Uh, oh. Doggy Death Panels? |
In the UK they seem to manage it fine. Let's do what they do. Relevant legislation and regulations Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits four types of dog: the Pit Bull Terrier the Japanese tosa the Dogo Argentino the Fila Brasileiro It is important to note that, in the UK, dangerous dogs are classified by “type”, not by breed label. This means that whether a dog is considered dangerous, and therefore prohibited, will depend on a judgment about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited ‘type’. This assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court. The 1991 Act was amended by the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997. The 1997 Act removed the mandatory destruction order provisions of the 1991 Act by giving the courts discretion on sentencing, and re-opened the Index of Exempted Dogs for those prohibited dogs which the courts consider would not pose a risk to the public. Only courts can direct that a dog can be placed on the list of exempted dogs. The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 Section 3 of the 1991 Act created a new offence of being an owner of a dog of any type or breed which is dangerously out of control in a public place or a non-public place in which it is not permitted to be. Detailed guidance on the legislation was issued to police forces and the courts between 1991 and 1998 by the Home Office. The guidance issued can be found below (in PDF format): Home Office Notice (PDF 70 KB) Home Office Circular 67/1991 (PDF 250 KB) Home Office Circular 80/1992 (PDF 110 KB) Home Office Circular 9/1994 (PDF 90 KB) Home Office Circular 17/1997 (PDF 70 KB) Home Office Circular 29/1997 (PDF 110 KB) Home Office Circular 29/1998 (PDF 80 KB) Key facts and figures There are approximately 8 million dogs in UK. In England in 2008/09, there were over 5,000 hospital admissions resulting from being bitten or struck by a dog (excludes people treated in minor injury units (MIU) or accident and emergency (A&E) departments, without being admitted as an inpatient). In 2009, dog attacks on people in England cost the Health Service £3.3 million. Estimate of 6,000 dog attacks on postmen/women each year. Police and local authorities have powers to seize dogs they consider to be dangerously out of control. Police, local authorities and animal welfare groups work together in some areas to promote responsible dog ownership. Other related dog issues (including overseas legislation) Leaflets and guidance are available |
16:25 you are an idiot. Do some research into the results of the UK ban before posting that it's working fine. They've spent over $30 million enforcing it and the exact opposite has happened. |
I do not ascribe to YOUR opinion of potential harm in owning a dog of this breed and so I do not agree that it outweighs my compassion and care for a living creature. Also how would you have us handle mixed breeds, shall we exterminate them as well? |
![]() |
theRCA dog & BUSTERbrown? They aren't real. Your toes are in the sand. |
Bottom line: those who want to ban certain breeds are ignorant asses. There is no inherently vicious breed. That's a fact that any vet will tell you.
There are bad owners. Also a fact. You regulate them like you would any other crime. Finally, all dogs have the potential to bite. Many dogs of every breed bite. These breeds only get the media attention b/c it's a good story. Also a fact. Please return to your regularly scheduled, ignorant ass sniping. |
Killing them would be a good start. There should be no more than 5-10 per state. |
I'm guessing you are a troll OP. But I'm biting anyway (no pun intended).
Dogs are as good as their owners. Bad owners = bad dogs. The breed is fairly irrelevant (in fact, small dogs like Chihuahuas can be pretty volatile if they aren't trained correctly). I've known many good dogs who happen to be pitbulls, Rottweilers, etc.The issue isn't with the breed, its with the owners who don't know how to train dogs correctly (or who train them to be aggressive). |
Here's what I've never understood about people who defend pit bulls, Akitas, presa canarios, etc. if we all generally accept that terriers still very much enjoy killing rats and mice, and that herding dogs still very much like to herd because they were bred that way, why is it such a leap to acknowledge that some dogs were bred to be aggressive and, hence, are aggressive, good owners or not? |
A potbelly with a bad owner can inflict more damage than a pomeranian with a bad owner. True or false? I am not in favor of banning ownership of this kind of dog, but I think restrictions on who can own them, where you can keep them and where you can bring them are not unwarranted. |
A mastiff with a bad owner can inflict more damage than a pomeranian with a bad owner. True or false? I am not in favor of banning ownership of this kind of dog, but I think restrictions on who can own them, where you can keep them and where you can bring them are not unwarranted. |
They may have been bred to fight other dogs but that's very different from just snapping and biting people. |
True. But I'm essentially in favor of banning SUVs for the reasons you indicate. |
NP here. I think pit bulls and bull terriers are often confused. They are different dogs. The more posts, the more amazed I am at how truly ignorant so many are here - blissfully so, unfortunately.
I tend to see that people are either dog people or not. Those I know who do not like digs really don't like people, either. |