used for bait, fighting or in rescues. As I said before when you gave a good example of good homes for pits in the uk. There will be good homes however im afraid less likely than as described above.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Good point. As the post I was referring too was in the UK that didn't twig as they certainly wouldn't register them as not recognised.
> Should have picked that up lol


Nah, I just saw ADBA and immediately thought USA


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> There are a hell of a lot of assumptions there and all wrong.
> 
> I do not agree with irresponsible breeding, by irresponsible Im going to point out that In this post I am specifically talking about breeding where the breeder does not look after the welfare of the bitch or pups and the future of the pups. Just to make it clear for this post.
> I have spent many hours working in a cat charity (fostering) and dog reacue cleaning, fund raising and occasional fostering dogs to not not care about irresponsible breeding or ownership or welfare of animals.
> Id appreciate it sweety if you do not make personal assumptions about me.


How would you know a breeder of any breed is not taking care of his bitch and pup's or doesn't care about their future? Your automatically assuming people who bred apbt's care less about their breed & dog's than breeders of other breeds.
Anyone who advocates reporting dog's getting seized and abused the way they are under the dda. Is either uncaring or blind to the truth on how seized dog's are treated.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> Would I report someone breeding a staffy who I knew was a staffy. Or a staffy with a lab where i knew it was a staffy and a lab. No.


So you are making it about breed and not behavior.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just wish people would understand what they are supporting when they support these laws. The problem is not the breed of dog, the problem is the humans, and there are ways of addressing the human behavior without making it about breed.



Doggiedelight said:


> The bitch taken away from the owner who maze knows who breeds pitbulls. She would probably be pts. Save her from further continuous breeding and her pups being passed around and used for bait, fighting or in rescues. As I said before when you gave a good example of good homes for pits in the uk. There will be good homes however im afraid less likely than as described above.


This is faulty logic. It assumes the way you save dogs from being abused is by having the dog PTS or making sure the dog was never born to begin with. Which of course is silly as by that same logic no dog should be bred as they might be mistreated.


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> The bitch taken away from the owner who maze knows who breeds pitbulls. She would probably be pts. Save her from further continuous breeding and her pups being passed around and used for bait, fighting or in rescues. As I said before when you gave a good example of good homes for pits in the uk. There will be good homes however im afraid less likely than as described above.


Any seized bitch would spend many month's-year's locked away from adequate human contact and without proper exercise. Many dog's in holding kennels end up under weight, many innocent dog's have aquired wounds and scaring during their time in holding kennels, and many that were happy normal dog's were found to be nervy and scared after being freed. Many dog's have died of mysterious illnesses. I even know of one dog that died after he somehow chewed his own face off.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

So would you report people for breaking any law or just BSL?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

OK sorry, I know this is irrelevant to the thread, but I've read the whole thing and I really wanted to point out that it's @Muze, NOT 'maze'.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

Shoshannah said:


> OK sorry, I know this is irrelevant to the thread, but I've read the whole thing and I really wanted to point out that it's @Muze, NOT 'maze'.


 That was bugging me too, but I was trying to overlook it 
So glad someone else shares my username spelled correctly OCD. Makes me feel more normal!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Doggiedelight said:


> The original post was me responsing to someone who said they knew someone who bred pitbulls. I responded to that.
> 
> You are now asking me something else. My answer to your question is I think anyone who breeds staffies without having a waiting list and has done all the relevent health tests at the moment is irresponsible. Rescues are over run with staffies ans staffy crosses.
> 
> Let alone breeding a staffy with a lab. Would I report someone breeding a staffy who I knew was a staffy. Or a staffy with a lab where i knew it was a staffy and a lab. No. Unless I saw the bitch was overbred, living in bad conditions, looked to have bad health. Or if pups were born they had bad health etc..


Can you see where the issue with this law resides then? Those pups could well be deemed type- under the law you are trying to uphold.......


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Blitz said:


> It is not against the law to breed irresponsibly - also very questionable as to what constitutes irresponsible breeding but that has been covered in other threads.
> It is not against the law to to breed JRTs or Heelers.
> It is against the law to breed Pit Bulls even supposing it was done in a way that everyone on here would agree was responsible breeding.


Fine if we are talking an actual breed but highly unlikely we are not. When a litter can have some killed as they are pitbulls and others of the same litter classified as not pitbulls it shows how stupid this law is and how people don't breed pitbulls as such, they breed simply dogs.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

ouesi said:


> What is a pit bull type though?
> What if a staffy breeder is breeding dogs who look more pit than staffy? Maybe that's just the type that breeder prefers?
> 
> The underlying theme here is that no "nice" responsible family pet owner would want a pit bull, and that's simply not true.
> ...





Dumbo said:


> How would you know a breeder of any breed is not taking care of his bitch and pup's or doesn't care about their future? Your automatically assuming people who bred apbt's care less about their breed & dog's than breeders of other breeds.
> Anyone who advocates reporting dog's getting seized and abused the way they are under the dda. Is either uncaring or blind to the truth on how seized dog's are treated.


In fairness, I don't think a caring responsible breeder would be breeding Pitbulls or anything that is highly likely to be of type on purpose in the Uk.

Nothing to do with the breed of dog in itself, I'm completely anti-BSL, I think it's a horrible cruel pointless law and stigmatises breeds for no good reason,

But anyone purposefully breeding them while that law is in place can't be caring or responsible because they know full well what the consequences could be for those dogs.

I wouldn't report them - because of those consequences to the dogs, but with that law in place, they're not decent people.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So would you report people for breaking any law or just BSL?


I would report people who I thought were irresponsible breeders. Specifically i would report the breeding of pitbulls in the uk. Which is what this thread is about.

Talking about every single law in the uk is a little bit silly. This thread isn't about that.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

@Doggiedelight do you support BSL?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Doggiedelight said:


> I would report people who I thought were irresponsible breeders. Specifically i would report the breeding of pitbulls in the uk. Which is what this thread is about.
> 
> Talking about every single law in the uk is a little bit silly. This thread isn't about that.


Excuse me for raising a point that is slight off the topic of the thread, most threads do wander slightly off topic. I just wonder how you would feel if someone reported one of your labs as being a possible pitbull type. How would you feel if your dog was seized and held in a place unknown to you for months while the relevant authorities decided if a certain set of measurements meant she should be deemed as type and could live or be PTS? Unfortunately irresponsible breeding is not against the law, BYB's and puppy farms operate within the law. I don't like it and wish it was against the law but it isn't. I do agree with @tabulahrasa that anyone breeding pits knowing its against the law isn't a responsible breeder but I don't see why they should be penalised any more than other irresponsible breeders. I wouldn't report them knowing the outcome for the bitch and any pups is a death sentence.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I do agree with @tabulahrasa that anyone breeding pits knowing its against the law isn't a responsible breeder but I don't see why they should be penalised any more than other irresponsible breeders. I wouldn't report them knowing the outcome for the bitch and any pups is a death sentence.


This is my issue... Why is someone breeding pit bulls somehow worse than breeding some whacked out cross that produces dogs who can't breathe or walk? If you're going to argue that the one will live a life of torture fighting, or being made to be aggressive, the other is going to live a life of torture too struggling to breathe and walk. And let's not forget, plenty of people buy dogs of all sorts of breeds (not just illegal ones) and get their kicks turning the dogs aggressive.

And I'm still very uncomfortable with the notion that anyone breeding a pit bull is a bad person. 
Imagine for a second you're a breeder or say dobermans. You have great dogs, you've worked your whole life to get some healthy lines with great temperament going. All of a sudden the law decides your breed is illegal. Do you stop your life's work? Do you give up on your breed? Do you move to another country? IDK... But I'm sure there were responsible pit bull breeders in the UK before the ban. I wonder what they did?


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Excuse me for raising a point that is slight off the topic of the thread, most threads do wander slightly off topic. I just wonder how you would feel if someone reported one of your labs as being a possible pitbull type. How would you feel if your dog was seized and held in a place unknown to you for months while the relevant authorities decided if a certain set of measurements meant she should be deemed as type and could live or be PTS? Unfortunately irresponsible breeding is not against the law, BYB's and puppy farms operate within the law. I don't like it and wish it was against the law but it isn't. I do agree with @tabulahrasa that anyone breeding pits knowing its against the law isn't a responsible breeder but I don't see why they should be penalised any more than other irresponsible breeders. I wouldn't report them knowing the outcome for the bitch and any pups is a death sentence.


The thing is if people who irresponsibly breed pitbulls arent reported the likely hood is they will continue to breed and the bitch will continue to suffer and more and more of her pups will end up in awful circumstances.
I would rather report and end the life of 1 bitch and 1 litter then let the continuation of the idiot breed them over and over again. I can then hop the person doesnt breed again.

Im happy for threads to go off topic, however bsl is 1 law, you asked me to compare the reporting of that to the reporting of every single uk law. That isnt comparable.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Not read all the replies, but for those who say they would report someone claiming to be breeding (or owning) pits ...

Could you ACTUALLY identify a genuine Pit Bull Terrier? With a high accuracy rate? Because I know for a fact that I couldn't! And for me, that would be reason enough to stay my hand and not report.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

Does anyone know of the consequences for the human who is found guilty of breeding pit bulls? Are they banned from owning dogs or is there any assurance that after the person is reported, convicted, sentenced, they won't just go out and get another breed to breed irresponsibly?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> This is my issue... Why is someone breeding pit bulls somehow worse than breeding some whacked out cross that produces dogs who can't breathe or walk? If you're going to argue that the one will live a life of torture fighting, or being made to be aggressive, the other is going to live a life of torture too struggling to breathe and walk. And let's not forget, plenty of people buy dogs of all sorts of breeds (not just illegal ones) and get their kicks turning the dogs aggressive.


For some it is the ego boost of "I reported a breeder of those dangerous dogs that will eat our children" go me, I am such an upstanding member of society -ignores the fact they are texting whilst driving.....-

I am not saying this is the case here, but it seems to be the kind of attitude I see 

I really can understand someone reporting a pit breeder IF the welfare of the dogs was at risk - known fighter, or other issues
But to condemn the lives of these dogs just so you have some form or bragging rights is despicable IMO


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Does anyone know of the consequences for the human who is found guilty of breeding pit bulls? Are they banned from owning dogs or is there any assurance that after the person is reported, convicted, sentenced, they won't just go out and get another breed to breed irresponsibly?


I think they are banned..however, we know how that is policed now don't we


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Does anyone know of the consequences for the human who is found guilty of breeding pit bulls? Are they banned from owning dogs or is there any assurance that after the person is reported, convicted, sentenced, they won't just go out and get another breed to breed irresponsibly?


This is exactly what would happen. The current breeding dogs would lose their lives, and would simply be replaced with more. It would matter not if they were "banned" from keeping or breeding dogs.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> I think they are banned..however, we know how that is policed now don't we





Lexiedhb said:


> This is exactly what would happen. The current breeding dogs would lose their lives, and would simply be replaced with more. It would matter not if they were "banned" from keeping or breeding dogs.


So basically reporting a pit bull breeder results in dead dogs and the breeder likely just moving on to another breed...

This is why I said earlier, I wish people who support these laws better understood exactly what it is that they are supporting.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> So basically reporting a pit bull breeder results in dead dogs and the breeder likely just moving on to another breed...
> 
> This is why I said earlier, I wish people who support these laws better understood exactly what it is that they are supporting.


Not even necessarily another breed.............


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> So basically reporting a pit bull breeder results in dead dogs and the breeder likely just moving on to another breed...
> 
> This is why I said earlier, I wish people who support these laws better understood exactly what it is that they are supporting.


Yup, that's exactly how things role...

Now the same could be said for any irresponsible breeder or any other breed, however, at least the dogs that are rescued get hope that they will get a better life..


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> OK sorry, I know this is irrelevant to the thread, but I've read the whole thing and I really wanted to point out that it's @Muze, NOT 'maze'.





ouesi said:


> That was bugging me too, but I was trying to overlook it
> So glad someone else shares my username spelled correctly OCD. Makes me feel more normal!


Me 3!  Having said that, mine is often misspelled... Just like my full real name. 

Going back to reading....


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> This is my issue... Why is someone breeding pit bulls somehow worse than breeding some whacked out cross that produces dogs who can't breathe or walk? If you're going to argue that the one will live a life of torture fighting, or being made to be aggressive, the other is going to live a life of torture too struggling to breathe and walk. And let's not forget, plenty of people buy dogs of all sorts of breeds (not just illegal ones) and get their kicks turning the dogs aggressive.
> *
> And I'm still very uncomfortable with the notion that anyone breeding a pit bull is a bad person. *
> Imagine for a second you're a breeder or say dobermans. You have great dogs, you've worked your whole life to get some healthy lines with great temperament going. All of a sudden the law decides your breed is illegal. Do you stop your life's work? Do you give up on your breed? Do you move to another country? IDK... But I'm sure there were responsible pit bull breeders in the UK before the ban. I wonder what they did?


I don't think its that they are a bad person because they breed pit bulls rather that given its against the law in the UK to breed or own (unless on the register) pit bulls or types they are taking all sorts of risks above and beyond those that other irresponsible breeders take. I've thought about your doberman example too and can only say that if I knew there was a chance my dog would be seized and held then destroyed because I'd carried on breeding from her and that the puppies I produced could not legally be sold so everything would be cloak and dagger and those puppies would also be at risk of being seized and destroyed then I would stop breeding and concentrate on keeping my dog safe and campaign to change the stupid ignorant law.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Do we think that those breeding the "bigger staffie" shall we say are aware of the law?


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> This is my issue... Why is someone breeding pit bulls somehow worse than breeding some whacked out cross that produces dogs who can't breathe or walk? If you're going to argue that the one will live a life of torture fighting, or being made to be aggressive, the other is going to live a life of torture too struggling to breathe and walk. And let's not forget, plenty of people buy dogs of all sorts of breeds (not just illegal ones) and get their kicks turning the dogs aggressive.
> 
> And I'm still very uncomfortable with the notion that anyone breeding a pit bull is a bad person.
> Imagine for a second you're a breeder or say dobermans. You have great dogs, you've worked your whole life to get some healthy lines with great temperament going. All of a sudden the law decides your breed is illegal. Do you stop your life's work? Do you give up on your breed? Do you move to another country? IDK... But I'm sure there were responsible pit bull breeders in the UK before the ban. I wonder what they did?


I agree, to your first point. Breeding pitbulls isnt worse than breeding any dog if its done irresponsibly. I never said it was.

Im all for responsible breeding and all against irresponsible breeding. As are most people.

As for do I support BSL i support the banning of the irresponsible breeding and punishment to those who have caused this to happen.

If me reporting a breeder who breeds dogs in awful conditons, or a bitch in a poor state, or dogs that end up commonly used for baiting means that the owner is punished and thinks again then i will always be glad i reported. It will be 1 less person breeding irresponsibly!!!! Irrelevent of the breed of the dog. This specific thread was about pitbulls.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> So you are making it about breed and not behavior.
> 
> I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just wish people would understand what they are supporting when they support these laws. The problem is not the breed of dog, the problem is the humans, and there are ways of addressing the human behavior without making it about breed.
> 
> This is faulty logic. It assumes the way you save dogs from being abused is by having the dog PTS or making sure the dog was never born to begin with. Which of course is silly as by that same logic no dog should be bred as they might be mistreated.


Im trying to look back and see what ive missed and catch up! I should have added on to the first statement you have quote

"...no, unless they werr being bred irresponsibly, bad conditions etc..."


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Shoshannah said:


> OK sorry, I know this is irrelevant to the thread, but I've read the whole thing and I really wanted to point out that it's @Muze, NOT 'maze'.


Oh god, sorry Muze!! My mistake!! Sorry again xx


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> As for do I support BSL i support the banning of the irresponsible breeding and punishment to those who have caused this to happen.


Which goes back to what I was saying about wishing people understood exactly what BSL laws do.

Breed bans do nothing to stop irresponsible breeding and do not punish those breed irresponsibly. Find one thing in BSL that makes puppy farms illegal and prosecutable. There is nothing. All breed bans do is create stigma around certain breeds which arguably makes them MORE desirable for certain people and more likely to be abused.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Which goes back to what I was saying about wishing people understood exactly what BSL laws do.
> 
> Breed bans do nothing to stop irresponsible breeding and do not punish those breed irresponsibly. Find one thing in BSL that makes puppy farms illegal and prosecutable. There is nothing. All breed bans do is create stigma around certain breeds which arguably makes them MORE desirable for certain people and more likely to be abused.


Puppy farms are a totally different thing again. I also hate those responsible for those.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> Puppy farms are a totally different thing again. I also hate those responsible for those.


I'm not sure how it's a totally different thing? We were talking about irresponsible and abusive breeding practices were we not? Puppy farms fall under that category.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> I'm not sure how it's a totally different thing? We were talking about irresponsible and abusive breeding practices were we not? Puppy farms fall under that category.


One irresponsible person breeding a pitbull in bad conditions is not the same as a puppy farm. Thats what i meant. One is like a factory and one is normally just one person. Both bad but different scale is what I meant.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Sorry if I have offended anyone in the way my words have come across in this thread. Im happy to discuss. Im hapoy to reply even though my opinion is different


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> Sorry if I have offended anyone in the way my words have come across in this thread. Im happy to discuss. Im hapoy to reply even though my opinion is different


I'm not offended, just frustrated. 
I own one of those dogs that you think should be banned. Whoever bred him is definitely irresponsible as he was found abandoned still with his puppy teeth. He was a black bag of bones, no one looked at him and thought anything about what breed he was. 
He grew tall and feisty and problematic enough that he ended up with me. He looks like a run-of-the-mill lab mix of some sort to me, again, I never thought to consider what breed he is. 
Yet because of how he looks, he is considered "of type" and should my community decide to enact BSL of any type I'm left with quite a problem, because you see, these laws are not clear about which dogs they're referring to. 
So, do I take my dog to the authorities to ask if he's considered a pit bull type and risk having him seized? Do I just go about my business secure in the knowledge that my dog is a side of the road special mutt and not a pit bull only to have someone like you report him and then get him seized? 
Do I move to another community, uproot my kids, sell my house etc, to keep my dog safe?

This is the reality of BSL. Has nothing to do with prosecuting irresponsible breeding practices.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

BSL has NAFF ALL to do with monitoring irresponsible breeding (aside from the fact that those who do are flaunting the law) - they could be the breeders pride and joy, well looked after, fed, appreciated - but still be illegal. BSL contains NOTHING surrounding animal welfare with regards to breeding, but make it illegal to be pits because they are considered "dangerous" (please note the "considered" they could have done 110% nothing wrong- and even still be pups) before supporting something it really is worth while knowing the facts.

Being against irresponsible breeders is one thing, fighting for puppy farms and BYB's to be forced to raise their game - all good, but it does not relate to BSL.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> I'm not offended, just frustrated.
> I own one of those dogs that you think should be banned. Whoever bred him is definitely irresponsible as he was found abandoned still with his puppy teeth. He was a black bag of bones, no one looked at him and thought anything about what breed he was.
> He grew tall and feisty and problematic enough that he ended up with me. He looks like a run-of-the-mill lab mix of some sort to me, again, I never thought to consider what breed he is.
> Yet because of how he looks, he is considered "of type" and should my community decide to enact BSL of any type I'm left with quite a problem, because you see, these laws are not clear about which dogs they're referring to.
> ...


Someone like me?
I said its the irresponsible breeders who should be reported. I said that in virtually every post.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> BSL has NAFF ALL to do with monitoring irresponsible breeding (aside from the fact that those who do are flaunting the law) - they could be the breeders pride and joy, well looked after, fed, appreciated - but still be illegal. BSL contains NOTHING surrounding animal welfare with regards to breeding, but make it illegal to be pits because they are considered "dangerous" (please note the "considered" they could have done 110% nothing wrong- and even still be pups) before supporting something it really is worth while knowing the facts.
> 
> Being against irresponsible breeders is one thing, fighting for puppy farms and BYB's to be forced to raise their game - all good, but it does not relate to BSL.


Did you read where I said I supported bsl? Did you read what I said im against?

"As for do I support BSL i support the banning of the irresponsible breeding and punishment to those who have caused this to happen."


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Doggiedelight said:


> Did you read where I said I supported bsl? Did you read what I said im against?


You clearly said you would report someone for breeding Pits. Not because they were in vile conditions, not because you hate dogs, purely because it is* illegal*. It is illegal under BSL, if you report that then yes you have to see, you are in support of BSL. I mean change it all you want now to "irresponsible breeders" but initially that is not what you said, otherwise this would have not continued like it has.

On another note- if you were out walking your dogs and saw, what you believed to be a Pit, entire, or off lead, would you report that?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

http://www.pickthepit.com

Let's be fair most people wouldn't know a APBT if it bit them in the arse.

Why in this thread are Pits being labelled dangerous dogs? They are a banned breed and part of the Dangerous dog act covers banned breeds no where in the act does it state pit bulls are a dangerous breed...


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> I said its the irresponsible breeders who should be reported.


Breeding irresponsibly is not illegal, there is nothing to report.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> Did you read where I said I supported bsl? Did you read what I said im against?





Lexiedhb said:


> You clearly said you would report someone for breeding Pits. Not because they were in vile conditions, not because you hate dogs, purely because it is* illegal*. It is illegal under BSL, if you report that then yes you have to see, you are in support of BSL. I mean change it all you want now to "irresponsible breeders" but initially that is not what you said, otherwise this would have not continued like it has.
> 
> On another note- if you were out walking your dogs and saw, what you believed to be a Pit, entire, or off lead, would you report that?


Im happy certain people to "continue" the thread. I will reply. Im not going to be made to feel just because i feel differently that Im cornered into not reply or ganged up on. Ive seen that happen on other forums. I said im happy to discuss and reply.
yes i would report the breeding of pitbulls. Thats the simple answer. Why?! Because i think breeding pitbulls is irresponsible. Why?! Because the vast majority of pitbull types will end up in the wrong hands and the dogs will suffer.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Doggiedelight said:


> Im happy certain people to "continue" the thread. I will reply. Im not going to be made to feel just because i feel differently that Im cornered into not reply or ganged up on. Ive seen that happen on other forums. I said im happy to discuss and reply.
> yes i would report the breeding of pitbulls. Thats the simple answer. Why?! Because i think breeding pitbulls is irresponsible. Why?! Because the vast majority of pitbull types will end up in the wrong hands and the dogs will suffer.


Ohhh please dont to that- we are CALMLY discussing something and suddenly you pull out the "ganged up on card"............................... REALLY - we have opposing views, I'm stating mine, you are stating yours, ouesi is stating hers- it just so happens that 2 of us agree.

I think the problem is like I have said before a Staff Lab X in this country would be deemed to be a Pit........ so you'd need to be reporting these too...... oh and you didnt answer my question about seeing one out and about


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> Ohhh please dont to that- we are CALMLY discussing something and suddenly you pull out the "ganged up on card"............................... REALLY - we have opposing views, I'm stating mine, you are stating yours, ouesi is stating hers- it just so happens that 2 of us agree.
> 
> I think the problem is like I have said before a Staff Lab X in this country would be deemed to be a Pit........ so you'd need to be reporting these too...... oh and you didnt answer my question about seeing one out and about


Im telling you how i feel and what it feela like maybe happening. It hasnt been just 2 opinions. Im quite thick skinned and used to forums. I dont normally get in debates either. As i said i wont shy away from the thread. As long as im not oulled to pieces for darinf to have a different opinion. As we are all allowed.

Sorry for missing one of your points. Im trying to keep up.

I wouldnt report a dog that was under control, no.


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> Because the vast majority of pitbull types will end up in the wrong hands and the dogs will suffer.


Do you have any proof to back this statement up?

Would you also support a blanket policy of euthanasia for any dogs in rescue that could potentially be considered "pitbulls"? There's certainly no shortage of them and although decent rescues will do all they can to make sure they go to responsible homes it's impossible for them to guarantee they won't end up in the wrong hands.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Doggiedelight said:


> Im telling you how i feel and what it feela like maybe happening. It hasnt been just 2 opinions. Im quite thick skinned and used to forums. I dont normally get in debates either. As i said i wont shy away from the thread. As long as im not oulled to pieces for darinf to have a different opinion. As we are all allowed.


Who's pulling you to pieces? no one. IMO your logic is seriously flawed, I'm trying to explain why/how I feel it is- its my opinion, which i'm entitled to, like you are entitled to yours so I dont get all the "I'll reply, i feel ganged up on, I'm being pulled apart"

IMO if you are going to report Breeders of Pits, then you should be reporting owners of "type" dogs, and several rescues to boot (its illegal to rehome a Pit).....


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

SingingWhippet said:


> Do you have any proof to back this statement up?
> 
> Would you also support a blanket policy of euthanasia for any dogs in rescue that could potentially be considered "pitbulls"? There's certainly no shortage of them and although decent rescues will do all they can to make sure they go to responsible homes it's impossible for them to guarantee they won't end up in the wrong hands.


Not just in rescue- but also in loving homes too


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> Im telling you how i feel and what it feela like maybe happening. It hasnt been just 2 opinions. Im quite thick skinned and used to forums. I dont normally get in debates either. As i said i wont shy away from the thread. As long as im not oulled to pieces for darinf to have a different opinion. As we are all allowed.
> 
> Sorry for missing one of your points. Im trying to keep up.
> 
> I wouldnt report a dog that was under control, no.


I for one have no issue with differences of opinion (I have my own opinion about how educated and researched opinions can be )

However, in this case, I don't think I know what your opinion is... I have asked if you support BSL and you answer by saying you don't support irresponsible breeding practices, but BSL has nothing to do with irresponsible breeding practices so I'm back to wondering what your opinion of BSL is or if you even understand what BSL entails.

You said that at least the dogs won't suffer in the wrong hands if you report that breeder, but those dogs seized DO suffer and then they are PTS. Even the puppies - who can be raised by responsible owners, they're PTS too. How is that ethical to PTS an adoptable puppy just because of who the puppy's dam is?


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> Im telling you how i feel and what it feela like maybe happening. It hasnt been just 2 opinions. Im quite thick skinned and used to forums. I dont normally get in debates either. As i said i wont shy away from the thread. As long as im not oulled to pieces for darinf to have a different opinion. As we are all allowed.





SingingWhippet said:


> Do you have any proof to back this statement up?
> 
> Would you also support a blanket policy of euthanasia for any dogs in rescue that could potentially be considered "pitbulls"? There's certainly no shortage of them and although decent rescues will do all they can to make sure they go to responsible homes it's impossible for them to guarantee they won't end up in the wrong hands.


I dont have any proof to back my opinion up no.

No.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> Who's pulling you to pieces? no one. IMO your logic is seriously flawed, I'm trying to explain why/how I feel it is- its my opinion, which i'm entitled to, like you are entitled to yours so I dont get all the "I'll reply, i feel ganged up on, I'm being pulled apart"
> 
> IMO if you are going to report Breeders of Pits, then you should be reporting owners of "type" dogs, and several rescues to boot (its illegal to rehome a Pit).....


Its just how i feel.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> I for one have no issue with differences of opinion (I have my own opinion about how educated and researched opinions can be )
> 
> However, in this case, I don't think I know what your opinion is... I have asked if you support BSL and you answer by saying you don't support irresponsible breeding practices, but BSL has nothing to do with irresponsible breeding practices so I'm back to wondering what your opinion of BSL is or if you even understand what BSL entails.
> 
> You said that at least the dogs won't suffer in the wrong hands if you report that breeder, but those dogs seized DO suffer and then they are PTS. Even the puppies - who can be raised by responsible owners, they're PTS too. How is that ethical to PTS an adoptable puppy just because of who the puppy's dam is?


If they decide not to pts the puppies and rehome them then fair enough.
I agree certain aspects need looking into.
Its flawed.
Nothings perfect and wont suit everyones opinions.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> If they decide not to pts the puppies and rehome them then fair enough.


But that's not a choice. 
BSL means seized puppies are automatically PTS and never offered the option of being adopted out.

So when you report that breeder who is breeding pit bulls, that litter on the ground will be destroyed. No chance of ending up in ANY home.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

I worry about a family in my parish (who I've mentioned before, who got their staffy in a very dodgy way) because, now that he's fully grown, he is HUGE! Now, I'm no geneticist, but there is no way that this dog is a straightforward staffy......


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I worry about a family in my parish (who I've mentioned before, who got their staffy in a very dodgy way) because, now that he's fully grown, he is HUGE! Now, I'm no geneticist, but there is no way that this dog is a straightforward staffy......


Pits aren't huge though


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

How do the "measurements" used in the UK to determine type add up to the breed standard? anyone know?


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> How do the "measurements" used in the UK to determine type add up to the breed standard? anyone know?


I don't. 
But I remember reading the document of the descriptions used (a lot has to do with ratios, like head to muzzle etc.) and basically any square dog with a square head and a slick coat qualifies. My great dane qualifies as "of type" by those standards. It's the most ridiculous thing I've read....


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Jeez yes they are not even set measurements just a set of Characteristics.......
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ment_data/file/69263/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 250600
> http://www.pickthepit.com
> 
> Let's be fair most people wouldn't know a APBT if it bit them in the arse.
> ...


They are banned under something called "the dangerous dog act" .......... so have been labelled dangerous


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

If you cannot obtain advice from your local DLO and need assistance in identifying an alleged s1 dog you may contact the Status Dogs Unit at the Metropolitan Police at [email protected] The standard used to identify a PBT is set out in the American Dog Breeders Association standard of conformation as published in the Pit Bull Gazette, vol 1, issue 3 1977 - please refer to this for the full description and also relevant cases20 as this is only a brief overview. Although the law does not require a suspected PBT to fit the description perfectly, it does require there to be a substantial number of characteristics present so that it can be considered 'more' PBT than any other type of dog. • When first viewing the dog it should appear square from the side, and its height to the top of its shoulders should be the same distance as from the front of its shoulder to the rear point of its hip. • Its height to weight ratio should be in proportion. • Its coat should be short and bristled, (single coated). • Its head should appear to be wedge shaped when viewed from the side and top but rounded when viewed from the front. The head should be around 2/3 width of shoulders and 25 per cent wider at cheeks than at the base of the skull (this is due to the cheek muscles). • The distance from the back of the head to between the eyes should be about equal to the distance from between the eyes to the tip of its nose. • The dog should have a good depth from the top of head to bottom of jaw and a straight box-like muzzle. • Its eyes should be small and deep-set, triangular when viewed from the side and elliptical from front. • Its shoulders should be wider than the rib cage at the eighth rib. • Its elbows should be flat with its front legs running parallel to the spine. • Its forelegs should be heavy and solid and nearly twice the thickness of the hind legs just below the hock. • The rib cage should be deep and spring straight out from the spine, it should be elliptical in cross section tapering at the bottom and not 'barrel' chested. • It should have a tail that hangs down like an old fashioned 'pump handle' to around the hock. • It should have a broad hip that allows good attachment of muscles in the hindquarters and hind legs. • Its knee joint should be in the upper third of the dog's rear leg, and the bones below that should appear light, fine and springy. • Overall the dog should have an athletic appearance, *the standard makes no mention of ears, colour, height, or weight.
*
Yet the FCI Amstaff standards States:
*
O*RIGIN : U.S.A. DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL VALID STANDARD : 03.09.1996. FCI-CLASSIFICATION : Group 3 Terriers. Section 3 Bull type Terriers. Without working trial. GENERAL APPEARANCE : The Staffordshire Terrier should give the impression of great strength for his size; a well put together dog, muscular, but agile and graceful, keenly alive to his surroundings. He should be stocky, not long-legged or racy in outline. His courage is proverbial. HEAD : Medium length, deep through. CRANIAL REGION : Skull : broad. Stop : Distinct. FACIAL REGION : Nose : Definitely black. Muzzle : Medium length, rounded on upper side to fall away abruptly below the eyes. Lips : Close and even ; no looseness. Jaws/Teeth : Well defined. Under jaw strong and to have biting power. Upper teeth to meet tightly outside lower teeth in front. Cheeks : Very pronounced cheek muscles. Eyes : Dark, round, low down in skull, set far apart. No pink eyelids. Ears : Set high. Cropped or uncropped, the latter preferred. Uncropped ears should be short and held rose or half prick. Full drop to be penalized. NECK : Heavy, slightly arched, tapering from shoulders to back of skull. No looseness of skin. Medium length. St-FCI n°286/01.12.1997 3 BODY : Topline : Back fairly short. Slight sloping from withers to rump with gentle short slope at rump to base of tail. Loins : Slightly tucked. Chest : Deep and broad. Well sprung ribs; close together, deep in rear. TAIL : Short in comparison to size, low set, tapering to fine point; not curled or carried over back. Not docked. LIMBS : FOREQUARTERS : Front legs straight, with large bones. Set rather wide apart to permit chest development. Shoulders : Strong and muscular, with blades wide and sloping. Pastern : Upright. HINDQUARTERS : Well muscled. Hocks : Let down, turning neither in nor out. FEET : Of moderate size, well arched and compact. GAIT / MOVEMENT : Springy but without roll or pace. COAT HAIR : Short, close, stiff to the touch, glossy. COLOUR : Any colour, solid, particolour, or patched is permissible; but more than 80% white, black and tan, and liver not to be encouraged. St-FCI n°286/01.12.1997 4 *SIZE : Height and weight should be in proportion. A height of about eighteen to nineteen inches (46 - 48 cm) at the shoulder for the male and seventeen to eighteen inches (43 - 46 cm) for the female to be considered preferable*. FAULTS : Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog. • Dudley nose. • Undershot or overshot mouth. • Light eyes. • Pink eyelids. • Tail too long or badly carried. DISQUALIFYING FAULTS • Aggressive or overly shy dogs. • Any dog clearly showing physical or behavioural abnormalities shall be disqualified. N.B: • Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum. • Only functionally and clinically healthy dogs, with breed typical conformation, should be used for breeding.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Thai fits into the measurements for "type", our only saving grace is that he has the BC colouring so many will discount him...
I also find that stupid....to me it says: "Your dog is a banned breed...oh wait, nope he can't be because of his colouring"


Some may be offended by this but to me BSL is akin to racism...yet another way for humans to judge and divide!


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> But that's not a choice.
> BSL means seized puppies are automatically PTS and never offered the option of being adopted out.
> 
> So when you report that breeder who is breeding pit bulls, that litter on the ground will be destroyed. No chance of ending up in ANY home.


I know that!! I answered that exact point and my thoughts posts and posts ago. One litter gets destroyed. Breeders punished and hopefully wont breed irresponsibly again!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> Lab X Staff "looks" like a Pit
> Ambull X pretty much anything "looks" like a Pit
> Boxer X Lab "looks" like a pit
> 
> ...


Which is why the BSL is such a load of bullux.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Doggiedelight said:


> I know that!! I answered that exact point and my thoughts posts and posts ago. One litter gets destroyed. Breeders punished and hopefully wont breed irresponsibly again!


What are the stats on repeat offenders, on any crime let alone one policed very little/ known about I wonder.......


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Some may be offended by this but to me BSL is akin to racism...yet another way for humans to judge and divide!


It is another -ism. I think it's an apt analogy. BSL is to dogs what segregation laws are to humans.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

As a family we have owned many different breeds, tbh I wouldn't know a Pit Bull if I fell over it, I have seen lots of various cross breeds where I have wondered. However I do know when a dog is dangerously out of control and aggressive, irrespective of breed or type and it is only if I firmly believe the dog poses a genuine risk of harm to a human being that I would report the dog owner.

The main problem I believe is that some people want to believe they have a particular breed from designer breeds to banned breeds.


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 250600
> http://www.pickthepit.com
> 
> Let's be fair most people wouldn't know a APBT if it bit them in the arse.
> ...


Wow, great link. I clearly had no clue really what a Pitbull looked like.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

sskmick said:


> As a family we have owned many different breeds, tbh I wouldn't know a Pit Bull if I fell over it, I have seen lots of various cross breeds where I have wondered. However I do know when a dog is dangerously out of control and aggressive, irrespective of breed or type and it is only if I firmly believe the dog poses a genuine risk of harm to a human being that I would report the dog owner.
> 
> The main problem I believe is that some people want to believe they have a particular breed from designer breeds to banned breeds.


I manage to go to shows and have yet to be mauled by the beautiful Amstaffs I get to squish, nor the stunning Dogo's...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Muttly said:


> Wow, great link. I clearly had no clue really what a Pitbull looked like.


Most don't even the so called professionals who get to decide on a dogs life merely because of how it looks, nor those who big it up by saying they breed them.....


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Most don't even the so called professionals who get to decide on a dogs life merely because of how it looks, nor those who big it up by saying they breed them.....


It's shocking tbh. My fist guess was a Cane Corso!!!


----------



## Rach&Miko (Oct 28, 2015)

Muttly said:


> Wow, great link. I clearly had no clue really what a Pitbull looked like.


Me either - actually really cute!

In my head I had bull terrier x staffie look..


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Ohhh please dont to that- we are CALMLY discussing something and suddenly you pull out the "ganged up on card"............................... REALLY - we have opposing views, I'm stating mine, you are stating yours, ouesi is stating hers- it just so happens that 2 of us agree.
> 
> I think the problem is like I have said before a Staff Lab X in this country would be deemed to be a Pit........ so you'd need to be reporting these too......* oh and you didnt answer my question about seeing one out and about*


Nor mine about correctly and accurately identifying a PB.


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Rach&Miko said:


> Me either - actually really cute!
> 
> In my head I had bull terrier x staffie look..


They really are cute! They got these happy, smiley faces! Which is what I love about Staffies too.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Meezey said:


> I manage to go to shows and have yet to be mauled by the beautiful Amstaffs I get to squish, nor the stunning Dogo's...


This is Cody the Amstaff, Georgina and Gwylim used to go walking with last summer!


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

To my amazement I guessed correctly the first time!


----------



## Rach&Miko (Oct 28, 2015)

Just watched Dog Whisperer (more morbid fascination than anything else don't hate on me lol) and there were a couple of pitbulls on - they really are sweet!!!


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Some may be offended by this but to me BSL is akin to racism...yet another way for humans to judge and divide!


To me the dda is akin to the Nazi's attitude and treatment of Jews.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Dumbo said:


> To me the dda is akin to the Nazi's attitude and treatment of Jews.


I have no issue with the dangerous dogs act as that targets all breeds that are dangerously out of control. For example I know of a Peke that was seized recently.
My issue solely lies with BSL as that is the act that targets specific breeds for nothing more than what they look like.


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> The thing is if people who irresponsibly breed pitbulls arent reported the likely hood is they will continue to breed and the bitch will continue to suffer and more and more of her pups will end up in awful circumstances.
> I would rather report and end the life of 1 bitch and 1 litter then let the continuation of the idiot breed them over and over again. I can then hop the person doesnt breed again.


How is a pitbull bitch having a litter of pup's suffering anymore than another bitch of a different breed? What awful circumstances would the pup's end up in? I want first hand knowledge, not you repeating animal charity lies and propaganda as you have been.


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> I have no issue with the dangerous dogs act as that targets all breeds that are dangerously out of control. For example I know of a Peke that was seized recently.
> My issue solely lies with BSL as that is the act that targets specific breeds for nothing more than what they look like.


I agree on the bsl and don't have any issue with an actual dangerous dog being seized. The majority of dog owners of ALL dog's don't realize how the dda can affect them. But in practice very rarely does. Even police officers don't know or turn a blind eye in the majority of cases.


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

my friend who helps run a rescue had her dog seized and went through court, thankfully won the exemption now they no longer tattoo meant the dog came home quicker than they used to when they did tattoo and frankly she's a smashing dog and is so beautiful, if it was legal i'd consider owning one. 

On the other hand i know a bloke that had two of his dogs seized, one was destroyed and one came home, only for the guy to go out and get another dog and posted online saying he has another pitbull and how she is now 4 months away from being bred. Makes me so mad he's putting another of his dogs at risk by blatantly telling everyone what his dog is (and is debatable if she is) but after going through courts and stuff would willing put another dog and owners at the risk of going through it all. 

I've found many people like to claim they have a pitbull (not sure why) when even i can see their dog isn't unless there's a cross in them somewhere. BSL is so flawed, staffs staff crosses being seized purely for how they look. How is that right


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Interesting to note lower Saxony in Germany is one of the only "lands"/areas in Germany which has no BSL. Why, they looked at evidence.

http://www.voy.com/47647/395.html

You still don't see many dogs which are banned elsewhere.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Dumbo said:


> How is a pitbull bitch having a litter of pup's suffering anymore than another bitch of a different breed? What awful circumstances would the pup's end up in? I want first hand knowledge, not you repeating animal charity lies and propaganda as you have been.


"I want". My grandma used to say, "I want never gets" and a demanding tone such as that will get you nowhere.


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> "I want". My grandma used to say, "I want never gets" and a demanding tone such as that will get you nowhere.[/QUOTE
> 
> You can't answer because you have no first hand knowledge. All your knowledge or lack of, comes from animal charity propaganda gleaned from the media


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Lurcherlad said:


> How can you be sure they were PB's though?
> 
> Some people say they are just to sound 'ard!


See that is the owner type that worries me! Idiots that want to appear hard and have a certain type of dog to bolster that attitude.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Ok lets turn this around. Ouesi, unless I am mistaken I believe you are the wife of a police Officer? Ignore the rest if I got that wrong.

Assuming I have got that right you as a family presumably believe strongly in the rule of law and think they should be upheld regardless of the rights and wrongs of those laws?

You see the fact is, rightly or wrongly Pit Bulls are illegal in the UK. Now lets say you and your family live in the UK and not in the States and you as a police family know somebody down the road is breaking the law and breeding a banned breed. Do you report them as law abiding people or do you ignore it because you disagree with the law despite the potential conflict of interest this presents to your family one member of whom is a Police officer?

I would suggest the position you are taking in this discussion is much easier residing as you do live in a state in the US where Pit bulls are not banned. It would be a rather different matter if you lived in the UK!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> It would be a rather different matter if you lived in the UK!


I disagree.
I am in the UK and unless I saw welfare issues I would not report the dog.

I also wouldn't report someone for opening up an umbrella in front of a horse because that too is a stupid law, difference is the horse wouldn't lose it's life for the way they look!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> Ok lets turn this around. Ouesi, unless I am mistaken I believe you are the wife of a police Officer? Ignore the rest if I got that wrong.
> 
> Assuming I have got that right you as a family presumably believe strongly in the rule of law and think they should be upheld regardless of the rights and wrongs of those laws?
> 
> ...


Why would it be different? Your beliefs are your beliefs what ever country you live? I know of a pitbull here it's illegal? Would I report it no, its not the dogs fault its owner has put him at risk. Not sure what her partners occupation has to do with this thread either? Why is it a conflict of interests? She's not a police officer?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

cbcdesign said:


> Ok lets turn this around. Ouesi, unless I am mistaken I believe you are the wife of a police Officer? Ignore the rest if I got that wrong.
> 
> Assuming I have got that right you as a family presumably believe strongly in the rule of law and think they should be upheld regardless of the rights and wrongs of those laws?
> 
> ...


Because Ouesi has strong beliefs on what constitutes a 'dangerous dog' doesn't mean she isn't law abiding.

I really don't get how her Husband being a Police Officer has any bearing whatsoever. She's entitled to her own opinion and beliefs, irrespective of what her Husband does for a living.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

but what if the dog down the road was just a boxer x....... Which it I far more likely to be, oh right wait, that doesn't matter so long as it fits " the measurements"......... Am sure plenty of police officers have bullbreed mutts, as cherished family pets....... Which lets face it, is what we are really talking about


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> Ok lets turn this around. Ouesi, unless I am mistaken I believe you are the wife of a police Officer? Ignore the rest if I got that wrong.
> 
> Assuming I have got that right you as a family presumably believe strongly in the rule of law and think they should be upheld regardless of the rights and wrongs of those laws?
> 
> ...


If @ouesi and her family lived in England and just down the road from a suspected PBT, she wouldn't be in that situation in the first place, because if she knows the dog is "of type" her hubby undoubtedly would, too and would presumably do as he saw fit in terms of law and the individual dog, thereby rendering your argument null and void. Ouesi's beliefs wouldn't have to be put to the test in the first place as it would be out of her hands.

Your point would be pertinent if it was ouesi herself who was the police officer.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2015)

My family reckoned that my cousin's dad owned a pitbull/pitbull x because he was way too big to be a Staffy and he wasn't like any other Staffies we know but then again my cousin's dad did own him so.. 
Pitbulls are just so badly stereotyped. I mean Caeser Milan's main training dog is a Pitbull and clearly the government is blind to the fact that pitbulls are only dangerous in the wrong hands.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

binkybunny said:


> Pitbulls are just so badly stereotyped. I mean Caeser Milan's main training dog is a Pitbull and clearly the government is blind to the fact that pitbulls are only dangerous in the wrong hands.


CM's pits (well pit as Daddy has died) just show how great these dogs are...to put up with being man handled, slapped, poked, Tsk'd at and bullied and the still come back for more...but then god forbid if they ever did decide enough was enough


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> but what if the dog down the road was just a boxer x....... Which it I far more likely to be, oh right wait, that doesn't matter so long as it fits " the measurements"......... Am sure plenty of police officers have bullbreed mutts, as cherished family pets....... Which lets face it, is what we are really talking about


No that's not the case at all. I guess I am just surprised that the wife of a Police officer even though she resides in another country, along with others here are implying that reporting a breeder of Pit Bulls in the UK is wrong simply because they disagree with UK BSL.

I don't mind that as such. I happen to think that laws should be based on sound principles and fairness which BSL clearly isn't. I guess I just expected to hear that upholding the law trumps bad legislation from the wife of a Police officer, wherever they reside. No offence was meant by it and I apologise if it came across like that.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> No, there wouldn't be. That's a logical fallacy to take something to an extreme like that.
> 
> And we're not talking about obeying the law, we're talking about reporting law breakers.
> In this country, in many southern communities, it used to be illegal for restaurants to serve black people. Many still did though, just quietly "out back".
> ...


I am not into reporting personally but I am sure that someone who would report a pitbull would report someone for texting when driving. After all, both are illegal and if you believe in upholding the law you will do so. Some people go out of their way to report everything they can and others flaunt laws if they do not think them good laws. A lot of otherwise law abiding citizens text when driving and talk on the phone. They believe the law is stupid and so it is ok to break it. Take it one step further - how about someone who believes it is ok to beat up anyone that disagrees with them and the law making it illegal is stupid. 


Lexiedhb said:


> You clearly said you would report someone for breeding Pits. Not because they were in vile conditions, not because you hate dogs, purely because it is* illegal*. It is illegal under BSL, if you report that then yes you have to see, you are in support of BSL. I mean change it all you want now to "irresponsible breeders" but initially that is not what you said, otherwise this would have not continued like it has.
> 
> On another note- if you were out walking your dogs and saw, what you believed to be a Pit, entire, or off lead, would you report that?


Why does it make it supporting a law just because you think that the LAW should be upheld, however stupid it might seem to you.



ouesi said:


> I don't.
> But I remember reading the document of the descriptions used (a lot has to do with ratios, like head to muzzle etc.) and basically any square dog with a square head and a slick coat qualifies. My great dane qualifies as "of type" by those standards. It's the most ridiculous thing I've read....


I think one of my poodles would fit a few of the measurements.



Dumbo said:


> To me the dda is akin to the Nazi's attitude and treatment of Jews.


That is a very sad thing to say.



StormyThai said:


> I disagree.
> I am in the UK and unless I saw welfare issues I would not report the dog.
> 
> I also wouldn't report someone for opening up an umbrella in front of a horse because that too is a stupid law, difference is the horse wouldn't lose it's life for the way they look!


Why would it be illegal to open up an umbrella in front of a horse. It would be an offence to do anything that could reasonably scare a horse and cause an accident but not specifically an umbrella. I would have serious words with anyone that opened an umbrella in front of any of my horses. When they are doing commercial work I am constantly alert for daft things like that and quick to ask people to take care.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2015)

@StormyThai I was speaking to my nan about this a few weeks ago. We've always had the same view. No breeds should be banned as they are as much an animal as we are and it is not the dog it's the owner. I considered rescuing a Staffy but as a first time owner and that children would be walking it, I thought it best not.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Why would it be illegal to open up an umbrella in front of a horse. It would be an offence to do anything that could reasonably scare a horse and cause an accident but not specifically an umbrella. I would have serious words with anyone that opened an umbrella in front of any of my horses. When they are doing commercial work I am constantly alert for daft things like that and quick to ask people to take care.


Because in New York it is still illegal to open an umbrella in the presence of a horse..as far as I am aware anyway.
To be fair I was just showing that people make decisions about what laws to follow or report on a daily basis, not reporting something does not make you any less law abiding


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> No that's not the case at all. I guess I am just surprised that the wife of a Police officer even though she resides in another country, along with others here are implying that reporting a breeder of Pit Bulls in the UK is wrong simply because they disagree with UK BSL.
> 
> I don't mind that as such. I happen to think that laws should be based on sound principles and fairness which BSL clearly isn't. I guess I just expected to hear that upholding the law trumps bad legislation from the wife of a Police officer, wherever they reside. No offence was meant by it and I apologise if it came across like that.


I have no idea what relevance her partner being a police officer is? She isn't a police officer, she didn't take any oath to uphold the law?


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

@Blitz

It's sad but true. 
I've known of dog's get cruelly kicked to death by police and members of the public based on nothing more than media propaganda.
Dog's and puppies turned to skin and bone in holding kennels.
Seen confident happy dog's/pup's turned into skittish nervy wrecks by their treatment at these kennels.
Many of the lucky dog's returned to their owners gain unexplained scarring and behavior issues.
Not to mention the unexplained deaths or those from mysterious illnesses and so on. 
The dda is based solely on a so called experts opinion of a dog's appearance as dog's that have saved or protected human lives. Have been condemned to die based on that appearance. A dog's temperament, actions or behaviour is never taken into account by the courts.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> Assuming I have got that right you as a family presumably believe strongly in the rule of law and think they should be upheld regardless of the rights and wrongs of those laws?


You have the first part right, you have the second part wrong. 
My husband took an oath to serve and protect. 
Our beliefs as a family are irrelevant to this thread and (I don't mean this rudely, just factually), none of your business.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> No that's not the case at all. I guess I am just surprised that the wife of a Police officer even though she resides in another country, along with others here are implying that reporting a breeder of Pit Bulls in the UK is wrong simply because they disagree with UK BSL.
> 
> I don't mind that as such. I happen to think that laws should be based on sound principles and fairness which BSL clearly isn't. I guess I just expected to hear that upholding the law trumps bad legislation from the wife of a Police officer, wherever they reside. No offence was meant by it and I apologise if it came across like that.


First off, I never said reporting a breeder of pit bulls was wrong. If you are going to assert that I said something please quote me saying it.
I simply asked clarification questions as to why someone would report a pit bull breeder and why it matters more if a pit bull is abused than any other breed of dog.

Second, I am an individual entity separate and apart from my husband, I am allowed my own thoughts and opinions 

Third, "protect and serve" trumps upholding the law. Officers have to use their own discretion all the time in their line of work. Sometimes that means befriending a homeless person and giving them a warm meal and a ride to the shelter instead of arresting them for trespassing, sometimes that means not following protocol in order to save a life in the moment, sometimes that means putting an injured rooster in your patrol car and bringing him home instead of dumping him on the animal shelter for them to figure out what to do with him. There are all sorts of grey areas officers navigate day in and day out.

Your tone is very judgmental of how you think we should act based on my OH's profession and it's more than a little uncomfortable. Sorry, but you don't get to tell me or anyone in my family how we should behave.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Dumbo said:


> @Blitz
> 
> It's sad but true.
> I've known of dog's get cruelly kicked to death by police and members of the public based on nothing more than media propaganda.
> ...


@Dumbo. The DDA applies to any dog, regardless of breed that is deemed out of control. It makes it an offence for a dog to attack/bite or intimidate any member of the public. It makes it unlawful for a dog to be dangerously out of control, scaring people or attacking them, regardless of where they were at the time. For example, someone visiting your house who is attacked by your dog/s - *regardless of breed* can report and prosecute you for having a dog who is dangerously out of control. The exception to this, I believe, is anyone who is breaking other laws, such as trying to break in. 

BSL is Breed Specific Legislation.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

@ouesi You're never going to forgive him for bringing home that Rooster are you?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> No that's not the case at all. I guess I am just surprised that the wife of a Police officer even though she resides in another country, along with others here are implying that reporting a breeder of Pit Bulls in the UK is wrong simply because they disagree with UK BSL.
> 
> I don't mind that as such. I happen to think that laws should be based on sound principles and fairness which BSL clearly isn't. I guess I just expected to hear that upholding the law trumps bad legislation from the wife of a Police officer, wherever they reside. No offence was meant by it and I apologise if it came across like that.


But it is what happens...... go look on the DDA page, look at all the pets that have been seized, some of which have known parentage, they are seized for no reason other than how they look. Supporting that IMO is just plain daft, police officer or not.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> No that's not the case at all. I guess I am just surprised that the wife of a Police officer even though she resides in another country, along with others here are implying that reporting a breeder of Pit Bulls in the UK is wrong simply because they disagree with UK BSL.
> 
> I don't mind that as such. I happen to think that laws should be based on sound principles and fairness which BSL clearly isn't. I guess I just expected to hear that upholding the law trumps bad legislation from the wife of a Police officer, wherever they reside. No offence was meant by it and I apologise if it came across like that.


Also because you are a police officer in one county does that mean you have to "uphold the law" in every country on the planet?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> Because in New York it is still illegal to open an umbrella in the presence of a horse..as far as I am aware anyway.
> To be fair I was just showing that people make decisions about what laws to follow or report on a daily basis, not reporting something does not make you any less law abiding


I never knew about umbrellas - is it a new law or a very old one from when horses were on the streets and umbrellas were invented. We actually have a lot of old horse based laws in this country that have never been repealed and I am sure would never be upheld. As far as I know the law that a male carriage driver can have a pee up the offside wheel of the carriage under his driving apron is still in place.



Dumbo said:


> @Blitz
> 
> It's sad but true.
> I've known of dog's get cruelly kicked to death by police and members of the public based on nothing more than media propaganda.
> ...


I am aware that this happens but how on earth can you compare that with what the nazis did to the Jews. Millions of people were 'exterminated'. To me it is a dreadful thing to compare a few dogs lives with something like that. Dogs should not be taken away from their owners for no reason even if they are treated wonderfully well but that is not comparable with mass genocide and is a dreadful insult to those that lived through those times or had family that did.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I never knew about umbrellas - is it a new law or a very old one from when horses were on the streets and umbrellas were invented. We actually have a lot of old horse based laws in this country that have never been repealed and I am sure would never be upheld. As far as I know the law that a male carriage driver can have a pee up the offside wheel of the carriage under his driving apron is still in place.


Apparently it is still in place. Not sure if it would be upheld (probably not lol) though.


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

LinznMilly said:


> @Dumbo. The DDA applies to any dog, regardless of breed that is deemed out of control. It makes it an offence for a dog to attack/bite or intimidate any member of the public. It makes it unlawful for a dog to be dangerously out of control, scaring people or attacking them, regardless of where they were at the time. For example, someone visiting your house who is attacked by your dog/s - *regardless of breed* can report and prosecute you for having a dog who is dangerously out of control. The exception to this, I believe, is anyone who is breaking other laws, such as trying to break in.
> 
> BSL is Breed Specific Legislation.


I've previously mentioned owners of other breed don't realize the dda can affect them elsewhere. In practice it very rarely does as plod usually charge or warn other breed owners under other dog/animal laws. The out of control part your on about has been part of the law since coming into being. The newer addition was basically introduced to protect workers who have to visit someone's home as part of their jobs.
Section 1 is the bsl part of the legislation and is the section under where most people have been charged.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I never knew about umbrellas - is it a new law or a very old one from when horses were on the streets and umbrellas were invented. We actually have a lot of old horse based laws in this country that have never been repealed and I am sure would never be upheld. As far as I know the law that a male carriage driver can have a pee up the offside wheel of the carriage under his driving apron is still in place.
> 
> I am aware that this happens but how on earth can you compare that with what the nazis did to the Jews. Millions of people were 'exterminated'. To me it is a dreadful thing to compare a few dogs lives with something like that. Dogs should not be taken away from their owners for no reason even if they are treated wonderfully well but that is not comparable with mass genocide and is a dreadful insult to those that lived through those times or had family that did.


Pregnant ladies are still by law allowed to pee in a policemans helmet...


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

Blitz said:


> I am aware that this happens but how on earth can you compare that with what the nazis did to the Jews. Millions of people were 'exterminated'. To me it is a dreadful thing to compare a few dogs lives with something like that. Dogs should not be taken away from their owners for no reason even if they are treated wonderfully well but that is not comparable with mass genocide and is a dreadful insult to those that lived through those times or had family that did.


I compare it to the holocaust as the hatred and actions of the nazis is comparable to the actions and hatred of the animal charities and police towards the apbt and types.

A few dogs try many thousands. What would you call it then if not genocide, when they're trying to eradicated and exterminate an entire breed?

It was a Jewish lawyer who first came up with that comparison to me. He didn't feel it insulted his religion, people or ancestors. Neither did he have anything else comparable to the attitude and action's of those enforcing the dda.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Pregnant ladies are still by law allowed to pee in a policemans helmet...


Shame I am too old to try that out


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> I have no idea what relevance her partner being a police officer is? She isn't a police officer, she didn't take any oath to uphold the law?


Well the poster who is a UK resident said she would report a Pit Bull Breeder, in other words report a crime. As I think I said I was just surprised to hear the spouse of a Law Enforcement officer implying that this was somehow not an appropriate thing to do. I don't think I can explain it any more succinctly than that to be honest.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Also because you are a police officer in one county does that mean you have to "uphold the law" in every country on the planet?


No it doesn't but in Police families I have encountered in the UK the general consensus was that upholding law regardless of how ill thought out they may be trumped any other consideration. Also it would clearly not be appropriate for a Police officer in one country to tell citizens in another country that it was ok to break the law would it?

Anyway it was just a hypothetical scenario I posed to Ouesi, nothing more than that. I guess I was just interested to see if the wife of an officer felt that a really stupid law such as BSL should be ignored or not?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> But it is what happens...... go look on the DDA page, look at all the pets that have been seized, some of which have known parentage, they are seized for no reason other than how they look. Supporting that IMO is just plain daft, police officer or not.


I agree that BSL is bad law. I said as much didn't I?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> No it doesn't but in Police families I have encountered in the UK the general consensus was that upholding law regardless of how ill thought out they may be trumped any other consideration. Also it would clearly not be appropriate for a Police officer in one country to tell citizens in another country that it was ok to break the law would it?
> 
> Anyway it was just a hypothetical scenario I posed to Ouesi and I think its getting a bit out of hand so I will leave it at that.


certainly not my experience of uk police families, and that's before you even get to the corrupt ones. A police officer from the UK, would be nothing more than a tourist in another country, so would have no need to advise others on the law, they would have no power to uphold the law of that country.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

I know several Police families, all very pleasant people who are very proud of the job they do and are honest straight forward people. My neighbour is a radio operator at the Avon & Somerset Police HQ. She is a really pleasant lady as is her Husband (pleasant that is not a lady, lol) who does not work for the Police. I am sorry if your experience with Police and their families has been a negative one and has perhaps jaded your opinion of them but that has not been my experience, even when I was young and stupid and was on the wrong side of the law.


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

Doggiedelight said:


> No i would be reporting a uk breeder for breeding dogs which are under the dangerous dog act in the uk. As i have said this is based on what the breeder said, that they are pitbulls (as we are discussing mazes post here and that is what my response was to)


You may as well report any one else who breeds dogs that are deemed dangerous , a few breeds legal here some insurance companies refuse to insure Wow..


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> I know several Police families, all very pleasant people who are very proud of the job they do and are honest straight forward people. My neighbour is a radio operator at the Avon & Somerset Police HQ. She is a really pleasant lady as is her Husband (pleasant that is not a lady, lol) who does not work for the Police. I am sorry if your experience with Police and their families has been a negative one and has perhaps jaded your opinion of them but that has not been my experience, even when I was young and stupid and was on the wrong side of the law.


Not reporting someone for an offence that could mean the loss of an innocent dogs life for no more than what they look like does not equate to someone being dishonest or unlawful. 
It doesn't matter if they are the police or not..now if there were other issues regarding the dog that risk the dogs or public safety then that is a different matter.

I am no more surprised by that, than I am of an officer that decides to let a homeless person off an offence with a slapped wrist (figuratively speaking of course) instead of marching them down to the police station


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> I know several Police families, all very pleasant people who are very proud of the job they do and are honest straight forward people. My neighbour is a radio operator at the Avon & Somerset Police HQ. She is a really pleasant lady as is her Husband (pleasant that is not a lady, lol) who does not work for the Police. I am sorry if your experience with Police and their families has been a negative one and has perhaps jaded your opinion of them but that has not been my experience, even when I was young and stupid and was on the wrong side of the law.


Not negative at all!!! You misunderstand me, just not "upholding the law" to within an inch of its life (regardless of their own moral standpoint) just because they are or happen to be married to police officers.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> I know several Police families, all very pleasant people who are very proud of the job they do and are honest straight forward people.


Correct although I bet they have, like everyone been guilty of speeding and a lot of other small crimes. Should a wife/husband report her other half for speeding every time? Let's also not forget that some policemen are quite willing to stand up for what they believe, even to the point of losing their jobs to save a life: http://www.dogheirs.com/tamara/posts/2714-police-officer-kidnaps-dog-to-save-him-from-euthanasia.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Hmmmm remember the Pitbull Police dog?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Correct although I bet they have, like everyone been guilty of speeding and a lot of other small crimes. Should a wife/husband report her other half for speeding every time? Let's also not forget that some policemen are quite willing to stand up for what they believe, even to the point of losing their jobs to save a life: http://www.dogheirs.com/tamara/posts/2714-police-officer-kidnaps-dog-to-save-him-from-euthanasia.


Good for him


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Correct although I bet they have, like everyone been guilty of speeding and a lot of other small crimes. Should a wife/husband report her other half for speeding every time? Let's also not forget that some policemen are quite willing to stand up for what they believe, even to the point of losing their jobs to save a life: http://www.dogheirs.com/tamara/posts/2714-police-officer-kidnaps-dog-to-save-him-from-euthanasia.


That's a good point well made. I cannot fault your logic. And yes, good for him!


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

The thing that stands out for me and that I think sometimes gets buried beneath the anger towards BSL in conversations like this is that Pitt Bull type dogs can and do sometimes attract the wrong sort of owner. They are seen as hard by a small group of people that could be described as your street gang type thugs. It was people like that and other that were just totally unsuitable to own dogs that I think we can all agree can be dangerous in the wrong hands. It was this reason that the breed was banned in the uk. Now unfortunately it had the opposite effect and made the breed more attractive to the "wrong sort".

Its a complicated emotive issue but I think there are occasions when not reporting something could be inviting trouble further down the line for somebody or their Pet. I met a chap just a few days ago whose dog got bitten around the throat by a Bull type dog a few months ago and the owner of the aggressor thought it was funny! Now personally I think he should have reported the incident, I certainly would have!


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> The thing that stands out for me and that I think sometimes gets buried beneath the anger towards BSL in conversations like this is that Pitt Bull type dogs can and do sometimes attract the wrong sort of owner. They are seen as hard by a small group of people that could be described as your street gang type thugs. It was people like that and other that were just totally unsuitable to own dogs that I think we can all agree can be dangerous in the wrong hands. It was this reason that the breed was banned in the uk. Now unfortunately it had the opposite effect and made the breed more attractive to the "wrong sort".
> 
> Its a complicated emotive issue but I think there are occasions when not reporting something could be inviting trouble further down the line for somebody or their Pet. I met a chap just a few days ago whose dog got bitten around the throat by a Bull type dog a few months ago and the owner of the aggressor thought it was funny! Now personally I think he should have reported the incident, I certainly would have!


Apbt owners were the first and have been saying for years that the lies and propaganda passed to the media by animal charities and reported irresponsibly, makes their breed more attractive to the wrong people. The popularity of the Stafford today amongst such people is following a similar route.
When the law was brought in (due to just two attacks) there wasn't the so called gangs and street thugs we see or hear about today.
The reason they were banned was because the government of the day, listened to organisations or so called expert's with their own agenda, some who now oppose the dda publically, but were at the time eagerly awaiting their taste of blood.
I can't comment on the fight. But have you spoken to both owners? I've seen many attacks on bulls breeds by dogs of other breeds but because the bull breeds retaliated. They get the blame by other dog owners and in the press if reported on.
Would you report a jrt or any other none banned breed for anything like that?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> The thing that stands out for me and that I think sometimes gets buried beneath the anger towards BSL in conversations like this is that Pitt Bull type dogs can and do sometimes attract the wrong sort of owner. They are seen as hard by a small group of people that could be described as your street gang type thugs. It was people like that and other that were just totally unsuitable to own dogs that I think we can all agree can be dangerous in the wrong hands. It was this reason that the breed was banned in the uk. Now unfortunately it had the opposite effect and made the breed more attractive to the "wrong sort".
> 
> Its a complicated emotive issue but I think there are occasions when not reporting something could be inviting trouble further down the line for somebody or their Pet. I met a chap just a few days ago whose dog got bitten around the throat by a Bull type dog a few months ago and the owner of the aggressor thought it was funny! Now personally I think he should have reported the incident, I certainly would have!


No it's not the reason they were banned... A death of a child by another breed MY breed are why certain breeds were banned. Explain to me how the death of a child by one breed gets 4 others banned, at the time 3 of the breeds weren't even in the UK. There were thousands of Rottweilers registered in UK then, that's just KC registration, thousands were owned on top of that and not KC registered... They were the dog of choice for thugs at that time. 70'S and 80'S it was the GSD...So you tell my just how you would feel if your GSD was banned because another breed attacked a child or because certain types wanted to own it? They are a restricted breed in Ireland BTW, muzzled and on a lead no more than a metre in public..


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> No it's not the reason they were banned... A death of a child by another breed MY breed are why certain breeds were banned. Explain to me how the death of a child by one breed gets 4 others banned, at the time 3 of the breeds weren't even in the UK. There were thousands of Rottweilers registered in UK then, that's just KC registration, thousands were owned on top of that and not KC registered... They were the dog of choice for thugs at that time. 70'S and 80'S it was the GSD...So you tell my just how you would feel if your GSD was banned because another breed attacked a child or because certain types wanted to own it? They are a restricted breed in Ireland BTW, muzzled and on a lead no more than a metre in public..


I disagree Meezey. The deaths were the motivation behind the legislation certainly but I think the Government had people, bad dog owners in particular very much in mind when they decided to ban particular dog types. The reality is Government has to legislate for everybody including the clueless who would get a dog for which they are totally unsuited. Can you honestly say that you think any Tom Dick or Harry should be able to own any of the dogs pictures here?:-

http://www.chelseadogs.com/blog/which-dog-breeds-are-banned-in-the-uk/

They are potentially dangerous dogs in the wrongs hands. As the American Pit Bull association says the problem is not the Dogs, its the people. The Government decided that the simplest solution was simply to ban some breeds altogether.

Now I know there are very knowledgeable folk on this forum that would probably be fine raising some of the dogs pictured on the site above and turning out well behaved animals but equally we all see the clueless dog owners out and about fairly regularly who cannot cope with relatively docile breeds. Imagine the damage these idiots would pose to other dog owners and other dogs if they had something powerful?

Unless we as a community are prepared to accept mandatory socialisation and behavioural training sessions followed by competence testing I cannot see any way in which the bans could safely be lifted. And frankly I am not convinced I would want to see a breed like the Fila in this country anyway.

Lastly we don't actually rank that highly in the UK as far as banned breeds are concerned. We have 4 banned breeds. Other EU countries have banned far more or restricted them. In Ireland my GSD girl would have to be muzzled! She is a lamb and as soft as they come but to the Irish Government, a devil dog. Even in the USA some states are far stricter with municipal authorities having hundreds of laws against over 20 breeds! At least we have some semblance of restraint with regards to breed legislation in the UK. It could be a lot worse.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> I disagree Meezey. The deaths were the motivation behind the legislation certainly but I think the Government had people, bad dog owners in particular very much in mind when they decided to ban particular dog types.


No they had media stoking the fire and the need to be seen doing something. BSL was good propaganda, after all why ban a breed not even in this country?

Even if your supposition however was correct, has banning breeds worked? Ban a breed, those undesirables simply pick a different breed. Are you then going to ban them? Where do you stop, Chihuahuas?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Goblin said:


> No they had media stoking the fire and the need to be seen doing something. BSL was good propaganda, after all why ban a breed not even in this country?
> 
> Even if your supposition however was correct, has banning breeds worked? Ban a breed, those undesirables simply pick a different breed. Are you then going to ban them? Where do you stop, Chihuahuas?


Well I imagine they decided to ban breeds that were not in this country to prevent them from ever reaching our shores.

As for your last question well I suggest you take a look at the list of banned breeds in other countries and perhaps then you may begin to understand the thinking behind the Governments decision. Politically there seems to be a consensus that where certain breeds are concerned an outright ban is the simplest most practical solution. As I mentioned we are relatively relaxed about the vast majority of breeds in the UK. Spain and Italy have much longer lists. Take a look at Ukraine, Wow!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> I disagree Meezey. The deaths were the motivation behind the legislation certainly but I think the Government had people, bad dog owners in particular very much in mind when they decided to ban particular dog types. The reality is Government has to legislate for everybody including the clueless who would get a dog for which they are totally unsuited. Can you honestly say that you think any Tom Dick or Harry should be able to own any of the dogs pictures here?:-
> 
> http://www.chelseadogs.com/blog/which-dog-breeds-are-banned-in-the-uk/
> 
> ...


How am I wrong? Rottweilers killed a child so the government banned 4 breed? Most of who are known to be more people tolerant than say we'll say a GSD? I am well aware of restricted breeds I just said about it in my post, I spend most weekends in Ireland and most my life in Europe I do know about their restricted breeds.

So like I asked in my last post explain what banning 4 breeds did when 3 of them had never been in the UK and none of them were recognised breeds here? We have much more powerful breeds that those types can still get their hands on.
Yes your girl is a "lamb" but she is still a powerful breed, who was popular with certain types of people would you be happy with GSD's being banned if and when they become popular again? Again they are less people tolerant than pits.... Quick question have you lived in any of the countries you talk about in Europe? Given both Goblin and I have lived in Germany he still does. I also visit and holiday in Ireland so have you seen breed restriction in action?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> The thing that stands out for me and that I think sometimes gets buried beneath the anger towards BSL in conversations like this is that Pitt Bull type dogs can and do sometimes attract the wrong sort of owner. They are seen as hard by a small group of people that could be described as your street gang type thugs. It was people like that and other that were just totally unsuitable to own dogs that I think we can all agree can be dangerous in the wrong hands. It was this reason that the breed was banned in the uk. Now unfortunately it had the opposite effect and made the breed more attractive to the "wrong sort".
> 
> Its a complicated emotive issue but I think there are occasions when not reporting something could be inviting trouble further down the line for somebody or their Pet. I met a chap just a few days ago whose dog got bitten around the throat by a Bull type dog a few months ago and the owner of the aggressor thought it was funny! Now personally I think he should have reported the incident, I certainly would have!


The "wrong" sort of owner you describe could easily move on to the next "in" breed. I mean historically its been gsd's, rotties, Dobermans yadda yadda. Its not these owners it would seem who are actually being affected by this useless law, they have their dog seized its pts, they have a new one 24hrs later. The chap walking his cherished, spoilt, adored bullbreed mutt who hadn't put a foot wrong, but is seized anyway is the one who I suffering...... Along with the dogs themselves.


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> I disagree Meezey. The deaths were the motivation behind the legislation certainly but I think the Government had people, bad dog owners in particular very much in mind when they decided to ban particular dog types. The reality is Government has to legislate for everybody including the clueless who would get a dog for which they are totally unsuited. Can you honestly say that you think any Tom Dick or Harry should be able to own any of the dogs pictures here?:-
> 
> http://www.chelseadogs.com/blog/which-dog-breeds-are-banned-in-the-uk/
> 
> ...


What UK deaths was the apbt involved in pre ban? Answer none. 
Your way of track. Gsd's and Rotty's had killed pre dda but were not included or added to the banned lists after other deaths involving both breeds happened after the dda became law. Neither were any other breeds added after they had been involved in death's post dda.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> How am I wrong? Rottweilers killed a child so the government banned 4 breed? Most of who are known to be more people tolerant than say we'll say a GSD? I am well aware of restricted breeds I just said about it in my post, I spend most weekends in Ireland and most my life in Europe I do know about their restricted breeds.
> 
> So like I asked in my last post explain what banning 4 breeds did when 3 of them had never been in the UK and none of them were recognised breeds here?
> Yes your girl is a "lamb" but she is still a powerful breed, who was popular with certain types of people would you be happy with GOD's being banned if and when they become popular again? Again they are less people tolerant than pits....


I didn't say you were wrong, I just disagree with your assessment that the ban was motivated only by one incident without further consideration. I think more involved discussions on ownership and responsibility probably took place when the ban was introduced hence the decision to ban breeds they felt were potentially very dangerous in the wrong hands. I also addressed the reason why I suspect the Government banned non recognised breeds in the UK in my reply to Goblin.

GSD's are less tolerant of strangers, that is perfectly true but equally they are more dog tolerant than Pits are. GSDs were sheep herding dogs, bull baiting and dog fighting were not traits that breeders were looking for when they bred GSDs. Those traits were desirable in pits however as the American pit-bull association will attest.

I don't think we will ever agree on this issue Meezey. I understand your point of view that BSL doesn't work, I think its fair to say that where some bull type dogs are concerned its probably a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw in fact. But at the same time I do think some breeds are just beyond the scope of your average dog owning family and should remain banned.


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

Italy doesn't have a bred ban. Neither does Spain to my knowledge, not one that affects the apbt or related breeds.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> I didn't say you were wrong, I just disagree with your assessment that the ban was motivated only by one incident without further consideration. I think more involved discussions on ownership and responsibility probably took place when the ban was introduced hence the decision to ban breeds they felt were potentially very dangerous in the wrong hands. I also addressed the reason why I suspect the Government banned non recognised breeds in the UK in my reply to Goblin.
> 
> GSD's are less tolerant of strangers, that is perfectly true but equally they are more dog tolerant than Pits are. GSDs were sheep herding dogs, bull baiting and dog fighting were not traits that breeders were looking for when they bred GSDs. Those traits were desirable in pits however as the American pit-bull association will attest.
> 
> I don't think we will ever agree on this issue Meezey. I understand your point of view that BSL doesn't work, I think its fair to say that where some bull type dogs are concerned its probably a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw in fact. But at the same time I do think some breeds are just beyond the scope of your average dog owning family and should remain banned.


Give me a dog intolerant dog, over a human/ stranger intolerant dog any day of the week. After all the ban was mainly to protect humans, so your logic doesn't really follow......


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> I didn't say you were wrong, I just disagree with your assessment that the ban was motivated only by one incident without further consideration. I think more involved discussions on ownership and responsibility probably took place when the ban was introduced hence the decision to ban breeds they felt were potentially very dangerous in the wrong hands. I also addressed the reason why I suspect the Government banned non recognised breeds in the UK in my reply to Goblin.
> 
> GSD's are less tolerant of strangers, that is perfectly true but equally they are more dog tolerant than Pits are. GSDs were sheep herding dogs, bull baiting and dog fighting were not traits that breeders were looking for when they bred GSDs. Those traits were desirable in pits however as the American pit-bull association will attest.
> 
> I don't think we will ever agree on this issue Meezey. I understand your point of view that BSL doesn't work, I think its fair to say that where some bull type dogs are concerned its probably a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw in fact. But at the same time I do think some breeds are just beyond the scope of your average dog owning family and should remain banned.


Why have you ignored all the questions?

So you would understand if GSD's where banned if they became popular with certain types again? You'd understand that and agree with it?

Have you been to the countries you mention in Europe?

Have you ever met and spent time with any of the 4 banned breeds? Sorry to say as a danger to people GSD are more of a risk imho.

So you have no concern for the welfare of people where BSL is concerned but just other dogs?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Dumbo said:


> What UK deaths was the apbt involved in pre ban? Answer none.
> Your way of track. Gsd's and Rotty's had killed pre dda but were not included or added to the banned lists after other deaths involving both breeds happened after the dda became law. Neither were any other breeds added after they had been involved in death's post dda.


I don't suspect that the Government only looked at what was happening in our own country when drawing up legislation of this sort, I think they almost certainly looked at what other countries were doing too.

I challenge any of the people contributing to this thread that are totally opposed to any sort of BSL with hand on heart to say that they think a dog like the Fila is the sort of animal that should be freely available to anybody that wants one.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> I don't suspect that the Government only looked at what was happening in our own country when drawing up legislation of this sort, I think they almost certainly looked at what other countries were doing too.
> 
> I challenge any of the people contributing to this thread that are totally opposed to any sort of BSL with hand on heart to say that they think a dog like the Fila is the sort of animal that should be freely available to anybody that wants one.


Do you think gsd's should be freely available to anyone who wants one?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> I don't suspect that the Government only looked at what was happening in our own country when drawing up legislation of this sort, I think they almost certainly looked at what other countries were doing too.
> 
> I challenge any of the people contributing to this thread that are totally opposed to any sort of BSL with hand on heart to say that they think a dog like the Fila is the sort of animal that should be freely available to anybody that wants one.


No breed should be....

So what are Filas like in your experience?

You would not have a Fila but say a Bully Kutta is fine? Edited as tired dyslexic brain changed the name lol


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Why have you ignored all the questions?
> 
> So you would understand if GSD's where banned if they became popular with certain types again? You'd understand that and agree with it?
> 
> ...


I did not ignore your questions, I answered them as best I could.

No I have not spent time with any of the 4 banned breeds. I have not spent time with lion tamers or their big cats either but it doesn't take much leap of the imagination to see the potential damage those animals could inflict upon people if they were loose and the tamer lost control. This is at the heart of the argument Meezey, not the dogs but people and their ability to properly control large powerful dogs.

I addressed the issue with BSL regarding the "popular" dog type in the UK and I think I made my position clear. As for my "concern", I have concerns about anybody owning a dog who lacks the necessary skills to keep the animal under proper control and prevent injury to other people or their dogs. That applies to any dog however, not specifically the banned breeds. But I say again that living in a country where training and behavioural testing is not compulsory necessitates the ban of some types, in particular larger muscular breeds with a history linked to dog fighting.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> No breed should be....
> 
> So what are Filas like in your experience?
> 
> You would not have a Fila but say a Kully Butta is fine?


See my answer above!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> I did not ignore your questions, I answered them as best I could.
> 
> No I have not spent time with any of the 4 banned breeds. I have not spent time with lion tamers or their big cats either but it doesn't take much leap of the imagination to see the potential damage those animals could inflict upon people if they were loose and the tamer lost control. This is at the heart of the argument Meezey, not the dogs but people and their ability to properly control large powerful dogs.
> 
> I addressed the issue with BSL regarding the "popular" dog type in the UK and I think I made my position clear. As for my "concern", I have concerns about anybody owning a dog who lacks the necessary skills to keep the animal under proper control and prevent injury to other people or their dogs. That applies to any dog however, not specifically the banned breeds. But I say again that living in a country where training and behavioural testing is not compulsory necessitates the ban of some types, in particular larger muscular breeds with a history linked to dog fighting.


Pitbulls aren't large.... And plenty of of breeds not banned are linked to dog fighting much larger than pits in a lot of family homes.. So you are more concern about dog on dog intolerance than than people intolerance.. Okay.

So you would be fine with GSDs being banned too.. Which could happen.. but you understand the reasoning why they were banned even if your girl is a lamb..

Strange that coz when I worked GSD's for a living wouldn't have called them lambs.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

That's what makes no sense to me... The likes of fila, dogo, tosa and pit bull are too dangerous to risk in the hands of certain numpties, but bully kutta or Caucasian or central Asian ovtcharka ,are perfectly safe? Its ludicrous.

Not to mention that bsl has failed abysmally at preventing bites or fatalities and protecting the public, either in the UK or anywhere else. It just doesn't work.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Colette said:


> That's what makes no sense to me... The likes of fila, dogo, tosa and pit bull are too dangerous to risk in the hands of certain numpties, but bully kutta or Caucasian or central Asian ovtcharka ,are perfectly safe? Its ludicrous.
> 
> Not to mention that bsl has failed abysmally at preventing bites or fatalities and protecting the public, either in the UK or anywhere else. It just doesn't work.


I don't get why people just accept it and paint these dogs in a certain way because the government and media tell them it is so. Most have no personal experience of these breeds but take the government's word, yet sit with dogs more likely than a pit say to inflict a bite on a human...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Tough life being a restricted breed when in Ireland.....


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Meezey said:


> I don't get why people just accept it and paint these dogs in a certain way because the government and media tell them it is so. Most have no personal experience of these breeds but take the government's word, yet sit with dogs more likely than a pit say to inflict a bite on a human...


Because the media is a powerful tool, it has been painting that picture for decades now


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Do you think gsd's should be freely available to anyone who wants one?


That's a very good question! I think that they should be freely available to anybody that is prepared to learn about the breed, think carefully about the reality of fitting the dog into the family environment and give the animal the time, training and attention it needs. I think that applies to all breeds though to be honest.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Because the media is a powerful tool, it has been painting that picture for decades now


Lucky I don't read or listen to any media channels, I like to judge things in my life on my own experiences of them. It also painted all Irish as terrorists, all Muslim's extremists, gay's evil and abnormal, blacks unworthy war is just, and the world was flat.... Sad people still judge things with absolutely no real knowledge..


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Tough life being a restricted breed when in Ireland.....
> View attachment 251238
> View attachment 251239
> View attachment 251240


You are in Northern Ireland though I think arn't you Meezey?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> That's a very good question! I think that they should be freely available to anybody that is prepared to learn about the breed, think carefully about the reality of fitting the dog into the family environment and give the animal the time, training and attention it needs. I think that applies to all breeds though to be honest.


Including pitbulls no reason for them to be banned then...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> You are in Northern Ireland though I think arn't you Meezey and therefore subject to UK law and not Irish law?


The pictures are from Ireland hence why I tough life as a restricted breed in Ireland.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> The pictures are from Ireland hence why I tough life as a restricted breed in Ireland.


http://futuresfordogs.co.uk/dangerous-dogs-act-ireland/

The rules seem fairly clear. Perhaps you were on private land or ignored the rules. In theory howsoever they are restricted along with my Breed.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> http://futuresfordogs.co.uk/dangerous-dogs-act-ireland/
> 
> The rules seem fairly clear. Perhaps you were on private land or ignored the rules. In theory howsoever they are restricted along with my Breed.


I am well aware of the restricted breeds not sure why you are linking it?
My point being you can quote about other countries and their restricted breeds but unless you have been there you don't know the reality, bit like judging breeds while having no personal knowledge of them. It was on a busy public beach in Ireland, same as the beach we were at in a different place in Ireland last weekend no leads or Muzzles, we often stay at the Hilton in Dublin often and had a long in depth conversation outside the hotel while walking the dogs, with leads on of course but longer than a metre , with two members of the Garda about Rottweiler tails.... In all my years of going to down south have yet to see a muzzled restricted breed...


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> I am well aware of the restricted breeds not sure why you are linking it?
> My point being you can quote about other countries and their restricted breeds but unless you have been there you don't know the reality, bit like judging breeds while having no personal knowledge of them. It was on a busy public beach in Ireland, same as the beach we were at in a different place in Ireland last weekend no leads or Muzzles, we often stay at the Hilton in Dublin often and had a long in depth conversation outside the hotel while walking the dogs, with leads on of course but longer than a metre , with two members of the Garda about Rottweiler tails.... In all my years of going to down south have yet to see a muzzled restricted breed...


I linked to it because you posted pictures with the implication that no restrictions exist in Ireland when in fact they do according to the document to which the link points. Ok so they are relaxing the policing of the restrictions that the Irish government implemented, that's fine I guess. Perhaps in hindsight they realised that amount of restriction was a tadd over zealous. They are after all much stricter that the rules here in England.

Of course you realise that your lack of personal knowledge of the banned breeds means you are no more qualified to decide that all forms of BSL is bad than I am to say some BSL is good? Its all conjecture on both sides. 

Oh and I did not say GSD's were lambs, just mine. She is a real softie!

No takers for the challenge I presented in post 212 then?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> I linked to it because you posted pictures with the implication that no restrictions exist in Ireland when in fact they do according to the document to which the link points. Ok so they are relaxing the policing of the restrictions that the Irish government implemented, that's fine I guess. Perhaps in hindsight they realised that amount of restriction was a tadd over zealous. They are after all much stricter that the rules here in England.
> 
> No takers for the challenge I presented in post 212 then?


They have never been in enforced so no relaxation ( you might consider question the validity of everything you read) and they are not stricter than the law in the UK. The Irish law doesn't allow them to kill dogs because of how they look. Your dog could be a staff x Lab but if someone decides it looks like a banned type its death warrant is signed. Thankfully 71% of the UK think BSL is bull s*** legislation, the soon its gone the better, and maybe rather than an ill thought out knee jerk reaction to incidents the government might listen to people who actually know what they are taking about and punish the deed not the breed and consider if they did it to follow their European counter parts why most of them have scrapped it? Most of us did answer your question, although you are doing a pretty good job or selecting what you chose to answer...


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> I didn't say you were wrong, I just disagree with your assessment that the ban was motivated only by one incident without further consideration. I think more involved discussions on ownership and responsibility probably took place when the ban was introduced hence the decision to ban breeds they felt were potentially very dangerous in the wrong hands. I also addressed the reason why I suspect the Government banned non recognised breeds in the UK in my reply to Goblin.
> 
> GSD's are less tolerant of strangers, that is perfectly true but equally they are more dog tolerant than Pits are. GSDs were sheep herding dogs, bull baiting and dog fighting were not traits that breeders were looking for when they bred GSDs. Those traits were desirable in pits however as the American pit-bull association will attest.
> 
> I don't think we will ever agree on this issue Meezey. I understand your point of view that BSL doesn't work, I think its fair to say that where some bull type dogs are concerned its probably a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw in fact. But at the same time I do think some breeds are just beyond the scope of your average dog owning family and should remain banned.


So what make you say the banned breeds and types should remain banned. Considering you have no knowledge or experience of them?


----------



## countrysidelover (Nov 11, 2015)

What I don't understand is somone can have a 18ft bermesr python -obvs quite capable of killing AND eating someone ....
Yet your not aloud a pit bull...
Pythons can be amazing just like pitbulls....


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> I don't suspect that the Government only looked at what was happening in our own country when drawing up legislation of this sort, I think they almost certainly looked at what other countries were doing


Like hell they did, what has what other countries doing got to do with the UK. The first country to banned breeds within it's borders? Some followed after, many of whom later repelled such laws because of the injustice of bsl.

Anyway the home secretary at the time Ken Baker. Has admitted he never saw an apbt or ever spoke to any breed group or individual owners during that. All his information on the apbt came from animal charities and the kc, hardly the most impartial of people where the breed is concerned. The rspca and kc thought (or were led to believe) that they could gain control of the dangerous dog register, and were not happy they wasn't. The only breed out of those proposed for being banned that that was in the country (apart from a single Tosa) that got banned was the apbt. The rspca were worried about falling donations if they supported a ban on kc breeds, and kc didn't want to lose the money they make from registering their recognised breeds. Since the apbt wasn't recognised by the kc, it became the sacrificial lamb.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> Its a complicated emotive issue but I think there are occasions when not reporting something could be inviting trouble further down the line for somebody or their Pet. I met a chap just a few days ago whose dog got bitten around the throat by a Bull type dog a few months ago and the owner of the aggressor thought it was funny! Now personally I think he should have reported the incident, I certainly would have!


This is entirely differnt. I would (and have) report a dog or owner behaving dangerously. Breed is irrelevant here. A *dog* was behaving dangerously and yes, should have been reported, if for no other reason than to have a paper trail of this dog's behavior and the owner's lack of management.


----------



## Dumbo (Nov 4, 2015)

A dog that poses an obvious threat or is allowed to by it's owner, to humans, should be reported. A dog that attacks for no reason, should be pts imo.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> Well I imagine they decided to ban breeds that were not in this country to prevent them from ever reaching our shores.


Which nobody had heard of. Instead they've made them attractive so mixes can come over without restriction. Great thinking.



> As for your last question well I suggest you take a look at the list of banned breeds in other countries and perhaps then you may begin to understand the thinking behind the Governments decision. Politically there seems to be a consensus that where certain breeds are concerned an outright ban is the simplest most practical solution. As I mentioned we are relatively relaxed about the vast majority of breeds in the UK. Spain and Italy have much longer lists. Take a look at Ukraine, Wow!


The UK government isn't alone in trying to be seen to be proactive without actually doing anything positive. Most democratic governments are all too happy to use scapegoats and smoke and mirrors as actually doing something that works wouldn't be an immediate solution they can trumpet as a success. A lot of countries have actually lessened the amount of breeds or actually removed BSL as it doesn't work. Look at yourself. BSL doesn't work yet you argue that it's implemented for logical reasons.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Of course when politics are removed and facts are presented we get things like http://www.voy.com/47647/395.html (posted before). This is why Lower Saxony in Germany, which has restricted breeds in the rest of the country, is BSL free. All dogs are treated equally with no reference to breed. We can even get liability insurance without problem. When implemented, BSL is based on fear, not facts.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> That's a very good question! I think that they should be freely available to anybody that is prepared to learn about the breed, think carefully about the reality of fitting the dog into the family environment and give the animal the time, training and attention it needs. I think that applies to all breeds though to be honest.


except a Fila no?


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

cbcdesign said:


> They are potentially dangerous dogs in the wrongs hands. As the American Pit Bull association says the problem is not the Dogs, its the people. The Government decided that the simplest solution was simply to ban some breeds altogether.
> 
> Now I know there are very knowledgeable folk on this forum that would probably be fine raising some of the dogs pictured on the site above and turning out well behaved animals but equally we all see the clueless dog owners out and about fairly regularly who cannot cope with relatively docile breeds. Imagine the damage these idiots would pose to other dog owners and other dogs if they had something powerful?
> 
> ...


Any dog is dangerous in the wrong hands though, that's what BSL misses, it creates dangerous breeds and safe breeds and even when babies are killed by Jack russels and patterdales people still think banned breeds are dangerous, instead of realising that individual dogs can be dangerous and responsible ownership is the issue and cannot be controlled by banning breeds.

As an aside, I have no idea what I had Japanese Tosas mixed up with in my head, but that's a nice looking dog.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> Ok lets turn this around. Ouesi, unless I am mistaken I believe you are the wife of a police Officer? Ignore the rest if I got that wrong.
> 
> Assuming I have got that right you as a family presumably believe strongly in the rule of law and think they should be upheld regardless of the rights and wrongs of those laws?
> 
> ...


Selling cocaine is illegal in the UK, one of my parents was in the police, didn't stop the dealers moving in next door. My parent did not report them. As they put it, those persons were already known to the police, they were a nasty lot, my parent had a partner and kids whose safety had to be considered, the dealers knew there was a copper next door, new that they had family and were perfectly placed to know when that person wasn't around to protect them. 
It's not always that simple.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

tabulahrasa said:


> Any dog is dangerous in the wrong hands though, that's what BSL misses, it creates dangerous breeds and safe breeds and even when babies are killed by Jack russels and patterdales people still think banned breeds are dangerous, instead of realising that individual dogs can be dangerous and responsible ownership is the issue and cannot be controlled by banning breeds.
> 
> As an aside, I have no idea what I had Japanese Tosas mixed up with in my head, but that's a nice looking dog.


They also aren't bred to fight the way pits are they wrestle there temperament is marked by patience, composure, boldness and courage.

Oddly another breed not banned temperament self assured, absolutely natural and except for a stimulated situation good natured.

So the banned breed great traits, the non banned great unless stimulated.... Hmm which would you chose one known for being calm and patience or the one who is great most of the time but not in other situations?


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2015)

Sorry, but I just don't buy that breeds were banned in an attempt to keep them out of the hands of the "wrong" sort of owner. 

If you don't want people to fight dogs, then ban dog fighting, not the dogs. What keeps dog fighting going is not a breed of dog, but the *audience* who bets on the dogs and brings in money for the humans fighting their dogs. Banning a breed does not keep people from fighting dogs, banning dog fighting and enforcing stiff penalties for both the participants and the spectators stands a much better chance of making a difference.

And seriously, can we quit with this idea that only a certain "type" of person would want a certain type of dog? 
We all have different needs in our dogs, and different preferences. The traits of your typical bully breed are very appealing to plenty of knowledgeable, responsible dog owners.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Sorry, but I just don't buy that breeds were banned in an attempt to keep them out of the hands of the "wrong" sort of owner.
> 
> If you don't want people to fight dogs, then ban dog fighting, not the dogs. What keeps dog fighting going is not a breed of dog, but the *audience* who bets on the dogs and brings in money for the humans fighting their dogs. Banning a breed does not keep people from fighting dogs, banning dog fighting and enforcing stiff penalties for both the participants and the spectators stands a much better chance of making a difference.
> 
> ...


I would own an amstaff in a heartbeat, or a Dogo, then again owning breeds vilified by the Press and public over different periods,I tend not to believe the hype about breeds, pitbulls now, Rottweilers in the 90's, GsD's in the 80's, Dobes in the 70's...


----------

