Sooo much pooping

[Mollie333]

So i was watching this thing on TV and the man's pitbull cross ran away, and the Animal rescue people put the dog down (a pet!) without any inspection, She was not violent.. and not a fighting dog. But said there band, and got put down.

Do you think this is fair what did the dog do..

[BeckyBoo]

My own personal opinion is that no breed should be banned as it is the owners and the way the dog is brought up that determines a lot of the dogs behaviour. A small child can be as much in danger from a vicious Jack Russell as from a pitbull.

 

Sadly there are some breeds that are far more likely to be owned by potentially bad owners, Staffs have had a terrible time being bought and owned for status value amongst young men (and I'm not tarring all Staff owners or all young men I'm just stating a fact ) and there are some breeds that were bred for their fighting ability and that must, after years of selective breeding, pre-dispose some breeds towards aggression.

 

The dangerous dogs act (IMO) was a kneejerk reaction in the same way that the gun laws were made. Government wanting to be seen to be doing the right thing. Therefore if someone owns one and is in contravention of the law in some way then it doesn't matter wether the dog is aggressive and the creature pays the ultimate price for the irresponsibility of the owner.

 

The law is sometimes well meaning, but an ass nonetheless...

 

BeckyBoo

[Chucky Mama]

I can see why they decided to bring the law in but it is not really very workable at all. The ban is on 'Pitbull Types' some poor cross bred dogs can come out looking like a Pitbull type quite by accident - others of cause are bred purposely to look like a Pitbull. I saw a boxer cross yesterday that was very big and powerful plainly bred by it's owner to look fearsome and it improve his street cred, every bit as potentially dangerous as a pitbull. Those that would have owned Pitbulls - and many still do illegally now use Staffordshire Bull Terriers instead

 

The breed of dog that inflicts the most injuries consistently is the Golden Retriever My OH was badly bitten in the face by a Great Dane - a big heavy dog, if it had got him to the ground it could well have been extremely serious. The problem with these 'wide jawed' dogs like the Pitbull and staff is that their jaws are so well muscled that they can hang on and exert so much power and pressure when they bite or attack.I feel really sorry for traditional Staffordshire Bull Terrier owners and breeders and their breed has been hijacked by many young irresponsible males (not all, some are lovely and adore their dogs and train them responsibly) who encourage aggression in them and use them as a weapon. As a breed they have now been given a bad name and they are lovely dogs . In the West Midlands, particularly the Black Country they are very common and I worked there for 4 years and never saw a bad Staffie, such a shame. Rescue kennels all over the country are full of abandoned Staffies.

 

I don't know how you get around it really. The idea of everyone having a license is not going to work as only responsible owners will get one. Those owners who create a lot of the trouble just wont get one. If they get one it will prove that the dog is theirs which of course then makes them legally responsible for any problems it may cause.

[Ain't Nobody Here]

Our dog, Riley, is supposedly part Staffie - you couldn't find a more gentle, nice-natured dog.

[Rhapsody]

I have an American Bulldog. Frankly he looks like a Pitbull crossed with a donkey and he terrifies most people but he is the biggest blouse you will ever meet, however I do worry about him getting lost and destroyed without question

IMHO all dogs should be muzzled in public places just as they are in Scandanavia, it would immediately show up the irresponsible owners who refuse to obey the dog laws and effectively prevent anyone being bitten, or feeling the threat of being bitten. It also wouldnt cost the taxpayer any money to implement nor dog owners an extra expense, unfortunately it would take a government with cojones...

[docsquid]

I think the problem is the owner, not the dog. However there are some dogs more predisposed to become aggressive than others, and some that can do more damage than others when they attack, provoked or not.

 

I agree - all dogs should be muzzled in public places. This limits the harm if a dog attacks. However, there does need to be an onus on the owner to ensure that the dog is properly trained and not aggressive in the first place. Sadly some dogs do seem to be very aggressive: whether this is breeding or poor training, there does need to be back-up of being able to destroy a dog that is dangerous. However I don't think you can define that by breed.

[kinsk]

No the dog hadn't done anything wrong so from that point of view yes quite unfair that it was destroyed. On the other hand the way the law currently stands they are illegal.

 

I don't think it's a good law and had proved quite unsucessful. I think more responsibility needs to be put onto breeders and all breeders carry a registration. How this would be workable I'm not sure either! Possibly through compulsory microchipping prior to sale, it wont stop the underground breeders of course but will make it less about particular breeds and more about irresponsible breeding and ownership.