I believe all dog owners should be licenced and dogs registered with that owner, microchipped and be required to complete an Obedience Course. I do not think that any dangerous dog should be allowed in this country and simply pose too much of a risk to adults, dogs and especially children no matter how well behaved they have been in the past. They are not family pets they are fighting dogs and have no place in society .. I have a yellow Lab and no matter how much I trust him I will never totally trust him with my kids ...

That's a preposterous comment 'redkingey'.

Temprement testing has shown that these so-called dangerous, fighting dogs that have no place in your society are without exception the most reliable.

I don't suppose you will but head over to this address http://www.atts.org/ and read through the tests carried out on some the breeds you've been quick to defame and compare them with your beloved Labrador Retriever. Maybe that will open your eyes.

If not, imagine in the near future there's a run of incidents where irresponsible Labrador owners mistreat their animals and there are 3 or 4 bite incidents or 'attacks'. Then, within a short space of time your dog is banned, to be seized on site and destroyed simply because of what he or she looks like based upon the actions of other, stupid people.

I believe this is a pointless law because:

a) I know of many 'dangerous dogs' who are actually much better behaved than many other dogs.

b) You would never be able to have this discrimination with humans so why with dogs.

c) All dogs have the same ancestors, and therefore all could be dangerous if they were brought up in an iresponsible way. You can't tell whether a dog is dangerous or not by its breed.

d) All of the 'dangerous dogs' are very clever, it is the owners who have bred them to be guard dogs etc. I am totally in favour of dog licencing and temprament testing, all dangerous dogs should maybe have to go on an obediance course.

e) The number of incidents has increased since the law was created in 1991, people are more likely to break the law (thinking they are tough) and cause danger to the public

f) This law is wasting a lot of the tax payers money, it should be stopped immediatly!

I am disgusted with the thought that this discrimination is going on!! Get rid of this law now!!

redkingey's comment is a great example. This commenter appears to confuse 'dangerous dogs' with 'dogs that are an illegal shape'. This confusion appears to be widespread even inside the police.

A crossbreed dog with no fighting heritage at all can be an 'illegal shape'. A genuinely dangerous dog which has been bred from a long line of dogs that have dangerously poor temperament and health, and that has bitten repeatedly, may not be an illegal shape. Shape is not a guide to dangerousness.

Even a dog of a breed that does have a 'fighting heritage' (and many of those are not illegally shaped) is likely to be many generations remote from dogfighting. Dogfighting has been outlawed in the UK since 1835, and breeds originally created for that purpose may be no more adapted to it now than today's bulldogs are designed for bullbaiting.

I completely agree with VictoriaClaire.

I have known several dogs, who would be classed as "dangerous dogs", solely based on their appearance, who were actually wonderful family pets. At the same time I've come across several dogs of popular breeds who were badly behaved, if not downright vicious. My vet recalled having been seriously bitten twice: once by a Jack Russell and once by a Labrador.

All that this "dangerous dog" act has achieved is that these so-called "dangerous" breeds have become popular with people who shouldn't have a dog of any description in the first place! It is NOT the dog that is dangerous, it's the OWNER!

Rather than raiding homes and forcibly removing much-loved, well-raised pet dogs from their families, the onus should be on the ability of the OWNER to look after a dog, both in terms of looking after its physical needs as well as the ability to ensure that the dog is well behaved and no danger to anyone, including other dogs.

Having a dog should be a right that you have to earn, rather than a "human right" that requires no other effort than acquiring the animal.

On that note, with thousands and thousands of dogs in rescue, through no fault of their own and for no other reason than being "surplus to requirement", laws on breeding dogs and dog ownership should be seriously tightened, and enforced! There's no point in having any laws at all if no effort is being made to ensure that people actually abide by them.

There are several posts on this subject, but this one is the one which most sticks to the facts and the issue at hand (rather than getting caught up in fantastical new legislation).

'Dangerous dogs' should be deemed so soley based on the behaviour of the dog and owner in question. The appearance of the dog, its shape and breed are irrelevant and miss the point.

The media keep people paranoid about dogs by flying into hysteria whenever there's an incident. I looked up the stats once, in 2008 there were 4 deaths caused by dog attacks (2 very young, 2 very old) and 8 deaths caused by 'other large mammals'. That should provide a bit of perspective.

This kind of racism is ilegal with humans so why are they allowed t put a dogs family through this?
why is the burden of proof reversed in this case, forcing owners to find money to defend their pet when in every ther case its the police job to prove guilt
this law needs to go

If anyone doubts that a dog's breed, shape or appearance is no indicator of their temperament, watch The Dog Whisperer. Cesar Millan, who rehabilitates dogs in America (where pit bulls are not illegal), takes his pit bull around with him to help rehabilitate other dogs, because he is well-behaved, balanced and calm. I have watched loads of episodes and it is often the chihuahuas who are most aggressive!! And this is also the owners' fault as they let them behave badly, thinking it looks cute in a small dog. The large breeds are only targeted because they can do more damage, but in EVERY case it is the owner's fault, not the dog's. EVEN IF the dogs have a history of biting, Cesar can rehabilitate them into balanced, well-behaved dogs. He always says he trains OWNERS, not the dogs.

Repeal this useless law NOW!

BSL looks at the wrong end of the lead.

It is a nonsense to target a dog just because of its shape. It is the owners who own untrained nusiance dogs or who have deliberately trained dogs to be aggressive, who should be targeted as they have no concept of responsibility or, respect for the law.

Educating people to socialise their dogs by way of training and obtaining the recognised Good Citizens certificate would be a start. I believe that vets should be able to ask to see this certificate/compulsory refer dogs to trainers.

The Kennel Club should also become involved as should breeders and dog rescue centres. There needs to be greater awareness amongst the public, about matching breeds to suitable owners, something that reputable breeders already do.

It would be a good idea to offer some guidance to children via schools so that they learn how to care and act around dogs. The hope is that they could pass their knowledge on to their parents, and in the future be good owners themselves.

Unfortunately there will always be the mindless minority who ill treat dogs and other animals. I just hope that by raising awareness of dogs and showing what wonderful companions they can be, we can bring about a greater understanding between humans and dogs.

Agree with one of the previous posters, regulate Dog Ownership, period. Any breed can become aggressive, it simply depends on the owner, how they train, socialise, and exercise the dog. The people who mistreat dogs severely will always target "tough looking" and physically capable dogs, and regulating dog ownership will prevent this, for a start. Regulation will also prevent the inadvertent mistreatment of dogs. Often owners simply aren't knowledgable on the correct practises, and so a negative outcome here is also common. Regulation involves ensuring owners will properly exercise, train and socialize the dog they wish to own, as well as providing proper veterinary care etc. Pets deserve at the very least a government department devoted to their proper treatment, over 65% of households have a dog, for a start, and that really is huge. We need in government dog experts to contribute to the creation of dog related laws, which means that people who actually know about dogs, will be influencing dog-related legislation. The Dangerous Dogs Act was invented predominantly by the Government and the Police. Surely the Dangerous Dogs Act should have some expert influence in its creation? By someone who knows about dogs? Perhaps?
These are living, breathing, emotional beings with their own needs and way of being, and should not be so easy to adopt or sell, its as easy to get a dog as it is to buy a toothbrush. Regulate dog ownership, targeting specific breeds is almost childish and its very shocking to see that such a thing could occur in modern society, it really is just silly and hasn't worked whatsoever. Abolish the Dangerous Dogs Act and create a new act along the lines of; The Dog Regulation Act, or the Dog Ownership Act.

I do not agree with the suggestions of some commenters that dog ownership should be more heavily regulated. Regulation is expensive, and we are in a situation where vital services are being cut and people are losing their jobs.

Dogs are not actually that dangerous. Most serious dog related crimes are already covered by legislation: the problem is enforcement.

Repeal of section 1 of the DDA would cost little, would save money, and would free up resources that could be employed for enforcement of laws that are more socially useful.

In my opinion a dangerous dog is a name created by people who do not understand the breed of dog they are refering to. ANY dog can be aggresive at the hands of a careless owner who uses them as a weapon or fashion accesory and does not care about the temperment of their dog. It is absolutly insane to take a dog on face value without giving any cosideration to their upbrining or the inviornment that the dog has been raised in. If the powers that be would take a step back and really look at these idiots that are responsible for the way their dogs act and impose serious actions then maybe another species of animal will not have to be punished at the hands of the human race. STOP BSL!!!!

there are no dangerous breeds of dogs just dangerous owners that are not responsable enough to take care of a them selfs let alone a dog!
i do think dog breeders should require a licence and anyone not in possesion of one found running puppy farms should be hugely fined.
and i wouldn't object to having to have a licence to own my dogs (although of course i'd rather spend the money on squeeky toys and pigs ears lol)
as far as dog attacks go a poodle or jack russell is just as likely to attack than a pit bull staffy or rotti, its there natural instints to protect them selfs when feeling vunrable hense the importance of socialising and teaching our dogs its ok for other dogs to be around and same with other people otherwise how are they meant to know!

I agree that this law does need to be repealed, for all the reasons that have been stated. The law has fueled exactly the type of owner you don't want to get their hands on a 'fighting breed' to go out and buy one, use it as a weapon and treat it cruelly, making it a risk to other responsible dog owners and causing them to feel intimidated when they see specific breeds.

But it is certainly not the fault of the breed. How could it be? Dogs don't understand the pathetic 'status dogs' nonsense that makes cowardly thugs feel a bit better about their sad little selves because if anyone tries to hurt them or threaten their patch they can set their dogs on them. That's big of them isn't it? Oh and then of course they breed the bitches to within an inch of their lives so they can make £250 a pup and so the problem goes on.

I can hardly see these dangerous types of people getting past a test of potential responsible dog ownership - and that is where the test should be, on the owner, not the dog. A well trained, socialised and well treated dog is an absolute joy in a person's life - whatever the breed.

Dogs that are good pets and could be good pets are being senselessly put down because an extremely uncivilised sector of our society has blackened their names. Why are we letting uncivilised people have such power over innocent breeds? They are heartless and cruel and they are the ones who should be judged not their poor pets.

Any problems with dogs are down to the owner. Poor training and understanding of the dog, whether through genuuine ignorance or deliberate effort can cause any dog to behave aggressively.

Likewise, dogs that are given all the right training generally turn out to be the loving companions that they should be.

I would support national compulsory training for owners but the BSL was never going to work and causes a lot of suffering to both dogs and owners, whilst doing little to protect the public.

This area needs to be re-visited.

bsl should definitely be repealed,only the guilty should be punished

the idea of bringing in compulsory neutering,insurance etc makes my stomach turn

if and when a dog attacks someone the OWNER should then be punished and dog destroyed because he/she is responsible for the dog.

this country needs to learn to understand PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

i own aggressive dogs but im responsible and they will never be in a situation where they could attack someone,and if they ever did on my head be it.

if some socialist government official comes and tries to take my dogs and neuter them im moving abroad.

The problem is not the shape of the dog, but the breed of the dog.

I agree that all dogs should be licenced. A dog of any breed can be a responsible pet. There are some dogs of any variety that are vicious. My dog and I were attacked by two wolf-hybrid dogs and my dog while on a leash was mortally wounded. Luckily the police arrived before I was attacked. The dog owner paid a fine to the Court and kept his dogs. These dogs had previously escaped and killed chickens. Usually dogs reflect the will of their owners and some owners cause their dogs to be vicious. A dog owner who allows his/her dog to poop on the sidewalk should be subject to a fine. An owner should carry a small bag to pick up any excrement from their dog.

Predicting behaviour in humans through physionomy was discredited a long time ago but for some reason is still applied to dogs. The current law penalises dogs whose noses happen to be slightly the wrong shape, and should be repealed.

Yes. It is quite ridiculous to target certain breeds. A yorkshire terrier can be dangerous yet a well bred pitbull can be as docile as anything. It is the breeding and temperament that matters not the breed.

JD says : "The problem is not the shape of the dog, but the breed of the dog."

Even if aggression was a characteristic of a particular breed of dog (like most of the commenters, I don't believe it is) a central problem with the current law is this:

*there is no way to establish, quickly and without any doubt, what breed a dog belongs to.*

Dogs are a highly variable species. They share a lot of genetic material between breeds - and almost all characteristics of illegal breeds are standard things that recur throughout the dog population.

Dog breeding is unregulated, and as it can be done in any house or shed without special equipment, I believe it is more or less unregulatable, at the bottom end. The people who breed the poor unfortunate 'status dogs' and sell them irresponsibly are not picky about pedigrees.

Almost any breed characteristic you care to mention can easily be shared by a completely unrelated crossbreed, and when you collect your adorable crossbreed puppy, there is no way to be certain what shape he will grow up. There have been cases where two dogs from the same litter have been taken to court: one has been judged 'pit bull type' and the other has not.

This law that has absolutely, categorically failed in its remit of keeping the public safe. Logically, it could never have worked - you can produce an illegal dog from two perfectly legal ones - so no matter how stringently it's enforced, you can never, ever eliminate the "pit bull type".

It's a GREAT way to market powerful dogs to the very people you DON'T want to have them. Think back to when you were a kid, and you saw the "parental advisory" sticker on a music CD (or cassette - showing my age!). Did that make you avoid buying it - or was it the best piece of advertising that album could have got?

Before 1991 - I had never seen a pit bull. Not a single one. Now, I know of 3 in my immediate area. I've met them and (thankfully) all have very soft temperaments (and no - I have no intention of reporting any of them).

£millions (literally) of taxpayers money is spent kennelling perfectly safe dogs (not to mention keeping them away from their owners). Police time and resources are spent enforcing a ridiculous law. Wouldn't police time and taxpayers money be better spent elsewhere?

It's a misleading law. Prescribing certain dogs as dangerous according to what they look like - effectively states that those not banned are somehow "safe". Dogs are not dangerous because of what they look like. If they are dangerous, then it's because they've either been deliberately trained to be aggressive (which we already have laws against), or because the owner is incompetent.

Misleading people about the real source of the dangers of dogs will never be effective in keeping the public safe. Informing the public might.

Ideally, I'd like this law replaced with one whereby there is compulsory education before taking ownership of a dog. The "Dog Ownership Test" - if properly crafted - could be a great way to improve public safety. In the same way that you need to pass a test of competence to drive a car, so you should have a similar thing for owning a dog. One law out, another one in.

If that's not possible, just repealing section 1 of the DDA alone would improve things. I object to paying taxes to help enforce an unjust law that does nothing but create misery for otherwise law-abiding families.

The Dutch and the Italians repealed their Breed Specific Legislation. Time for the UK to do the same.

This law that has absolutely, categorically failed in its remit of keeping the public safe. Logically, it could never have worked - you can produce an illegal dog from two perfectly legal ones - so no matter how stringently it's enforced, you can never, ever eliminate the "pit bull type".

It's a GREAT way to market powerful dogs to the very people you DON'T want to have them. Think back to when you were a kid, and you saw the "parental advisory" sticker on a music CD (or cassette - showing my age!). Did that make you avoid buying it - or was it the best piece of advertising that album could have got?

Before 1991 - I had never seen a pit bull. Not a single one. Now, I know of 3 in my immediate area. I've met them and (thankfully) all have very soft temperaments (and no - I have no intention of reporting any of them).

£millions (literally) of taxpayers money is spent kennelling perfectly safe dogs (not to mention keeping them away from their owners). Police time and resources are spent enforcing a ridiculous law. Wouldn't police time and taxpayers money be better spent elsewhere?

It's a misleading law. Prescribing certain dogs as dangerous according to what they look like - effectively states that those not banned are somehow "safe". Dogs are not dangerous because of what they look like. If they are dangerous, then it's because they've either been deliberately trained to be aggressive (which we already have laws against), or because the owner is incompetent.

Misleading people about the real source of the dangers of dogs will never be effective in keeping the public safe. Informing the public might.

Ideally, I'd like this law replaced with one whereby there is compulsory education before taking ownership of a dog. The "Dog Ownership Test" - if properly crafted - could be a great way to improve public safety. In the same way that you need to pass a test of competence to drive a car, so you should have a similar thing for owning a dog. One law out, another one in.

If that's not possible, just repealing section 1 of the DDA alone would improve things. I object to paying taxes to help enforce an unjust law that does nothing but create misery for otherwise law-abiding families.

The Dutch and the Italians repealed their Breed Specific Legislation. Time for the UK to do the same.

This law has done nothing to stop people owning and breeding ilegal breeds, but these dogs are suffering - FACT!

In truth I don't really know what the answer to the problem really is but it is not BSL.

I would like to see it become a legal requirment that all dogs/puppies must be mirco-chipped by the breeder prior to being sold. The chip must stay registered to the breeder and the breeder must update the information if they move. (obviously new owners would add their details to the chip as well) Breeders must be responsilbe for the puppies they bring into this world.

I know this is not a fool proof idea - but nothing is - the only way to stop the problems is to change people not the dogs.

So many people have their dogs out of control, so many people do not take dog ownership seriously and so many people leave their dogs to stray. The result 1000's of dogs killed every year and responsilbe dog owners suffer as a result.

I have felt and seen first hand as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owner the affects of bad owners. I have been refused from holiday cottages simply due to the breed I own, they have been hit and kicked while out as they walked near someone or their dog and were going to 'attack'. My two are as good as gold with people, other dogs, live stock and other animals. They live with 3 other dogs (Bichon, Westie & Skye) and recently helped rehab a tiny yorkie who was scared of other dogs. While the Yorkie bit them many times, never once did either of them even look at him and after 4 weeks the little Yorkie was happy in the company of other dogs and found a new loving home.

I have spent many hours training my dogs and even do agility and freestyle with my Staffy bitch. They are well behaved when out and under control.

Don't blame the breed - blame the owner and in some cases the breeder!

BSL needs to come to an end as it has solved nothing!

I run a registered charity working with local council stray dogs. Over 3 quarters of the dogs in the pounds are of a bull breed type. We cannot find rescue spaces to take these dog when they are out of their time, and sadly - many do get put to sleep because nobody wants them.

There are too many being bred. Its heartbreaking to see this happen - its the end of the line - swept under the carpet and hidden from those breeding and profiting from these dogs.

The majority of people breeding these dogs do so for un-taxed income. A few hundred pounds per dog, (breeding 6 dogs for an average litter is a decent income for someone). There should be a way that the money is taxable and declarable when people are on benefits. Most of them are earning huge wages due to this turnover of dogs.

I believe the answer must be

A Pet Passport - just like the horse passport scheme. All dog owners would then know what to expect when purchasing a puppy, know where it was born, who its parents were - the dog would also be microchipped and details of the breeder held on a central register. Monitoring would be easier then due to no. of dogs registered to each breeder - and even though the owners details can change (just like with a car registration document - enforced by law), the breeder always remains the person responsible for the dogs ultimate fate.

Complacency in this law and the cruelty and neglect that is being allowed in our country today is not acceptable. If things are put in place now - and the public told that certain dogs and certain types will not be allowed after say 8 years time - then they have chance to stop breeding them.

Pet dogs should not be seized and held - owners must be able to take out insurance and pass an ownership test to show they are suitable to keep them.

All dogs should be neutered before they are sold. It should be illegal to own a dog that is not neutered, by dog I mean dogs and bitches.

Breeders should be licensed to to breed and sell specific types of dog, and should neuter them before sale and microchip them.

Loose dogs should be allowed to be shot by Police marksmen as in other EU countries.

Hallii

Pit bull type dogs are currently illegal and those that are kept must be registered, insured and neutered.

Despite this, they are more common, popular and desirable than they were when they were legal, and there is no difficulty in finding unneutered breeding stock.

Making something illegal doesn't make it go away. Making new laws doesn't solve problems if they can't be enforced. And the more laws you have, the harder it is to enforce them.

I whole heartedly agree with this excellent suggestion. While there may be a place for new legislation (a separate issue), the most useful thing the government could do at the moment is repeal section 1 to reallocate the resources else where. The older Dogs Act of 1971 contains many useful applications and largely renders the DDA 1991 irrelevant.

The government needs to repeal section 1 of the DDA straight away before more innocent dogs are destroyed. BSL does nothing to protect the public as these dogs pose no threat (which has been proven scientifically). Not to mention the millions of tax payers money it waists and destroys peoples lives in the process. We've had 19 years of doing the wrong thing it's about time this new government done the right thing and rid the UK of BSL for good. Dog owners should be the ones held accountable for their dogs actions and there should be more education available e.g lectures in schools on how to act around a strange dog & your responsibilities as a dog owner.

Educate people first then punish those who refuse to do the right thing.

REPEAL SECTION 1 OF THE DDA AND END BSL NOW!!!!

The government needs to repeal section 1 of the DDA straight away before more innocent dogs are destroyed. BSL does nothing to protect the public as these dogs pose no threat (which has been proven scientifically). Not to mention the millions of tax payers money it waists and destroys peoples lives in the process. We've had 19 years of doing the wrong thing it's about time this new government done the right thing and rid the UK of BSL for good. Dog owners should be the ones held accountable for their dogs actions and there should be more education available e.g lectures in schools on how to act around a strange dog & your responsibilities as a dog owner.

Educate people first then punish those who refuse to do the right thing.

REPEAL SECTION 1 OF THE DDA AND END BSL NOW!!!!

I reiterate the comment made by peruddy :
"'Dangerous dogs' should be deemed so soley based on the behaviour of the dog and owner in question. The appearance of the dog, its shape and breed are irrelevant and miss the point."

So many families have been devastated to see their beloved pet taken away and killed, purely because of its looks and shape are similar to those breeds depicted in the Act.

The 'Dangerous Dog Act' has to be one of the most unfair, prejudice and unnecessary laws ever! There is no such thing as a 'dangerous breed', yes there are 'powerful breeds' who require experienced, responsible owners and fundamentally that is the issue that needs to be addressed!

Some of us are responsible owners, some of us are actually picking up the pieces by rescuing and rehabilitating these dogs who have been abused, neglected and inevitably dumped by the idiots who perceive them to be tough and fail to look after them properly.

With the right handler all dogs can be balanced and well behaved. In the wrong hands 'any dog' can become fearful, frustrated and aggressive. Some people say these "types of dogs" are unpredictable, but this is not so. A dog doesn't just attack a human out of the blue, there would have been signs, but unfortunately many owners do not have the knowledge to read or understand their dogs and therefore never correct behaviour that left un-checked can develop in to a bigger problem - failing to provide enough exercise, socialisation or stimulation can lead to frustration, allowing dominant play or excitement can lead to aggression. Some signs may be subtle - a raised tail, a silent stare - if owners are not experienced enough to realise this and can not meet their dogs needs for exercise or be a consistent, calm and assertive leader, then they are certainly not equipped to own a 'powerful breed'

The media make things worse by demonising and blaming breed, stirring up negative feeling with pictures of snarling dogs and encouraging people who do not understand dog psychology to think all 'staffie types', rotties or 'dobermans' are all potential 'monsters'
Many of these dogs are actually far more gentle and submissive than your smaller breeds, but for some reason we are more willing to accept a snapping jack russell or collie.

If owners doubt their dogs behaviour or lack confidence in their own leadership, then they need to do something about it, whatever the breed. I also wish that dog owners would try and appreciate that a muzzled dog generally means 'a dog in training' or a responsible handler. I've received a number of dirty looks for muzzling my own dog. It is not because he is vicious. He is in fact an incredibly friendly dog, but I am aware that he came to me unsocialised and excitable and this behaviour can get him in to trouble, if he meets other unbalanced dogs. I am doing everything within my power to encourage him to be a social dog - training classes and group walks as well as his usual twice daily exercise. It is a long and ongoing process and I am committed to seeing it through, but until I feel he is truly rehabilitated and social with other dogs, I will not take any risks in public and the muzzle will remain.

A law that just picks on a dog for the way it looks is ridiculous and it really disgusts me to hear of family pets that have been taken away for no reason other than appearance. Sticking an innocent dog in a kennel to decide its fate is so detrimental to its behaviour for all the reasons I noted above, about a dogs needs not being met and an unnecessary waste of tax payers money. It makes no sense to ban 'certain breeds' or dogs who resemble 'certain breeds'
There are many other powerful breeds that have managed to escape this ridiculous judgement and this just goes to show how stupid and biased the law is. It is a fact that without the right leadership or direction any breed can be a problem.

If the government want even more expert advice or proof that breed is not to blame, please consult 'Cesar Millan' - he has rehabilitated every kind of breed including pit bulls and often uses this 'misunderstood breed' as the example of a well balanced dog which he frequently uses to assist and aid his rehabilitation of other dogs.

Make owners culpable. Do not blame breed. It really should be that simple!

The met want tools to prevent people using dogs as weapons. Give them those tools. Do not use this act to tar every good dog with the brush that says all dogs of this type should be stolen, locked up and killed - costing the met more money.

This act doesn't do what was wanted and has done a lot more harm.

I think the issue has been very well covered. Repeal this unjust Act!

The problems lie with too many dogs being bred and for the wrong reasons. Making people take repsonsibility for their dogs by licensing them, calling for them to be microchipped, and neutered is a good start.

Dog wardens would probably need the power to remove any dog over the age of 6 months if it had not been neutered as revealed by the microchip record.

If a person wants to breed from their dogs, they should have a license to do so and pay for it.

Many issues to iron out but this is the essence of my thoughts on the matters

I had a Staffie - a so-called Dangerous Breed - she was the most loving and gentle dog ever - BECAUSE I trained her, and din't use her as a fashion accessory, or a status symbol, but as a "pack" member and a part of a structured family. She wathed over my children and my grandchildren, and I never had any qualms about leaving her with them.
This act is the most biased piece of legislation I have ever read. Bring back dog licences - make them at least £100 per dog, per year - If you can't afford a licence, you can't afford to look after a dog PROPERLY - and that, I feel, is the crux of the matter.

BSL is a violation of animal rights i exactly same way holocaust was a violation of human rights.
the new government must abolish BSL and introduce compulsory licencing for all types of dogs to encourage responsible ownership! this would also produce revenue for local authorities to use locally!

If BSL was taken away, would that mean you could import pitbull into the UK from America and Europe?

If so, there would be a hugh surge of Pitbull enthusiasts importing American bred and European bred game Pitbulls into the country (myself included). There are over 20,000 pitbull (not staffs)lovers in this country, if people started bringing in pure game bred pitbulls into the UK once the BSL has been removed, how will that affect this new law?

Secondly, how will the new law affect dog handlers who breed/import dogs for security/police. Lots of security dogs are one-owner dogs (not all of them) and may be considered dangerous if to be examined by an 'expert'. Would this mean they would get taken away.

The law would have to address dogs which are bred for personal protection, guarding, security, police, military, Schutzhund, IPO, French Ring sport. Lots of these dogs may be considered to be dangerous if looked at from a 'experts' point of view who may not understand working dogs.

Also, when training protection/security dogs, if a member of public was to see training and called the police saying " there are some people teaching there dogs to bite people" would they be destroyed too?

Comments people?

I am not sure why Kashmirkennels feels that there would be a surge in imports of pit bulls from the USA. Pit bull type dogs are already being bred in the UK - bred in far greater numbers than they were before this law was brought in - because the law on breed has made them seem desirable to a particular group of irresponsible owners, and the law is almost unenforceable.

Pit bull type dogs are regularly put to sleep in pounds all over the UK. It's hard to see why legalising them would produce a further increase in numbers, or for that matter, why an imported US pit would necessarily be any more dangerous than any other relatively large and powerful breed of dog, such as the Labrador or Boxer.

Importing dogs is expensive and governed by a complex set of regulations, I can't imagine anyone doing it in bulk when the UK is full of bull breed dogs already.

This proposal does not suggest changes to the laws covering dog handlers, dog sports, training, or the laws which require dogs to be kept under control in public places. If you have a dog that is unsafe in public, then it's illegal now and would continue to be illegal under the proposed change in the law, regardless of the breed of dog involved.

Section 1 of the DDA does not deal with dog behaviour, training or control : it deals with dogs *that are illegal because of their shape*. This is why it's a bad law.

Whether or not you consider laws that may restrict the behaviour of protection dogs to be a problem, there is no reason why the law should consider a dog that has a particular coat, size and conformation to be any more dangerous than any other dog of a similar size.

This is why I would like to see Section 1 of the DDA repealed.

I would also like to see Section 1 of the DDA repealed.

However, I think there needs to be new laws or regulations to address security/patrol ect dogs, so that people know where they stand when it comes to the law.

The reason there would be a surge of imports from Europe ect is becuase; In this day an age you will rarely find a true game bred Pitbull, with correct looks & temerament. 99.9% of Pitbull type dogs you see people with are all crosses or poorly bred with incorrect conformation & temerament, or the bloodlines have been so diluted they are no longer anywhere near the breed standard they are supposed to be. In the UK it is extremely rare to find true American Pitbull terriers, most dogs may look like them, but they are not.

I am not suggesting American bred dogs (NOT talking about those fake bully's) are more dangeous, just more true to the correct breed standard with the correct people loving temperement(which only true ENTHUSIASTS will appreciate. So if owning a pitbull beocomes legal, the first thing lots of people are going to do is get rid of their FAKE pitbulls and go get some real ones! lol. And eventually it will become a new FAD to own a PROPER PITBULL, (like the BLUE FAKE STAFF & PITS going about.)

The underlying problem will be:
At the moment, all these pitbulls in the UK with diluted bloodlines and are not true game bred are completly fine with people, children and completly fine with other dogs, which is fine. they have tons of PREY DRIVE and no CIVIL AGGRESSION, or DEFENSIVE drives which makes them completly fine with children and pets ect, which is lovely.

Start importing true dogs and your gona have loads of GENETICLY BRED dog aggressive dogs, which are GENETICALLY stronger, fitter, healthier. This also means no off lead walking, no kids can take thier dogs for a walk incase they see another dog ect.

Importing dogs is also pretty easy + cheap (from europe)
1.) rabies shot + vacinations
2.) pet passport
3.) drive across the border

Potential to import Pitbull is also pretty easy + cheap (from America)
1.) buy a pre-pet passported dog + female pitbull
2.) plane ticket £500 for dog
3.) you now own an american pitbull
2.)