‘But the RSPCA warned many dogs were being put down under the controversial law “without any concerns about their behaviour”.’
Breed specific legislation is so easy to circumvent really.
Everything should be decided on the behaviour of the dog and the responsibility of the owner. As long as we allow people to buy dogs from breeders, and not train them, or encourage dangerous behaviour we are going to have these issues, irrespective of breed.
Police can seize them if they look illegal, the onus is not on the police to prove they are banned.
A Stafford and a bull terrier mix does resemble a pit bull without being one.
Not sure on the point of a dog license, legally they have to be microchipped anyway and that’s a form of registration.
The authorities can kill as many dogs as they like, the shit head owners will just get another dog, treat it like shit, and it will become violent and aggressive. People are the problem not the dogs. Dogs can be retrained.
Breed specific laws are bollocks. At what point is a pit bull Cross not a pit bull? Not to mention any number of other issues.
What we need is licenses, registration and the real prospect of jail and life bans from keeping animals if your dog seriously injures someone.
The Dangerous Dogs Act didn’t do anything to decrease dog bite numbers. They continued on at the same pace (or a bit higher) after it came into force.
That’s the reason the animal world (RSPCA, College of Vets etc.) are opposed to Breed Specific Legislation.
It doesn’t work and gives people a false sense of security.
You see all the madheads on Reddit going on about killing all pitbulls as if that would solve the problem. When they’re asked they serve up links from dogsbite, a blog run by a woman who got bitten, which bases its nonsense on a literal academic fraud who makes shit up.
We need to have a proper conversation about animal administration though, and personal responsibility. And they are hard to have when there are fringe groups trying to incite the mob and ignore simple facts.
Owning a dog (or any pet) should require a license. Pet ownership is a privilege, not a right, and should only be limited to responsible pet owners.
Do your part. Adopt pitbulls and take them to be put down.
Dogs can become aggressive, regardless of the breed. The problem is that some dogs have a much more volatile temperament and a bite force that is lethal to even healthy adults. You let idiots own these dogs and it is an accident waiting to happen. It’s not the fault of the dog but they are often not suitable for society as a result of being bred and trained for fighting.
People need to realise just because something is technically a dog doesn’t make it safe. A lion can be described as a breed of cat, doesn’t mean I should be able to have one as a pet.
10 comments
‘But the RSPCA warned many dogs were being put down under the controversial law “without any concerns about their behaviour”.’
Breed specific legislation is so easy to circumvent really.
Everything should be decided on the behaviour of the dog and the responsibility of the owner. As long as we allow people to buy dogs from breeders, and not train them, or encourage dangerous behaviour we are going to have these issues, irrespective of breed.
Police can seize them if they look illegal, the onus is not on the police to prove they are banned.
A Stafford and a bull terrier mix does resemble a pit bull without being one.
Not sure on the point of a dog license, legally they have to be microchipped anyway and that’s a form of registration.
The authorities can kill as many dogs as they like, the shit head owners will just get another dog, treat it like shit, and it will become violent and aggressive. People are the problem not the dogs. Dogs can be retrained.
Breed specific laws are bollocks. At what point is a pit bull Cross not a pit bull? Not to mention any number of other issues.
What we need is licenses, registration and the real prospect of jail and life bans from keeping animals if your dog seriously injures someone.
The Dangerous Dogs Act didn’t do anything to decrease dog bite numbers. They continued on at the same pace (or a bit higher) after it came into force.
That’s the reason the animal world (RSPCA, College of Vets etc.) are opposed to Breed Specific Legislation.
It doesn’t work and gives people a false sense of security.
You see all the madheads on Reddit going on about killing all pitbulls as if that would solve the problem. When they’re asked they serve up links from dogsbite, a blog run by a woman who got bitten, which bases its nonsense on a literal academic fraud who makes shit up.
We need to have a proper conversation about animal administration though, and personal responsibility. And they are hard to have when there are fringe groups trying to incite the mob and ignore simple facts.
Owning a dog (or any pet) should require a license. Pet ownership is a privilege, not a right, and should only be limited to responsible pet owners.
Do your part. Adopt pitbulls and take them to be put down.
Dogs can become aggressive, regardless of the breed. The problem is that some dogs have a much more volatile temperament and a bite force that is lethal to even healthy adults. You let idiots own these dogs and it is an accident waiting to happen. It’s not the fault of the dog but they are often not suitable for society as a result of being bred and trained for fighting.
People need to realise just because something is technically a dog doesn’t make it safe. A lion can be described as a breed of cat, doesn’t mean I should be able to have one as a pet.