Malthouse unleashed – new Home Secretary to be asked to authorise extermination of dangerous dogs

Author: Toby
Filed under: Conservative Party, Green Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Local government, London, Policing

Thursday
May 13,2010

A quiet – bordering on the boring – meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority suddenly burst into life this afternoon when it was asked to authorise £10.6 million to provide kennelling for another 400 dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

I growled that it would be a lot cheaper just to shoot the dogs rather than cage them (which in itself is fairly cruel for large dogs) for six months or more while the legal processes following their seizure grind through the courts. Much to my surprise, the sentiment attracted unanimous support from other Committee members – even the saintlier-than-thou Jenny Jones AM admitted that she didn’t like attack dogs.

It was agreed that the DCiC*, Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM, Chair of the MPA, who has been making his name tackling the issue of dangerous dogs in London, should write to the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, asking her to agree fast-track culling powers for the Police in relation to the animals.

However, even though everyone knows that the new Con/Lib Coalition** Government walks on water, it was decided to authorise the money just in case the new powers take a bit of time to come through.

* Dog-Catcher-in-Chief

** aka “the mongrel” – copyright Mayor Boris Johnson

Quietzapple May 13th, 2010 at 18:18
What about the owners?
Met urged to destroy violent dogs | Dog Obedience Training May 13th, 2010 at 21:43
[...] Malthouse unleashed – &#1495&#1077w Home Secretary t&#959 b&#1077 q&#965&#1077&#1109t&#1110&#959&#… [...]
richard May 14th, 2010 at 0:10
I have had my dog taken off me by the police & have her back now under certain conditions but what is being asked above means my dog who has NEVER done anything dangerous would have been put to sleep…

This is a complete mockery & disgrace to everything that our country stands for, let me guess though fox hunting will be allowed again..

What a load of bollox
matisse May 14th, 2010 at 7:53
Maybe if you stopped seizing dogs for what they look like and kept to just the ones that actually are involved in crime, your bill might be lower.

Time to repeal the DDA – its the only humane, human and intelligent thing to do. Deed not breed.
Rachael May 14th, 2010 at 9:05
“400 dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act.”
Seized because of how they look and nothing more.
It would be cheaper to repeal BSL and deal with true dangerous dogs, than kennel hundreds simply because they look a certain way.
Great way to pump up the emotion – phrases such as “attack dogs” to pull an emotive response, when in fact MOST have done nothing to earn such a title.
SL Darwin May 14th, 2010 at 11:01
So, shoot the dogs even though they most have never set a paw wrong.

So a dog has been seized as an ill-informed policeman beleives it to be a pit bull terrier, a dog illegal to own in the UK. The dog has never, ever done anything wrong in its life. In fact it is playmate to the children in its family. The dog is shot and the family is devestated.

However, DNA results come back showing the dog is actually a lab/boxer cross.

What do you do then?

Tell you what – there are thousands of peodophiles, murders and rapists in the UK. Can we shoot them? Would save a darn site more than £10m.
John Robinson May 14th, 2010 at 12:40
Legal processes are so inconvenient.
Janice May 14th, 2010 at 12:59
– ‘even the saintlier-than-thou Jenny Jones AM admitted that she didn’t like attack dogs’.

1. Can I ask Jenny Jones what her definition of an ‘attack’ dog is?

2. What breeds of dogs’ does she include in this definition?

3. How many ‘attack’ dogs has she actually met?

I have a dog that will ‘attack’ any football within a 100yd radius.
Let's just kill them! - Page 3 - Pet Forums Community May 14th, 2010 at 15:37
[...] Re: Let's just kill them! Thoughts on this innovative cost-cutting proposal can be given to our new Home Secretary here… Contact – Theresa May MP or directly to Lord Harris here… Malthouse unleashed – new Home Secretary to be asked to authorise extermination of dangerous d… [...]
Lucy May 14th, 2010 at 16:13
Madness! If they didn’t imprison dogs just based on looks they wouldn’t have such a large bill, now would they? Surely it makes more sense to focus money on owner education and on policing those dogs which are dangerous rather than on those that look like a breed that some people erroneously think all members of are dangerous?
Chris May 14th, 2010 at 16:29
I cannot believe what I am hearing.

Pass an ineffective law, seize 100′s of innocent dogs because of what they look like, lock them up and then shoot them. BSL does NOT work, and was flawed from the outset.

There has to be a change in the law, and executing innocent animals is not the answer.
chris May 14th, 2010 at 18:00
In this case shall we bring back hanging or the death sentence for murderers, or people who look like they MIGHT commit a murder-why are we treating animals more harshly than human beings? £10.6 million of TAXPAYERS money-bloody disgraceful.
Essjay May 14th, 2010 at 18:15
I think it’s disgusting that these dogs are seized on looks alone, do you know if the man walking behind you in the street is a criminal based on what he looks like? In most cases, I doubt it! and would they be arrested if they hadn’t committed a crime? of course not, innocent until proven guilty.
Why not spend the money on clamping down on the illegal breeders who are making money from the ‘status dogs’ instead?
Incidentally, if you hadn’t made these dogs illegal in the first place then they wouldn’t be so attractive to the wrong people would they?? Racial profiling is wrong, why do it to a dog?
Deed NOT BREED! There is no such thing as a bad dog, it’s bad owners!
Angela May 14th, 2010 at 18:32
Typical knee jerk reaction that resulted in the DDA last time. Its the deed not the breed,often its the owner not the dog. Lets join with other countries and introduce dog registration(fee linked to neuter status) to stop the overproduction and sort out the real culprits those that breed in an already overcrowded situation with no thought as to the home that animal will go to.
Lets chip so we can link dogs to owners for the sake of dog and owner.
Wendy May 14th, 2010 at 18:35
I think your attention would be better focused on the owners and so-called breeders of these dogs. Simply killing the dogs will not deter the small proportion of criminal owners from acquiring replacements, however, it will break the hearts of law-abiding, caring and responsible owners.

I’m a member of the labour party and it makes me ashamed when people like you express such disgusting ideas.
Neil May 14th, 2010 at 20:11
The most efficient thing to do with these killer dogs is to convert them to dog meat
Quietzapple May 14th, 2010 at 20:20
I think this law was one of John Major’s. I wonder if Cameron will be introducing a Bill to Repeal all (such as it was) of his legislation, including Rail Privatisation?

Most of the Attack dogs I’ve seen in widespread tours of the suburban roads of East London and Essex were not in the loving care of Labour peeps, they were alternatives or additions to knives in the armoury of criminal lunatics imho.

The rest of us don’t need to be scared by these people.
Mindless Musing | Dogs’ Law « My mindless mind mindlessly minding May 14th, 2010 at 22:38
[...] Musing | Dogs’ Law 14 05 2010 Telegraph prodded me, a scroogle pointed me to m’Lord Harris and the summary is: Lord’s money-saving idea: Kill [...]
Jennifer May 14th, 2010 at 23:22
I have a bullmastiff x rottweiler and she is a big softie. She is loving,loyal and protective. (That being said i do not trust her or any dog 100% after all they are animal and do not think the same way we do.) The thought of having her taken away from me because she looks the way she does makes me feel sick, it would break my heart, because lets face it once they get rid of all the pit bulls in the country these thugs will look to the next best breeds. So whats the government gonna do then ban that breed, seize them all and be back to square one. They have to change this law and they have to change it now.

Give the responsible dog owners their dogs/family members back and rehome the rest that belong to irresponsible owners. Crack down on irresponsible breeders, crack down on irresponsible owners i’m sure the police know who they are they’ve probably had a few words with them. Get more education out there about dog psychology. Explain to people that loving a dog is not enough that they need rules boundries, and limitations as Cesar Millan would say. It’s not just the thugs that can turn their dogs nasty some undereducated well meaning owners manage it as well.
AndyM May 15th, 2010 at 10:27
Why not actually use the money to target people who use these dogs as weapons, or use them in dog fighting? BSL is wrong, and does nothing to stop dangerous dogs at all, this has been proved. ALL dogs are neurtral, neither good nor bad, it is the way they are trained that is the problem.
And why, if Pit bulls are inherently dangerous, are they used extensively in the States at PAT therapy dogs? I suggest that you actually look at the facts about these dogs, and target criminal use of dogs, rather than family pets which is what the met are doing 90% of the time.
BREED NOT DEED . END BSL
Elle May 15th, 2010 at 10:54
Some of these dogs should not have been seized at all and it is extremely unfair to call them attack dogs given that some of them have come from loving family homes. Face it Lord Harris, this law has many flaws and government really needs to start making dog owners more accountable. Maybe then people that cannot handle these dogs correctly would think twice if they thought they would be punished but we can’t do that can we because prisons are over crowded enough in the UK so we have to let people off with cautions and suspended sentences leaving the dogs to die and the real criminal walk free!

Wouldn’t tax payers money be better spent introducing harsh penalties for illegal breeding and dog fighting? Or maybe you fall into this category…………

“Addressing the real issues of crime, poverty, animal abuse, ignorance, greed, and mans lust for violence is far too daunting a task for most people and so we blame the dogs for our societal ills”

Karen Delise.

We have a huge debt…….lets blame the dogs.
We have have a dog attack incident…….lets blame the dogs.
We have dog fighting still in this country……..lets blame the dogs.
That dog ‘looks’ dangerous……….lets blame/kill the dog!!

I own 2 wonderful Rottweilers who would not hurt a fly. It makes me sick that there are breeds out there being witch hunted because of a few mindless idiots in society.
Nicole Hill May 15th, 2010 at 11:17
This is disgraceful and sums up what this country has become. Most of the dogs in Police ‘care’ (and I say that loosely) are there purely because of the way they look and NOT because they are dangerous. They are then kept in unknown locations for months on end and if they are lucky enough to get out, they are under-nourished, petrified, and generally in a pretty bad state! Take the recent case of Brandy & Karma – 18 months they were held before they were found NOT GUILTY. Were is the justification in that? If a dog is known to be dangerous then fine, it has to be done. But without proof, the Police should not be taking dogs just because of the way they look! I would rather walk among thousands of so-called ‘dangerous dogs’ than the perverts, murderers and low-life’s we are keeping for enormous amounts of money in our prisons. Maybe we should start killing them off instead!
Lisa Gibbons May 15th, 2010 at 12:33
Mmmmm I agree it is cruel to cage larger dogs, but sureley much crueler to shoot the poor things if they havent done anything!! Most of the siezed dogs have shown no aggression or attacked another animal or person they are simply siezed on the premise that they look like a dangerous dog. This is such a ludicrous law that needs updating. It would not cost so much money if only proven dangerous dogs were siezed instead of seizing a dog that has done no harm other than look like a certain type. The comments of “Lord” Harris and Supt Julia Pendry in a recent article were the most biased and vile I have had the misfortune to read. Supt Julia Pendry is in charge of the so called Status Dogs Unit and her comments that “it would be fantastic to shoot them all” should really call the status of her employment into questioning.
joanne priestley May 15th, 2010 at 13:59
i have a so called pit bull type in police kennels now he was sieze on 15 feb 2010 he is the most loveing loyal dog which has helped me come out of deep depression which im slowly slipping back into …. im 31 year olod ssingle mother living in cheshire , ive never ever been in trouble with the police before and they took my boxer x staff which they said is pit bull its so unfair, this law doesnt work especially when u have evil witch hunters at the head of operations.
MissyMoo May 15th, 2010 at 15:30
I am certainly wondering wether or not your colleague Andrew Rossindell MP will be agreeing with these ridiculous and absurd suggestions…SHAME ON YOU! I will be emailing him to find out his thoughts on the matter.
Ellie May 15th, 2010 at 17:18
As a young person who has one of these so called “weapon dog” breeds I can’t help wondering how it came to be that this country is being run by total idiots such as Lord Toby ‘I need to make a name for myself before I retire/die’ Harris.

Holding dogs in kennels purely because they ‘look’ dangerous is total madness to anybody with an ounce of common sense. The answer is not to kill these dogs but to not go around bloody siezing them in the first place, then maybe we could concentrate on dogs that are truely dangerous before more people loose their lives.

I know what would gain the country a bit of more cash, a cull of any idiotic Lords with no respect for the right to a fair trial. The money gained from them kindly leaving their estate to the taxpayer after death would probably cut the countrys deficit overnight….
Marilyn Farrington May 16th, 2010 at 10:22
I am absolutely appalled at 1. your suggestion, even in jest and 2. The opinions voiced by people such as Supt Julia Pendry agreeing it would be a solution. She should resign as of immediate effect. If the police stopped seizing family pets who have done nothing and in the vast majority of cases are released as innocent after, as you admit, months in kennels under difficult circumstances the financial burden would be less. The law is absolutely the worst law ever made and needs to be scrapped.
Read this
http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/5388/fatal-dog-attacks-why-lessons-are-not-being-learned/

Note non of these fatal attacks were by ‘thugs’ status dogs on the streets and the majority did not involve the specific breeds that are being seized. This is truly a case of The law is an Ass!
Marilyn Farrington May 16th, 2010 at 11:27
This is a disgrace and makes me sad to admit I am British….a nation of so-called animal lovers! Read this article and get your facts straight.

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/5388/fatal-dog-attacks-why-lessons-are-not-being-learned/

None of these fatal attacks involved thugs with status dogs on the streets and not all involved a breed under the BSL of the DDA.

The vast majority of the dogs seized under this flawed law are released many months later after anguish for the dogs themselves and their familis alike.

Are we to become a police state now where they decide who shall be dragged in and then execute without trial?

Today the pit bulls….what breed is next once these have been annihilated…..your own pooch may be targeted next.

Only one sensible way to go get rid of this stupud ineffective, grossly unfair and etremely costly law. The law is an Ass

Admit it and reppeal it!
Cheryl May 16th, 2010 at 11:37
Sickening. What other word is there for someone who wants to slaugher innocent animals based purely on their appearance? It’s been said time and time again by people who understand dogs and work in the resue sector – breed specific legislation does not work. No now, not ever. So when will you FOOLS listen? There’s no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner. Breed not deed.
Toby May 16th, 2010 at 18:46
This has certainly provoked a few comments, which I have read with considerable interest.

Perhaps, I should make it clear that I wanted to provoke a debate – and I have certainly done that. I think it is ludicrous to spend the amount of money that the Metropolitan Police were proposing on kenneling dogs that have been seized. The processes for deciding what is to happen to the dogs concerned must be made much more speedy – in the interests of all concerned, especially the dogs that are being caged. I am also of the view that the Dangerous Dogs Act is a very poorly drafted piece of legislation – the emphasis should be on whether a particular animal is dangerous rather than whether it belongs to or resembles a specific breed. Those that breed and train dogs to attack and trade in such animals should also be the subject of much greater punishment than at present.

I hope that what I have said will lead to a sensible review of what should be done.
Marilyn Farrington May 16th, 2010 at 19:44
I believe, Sir, that you are a labour Lord….so why is it that you are only quesioning this legislation now when the labour party have done nothing about it for the last 13 years?

I hope you will do as you say above and actually support common sense, and more importantly what all the professional rescues, vets, RSPCA, etc have been saying for years and nobody has taken any action on whatsoever as far as I can see!

Accept it is a ridiculous law and reppeal it!
Marilyn Farrington May 16th, 2010 at 21:05
http://www.northjersey.com/news/93724214_Garfield_officials_back_down_on_pitt_bull_ban.html
Ellie May 16th, 2010 at 22:09
Though i’m glad that you’ve made your views on the dangerous dogs act and breed specific legeslation clear, I believe you have failed to understand why such your attempt to provoke debate instead caused so much outrage and hurt.

Dogs of bull terrier breed type are probably one of the most popular types of dog in this country and the vast majority live safely and happily with their owners. Many of these owners don’t just see their dog as ‘just a pet’ but instead have a genuine emotional connection with them. When someone like yourself comes along and says, seriously or in jest, that they should be shot to save money then these owners quite rightly feel vilified and frankly disgusted with such proposals.

Using a gun to kill a dog is both a violent and cruel method of euthanaisia and is not used in most developed countrys for anything besides the most extreme cases. China however very recently conducted a cull of dogs in which animals were often shot in front of their owners without question, provoking international outrage. You can see how your proposals would leave a bad taste in peoples mouths when a similar thing has already been enacted recently in another country.

Although I found your comments disgusting Lord Harris they could be put down to ignorance and a lack of sensitivity. What cannot be excused are the comments of Supt Julia Pendry who claimed it would be “absolutely fantastic to destroy these dogs”. I am adding my voice to those calling for her resignation (currently 1615 people on here http://www.facebook.com/pages/Supt-Julia-Pendry-MUST-resign/127135560634843?ref=ts ) and would ask anyone who cares about this issue to do the same.
Marilyn Farrington May 17th, 2010 at 7:25
It was agreed that the DCiC*, Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM, Chair of the MPA, who has been making his name tackling the issue of dangerous dogs in London, should write to the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, asking her to agree fast-track culling powers for the Police in relation to the animals.

THis is what the committee voted to do…..how does this marry with your statement above and what do you intend to do to back up the statement you have made?
Quietzapple May 17th, 2010 at 8:47
Most people care rather more about the deaths of a few children in highly publicised cases at the time the DDA was brought in than the dogs themselves, or even the owners.

It is well past time that dog licences were reintroduced, with periodic tests for owners and dogs, and to incorporate third party insurance. There should be severe penalties for abuse. The licence fee should be low for the poor, and far higher for the rich.

Dog fouling in any public place should attract exemplary penalties.
Marilyn Farrington May 17th, 2010 at 9:12
I too care about the death of any child, by any means. However, if the facts are looked at in a rational way as in the article in K9 for which I gave you the link earlier, you cannot fail to see that the law passed in haste as a ill thought out, hastey reaction to sensationalist new headlines, would not have prevented any of these deaths. Neither would the eradication of the breeds targeted by DDA BSL, since many of those fatal attacks were by different breeds of dog.

I don’t see any committee suggesting the police shoot child murderers however. Neither is there any suggestion that since a blonde haired blue eyed person murdered a child, then all blonde haired blue eyed people should be rounded up and shot without trial.

Such racism applied to the animal kingdom cannot be right and I see this as the thin end of the wedge for all people who care about animal welfare. I don’t own a pit bull but I do own dogs and once the pit bulls are wioed out who will be the next target?

The law is ineffective, unfair, and totally irrelevant to the actual cases of fatalities caused by dogs. I quote from that K9 article to which I referred earlier
‘In Britain, in the year 2010 – people are DYING as a result of attacks from domestic pets. 6 children have died in the past 5 years. And the Government has STILL not had the foresight or inclination to understand that these 6 deaths will NOT be the last unless intelligent, preventative legislation replaces the current, utterly useless, flawed joke of a law we’re lumbered with’

Thugs and status dogs are an entirely separate issue ….none were involved in the deaths of these children. Yes It needs dealing with but you are attcking the wrong end of the lead!
A compulsory microchip for dogs would be a start. It would also aid folk who are desperately seeking their stolen dogs…another area of crime on the increase, and swept under the carpet. Many rescues, under ever increasing pressure, would welcome compulsory chipping and compulsory scanning of dogs.

Really Lord Harris -so much of this is just basic common sense and it is inconceivable to any logical thinking animal lover that this nonsense has gone on for so many years at the detriment of many innocent dogs and their families. Some of those families’ children have been traumatised by this ridiculous piece of legislation.

I am appalled that this committee would even consider your self confessed ‘tongue in cheek’ comment as a sensible and acceptable solution. I predict that you have just woken up the silent majority on this topic.
Quietzapple May 17th, 2010 at 17:37
Dogs are not a race, nor is any breed of dog. Dogs are animals, often well loved and cared for, and some are bred particularly to attack other dogs or people.

Dogs so bred have and do mutilate and kill children, denial of that is nonsense.

It seems to me that there is a strong case for those whose dogs are not neutered should have some additional licence and be subject to stricter supervision than other dog owners.

Well past time that some inherently unhealthy breeds were phased out.
Marilyn Farrington May 17th, 2010 at 17:51
That is where you are wrong Quietzapple. Any dog is capable of attack, given the right circumstances, which is where responsible ownership comes in for all family pets, especially when children are in the home.

If you read the facts of the children killed you will see that the incidents are not solely by dogs covered by the breeds selected for special treatment by the DDA.

Personally I would love to see a complete ban on breeding until all dogs without homes are homed, rather than having a situation that we have now, where a dog is PTS every hour in the UK. Realistically this isn’t going to happen, because people make money from breeding.

Realistically, killing and preventing rebreeding of all pit bulls WILL NOT result in zero fatalities from dog attacks.

Rounding up family pets, many of whom are not even pit bulls anyway, and keeping them shut up for months on end, whilst their case comes to court is bad enough, but shooting by the police and letting them become judges and executioners cannot be right. The very fact that the vast majority have been found innocent and returned indicates that the police do not know what they are doing in the first place! Giving them the power to execute and eradicate their errors is frighening to any sane human being.

Should we shoot all horses next because there are fatalities from riding etc too?

Where do we stop?
Quietzapple May 17th, 2010 at 18:44
I’d rather be attacked by a Peke than a Pit Bull, and the tendentious arguments of those who put their wish for repeal of the DDA ahead of any sane views for reform convince me that I’d rather argue with an honest, old fashioned tory.
jan moore May 17th, 2010 at 22:46
No breed is born dangerous. Let’s define the word dangerous when it refers to a dangerous dog, it means that the dog imposes a high risk of injury to a person or another dog, this cannot be recognised by breed. A dog should not be considered dangerous by the way it looks, that is madness and yet this is what is happening. These dogs are ‘considered’ dangerous even without doing anybody any harm. How unfair is that, this just means that they are ‘politically dangerous.’ BSL is not working, seizing these dogs is unfair and costly, there is only one way forward and that is to repeal section 1 completely. We have another section for dogs out of control, Section 3, let a dog pay for something it has done, not for something it hasn’t. Labour failed to repeal the act, lets see if the Cons/Libdems can do it with success, Section 1 doesnt work………Time to Repeal !
Ellie May 17th, 2010 at 23:20
Quietzapple, can I ask how much you know about so called pitbulls and could you point to the evidence that shows BSL actually works?

A Peke is obviously less dangerous than a larger , less exagerated dog as the breed has been bred to such extremes that many cannot function as normal dogs and express normal behavour patterns. The fact is that there are dogs of many breeds in this country that are far more dangerous and have far worse temprements than many of these so called pitbulls siezed by the police. Let us not forget that the lady in France who recieved the worlds first partial face transplant was attacked by her pet labrador.

Most people are unaware of what a pitbull actually is. There is a breed of purebred dog called the american pit bull terrier but the term pitbull is often applied to any breed of dog that looks like one, regardless of breed or cross. That is what we do in this country, we sieze dogs of ‘pitbull type’. Many of these dogs, and I would guess most, are actually cross breeds of dogs that are totally legal in this country. Crosses of boxers, mastiffs, bull terriers, labradors and bulldogs can all be pitbulls under the law as long as they measure up to most of the points on an outdated standard for the APBT. This means you can have two dogs from the exact same litter and one can be illegal and the other can be perfectly legal, regardless of temprement or ownership. That is madness of the highest order.

Even true american pitbull terriers are not the inherently unhealthy breed you make them out to be. Their image is tainted by their history in the fighting ring and there is no denying that they are an extremely powerful animal (as are many legal breeds in this country). However it is their history in the fighting ring that has made them more people friendly than many other breeds and they often score better in scientifically conducted temprement tests than collies, beagles and jack russels. The fact that dog fighters needed to be able to safely stand in the ring with their dog while it was in a hightened state of aggression meant that for hundreds of years only the fighting dogs that DON’T bite people have been selected for. Pitbulls are now kept safely in many places around the world and excell at being both working dogs and pets. Three of the search and rescue dogs that helped pull people from the rubble of the twin towers were american pitbull terriers.

A repeal of the DDA is not insane, it is seriously flawed law and is a massive waste of money. The Dutch repealed their BSL law last year for exactly that reason. 6 children have died in the last 5 years from dog attacks. The DDA did not and could not prevent this. These children were not killed by yobs with ‘weapon dogs’, most were killed while under the care of a grandparent and were killed by non banned breeds. This law is failing because people cling on to old beliefs and stereotypes and refuse to look at the actual facts.
Elle May 18th, 2010 at 4:18
QuietZapple, I should stay quiet if I were you!! You are obviously quite poorly informed of these dogs. I work with dogs of all shapes and sizes and I can tell you now that I have seen more aggression from a JRT (that is Jack Russell btw in case you are not familiar with that breed also) and other much smaller dogs. The difference being the ability to cause harm. Obviously a larger dog is going to be more powerful and therefore inflict more of an injury or worse.

No one is saying the law should be banned. We, the informed dog owners, are merely saying it needs to change. Ministers in government will and should agree on this. No breed is more dangerous than another and we responsible dog owners should not be penalised for a few mindless idiots in society.

You say these so called dangerous breeds should be phased out. That attitude and view is an ill informed one. You are suggesting canine genocide there Qietzapple which really is a despicable view. Most of the dogs seized are seized purely because they share characteristics of a certain breed and have never shown aggression towards anyone. What dog do you have? because it could be yours next…..the law is really that flawed!!!

I own 2 Rottweilers. They are loving loyal family dogs. I have owned Retrievers and even Lhasa Apso’s!! My Rottie’s have been attacked by JRT’s and Lhasa’a. Did they attack back? No! They simply lay down and showed no emotion whatsoever. In this instance it was the JRT that was aggressive and out of control. Judge the deed not the breed Quietzapple and open yourself up to take an objective view.

I am not a supporter of dangerous dogs because there is no such thing. I would prefer to see the state money go towards higher penalties for irresponsible owners, that way people may think twice about owning a breed that is not suited to them.
Quietzapple May 18th, 2010 at 7:10
Just where some of these dog “lovers” are coming from made quite clear above, makes me question my own longstanding dog ownership – was I like that?

But no, there are good and bad all over, and the silly abuse “genocide” “ignorant” and etc show the dog lovers don’t listen.

Certainly some of the dangerous breeds might best be prevented from breeding, but it is well known that there are other breeds in which actual physical weaknesses are prized by the kennel club. That is disgusting too, and a bill to tackle the whole matter of dogs and their owners is overdue.
Marilyn Farrington May 18th, 2010 at 7:48
Well Britain is supposed to be a Nation of dog lovers Quietzapple and I hope a suggestion to shoot any dog the police decide in their ‘wisdom’ to seize just because they think it may look a bit like a pit bull will awaken this nation to what is going on with the DDA BSL.

If we are going to have a complete review then let’s hope that folk like Julie Pendry are not involved and that we start from thinking about some of the many positives of dog ownership instead of villfying total ‘types’ with no sensible evidence whatsoever and allowing sensationalist press coverage to warp the actual facts.

Any suggestion of the poilce becoming judge and jury, be it at the moment in the animal kingdom, fills me with a real fear for everyone’s future.

If you were a dog owner, I wonder how you would have felt if you were out for a walk in the park with your family and your dog was seized, leaving you to try and defend your pet, who has never done any harm to anyone, console your children, and fight a set of measurements that incidentally your average labrador has been proved to fit 90%?

Now the latest suggestion means seized and shot with no chance of defence whatsoever.

One owner hung himself following such a scenario-truth not fiction.

I, for one, will NOT apologise for caring for animals that human beings are supposed to have the intelligence and compassion to care for properly…..little to ask from an animal who gives total loyalty and unconditional love to us.

An animal once described as ‘Man’s best friend’ What does it say of man to treat his best friend in this barbaric and totally unjust way?
Rita Joannou May 19th, 2010 at 1:33
I am horrified that a former police officer is allowed to make such judgement, i would like to know what qualifications in animal Management/behaviour this man has to be able to make such critical judgement about the populations much loved dogs.
I do not think this is one of the most appropriate countries to live in as the law stands at the moment and if any of these ludicrous suggestions that involve breed legislations go forward, my family and myself will sell our hard earned properties and take our money to a country that has some half descent morals.
There are many ways to save money rather than shooting dogs and to suggest this tells me there is something seriously wrong within our system.
The Animal welfare organisations are struggling due to the fact that this Government simply does not restrict breeding, breed should not be the main issue here but breeding for profitable business should be focused on.
Our Newspapers and pet stores have countless advertisements for the sale of pups, i ask why is nothing being done to control the immense amount of people breeding to make earnings? Is our government cashing in on taxing these people or are they ignoring the main problem that is causing extensive problems within the welfare organisations?
Does breed legislation mean that if there is a spate of alsations attacking people that they will no longer be used by the police force and also culled, how do you actually specify a breed that may be a danger? I recently read about a pomeranian dog in the U.S.A killing a baby so do we ban poms too! If breed legislation continues and animals are harmed, i am sure that it will cause a public outcry.
Chris May 19th, 2010 at 8:15
No, No, NO! Why is it racist for people to look at another gender, race, heritage, skin color, etc and have preconceived & judgmental thoughts; yet taking away dog based only on the way it looks is okay?
Try only impounding those dogs that actually ARE posing a threat as opposed to those that just look like they MIGHT based on your uneducated reasoning of what a dangerous looks like.
Educate yourself and the staff in the process, and I guarantee your spending will go down tremendously.
Alison Green May 19th, 2010 at 10:58
Quietzapple, I agree with your comment: “but it is well known that there are other breeds in which actual physical weaknesses are prized by the kennel club. That is disgusting too, and a bill to tackle the whole matter of dogs and their owners is overdue.”

However in the subject of what you refer to as dangerous breeds we must differ. I presume you refer to the current banned breeds, in particular the pit bull type. Are you aware that a pit bull type is often a legal mix, say a boxer x stafford?

It could infact be argued that a pit bull is the best family pet. Pit bulls used for the barbaric “sport” of dog fighting had to be people friendly. Look into the history, these dogs lived in the homes of working people. Those dogs so much as blinked in the direction of a person and they didnt live to see the next day.

Whats happening in the UK is we are currently stuck in a loop of our own creation. We say x y and z are dangerous, so those responsible owners are put off of those dogs and instead those who really shouldnt own any animal are drawn to them.

We are spending millions of pounds holding dogs that have not done anything wrong. The majority of those dogs have responsible owners and are returned after the huge cost has been spent.

Im sure we are all in agreement that some people, whatever age, sex or background of that person, really should not have a dog. Yet they can do…why? I cant drive a car without proving I have the knowledge to do so safely…why do we allow it with dogs?

I have taken in several dogs that had been seized by the authorities (all bull breeds). None have ever done anything because regardless of their breed or type, I am responsible and I ensure all who have any dog from myself are responsible.

This is what let us down in the UK. Anyone can have any dog without any knowledge or forethought at all. Instead of spending millions of pounds destroying dogs (which leaves potentially unsuitable owners being free to go and get another dog) we should be spending money on ensuring that those who wish to own dogs are aware of what that entails and stopping those who dont wish to know from having one.
juila May 19th, 2010 at 12:47
With Regards to the pressure of dog culling of siezed dogs in London and maybe the rest of England, as a means of saving Tax payers money, do you think this is infact babaric to suggest?, many Brits like myself are dog lovers and its a well proven fact that its not the breed of dog that is at fault but the owners themselves.
Would it be fair to kill innocent animals when it is society that is to blame? if this act is carried out those responsible will be no better than the chinese government who do exactly the same thing, they snatch dogs from homes if they are to tall and beat them to death, the owners do not have a choice, the only thing that would differ here is they get shot not beaten, where is the moral right in this? i thought animals had rights in this country? does it come down to the fact that its infact breed not deed?
The Dangerous Dog,s Act should really be looked at and re-thought, many animals are being siezed without proof or just simply because they look like a pitbull and court cases can last months! If dogs are killed and then found out were innocent would this reflect good on this current government?
This would bring about public anger towards the government when they really do need the public,s trust and approval.
I hope our voices will be heard and a shake down of current legislation happens as the way things are at the moment only poor dogs are needlessly suffering.
Bree May 20th, 2010 at 0:13
This is ridiculous, would you do this to a human that is dangerous !!!
Most dogs are dangerous because of the way they are brought up or due to abuse/neglect !! The owners are the ones that should be charged or fined . Most dogs would be disadvantaged just because they look dangerous !!
Wouldnt it be more humane to give the dogs training so they can be housed again in society.

Imagine if they decided go through the foster homes and kill the children that are deemed bad instead of trying to find them suitable homes – this is just the same except that children have a voice and can speak up dogs cant !!!!!!!!!!
Quietzapple May 20th, 2010 at 3:45
Dogs are NOT people, some of whom might better read my first comment.
Marilyn Farrington May 20th, 2010 at 7:56
No they are not children Quietzapple, but neither are they inanimate objects for us to discard and destroy as we think we see fit. We ‘fight’people in the rest of the world killing whales, tigers, trophy shooting etc and then in our own country talk about our most dear and loyal family ‘friend’ in this way and assume we have the right to act as judge and jury…..or at least the police do…..on the welfare of these wonderful animals.

Most of the dogs seized are family pets and have never been involved in a dangerous act in their lives, but just happen to ‘look like a breed that has been vilified by this ridiculous, il thought out, ineffective, law.

But instead of doing the right thing by repealing Section 1 of the DDA 1991, this committee is trying to save the expense caused by the bad legislation in the first place by shooting the evidence of the problem made. I think the idea of using some of this money instead to retrain dogs, is an excellent one, but let’s be honest most of the impounded dogs have never hurt a fly in their lives!

I have often said that I am very lucky to have been born in the Uk and caucasian. Dogs that are unlucky enough to be born to look the wrong way or fit a set of measurements that, as I said before, a labrador retriever fits to 90% accuracy, are being scarificed to this ridiculous piece of legislation. In a supposedly civilised, compassionate and democratic country this has to stop!

MR TOBY HARRIS PLEASE COMMENT!
Faye Church May 24th, 2010 at 18:02
Just because dogs do not have the ability to stand up for themselves you think its perfectly acceptable to put down dogs that have never caused harm to anyone. Would you advice the government to kill dangerous people who murder and viciously attack other human beings?
I would also like to point out that most dogs are not automatically vicious it is the owners who turn them vicious by treating them cruelly and training them to be vicious, so i would like to know what you are planning on doing with these people that are found guilty of animal cruelty? All you people ever want to do is find more dogs to put on the dangerous dog act and kill animals who are put in kennels to save money its a complete joke! we could save thousands of pounds every year if we didn’t pay you the ridiculous amount of money you earn every year but i doubt that will happen anytime soon!
This really makes me sick, you think shooting dogs is totally acceptable, just because dogs cant speak up and defend themselves you think its perfectly acceptable to shoot them when they have done nothing wrong!
Quietzapple May 24th, 2010 at 18:42
I reiterate: What about the owners?

I gather that a Tory Cabinet Mionister has suggested in another context that torture of people might be a bonus.

I think the proposed remedy for the impounded dogs is merciful.

A dog kept in a cage for 23 hours a day I thereby tortured, and will behave like a maniac if encouraged to enjoy its freedom when living a normal life with a family I gather.

Shooting may well be better than incarceration and almost invariable death sentence after some months.
Marilyn Farrington May 24th, 2010 at 19:06
So now we shoot without any evidence of wrong doing or even confirmation of being a banned breed at all do we Quietzapple? No chance whatsoever for the family to defend their dog?

You are quite correct that it IS unjust to incarcerate these poor dogs but what needs changing is the law. Your preferred solution is simply an escalation of an ineffective, ill thought out piece of legislation in the first place.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Please think what you are saying here, and if indeed you once were a dog owner as you say think how you would have felt if this had been your family pet, because, mark my words let this happen to one breed and others will be next!

This really is the thin end of the wedge in a supposedly civilised 21st century country. The inference is that we become a police state with the police being judge and jury….or really a sort of dictatorship.

My father was a pilot in WW2 and my son is in the Fleet Air Arm now. They fought and fight for a democracy and innocent until proved guilty…not this dictatorial, big brother state you are proposing. My father would turn in his grave at this unjust, cruel piece of legislation-I just know he would. He was a compassionate person, honest, logical and caring. It’s a shame there are not so many like him nowadays!! This law was an ill thought out, hasty piece of nonsense. It needs to be completely rethought and repeal of Section 1 is the place to start.

For those reading this agree who agree with me, please think about signing this petition to do just that

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/DDARepeal1991
Quietzapple May 24th, 2010 at 20:05
The First thing Parliament should do is pass legislation to control the ownership and uses of dogs.

Various of my relos were in the RAF, they didn’t vote for the disgraceful Thatcher-Major Governments and none remaining places dogs above people thankfully.

If the Con – National Liberal Government doesn’t give priority to a dog licence incorporating insurance and checks as I suggested above then shooting is a better option that the present arrangement.

There is nothing logical about releasing attack dogs, or those of like breeds which may be innocent.

Those who like to compare such dogs with people are doubly deluded: their arguments are thereby self defeating.
Karen Church May 24th, 2010 at 20:06
when will you people accept and deal with the real issue, it is not the dogs that are causing the problem but the thugs and idiots that buy these dogs and train them to fight and be vicious because they think it is clever and fun and makes them look big and strong, these dogs are fantastic, loyal and wonderfully natured when bought up by responsible owners but are being branded and persecuted as dangerous vicious dogs because of a few cruel and irresponsible owners, any dog in the wrong hands can be turned into a killing machine regardless of breed, and now you want to ‘shoot’ those poor animals that in a lot of situations are in these kennels just because they are of a particular ‘type’, as a society we are becoming more and more barbaric and unreasonable, it is about time the real issue was dealt with and that is the cruelty that is inflicted upon some these dogs by these disgusting people in the name of fun, they are the ones who should be shot not the dogs who have been made to suffer cruelty and pain for the majority of their lives and certainly not the dogs who have done absolutely nothing wrong and are with responsible, loving owners but have been siezed because they are of a particular type, start dealing with the real issue, the irresponsible owners and stop blaming the dogs
Marilyn Farrington May 24th, 2010 at 21:30
I don’t understand your point Quietzapple. I don’t put dogs above children-I have worked with children most of my life and have 3 of my own.

Who we vote for is somewhat irrelevant to this argument isn’t it? The legislation has remained through the last 3 parliaments and has to be dealt with properly by this one hopefully.

If we follow our argument then all quaratined dogs should be shot too because they are kenneled for 6 mths. We do not have the right to drag dogs od the street and shoot them without any proper process. A dog has a right to a fair and proper life. Would you please read the article I gave a link to many posts ago which looks at the deaths from dog attacks logically. Actually look at the evidence. None of them are from status dogs. This law does nothing to protect children from dog attacks and status dogs are a different and newer problem of society. It is not status dogs but family pets being locked up for months. Read http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3894381&id=824382286#!/group.php?gid=307642082133&ref=ts

Unfortunately, the ‘real villains’ are not the ones suffering but real families with well adjusted and harmless pets are. The soft target as usual gets hit and the hardened criminal goes unpunished. Let’s be honest, if a thug’s dog is ceased he just buys another one…such a person who can use a dog as a weapon in the first place is hardly attached to his animal.

Please take time to read some of the heart breaking but true stories on here too
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3894381&id=824382286#!/pages/DDA-Watch/366883744658?ref=ts

I do not put dogs before children but neither do i have the right to treat dogs as inanimate dispensable items.

When governments are asking what has happened to society and made it so violent, what sort of example is this? Is this not legislated violence? A dog is a living creature with feelings and a right to life.
We remonstrate with other countries about whaling and killing Pandas and tigers etc and then act this way towards our dogs?

The best way forward would be compulsory microchipping or ear tatooing for all dogs together with compulsory routine scanning at every vets. Cheap for owners and cheap to enforce and all dogs can then be traced….no microchip and the dog is seized and rehomed. No more dumping ‘on the sly’ or stealing and reselling. No chip, no sale. All purchasers would have to be responsible for checking the chip was registered to the vendor…as with car sales. This is something the RSPCA could enforce with their millions and cheap microchipping clinics could be set up easily at RSPCA and PDSA and maybe rescue centres.

The dog licence was scrapped because the cost of selling a licence for 37.5p was more than the cost of the licence.
Quietzapple May 25th, 2010 at 6:48
Ah, tory dog owners.

The state should afford consideration to those affected by dog owners, not seek solely to make a profit from each and every one.

I refer folks to my first comment.
Quietzapple May 25th, 2010 at 6:54
I know that those who shoot foxes because they are vermin ie many are a menace to human interests. don’t invariably cross question the foxes re their habits before shooting them.

Many have strong sentimental attachments to foxes, in general and particular.
Jennifer May 25th, 2010 at 11:32
Quietzapple may I suggest that if the DDA had never come about we would not have worry about the number of dogs being kept in the appalling conditions by the police. These dogs many of which it turns out are not band breeds just cross breeds that happen to look similar to pits and have never shown any agression towards anyone. Many are taken away from a loving family this causes distress to the family and to the dog. These families are not allowed to visit their dog or have any say in how they are treated while in the kennels. When these dogs a prooved not to be a band breed they are often returned to they owner in an extremely poor condition they are under weight, their nutering operations are infected.

Yes it is true that they suffer in the kennels but if this DDA was finished with then they wouldn’t be there in the first place.

What needs to happen here is those dogs who have shown agressive and dangerous tendancies should be kept muzzled when out walking and around children if this is not followed through then the dog should be removed from their owners regardless of breed .

One particular breed should not be singled out as bad when all dogs regardless of breed have the potential to be a danger. It is not just the thugs that can cause a dog to become dangerous some well meaning owners manage it as well. There needs to be more education for people before getting a dog.

To Lord Toby Harris,

My question to you is how do you manage to rectifiy this situation in a way that appease’s all parties involved?

I suggest giving the dogs back that do not show any signs of aggression but before doing this perhaps their owners should go on a cousre to learn more about the particular breeds they owner once they pass this course they get a licence to be able to keep this particular breed. Also any one wishing to own a breed that has been on this rediculous Act should take the course as well anyone not conforming to this gets the dogs taken away until the course is complete if not then the dog is rehomed with someone with a correct licence and the the owner fined for owning the dog with out a licence.

Would like to here your views on this point.

Thanks
Jennifer
Quietzapple May 25th, 2010 at 11:42
The idea of permitting dangerous attack dogs to be walked in public with muzzles on is ludicrous: muzzles can be removed. As ever the owners & handlers require a licence for the dog/dogs they own or have control of.
Jennifer May 25th, 2010 at 12:45
Muzzles can be affective. If ever I thought my dog became a threat to anyone she would be muzzled and walked in the quietest of areas and watched carefully. The muzzles are only a suggestion to how these dog may be handled, a preventative measure. I DO NOT SUGGEST IT FOR JUST DDA DOGS BUT ALL WHO SHOW THESE TENDENCIES an intensive training course to run along side it if this does not work then think about putting it down. To suggest that because a dog is of a certain breed it is dangerous that is ludicrous. Some dogs may pose a threat to other dogs but not to people if the two yorkshire terriers that ripped a gash in the side of our whippet had been kept undercontrol then it would not have happened. I know the woman and she cares very much for her dogs but they were out of control. Still I do not brand ALL yorkies as dangerous. My sister was attacked by four border collies while walking with her son in the pram and one bit her on the knee but it could have been my nephews face. These dogs were always let out and I know a few people that were hurt by them. Still I do not brand ALL border collies as dangerous. Its all about preventative measures. If they had been kept in the garden behind a large fence no one would have got hurt.

I know my bullmastiff x rotty is not keen on men I always let people know of this before they come to meet her but she has never shown any agression towards men just backs away until she is sure they are not a threat. You’d be suprised at the people that just come up and pet her without asking first or the amount of kids that rush at us because they want to see our husky shouting look its a snow dog. Where are parents to educate the kids that some dogs may not like to be stroked by people and that they should ALL WAYS ask first.
Quietzapple May 25th, 2010 at 13:01
The police used to actively prevent people openly carrying sporting guns in inappropriate public places.

Dog weapons should receive the same sort of ban, that simple.

Our society, and we don’t need any more human victims.
Jennifer May 25th, 2010 at 13:39
And what happens when they have extermiated all these so called dangerous breeds. The Thugs may turn to the next breeds that may suit their needs the rottweilers, bullmastiffs, german shepards, boxers, staffs or any number of breeds may suit. What happens then kill all these breeds as well. People may own guns under licence, way can the same be done for these dogs.
Jennifer May 27th, 2010 at 23:09
Please see story of Brandy and Karma Held for 18 months
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-IUvLl1vcs&feature=player_embedded#!
Kathy Wardley May 27th, 2010 at 23:31
How dare you sit wasting taxpeyers money making decisions that will cause untold suffering to dog owners without consulting the public?
Perhaps if the police spent more time and effort rounding up and clearing the streets of the yobs that control them – there would be no need for these draconian laws. But like the moron who is in favour of shooting dogs – they are too damn lazy and dogs are an easy target. Shame on all of you.
I would break any law that condems a dog just becasue of how it looks.
How can you tell us not to discriminate because of someone’s colour when you are doing similar?

Yes shoot all the dogs – save the money for the government to waste on other trivia.
Meanwhile the real criminals (humans) carryon with their crimes knowing the police cannot catch them and even if they do the cps rarely bother to prosecute – it’s too hard – dogs are so much easier to deal with – you just shoot them.
But when you run out of dogs to kill – you WILL have to answer to the public as to why our streets are not safe from the yobs that rule them.
I was brought up to respect the law and the police – no longer.
Marilyn Farrington May 27th, 2010 at 23:32
Good video Jennifer. So glad Brandy and Karma were amongst the survivors and sorry they had to go through 18 mths detention for doing absolutely nothing.
Carol Churcher May 28th, 2010 at 7:30
Glad these dogs have freedom their only crime to look something they are not we must try and save the others
Jennifer May 28th, 2010 at 22:20
Maybe you should take a look at this Lord Toby Harris be for making a judgement on these dogs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7IwdFwIhv0&feature=channel
Jennifer May 31st, 2010 at 11:26
quietzapple “The police used to actively prevent people openly carrying sporting guns in inappropriate public places.

Dog weapons should receive the same sort of ban, that simple.

Our society, and we don’t need any more human victims.”

A dog only becomes a weapon when wielded by a human. Such as a knife is not dangerous until a human uses it to stab some one I have knives in my kitchen and never used them to hurt anybody. I have a big powerful 9 stone dog but never used her to hurt any one she is very loving and as I type she is lying in bed with me snoring her head off not very dangerous. Now lets say this same dog had gone to some else lets say a thug that wanted a status dog then they would have treated her differently they may have beaten her till she retaliated they may have encouraged any aggressive tendancies in stead of training her properly.

See where I’m heading not the dog the owner, all efforts should be made by promoting good ownership not banning breeds because some idiot wants a weapon. Dogs are very loyal and want to please thier owners so much they do anything they let us dress them up, they jump through hoops, they climb ladders, they fetch and carry for us, they fight to the death for us, they attack on command for us. Just like children, a puppy does not know right from wrong it is up to owners to teach that dog and unfortunatly many owners teach their dogs the wrongs not the rights whether intentional or not.

See this link.
http://www.petplace.com/dogs/the-irreverent-vet-speaks-out-on-owners-that-say-good-dog-to-a-growl/page1.aspx?utm_source=dogcrazynews001et&utm_medium=email&utm_content=petplace_article&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter
jan moore May 31st, 2010 at 11:30
http://www.gopetition.com/online/34617.html

Please could you all sign the above petition, the MPs are aware of it, Theresa May is aware of it, I have another petition number 10, but it hasn’t reopened yet due to the election campaigns. Not sure why seeing that the election is now over, but the date given was 3rd June, in the meantime please sign the above and lets try to repeal the DDA 1991. Thank you everyone
Felicity June 3rd, 2010 at 22:37
i wouldn’t bother trying to educate quietzapple, clearly nothing is going to get through!

Shooting dogs is extremely cruel and should only ever be done when someone’s life is at stake. Shooting doesn’t guarantee a painless and quick kill, even the best of shooter can miss, especially if the target is alive and moving. Some animals and even people have survived being shot in the head, sometimes shoots have to have a follow up shoot to finish the job.

It was would go against people’s right to a fair trail to kill their dogs immediately.

Contrary to popular belief the police does NOT have to seize ‘pit bulls’. under the dangerous dogs (amended) act 1996, a pit bull can legal be left a home during exemption procedures. yet I’ve only heard of this happening twice. a more acceptable bandage solution would be to leave all section 1 dogs at home and only seize pit bulls or any other dog that has acted dangerously.

However, if you really want to deal with the problem. Scrape the dda altogether and start again, it has too many flaws and it would be much simpler to start again. Take at look at Calgary’s dog legislation, since they introduced it, dog attacks have been reduced by 70%! And that’s without any form of breed specific legislation.

Breed specific legislation is extremely ineffective and not necessary to reduce dog attacks. There is no scientific evidence that proves one breed to be more dangerous than any other, FACT. The supreme court in Alabama expected evidence that no breed was inherently dangerous and ruled bsl unconstitutional. other courts in the usa have also ruled bsl unconstitutional.

breed specific legislation is usually a knee-jerk reaction to media reports. the vast majority of attacks never make the news and it is unclear at what requirements the media is using to determine what attacks make the news and which ones don’t. the attacks in the media are a tiny proportion of dog attacks and are not representative of total dog attacks, therefore basing legislation on media reports, as was the dda, is never going to be effective.

A major problem with dog in the uk is that anyone can get a dog, with out having to prove they are cable of owning one. Dog owners should have to pass a test before they can get a dog. This should also be true for breeders, and each dog should have to pass genetic and temperament testing before they can be breed. All other dogs should be neutered.

well bred, well trained and socialized pit bulls not only have a place in society but can be an asset to it, and not just by the joy they bring to their owners. In the usa (areas without bsl) pit bulls are commonly used for detections, search and rescue and as therapy dogs. A drug detection dog called popsicle has the highest drug bust on record, he is also a pit bull. Before Washington banned pit bulls and Rottweilers, they’re own police force had 6 pit bulls trained for drug and explosive detection, it is unclear what happened to these dogs once the ban came into effect.

Cheyenne, Dakota and tahoe are 3 american pit bull terriers that are famous search and resuce dogs they respond to over 200 search missions, including the space shuttle Columbia disaster. They are also trained therapy dogs that bring join to special needs children. Due to their success they and their owner, Kris Crawford, have received numaous awards, including the prestigious presidential volunteer lifetime of service award, a Jefferson award- the nobel prize for public service, just to name a few.
http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/malthouse-unleashed-new-home-secretary-to-be-asked-to-authorise-extermination-of-dangerous-dogs/

Not only that millions of people own them as pets. Not every breed is right for every person, dog attacks are usually the result of poor research and poor understanding about dogs. To kill off every single pit bull just because of a minority that have been poorly managed, treated and poorly raised is extremely unfair both to the dogs and to those who own them responsible.

Studies in a American show that just one hour of dog safety education in years 2 and 3 reduced dog attacks by 80%!

Education is the solution, not eradication.
Quietzapple June 11th, 2010 at 19:25
http://www.league.org.uk/content.ASpx?CategoryID=439

Just repealing the DDA is NOT a way forward.
Felicity June 19th, 2010 at 1:47
i didn’t say just repeal the DDA, i said repeal it and start from starch, as in write a new law, preferably one based on Calgary’s dog legislation as it has already been shown to work.

i also suggest other things that should be part of a new law, like dog owners having to pass a test to prove they are capable of owning a dog, tougher breeding regulation such as compulsory genetic and temperament testing. i also think that dog safety education should be compulsory in schools.

the DDA has had nearly 19 years to work and it has failed! dog attacks have increased by 50% and dog fighting has increased by 15 folds! the DDA is useless and keeping it would be like standing in sinking sand when the tide is coming in!
Jennifer June 23rd, 2010 at 23:25
Well said Felicity.
Quietzapple June 23rd, 2010 at 23:53
I refer you both to my first remark, and further to the view of the Met that such dogs and incidents have increased. (Toby has written another blog on this topic ….)
Felicity June 25th, 2010 at 15:59
The fact that incidents have increased proves the DDA doesn’t work. if it did pit bulls would be exscint in the uk by now. infact the SDU admited they don’t have the money or the resources to target those that breed and sell them. if you can’t target the breeders, you can’t enforce a breed ban, because no matter how many dogs you kill, the person can jsut turn round and get another one.
pip June 26th, 2010 at 23:37
This suggestion is absolutely disgusting. Having worked with the Police (nationally- not only the Met) for the past 10 years i would have no faith in the average police officer, making a judgement call on the breed of a dog as they often can not establish the correct name and nationality of a person that they encounter, even if the person is trueful and compliant. There is an issue with the owners of vicious dogs- whatever the breed, and it is the breeders and owners that need to be dealt with. I am tax payer and i request that Pendry stands downs fron her position as with her attitude she is not the right person for the job. I would prefer my money kennelling dogs rather that sex offenders, robbers and thugs. You can not kill a dog humanely or othe wise because of the way it looks.
Marilyn Farrington July 7th, 2010 at 13:05
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-section-1-of-the-dangerous-dogs-act-dda

This is a link to a consuktation Nick Clegg has instigated as to which acts should be repealed and I have added section 1 of the DDA. So if you agree please support and make your comments.
Karen August 12th, 2010 at 23:19
Anyone who supports killing dogs because of their breed should be shot themselves. These interfering busybodies ruin people’s lives – I know, I speak from personal experience.
Quietzapple August 13th, 2010 at 14:14
Lord preserve us from the “Final Solution” of the dangerous dog fanciers, but the law will do.
Gabby August 14th, 2010 at 14:19
Things like this make my blood boil. A typical response from a uneducated ignorant person; lets just kill all the innocent dogs that we’ve ripped away from their families just because of their breed!

This is exactly what is wrong with this country. These people shouldnt be able to pass laws! I shudder to think mine and my pets welfare is down to coldblooded people like this. If its not obvious already THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT HAS NEVER WORKED! Targeting dogs merely on apperance and breed is unfair and gets us no where. Try looking at the humans who raise them and teach them to be aggressive and attack people. Any knowledgble dog owner will know that any dog – no matter what breed – is shaped by their owner and how they are trained and socilaised. Of course its true that a pitbull will do more damage than a chihuahua but that just means that their owners need to be more responsible and give their dog the right leadership and training. I think its sick that we can justify killing innocent dogs that have done nothing but be born to a certain breed and yet we let murderes and rapists back on our streets after a year or two in a cosy prison cell with all the luxeries… disgusting!

ITS TIME TO END THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT
Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse launches dangerous dogs petition - Lord Toby Harris August 25th, 2010 at 20:58
[...] I am with him – and on occasions ahead of him – in the belief that more needs to be done about the growing problem of dangerous [...]
Sue Harris June 21st, 2011 at 11:25
What chance has the UK got if these are the sort of people we have got running our country. Never trust someone who doesnt like animals. BSL is nothing short of murder and maybe this money would be better spent ridding our country of Rapists and Murderers, Paedofiles etc instead of picking on dogs who dont look the way some idiot thinks they should. Racism, Breedism same thing !!
carol moorey July 11th, 2011 at 21:17
disgracefull attitude go kill the murderers and rapists you will save a great deal off ppls money !!!!!! and get rid off the bsl (bullshit law)deed not breed get the arseole holding the lead !!!! and rehab the poor dogs .
Kim October 8th, 2011 at 10:25
The Dangerous Dogs Act was invented far too quickly without much thought as a jerk recation from the Government to try to be seen to deal with dog issues arising because of incompetent owners. It was never thought through properly. If people who murder others can get away with it, why on earth should and innocent dog like Lennox, be jailed and put on death row? If you cannot see the common sense in this, then it is you who has the problem. Sort out the DDA, put brains in gear and see that no dog has the capacity to be cruel; dogs only react for survival. If something has lead them to react in a manner considered danerous, then I would ask who has caused that reaction? It is certainly not the dog, but a human. Human is the only animal capable of cruelty and boy, do they do it!
Quietzapple January 19th, 2012 at 2:43
I commented first on Toby’s thread: ” What about the owners?”

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/s1aZwnLS0PSz5iLRAfqL-dQ/view.m?id=15&gid=uk/2012/jan/18/dangerous-dogs-act-in-spotlight&cat=most-read

Licences for dogs, owners and handlers required. A growing problem it seems.
jan moore January 19th, 2012 at 11:22
The annoying thing about this knee jerk reaction is that the government decided they had more knowledge about dogs than vets, rescue homes , dog trainers etc.
All have agreed that a dog does only what the OWNER tells them. Pitbulls especially are so eager to please which is why thugs use them to fight. Its the owner that should be focused on rather than a breed of dog. The pitbull isnt even a recognised breed in the UK yet they create a pitbull ‘type’ measuring a dog in court to ascertain if it fits Section one of this pathetic act of parliament. Compulsory microchipping is essential , but dont ban a breed, sorry a ‘type’ just because of its characteristics !
jan moore January 19th, 2012 at 11:23
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/34617.html