do you think the laws should change about pit bulls in the UK?
i know they are illegal in the UK and if you are caught with 1 its put to sleep whether its the sweetest dog on earth or a vicious killer. im just watching 'send in the dogs' on itv. and a guys pit bull was taken off him and the police officer said that pit bulls were horrible dogs. well the pit bull they had didnt look like it would hurt a fly.
but i think that if someone has a pit bull in the UK and it is social, has never been used for fighting and it gets along with other animals and people then it shouldnt be put down.
i know many kill people and thats probably why they became illegal in the UK, but there have been plenty of cases about babies being killed by rotties and these havent been banned
the one tied on the fence wasnt vicious, but the one in the garden was
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Any attempt to legislate a problem away in the wake of biased high profile media coverage, is at best ill judged response on the part of the Government. The Dangerous Dogs Act was a classic piece of knee jerk legislation, as the Government wanted to been seen as acting to *solve* the problem.
All that banning breeds does it drive the breeding underground, make it more likely that poorly bred, weak nerved, & mentally unstable dogs will be sold to the wrong type of owner who wants to either be seen to have a *vicious best of a dog* at their side or want a dog for fighting.
Send in the dogs highlighted a grey area of the Dangerous Dogs Act, the Pitt Bull Type. What is a Pitt Bull Type? How easy is it for a dog to be erroneously labelled as a class I dangerous dog & how hard is it for a responsible owner to rebut the opinion?
I would like to see the DDA repealed, no breed automatically classed as dangerous & the decision on whether a dog poses a real threat to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
The owner is responsible for training & controlling the dog, to ensure it behaves in a socially acceptable manner. An irresponsible owner should feel the full force of the law to deter others.
People have a choice to support a responsible or back yard breeder with their cash & slow though the process may be, educating people to make an informed choice & putting a stable temperament at the top of their list wish list, is the best way forward.
- JoanneLv 51 decade ago
actually they arnt all put down, some who's owners have gone to court and proved the dog has a good temperament and poses no danger a judge can allow the dog to be put on the exempt dogs register, where the dog has to be neutered, chipped, tattooed and muzzled and on a lead at all times in public. however to do this the owner must be found guilty of owning a pitbull type, which carries a fine and possible jail time.
Its not just the pitbull types (note type so any dog is classed a pitbull it it looks enough like one, even if it is not one) there are 3 other breeds that are banned the Japanese Tosa, The Dogo Argentino and The Fila Brasileiro.
Any dog of any breed can be vicious but these breeds have been targeted by dog fighters and idiots who want them to look tough which has led to the breed getting a bad rep. The dangerous dogs act (the one that bans them) was made in a response to the media highly publicising some dog attacks to sell papers and people panicked all though dog attacks hadn't risen. The law if very flawed as it only goes by a dogs appearance which is no measure of temperament, just look at the dog that mauled its owners face so bad they had the worlds first face transplant....can you guess what breed it was? it was a LABRADOR! but they dont look scary so no one cared.
Do i think the law should change? Yes but not compleatly.
I think that the breeds should be allowed only to owners who have proved them selves as being responsible enough to own them, as if they were made un-illegal more of the bad owners will be able to get them.
Also i dout it would change, its been around for ages and for the whole time people with any knolege have said its usless but the goverment wont change it as the majority of people are stupid and beleave every thing they read and hear with out questioning it or doing there own research.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Yes yes yes!
To all the idiots above ; only 10% of pitbull attacks were not the humans fault. All the baby deaths and child attacks are the owners fault - why the heck would you leave a dog on its own with a baby?! They are NOT vicious animals - they should bloomin' get the laws and punishment for dog fighting a hell of a lot more strict. What's it gonna be - one week the pit's banned, next the staffie, the rottie..no dogs are pure fighters. Some more agressive, yes, but not killers in the slightest. Almost every dog attack is the owner or petter's fault - the dog's told them to back off, they didn't, and he's bitten.After this has happened a few times, he doesn't bother showing the back off signs, he goes straight to go.
- 1 decade ago
yes it very much annoys me i personally think that bringing a dog or baby into this world is not a right but a privilege and should be treated like such, tests should be done on the owner and a full back ground check, police record, financial situation and mental maturity.
The wrong people have owned this breed, lack of knowledge of breed, to lazy to train or for the wrong reasons.
I personally have never had a problem with an American Stafford Terrier however I hate Yorkshire terriers, and don't care for many other small breeds of dog's. They bite even more then Pit bull's and can be even more aggressive but the owners think it's "cute" because its from such a small breed. Last week at work I got attacked by a Yorke, I personally think the owners are lucky I didn't football the lil bastard.
The "Pit bull" started getting its bad name when it was used as police dogs and were to good at what they did the next breed to get such a bad name will be German Sheppard's.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
We've had that law for the last 18 years. If it was going to work, it would have done so by now.
Fact is, it's failed. The Dutch implemented their BSL law around the same time that we did. They have since realised it had failed and repealed it. We should do the same.
Should, but sadly - our government seem hell-bent on keeping it, no matter how ineffective it is. No matter how much it costs the taxpayer to "enforce". No matter how much misery it inflicts upon normal, decent pet owners.
It seems that those in charge KNOW it's a bad law, but for some reason refuse to change it. Callous disregard for the safety of the British public?? It wouldn't surprise me.
A few links that may be of interest:
ADD: "if banning them saves even one childs life for instance, its a good move".
Yes. IF it saved **just one** it would be a good move. Sadly, it hasn't. It should be replaced with something that actually would save lives.
"Pit bulls are now bought by druggies and junkies which indicates their sociability!"
Bit of a sweeping generalisation, but we'll run with it anyway. Do you honestly think a labrador would be any more sociable dog if owned by idiots?
Having a law that says "these dogs are dangerous" just makes them more appealing to the very people who shouldn't have a dog at all. Same with the media hysteria over "status dogs".
- Last ResortLv 61 decade ago
Kathryn C: where the heck do you get your statistics?
3 death in the US on average by pit bull a year
several thousand killed by humans killing humans
another several thousand due to drugs, alcohol and cigarettes
my proof is the facts
the "deadly dozen"
are merely victims of bad media because a good story is based off of "a dingo stole my baby"
rather than "badly trained pit bull abused for several years and starved turns on owner"
in 1846 there was a fairly hig percent of dog attacks but NOT by Pit bulls. over the years the number of victims from dog attacks fell now more humans kill humans and animals than dogs ever have. it is estimated that the numbers will grow astronomical in the coming years, of us killing our fellow man.
every human being is potentially at risk if a dog is untrained and not socialized and has been abused mentally or physically and im not just talking about a single breed or the dozen im talking about 150+ breeds AND mixes
Pit bulls fell into pit fighting dogs because they had high pain tolerance and muscle, however they were NOT bred for this. rat fights, bull baiting ect.
did you know the bulldog was a bull baiter? they fell out of style when that sport was banned just as the Pit bull did.
blame the Deed and bad owners that allow there animals to become aggressive
bad dogs just like humans ARE NOT BORN THEY ARE MADE.
if we were to blame all of a certain race based on the actions of a few....? sound familiar?
BLAME THE DEED NOT THE BREED
Johnka: wow so because i dont know some idiot sold them to a druggie the dogs MUST be hanging out with a bad crowd! and thus you wont touch them because they are druggie dogs obviously looking for there next fix!
Dogs cant help who they belong to who picks them up or throws them out we make them into what they are angel or monster. ive seen more small ones than ive seen Pit bulls.
my brother nearly had his ear ripped off by a beagle the cops wouldnt report it because it was cute and obviously it was my brother Pit bull pup...that was an hours drive away. they saw a picture of him and the dog and assumed he was lying to get the beagle in trouble.
all it comes down to is dogs shouldnt be sold to idiots who make BSL possible
- 1 decade ago
yes it is a stupid law and to be honest it is the owner that makes it a good dog or a bad dog because dogs do what there told not what there not and if you bring up a pit bull well then it will be a good dog but if you train it to bite and hurt people then it will any dog will even if you teach a poodle to attack people you say attack then it will to be honest it is a law because the more people that have pit bulls are bad people compared to any other dogs if it was a different breed of dog then they would make that one a law.
- CathyLv 61 decade ago
I think what should be done is getting a licence, and also you must be 25 or over. (or at least, that would increase your chances of getting one)
It just gets over the top. Although I would love it if there were no restrictions, it is probably not safe until their reputation is cleared. And perhaps weaker jaws? Since they are almost the strongest biting dog in the world, that could come in handy.
An 80 year old pensioner is probably less likely to fight dogs than a 16 year old thug. ;)
- Dog TrainerLv 51 decade ago
This is a fine example of ignorance-even within the law! A dog is a dog is a dog. I have never been bitten by a pit, train them all the time. I have been bitten by a chihuahua and it was serious, and almost bitten by several other breeds. I have seen a child with stitches on her face because her Yorkie got possessive with the child's' toys and bit her.
The reason Pit bulls have such a bad reputation is because of the owner! There are many breeds considered "bully" breeds, in fact there are over 70 breeds considered bully breeds. This means they have a jaw that can lock onto a person or other dog and easily kill. This means that they have been bred to guard. This means they are protective of their pack. This means they react if not taught manners.
All this boils down to EDUCATION/TRAINING. If your dog snarls or curls their lip at someone CORRECT them immediately. If your dog becomes possesive of you, food or toys, correct them immediately. If you do not know the correct way to teach your dog then find a trainer that can help you. If you do not know what the warning signs of aggression are then find out. Do not wait until your dog is in the red zone to correct an aggressive behavior.
Any dog that has tested for the Canine Good Citizen is a dog that is safe in our human society. This is what I strive for and encourage all my pet parents to strive for who bring their dogs to me for training.....Source(s): http://akc.org
- 1 decade ago
Although in no way am I suggesting put bulls are all bad dogs, nor am I suggesting most pit bulls are awful. However, even if the comparison is largely good, and infinitesimally bad you have to look at the statistics.
There are approximately 800,000 dog bites per year in the United States that require medical treatment, and sadly enough according to the Dog Bite Law Center of America, DBLCA, the majority of these are from pit bulls. As bad as that is, it gets even worse. According to statistics, a grave 94% of bites coming from the specific breed of pit bull are (Unprovoked) bites, which means that the dog bites without any defensive means in mind. Again, as bad as that is, it gets worse. It's calculated that 60% of these bites are directed to children, and the majority of these bites are (TO THE FACE) of the child.
I don't mean to come down too harsh on the pit bull, but the statistics don't lie. I believe those who have children, and small pets can understand how dangerous pit bulls can be. To make laws to restrain these animals help, but irresponsible owners are always there.
Does this mean I necessarily believe you should go to jail for owning one? No, but this also doesn't mean I don't believe you should. All I'm doing is posting the statistics, it's up to you to decide.