The News Vault

The Dangerous Dogs Act: It’s Time For Breed Specific Legislation To Go & Go Now

Well, here we are. It’s 2008 and we’ve had a total of 17 years to evaluate the effectiveness of Lord Baker’s personally endorsed canine legislation: The Dangerous Dogs Act. So, how well has it been working?

Well here’s a bit of an insight: A couple of weeks ago I was asked to do an interview for BBC’s The One Show (to be broadcast Monday 10th November, 7.00pm) regarding the DDA – specifically BSL (breed specific legislation) – only there was a bit of a problem. The makers of the show wanted/needed someone to put forward ‘the other side’ i.e the case for BSL within the DDA. Nobody would step forward. They tried every avenue. The govt, the police, the original legislator – not a single person could they find who was willing to appear on camera and give a glowing endorsement for this highly derided piece of legislation. Quite telling.

But it’s certainly not compelling enough to scrap this law purely because of this superficial piece of reasoning. No. But it is compelling to scrap this law when we look at the figures.

Banning a ‘type’ of dog breed is an impossible law to uphold.

Many people simply don’t realise what breed bans actually are. Because – straight off the bat – they are NOT breed bans. They are breed ‘type’ bans. And there’s the problem. A breed ‘type’ opens up an area of ambiguity that simply destroys any chance whatsoever of being able to fairly and effectively outlaw the breeds deemed ‘dangerous’.

Here’s an illustration:

Here we have a fairly stereotypical ‘pedigree’ Rottweiler dog. Most people would agree that this is a fair interpretation of the ‘breed’:

Now, let us imagine for a moment that the Rottweiler was added to the list of banned breeds (Oh, and please bear in mind – the secretary of state can add ANY breed to the list of illegal breeds at any time).

So the dog pictured above (great dog that he is) is now illegal, liable for euthanasia based on nothing more than his genes and appearance.

But wait. This is not how the law works. The key word is ‘type’. It is not ‘pit bull terriers’ who are banned in the UK, it is ‘pit bull type’ dogs. There is no definitive ‘pit bull terrier’ here. So what does ‘type’ do to this equation? Let me show you…

The law is now changed. Added to the list goes the ‘Rottweiler type’ dog. So let’s take a look at this guy:

Hmmm. Is this a ‘Rottweiler type’? Maybe? Probably? Could be?

How about this:

^^Looks like a Staffordshire x Rottweiler to me. But make no mistake folks, under our DDA (section 1), if the Rottweiler ‘type’ was added to the list of banned breeds, this dog too would fall foul of the legislation.

Now, let us imagine you are a policeman or a dog warden. You’re out and about doing your daily rounds, serving the public and you see a little old gent walking toward you exercising this dog…

dorisb_juno.jpg

Are you going to seize it? You – technically – should you know! I mean, yes seizing dogs like this one (below) is easy, even a (very) lay person can tell what kind of a ‘breed’ this is:

but how about this guy?

bcdh_james.jpg

or this one?

bcdh_barney.jpg

Hard, isn’t it? You might even say, impossible. I mean, I’m pretty familiar with many dog breeds, I happen to own a Rottweiler and I can see the dogs pictured are ‘of Rottweiler type’ but for all I know they may have absolutely no Rottweiler in their immediate parentage at all. So how am I meant to enforce the law? How can I possibly be sure? Do I seize anyway? If I do, I could – in fact probably AM – ripping apart a family’s life. Think about it for a second, regardless of what breed you own, how WOULD you feel if someone came and took your dog from you and said ”Sorry pal, your dog’s now illegal. I know it’s not done anything but it fits the description of the banned type so we’re carting it off to live in some kennels for a bit. See you in court”. Honestly, how WOULD you feel?

So if we have established that the law is an absolute impossibility to even begin to enforce. If we can establish that the law is focused on the appearance of a ‘breed type’ rather than any dangerous behaviour, we must then look at the figures. Surely such a horrendously complex and derided law must, at least, have going for it a record of success?

Well, unsurprisingly, no. It doesn’t.

Dog attacks have risen. Millions (and I DO mean MILLIONS) of pounds of tax payer’s money has been spent on ‘enforcing’ the Dangerous Dogs Act. This is money that could easily have been diverted in to education campaigns, putting more dog wardens on the street, providing animal control officers with more resources and generally investing in schemes that focus on owners, not breed types. If we HAD done this, I’d lay a personal bet that we would have seen a genuine impact. If we HAD steered away from the ludicrous notion of labeling certain breeds as ‘dangerous’ (thus defining the ‘legal’ breeds as ‘non dangerous’) we would not have created a demand from certain types of dog owner who are attracted to so-called ‘dangerous breeds’. We’ve not only failed to make an impact on the dangerous dogs problem, we’ve gone and ADDED to it!

So this leaves us in a strange position. Hardly ANYONE in power believes in section 1 of the DDA. Dog owners, by and large, don’t even understand how it works (hopefully my Rottweiler scenario helps to explain the flaws) and the major animal welfare organisation have ALL stated a position of being against the notion of breed specific legislation. We even have a group known as the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group, which is in place – one would presume – to offer solutions and alternatives to this monumentally flawed piece of legislation. And so I have but one question; Why do we still have this law? Why, nearly two decades later are we still saddled with section 1 (breed specific legislation)? And further more, what do we need to do to get it repealed in favour of a fairer, more effective law?

Here’s my 3 pronged proposal:

1) If you are a major animal welfare group, dog related organisation or individual who is – genuinely – against BSL, then don’t just say ‘we’re against BSL’, that is NOT enough. Come out and call for a repeal of section 1 and do it now. If you don’t, you really have no basis to call yourself anti BSL. It’s very, very simple. Section 1 of the DDA is the BSL part. That’s the bit where the problems are. Call for a repeal. There’s no excuse not to. None. Not one. Either call for a repeal or face the accusation of double standards.

2) The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group needs to either step up or step off. We still have section 1 of the DDA, so what – exactly – have they achieved? if the DDASG isn’t publicly going to call for an immediate repeal of section 1, then as far as I’m concerned they may as well be supporting it. This is a money where your mouth is time folks. If people are not out there, banging fists on desks, lobbying politicians and actually calling for an end to BSL (rather than being mealy mouthed about being ‘anti BSL’ in theory) then we’ll still have BSL in the UK. It really is that simple.

3) The media and the public must, absolutely must, be in full possession of the facts. Anti BSL campaigners are NOT, despite what some would have you believe, a bunch of pit bull enthusiasts who want to be importing dangerous dogs. This is so far removed from the reality, it’s painful to even have to accept that it IS what some people believe. There are thousands and thousands of bull breed dogs in the UK RIGHT NOW which could fit the description of ‘type’. They are illegal dogs. Their owners are breaking the law – their owners don’t even know it! And how could they? If two legal breeds can produce offspring that fits the physical description of ‘type’ then that alone proves how flawed this law is. Think about it for a second, a boxer crossed with a mastiff could (easily) produce puppies which grow up to be ‘type / illegal’? It’s madness. The media and the public must understand this. We must try and help people to understand this. We must get away from this groundless fear about certain breeds being inherently dangerous – the facts are, the proof is, they are not. We have to communicate this message far and wide.

Whilst the UK has a law which permits dogs to be killed as a result of what they look like we have no right to begin to call ourselves a nation of animal lovers.

If you care, if you are motivated, if you’d like your voice to make a difference on ending BSL in the UK – please visit www.cfidos.co.uk – Thank you.

xxx
58 Comments

58 Comments

  1. Alison Green

    November 7, 2008 at 10:04 am

    Said it before, will say it again, Repeal away.

    Both DDA Watch and the C-Fidos Dangerous Dogs Act Steering group full back a repeal of section one. No half measures for a law proven not to work.

  2. John Robinson

    November 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    BSL doesn’t work.

    Repeal it.

  3. Racheal Beresford.

    November 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    Proven to not work.

    repeal.

  4. Keith Nisbet

    November 7, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    Time and time again it is proven that BSL is NOT thw answer.. REPEAL it!

  5. Amber

    November 7, 2008 at 5:49 pm

    Dogs will continue to be seized, owners prosecuted, dogs ‘registered’ as dangerous based on their apperance,court hearing after court hearing, until the law is changed.
    It has to be repealed and the journey towards repeal has to start.

  6. selwyn marock

    November 7, 2008 at 11:21 pm

    Any human being with an oz of common sense and decency
    knows BSL is a HEINOUS and EVIL law.It can never be a topic for debate unless maybe we start debates such as
    1)Should Rape become legal
    2)Is it time for Paediophilia to be legalised
    3)Has BSL any positives.
    Politicians worldwide are failing dismally on most issues
    so they bring in laws that are aimed at the law abiding.
    Much easier for the police as well knocking on your door
    and arresting your dog, much easier than going after
    dangerous drug-dealers and the dogfighting rings.Ask the Merseyside police?Incidentally regarding dog-fighting
    there I think the most current law in Britain is around
    1876.
    Hopefully in the US under President Obama this RACIST
    Law will be totally blown away as he apparently is against it.

  7. Fran Coughlin

    November 7, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    BSL is about LOOKS, nothing else and it is WRONG. BSL has made tens of thousands of RESPONSIBLE dog owners into 2nd class citizens. It legalizes Discrimination and Profiling period and is perpetulated on living, breathing, feeling creatures who cannot DEFEND themselves. What has LOOKS got to do with temperment and disposition. The human race keeps on going backwards. Lessons have not been learned. The Dog Owner’s Liability Act should be about responsible ownership, acountability, enforcing leash laws, child and parent education. How stupid can some people be? I think politians should take a common sense test before being elected to office.

  8. richard webb

    November 8, 2008 at 8:10 am

    BSL will never worked & this has been proven in countries like the US so lets get rid of it now & promote better dog handlers/leaders/owners & stop worrying about the breed.

  9. Si

    November 8, 2008 at 2:25 am

    BSL won’t ever work…repeal it and lets put effort into dealing with dangerous owners….

    Maybe come the next election there may be a party that’s ‘Tough on dangerous dog owners and tough on the causes of dangerous dog owners’

  10. Samantha Drewett

    November 8, 2008 at 2:50 am

    In complete darkness we are all the same, the only thing that separates us is our knowledge and wisdom, DON’T let your eyes deceive you!!!!!!!!!!

    Come on lets sort this out for dogs sake!

    Repeal!

  11. Richard Zakss

    November 8, 2008 at 3:31 am

    I hope ‘The One Show’ don’t twist this, get ready to complain. Its would great to get this issue positively covered in the media for a change, let people know the truth and make up their own minds.

    Its time to step up to the mark and demand section 1 is repealed and replaced with a law that protects people and dogs alike.

    “If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns”

    Outlawing a breed or type of dog just leads to the wrong people owning these dogs, misrepresenting the breed and never giving it a chance to change the public misguided judgments.

    STOP BSL before it gets worse!

  12. Heather

    November 8, 2008 at 4:36 am

    Brilliant article……this is what is needed…..people not just saying we disagree but pushing forward

  13. Mel Ellis

    November 8, 2008 at 5:28 am

    This law doesn’t work, it just tears people apart.
    Repeal..

  14. Kim Bruce

    November 8, 2008 at 6:02 am

    Repeal it.

  15. Plantation Dog Rescue

    November 8, 2008 at 6:06 am

    We agree with all the points made above, BSL is ridiculous. They are trying to find a quick fix for a huge probelm, bad owners and bad breeding. As we all know if they ban one breed the thugs will find another breed of choice and so on. They only way to help this situation we believe is to keep a closer on dog woners and breeders. It will be a hard job and will take a longtime but what are dog wardens for? Not just picking up strays. There have been cases where the police and dog wardens have known about young mn dog fighting with ‘type’ dogs and allowed it to go because they do not have the time or resources. However as soon as an attack takes place they jump to attention! We rescue mainly bull breeds but they are in need, they are abused by these so called ‘owners’ and need helping not destroying. Staffie’s in particular are an English breed that go back years and years, they are part of our heritage, why should everyone lose out because the police and goverment can not get their act together.

  16. Kath Glover

    November 8, 2008 at 6:51 am

    I fully support the repeal of section 1 of the DDA.

  17. Ray Morrow

    November 8, 2008 at 7:16 am

    A very well written article I agree with wholly. The current laws clearly don’t work – if they had did, we’d see no more tragic stories and press furores. Repeal. Rethink. Turn the attention to the dangerous end of the lead.

  18. Lynda Hourston

    November 8, 2008 at 8:29 am

    Repeal!

    BSL doesn’t work.

  19. Gillian McGinlay

    November 8, 2008 at 11:00 am

    I also fully support the repeal of section 1 of the DDA.

    I do not believe in bad or evil dogs, only bad, evil, and/or ignorant people who should not be allowed to own dogs.

    It is time to stop blaming a breed of dog and start looking more closely at responsible dog ownership.

  20. Ruby

    November 8, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Repeal.

    Amend the laws to impose maximum penalties for irresponsible Dog owners, not the dogs.

    Make microchipping compulsory, Any yearly Vet checkup.

    Money being wasted on this should be spent on more Dog Wardens and Poo bins (I hardley see any)

    Ban the deed not the breed

  21. max holmes

    November 8, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Repeal

    Otherwise your lab, yorkie, pug etc could be next.

  22. Gnasher

    November 8, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Brilliant and completely topical article.

    BSL is wrong, but shows just how stupid any government (in this case a tory one) is to accept the evidence of a few people as experts and lobbyists for bringing this evil and stupid law in the first place.

    Those who did help to bring it in (through a variety of means) should hang their heads in shame, they know who they are and they are still active in the canine world!

  23. Kim Houghton

    November 8, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Repeal. I fully support the repeal of section 1 of the DDA.

    Instead of wasting money, legislate to regulate puppy breeding, make breeders licensed with compulsory micro chipping and insurance, get rid of puppy farms and back street breeders.

  24. Pat James

    November 9, 2008 at 1:44 am

    Repeal. I fully support the repeal of section 1 of the DDA.

    BSL does not work.

    But introduce compulsory identification, making by law all breeders responsible for identifying all breeding stock and all puppies prior to sale.

  25. President DLCC

    November 8, 2008 at 8:37 pm

    As the President of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada ( the DLCC ) PLEASE know there are groups out there that are fighting for the rights of responsible dog owners.We area very tiny group of dog owners,along with four other even tinier clubs that have taken on the province of Ontario Canada.

    We are in debt to the tune of 200,000 Canadian with the promise of even more debt if we wish to further challenge this kill law called Dog Owners Liability Act (DOLA).

    The Ontario government is using tax payers dollars ,millions so far, to fight a bunch of devoted owners.Our Appeal court ruling supported the governments claims that they do not need to have proof that this non breed of dog, the “pit bull” is any more dangerous than any other.They do not need to prove the accused dogs genetics at all.All they need to do is accuse any owner of having one.The dog dies,the owner can face jail time and fines of 10,000.00.And yes folks,this includes PUPPIES whose parents may or may not have a drop of “pit bull” genes.

    OVER 4000 DOGS DEAD,COUNTLESS SENT OUT IN EXILE FROM THEIR LOVED ONES.

    Negligent dog owners,and we all know there are fewer of them than the responsible ones, are slowly but surely destroying many a dog,many a breed all the while,good dog owners pay the price.

    Good dog owners are always the ones to pay the price; relinquishing their rights,their dogs knowing that by doing so,the public is no safer.

    The days of sacrificing one or two breeds in hopes ours will be sparred BETTER BE OVER or we are going to lose more and more breeds.

    For those who still don’t care about our bull and terriers,then think about this.The AR folks out there are already dictating who will sponsor your biggest show for pure bred dogs,they are already preparing the way for the feel good measures of anti tethering,forced sterilization,increased breeder restrictions……

    And they dont just want to attack certain breeds.They want to end all breeding.

    PERIOD.

    So for all of you here that are writing your comments,I ask you one question……..have you given financial support to the organizations actually fighting for your dog and your rights?

    If not,then the time to do so is NOW.Every bit helps.

  26. Jessica Mitchell

    November 9, 2008 at 1:47 am

    Repeal it.

    It is a rediculous and very unworkable law as proven time and time again.

    There is no point basing a law on how something will or might look, regardless of how it behaves or is looked after. And then having the element of being able to seize a dog based on one persons opinion, utterly rediculous.

    Repeal it, get rid of section 1 of the DDA.

  27. Racheal Beresford.

    November 9, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    I fully support the repeal of section 1 of the DDA.
    It doesnt work. Simple.

  28. Amanda-EDDR

    November 9, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    We support the repeal of section one of the DDA.

    Irresponsible owners give up their dogs, they don’t care, simply fact, they just go out and get something else to mis-use not covered by the law.

    Repeal a law which has shifted people problems onto innocent dogs, as it gave the impression ‘something’ was being done, when all along, nothing is ever achieved.

    The proof that nothing has been achieved is evidence that all these years later the idea that you can ban a breed and improve public safety really is just totally daft.

  29. Anne Lewis

    November 10, 2008 at 4:37 am

    BSL is a nonsense. You can’t say a particular breed is aggressive anymore than you can say a particular breed is wonderful with children. NO dog is born bad, statistically a tiny percentage are genetically flawed. A newborn puppy is a blank page, what you put into that page either makes it a well socialised, balanced dog or a dog with problems. Everytime it comes down to ownership. Look at dog fighting – do you think any dog actually WANTS to fight – but if its a case of fighting for its life, it will. A repeal of the law is a must, education is essential and ultimately the owners’are responsible, not the dogs.

  30. graham

    November 10, 2008 at 10:35 am

    BSL does not work, take a walk through any major city in the country and you will meet too many dogs that fit the breed type. BSL has done nothing to reduce dog bites in the country and if anything it has encouraged the wrong type of people to be owning this breed (because they do) because they are now illegal.

    owners need to be held responsible for the behaivour of thier dogs, not thier looks

  31. Sarah

    November 10, 2008 at 10:50 am

    This act was a waste of time in the first place, get rid of it. I definitely support the repeal of section one of the DDA. Too many innocents have and still are being killed due to this farce.

  32. anon

    November 11, 2008 at 7:56 am

    Perhaps it is a bit much to say “breeds x/y/z are aggressive”. Any dog can definitely be aggressive, that’s true. But is it also not true that certain aggressive, badly-bred, badly-owned, badly-trained individuals of some breedsare more dangerous than aggressive individuals of other breeds?

    You could have an aggressive (for example) cocker spaniel. It bites someone, it injures them. You then have an aggressive bull terrier, cane corso, presa canario, whatever. It bites someone. The very structure of these breeds’ jaws and muscles means that THEY WILL DO MORE DAMAGE than the cocker spaniel. Therefore that individual is more dangerous to the public than the aggressive cocker spaniel.

    Of course it’s not the dog’s fault, it’s the breeder’s and owner’s fault. But the fact remains that those aggressive individuals of these powerful breeds are spoiling the party for the responsible breeders and owners.

    I am not supporting this “pit bull type” nonsense. The law is clearly not working. But if you were on the end of a dog attack (as I have been, and guess what folks, it was a staffy) you would feel a bit miffed at the thought that nothing at all would be done about people whose dogs are bred and trained to be aggressive.

    By all means, repeal the law. But put something concrete in its place that will put a stop to irresponsible breeders and owners of these more powerful breeds. It is they who are to blame. The dogs don’t know any better.

  33. Karen Gourlay

    November 13, 2008 at 9:42 am

    Honestly in the 21st century… I believe I shouldn’t have to read the nonsense that is this clause, let alone comment on it!!!! It’s unfair, unworkable, and in a sane civilised society, un-necessary!!!!

    REPEAL, REPEAL, REPEAL!!!!

  34. Billy

    November 13, 2008 at 11:16 am

    Repeal the DDA! If sensationalist media coverage was ever good for anything, it’s proven that it doesn’t work! Banning a few ‘type’ dogs has NOT prevented people and other dogs being hurt, or even killed, by dogs, many of who were not ‘of type’.
    Law makers should pay attention to discussions that are taking place, online as well as in person, across the country: most people will agree that it is dog OWNERS, ie PEOPLE that are the true ‘dangers’ in this society.
    People these days have dogs as status symbols or as a deterrent, without having a clue or even caring that they are actually dealing with a sentient living being.
    They happily admit that they want a ‘dangerous’ looking dog, because they can get caught and punished for having a knife but NOT for having a dog!
    It is about time that legislation and decision making is based on the root of the cause, not on ‘point scoring’ and the need to be ‘seen to be doing something’.

    Repeal now and replace with a sensibile act that puts the responsibility firmly at dog owners, regardless of the breed!

  35. lisa

    November 13, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    i think bsl is usless trash and should be binned i own a loving but still a bit hyper 14 month old bullmastiff cross english bull terrier brought for me by my father just before he died of cancer in december of last year i would be heartbroken if she was taken from me as she is a wonderfull dog who walks next to my wheelchair with no problems what so ever but i have been recently told that both breeds in her are being considerd for reclasification as dangrous dogs along with the staffordshire bull terrier if this reclasification goes ahead i am likely to lose her. so can some one talk some sense to the government bodies involved so responsible owners like myself dont lose their dogs.

  36. Alison Green

    November 14, 2008 at 3:00 am

    Hi Lisa,

    While a dog that has a substantial number of characteristics of a banned type may be illegal there are no plans to add further breed types to the Dangerous Dogs Act. A bullmastiff x ebt may fall under curent legislation however depending on its physical appearance.

    If anyone would like more information or would like to help get involved please look at http://www.cfidos.co.uk

  37. Lisa

    November 14, 2008 at 6:10 am

    Repeal.

    It’s the irresponsible owners who need to be targeted, this must be addressed, not innocence dogs whose only offence is the way they look.

  38. Lisa

    November 14, 2008 at 6:19 am

    lisa I agree with Alison, it very unlikely they will add more breeds to the DDA, they know themselves banning a type of breed isn’t the solution, it’s a shame they don’t have the guts to admit banning the four breeds they have was a mistake.

  39. Alison Green

    November 14, 2008 at 9:51 am

    Totally agree with you Lisa. By not having the guts to stand up and say its wrong, it doesnt work and demand a change the public and the dogs continue to be let down. The ones out there that are shouting are worth their weight in gold and doing alot more for public safety and the welfare of dogs than anyone else.

  40. Frank

    November 14, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    I’ve grown up with bull breeds and think the government have got it seriously wrong, i was too young to remember when the law was brought in, but have met many registered dogs which would all have liked to have a run in the fields like they used to before the law put them in a muzzle for the rest of their lives, then you got people who breed litter after litter just to make money and sell to anyone as they couldn’t care less, iditos out and up to no good using dogs, the dog can’t win, he either gets owned by a moron who treats him bad or he gets killed if he looks like an illegal dog, what we suppose to do, cheer hooray another dog we killed under the law, moron owner is laughing,he’s gone out and got another dog to replace the one the law killed, he don’t care, he ain’t going to court,

    the dangerous dogs act is just a joke, it’s the people who need sorting out and all dogs need people to stand up for them, that’s all dogs, cause ‘pit bull types’ feel pain, they hurt, they bleed, they suffer and all the law says is prosecute them as they dangerous

    people are dangerous, not dogs

  41. Daniel

    November 14, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    Fight for your dogs.
    Not a single credible Canine Expert around the World supports BSL.
    This witch hunt must end and it must end now.
    It doesn`t work to reduce dog bites and it has been proven not to work.
    Netherlands lifted a decades long ban.

    If they won`t listen to the Experts then take them to Court for each and every dog they seize.
    Show them how much this is going to cost if they persist in this nonsense.
    Keep appealing decisions.
    Tie the Courts up.
    It`s a waste of time and money.
    This is time and money that should be spent dealing with problem owners of ALL breeds.
    It`s time that the authorities get the message.
    We will NOT allow you to kill innocent dogs and harass responsible dog owners due to the way the look.

  42. sarah cooper

    November 19, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    repeal repeal repeal!

    never judge a book by its cover, as the old saying goes.
    how can you punish for something that they havent done!

  43. T

    November 24, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    I am a pitbull owner, and have been since before the DDA my dog is no way dangerous to people or dogs and he is a full breed pitbull who is now on the exempted list. these are the best dogs anybody could ever have and in my opinion out do any other breed in every way.

    i think there are two sides to the repeal of BSL DDA.. people have to remember not everybody is a caring responsible dog owner like us!.. there are too many kids on the street with these dogs tryin to make them aggressive to people and dogs just to make themselfes feel like a bigger person or a “gangster”.. lets suppose the ban was lifted.. there would be a immidiate influx of all four of these banned breeds mainly pit bulls imported from everywhere and anywhere possible and then obviously people will breed for money as alot of people already do for this breed and the country will find itself with a huge problem of a load of unwanted pups and dogs and so more will be killed than the amount put down nowdays.. yes for people like us it would be excellent having to keep our dogs no hassle.. however if you look at the whole picture it can only get worse..

    It is already a problem of people breeding dogs who simply end up ina shealter waiting to be rehomed. if the DDA was lifted it would definately cause more problem.. the breed itself in this country is being ruined anyway by people cross breeding wich also messes up the temperent of the breed wich is a generally calm non human aggressive dog to mastiffs and bulldogs wich have great protective of the owner and guarding instincts. hence so many human bites. (bearing in mind any dog can be taught to attack im not puting any other breed down)

    the revocation of the DDA can only cause more animal suffering. best thing to do is keep your pitbull on a low profile or get a similar breed like a staffy

  44. T

    November 24, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    no offence to any old ladies and im not trying to create a stereotype or anything but…. when 1 of those old ladies little fluffy terriers goes mad barking at someone its called “Cute” and if its a huge bulldog mastiff bullterrier shepherd rotti etc its called “dangerous” if those small fluffy terriers were all temprement tested 100% more pitbulls will pass with flying colours compared to them! its not the dogs its the owners who allow them to become dominant! and dangerous!

  45. Ryan O'Meara

    November 25, 2008 at 4:56 am

    “the revocation of the DDA can only cause more animal suffering. best thing to do is keep your pitbull on a low profile or get a similar breed like a staffy”

    I honestly can NOT go along with this notion at all. To recommend to keep a ‘low profile’ is completely missing the point. The entire post baffles me if I’m honest but the recommendation to just keep a low profile or get a ‘similar’ breed tends to suggest a lack of understanding as to how this law works! Staffys HAVE been killed under the DDA!!

  46. T

    November 25, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    NO PURE BRED STAFFY WITH PAPERWORK TO PROVE IT, Unless classified as a Dangerous dog to people, or unless it has scars from illigal dog fighting would be taken… they cannot simply kill a dog if it does not fit any of these profiles.. and if they do then if you can prove the reason they did so was wrong they are most probably liable and if u can prove it then they would not have been able to put it down in the firstplace…. i have had dogs taken and put onto the exempted list and perfect advice to a pitbull owner is to keep a low profile with your pitbull if you do not want to have it taken away from you for a very long time and nutured. as its not a nice experience!

    And alo.. yes get a staffy or a similar breed because there is a less chance for it to be classified as a pitbull therefore causing unnessacey problems and havoc for the owner. fact of the matter is that there is a 99% chance the DDA will never get lifted…not with stupid people letting their pitbulls attack babies like the recent case in south london. I have pitbulls and i would certainly not like to have ny of my childeren on the recieving end of an out of controll irresponsibly kept dog like a pit bull!

    SO get a similar breed like a Staff or an english bull terrier E.G: a Blue staff wich cannot be classified as a pitbull as pitbulls do not exist in this colour and the dogs claimed to be blue pitbulls are results from mix breeding.

    English bull terriers Dogue De bordeaux’s staffs mastiffs of all kinds and mixes of them have all been taken yes.. its simply down to irrisponsibility like my dogs wich were taken irresponsibility on my own part. if i did not let my kids take my dog out with their freinds my dog would not have got taken away.

    its a simple fact people will have to learn to live with that pitbulls dogo argentinios fila brasileros and tosas are not going to become legal..

    and even if they were to reconcider the law there would have to be a gap of like 10 years of no dog bites or dog fighting in the country wich is very unlikely to happen as there are cases every month!

  47. Ryan O'Meara

    November 26, 2008 at 12:29 am

    Sorry ‘T’ but you’re wrong. You can’t understand the Dangerous Dogs Act properly to write what you have. KC papers on a ‘purebred’ Staffy prove NOTHING. If the dog fits type, it can be seized and destroyed – simple as that. Your entire logic is completely flawed.

  48. Alison Green

    November 26, 2008 at 7:41 am

    Pure staffordshire bull terriers have been deemed type. You are wrong T. I dealt with a case of a kc regged SBT earlier in the year and the dog is now a registered “pit bull type” .
    I have seen others be held and in the past they have been destroyed.

    The law is regardless of parentage. It is very simple in that respect.

  49. New 2 Blog

    November 29, 2008 at 9:20 am

    The DDA is a shameful law that kills dogs. Must be repealed.

  50. xxx

    January 17, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    this is a load of vrap it is not the rotties fault it is the owners
    rotties shouold not be banned the owner should be banned from having dogs
    rotties are not dangerous it is how they are raised we use them in the police force they are loyal and i know
    a mate tht has f rotties tht are so well trained and love people aswell as other dogs
    so it needs to be decided tht rotties should not be put on the dangerous dogs act

  51. anon

    February 27, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    No dog should be taken because of the way it looks. Repeal BSL now.

  52. Jess

    March 14, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    I read in the most recent 'Dogs Today' magazine that the RSPCA and the Kennel Club have publicly decided they are against this part of the DDA and support it being repealed… I really hope to see the dogs back, but I also hope that some other law can be put in place to protect the dogs from being owned by people who will not 'train' them properly (also thinking of the pack leader concept here). I can't begin to imagine how bad it would be if the were let back and then dog/'dangerous' breed attacks were on the increase leading to another ban (even though we'd all know it was the owners fault, not the dogs)
    Overall though I feel this piece of legislation won't last, I don't know anybody in my daily life who supports it (and if they were for it, it was easy for me to explain the facts and flaws and it's generally easy to make them see the issues)
    At the end of the day, it is discrimination to such a high degree. This needs to end…

  53. Amy

    May 10, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    I think everything to do with BSL and the DDA is pathetic. I dont understand how anyone can blame an entire breed of dog for something a small percentage of dogs have done.

    I own a Rottweiler, Doberman and Chihuahua and the amount of people who call micky my chihuahua cute while he’s barking at them then take one look at my other dogs playing with their toys and move as far away as possible is stupid.

    I’m doing a project for college entitled ” does the media influence the publics perception of so called’dangerous dogs’?” If anyone could take a couple of minutes to fill it out it would be greatly appreciated here’s the link

    Click Here to take survey

    Thank You

    Amy x

  54. Leigh

    June 5, 2009 at 11:50 pm

    REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL

    Follow Holland and get ride of BSL.

    I personally would like to see sections1 repealed and the new law written by canine experts (such as Ryan O’Meara as the articles he’s written on this site about BLS & so called dangerous dogs have made so much sense) and lawyes (to make sure it’s worded so that it cannot be twisted by other lawyers once in place). It needs to protect both the public and dog owners of all breeds.

    It can’t really be that hard to actually put into place? If money’s the issue then once the BSL is gone you can use the millions of pounds that are being used to prosecute Pitbulls….money problem solved. It shouldn’t have to take years to change, all the while more loving dogs are being killed. It needs to change know!!

  55. Felicity

    February 6, 2010 at 2:42 am

    i support bsl- Ban Stupid Legislators that is!

    as for breeds leave them alone.

    T banning pits hasn’t stop the bad owners. they are doing the same thing they did with pits with other breeds like the staffie and rottie. thousands of responsible owner just like you have lost their dogs as a result of this act. i wonder of you hadn’t been as luck and your dog was put down, and please bear in mind it is entirely up to the personal opinion of the judge, wether you’d say the same thing!

    bans don’t stop bad owners. wether its a pit, rottie, staffie or even a lab a bad owner will create a problem dog.

    i support dog owner suitability testing for this reason.

  56. jan

    March 30, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    please sign the petition to repeal section 1 …….. this article is an eye opener for us all, we have to act now http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/DDARepeal1991/

  57. AlanAldasNumberOneFan

    April 25, 2010 at 2:50 am

    If you ask me, whoever came up with the idea of banning specific breeds is a bloomin’ idiot! They were obviously lazy and didn’t do their research when it came to dogs.

    BSL is BULL!

  58. Karen

    November 18, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Research has shown that aggression in dogs is an inate response to fear, which is a survival response, those that survive with aggression pass on their genes. Genes are only in effect the foundation of a dogs personality, the rest being made up from the individuals life experiences. While some dogs have a propensity toward aggresive responses, such as fighting dogs, many aggressive responses are born from fear stimulating situations. If any dog is mistreated or physically punished throughout life, it has the potential to become dangerous in a fearful situation. Likewise any dog with a genetic predisposition to be aggressive if treated correctly from birth, trained in positive ways, with owners avoiding the stimulus of aggression then any dog can be peacefully integrated into society.
    Sadly, over many years it has been shown that government dont take professional advice in many areas, whether it be dangerous dogs, drugs, banking, finance and debt, I could go on.
    Government time and money should be spent on a licensing system, whereby any dog owner requires a license to own and/or breed a dog, this license would only be granted upon passing of certain tests eg., understanding behaviour, appeasement and aggression signals, along with animal care and husbandry, these are the tools required to be a responsible owner.
    We all require a license to drive a car, ensuring we know how to handle the car and what the correct use of the car entails. Cars alone do not cause accidents or death, it is the people in control of the car. We do not legislate against certain makes of car that may be shown to cause more damage to children, such as the ‘landrover type’ whose bumper height has shown to cause more fatalities in collision with small children.
    Licensing is the only way to go, there are too many factors involved in aggression to legislate against breeds or breed types.
    The government needs to wake up and realise it works for us, we employ it, not the other way round.

    An animal loving veterinary nurse of many years,
    but an increasingly angry citizen of an increasingly socialist state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top