Lamper121 239 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 This was on Sky News: "Dogs are being put down based on how they look rather than the danger they pose, according to an animal charity. The Dangerous Dogs Act turned 25 years old last month but the RSPCA said it had been the reason for the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of dogs. In a report, Breed Specific Legislation: A Dog's Dinner, the RSPCA says it has been forced to put 366 dogs down in the past two years alone, under the section of the act that relates to breed-specific offences. Breeds such as the pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brazileiro are among those banned based on their appearance. A dog of one of these breeds can be taken away by the police or council even if it is not acting dangerously and even if there has not been a complaint against it. The RSPCA has called on the Government to look at the effectiveness of this law and to axe it completely. Last month the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home published a report saying that the Dangerous Dogs Act was "flawed" and that punishment should be aimed at irresponsible dog owners instead. RSPCA dog welfare expert Dr Samantha Gained said the law was not only a "huge ethical and welfare issue" but that it also placed "significant emotional strain on staff". She added: "The police, the RSPCA and other animal rescue organisations have to deal with the consequences of this flawed law by euthanising hundreds of dogs because legislation is forcing us to, due to the way they look, despite being suitable for re-homing." Dog behaviour expert Victoria Stilwell said the legislation should be "focused on protecting the public through responsible pet guardianship, rather than targeting a particular breed". She added: "Breed specific legislation tears apart families while punishing innocent dogs and their guardians solely because of a dog's appearance." I might for one and probably the last time agree with the RSPCA! But I do worry about the flip side which might be more powers to prosecute owners harshly, that could mean a bit of collateral damage 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogFox123 1,379 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Most Police Officers' wouldn't know a dog from a cat let alone if it's classed as a dangerous breed. If you've got a banned breed that acts aggressive towards other dogs or people then use a bit of common sense, don't parade it around the streets showing off how big and hard you are... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jonjon79 13,358 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 They've got a f***ing nerve - weren't the rspca responsible for being a law unto themselves and killing family pets/good dogs whenever they saw fit? 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dig-deep-draw-charlie 2,713 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 A fella down the road from me got his back, was all over the news, they are looking at the dangerous dog act over here now Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bracken boy 584 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 To be honest if there banned then I ain't got a problem , my job is to look after mine and while they are about then for me it's a scary time, I'd also put some of there owners T S 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackbriar 8,569 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 The law made a lot of difference..... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/28/hospital-admissions-for-injuries-caused-by-dogs-up-76-over-past-10-years Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogFox123 1,379 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Punish the owners more severely not the breeds, I'm guessing most attacks from dogs are caused by bad ownership. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lamper121 239 Posted August 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Be great if they over turned the law though wouldn't it, as long as they didn't make it prohibitively difficult for the normal people to own breeds such as APBT etc. What do you think about a law which would require a licence to own a so called 'dangerous' breeds? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogFox123 1,379 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 I think it's a good idea tbh although I don't know what difference it would make, people would still get banned breeds wether they have a licence or not. Banning the APBT was a bad move because it stigmatises the breed which in turn makes them fashionable to Chavs and plastic gangster's..... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lamper121 239 Posted August 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 I think it's a good idea tbh although I don't know what difference it would make, people would still get banned breeds wether they have a licence or not. Banning the APBT was a bad move because it stigmatises the breed which in turn makes them fashionable to Chavs and plastic gangster's..... Totally agree Quote Link to post Share on other sites
trenchfoot 4,243 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 I'm in two minds on this one. The DDA is an arse, but so are people. They may be seen as status dogs by chavs and wanabees, but given freedom to own them will only increase the level of ownerships by unsuited owners. Be they chav's or well intentioned pet owners. The DDA needs changing, but I don't believe that such dogs should be freely available either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackbriar 8,569 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 You could introduce as many laws, conditions and requirements as you like - the tattooed f***wits will just ignore them ! Responsible owners will dutifully pay for licences, microchips etc etc - Jameel and his mates on the council estate in Peckham will just laugh in the laws face ! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaz_1989 9,539 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 You could introduce as many laws, conditions and requirements as you like - the tattooed f***wits will just ignore them ! Responsible owners will dutifully pay for licences, microchips etc etc - Jameel and his mates on the council estate in Peckham will just laugh in the laws face ! Have all fuckwits got tattoos or do you get tattooless fuckwits too? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dig-deep-draw-charlie 2,713 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 You could introduce as many laws, conditions and requirements as you like - the tattooed f***wits will just ignore them ! Responsible owners will dutifully pay for licences, microchips etc etc - Jameel and his mates on the council estate in Peckham will just laugh in the laws face ! Have all fuckwits got tattoos or do you get tattooless fuckwits too? Agree, or do u also get people on housing estates that look after their dogs? I know a yard and its treated better than his kids! Stereotyping also isn't good for a breed 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackbriar 8,569 Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 You could introduce as many laws, conditions and requirements as you like - the tattooed f***wits will just ignore them ! Responsible owners will dutifully pay for licences, microchips etc etc - Jameel and his mates on the council estate in Peckham will just laugh in the laws face ! Have all fuckwits got tattoos or do you get tattooless fuckwits too? I've got tattoos and I don't think I'm a f***wit, but I'm sure I've had my moments - I'm trying to indicate the type of people who want these dogs for the wrong reasons. A generalisation, I know, but a ban clearly hasn't worked, so why would such people respect any other law or condition of ownership ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.