Lisa.

any breed can be DA, and any breed may have a HA dog... there's no need to punish an entire breed over one having HA. if you were to murder someone, should humans be put to death because we are all 'capable' of murder? furthermore, i believe that with responsible ownership there is nothing wrong with owning a DA dog. take a look at all breeds, and the ones on the list aren't the only DA breeds... in fact, there are more bites from dogs who are NOT on the list, than by those that are... and i forgot to add, ALL breeds can be DA...its not a breed specific thing.

any breed can be DA, and any breed may have a HA dog... there's no need to punish an entire breed over one having HA. if you were to murder someone, should humans be put to death because we are all 'capable' of murder? furthermore, i believe that with responsible ownership there is nothing wrong with owning a DA dog. take a look at all breeds, and the ones on the list aren't the only DA breeds... in fact, there are more bites from dogs who are NOT on the list, than by those that are...

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”’ Ronald Reagan

i see your point, and concur with your argument... they should never be left alone because all it takes is a second. But that doesn't mean we should be so paranoid as to CONTINUE to put BSL on the breeds RATHER THAN THE DEEDS!!! i'm so far gone on this, i hate it... i've seen a JRT have a go at a kid for petting it... but they're not considered a dangerous breed, yet they could injure the child too!!!

have a read of this... http://cancerblog.co.cc/2009/02/bladder-an...increases-risk/

RSPCA Speaks Out Over BSL & Dangerous Dogs Act January 12, 2009 by Ryan O'Meara Following our report last week that the RSPCA has backed calls from DDA Watch and C-fidos for the Government to end BSL by way of the deeply flawed section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, Claire Robinson, the RSPCA’s Government Relations Manager has echoed concerns about the weakness of a law which focuses on the breed rather than the deed. Speaking to K9 Magazine she explains: “The RSPCA has always stated the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is flawed, in that it focuses on breed, rather than ‘deed’. Clearly, Section 1 of the DDA is the most prominent example of breed specific legislation. “Our animal hospitals treat bull-terrier type dogs on a daily basis for bite wounds, stabbings, injuries from traffic accidents and diseases caused by indiscriminate breeding. “We believe that any future legislation concerning the control of dogs should focus on the action of the owner and preventing irresponsible dog ownership. Irresponsible owners can own dogs of any breed or type, and no dog should be penalised because of its genetic make up.” The Coalition for Improved Dog Ownership Standards (C-fidos) and DDAWatch, an organisation lobbying for fair, effective dog laws, have publicly asked organisations who share a true anti BSL stance to vocally call for an end to section 1 of the dangerous dogs act. Section 1 of the act is the specific part of the dangerous dog law that outlaws dogs by type and has caused many innocent dogs to lose their lives as a direct result. There is a growing awareness amongst the public and indeed legislators that BSL - as a concept - has failed and is grossly unjust. Opposition to the concept of BSL has not produced a change in the law though and lobbying groups are keen to stress that unless the BSL element of the law is tackled we will simply retain BSL even though many are publicly opposed to it. One organisation which has consistently opposed breed specific legislation before it was introduced in 1991 is the National Dog Warden Association whose vice-chair, Dave Holden, was keen to offer congratulations to those calling for a repeal of the ill-thought out law: I would like to congratulate the RSPCA on this announcement. The NDWA has been publically anti BSL from the beginning. I hope that some of the other large organisations now join with DDAWatch, C-fidos, NDWA and RSPCA to bring about the early repeal of Section 1. Well done to all concerned. K9 Magazine echoes Mr Holden’s sentiments. If you oppose BSL, please be loud in your calls for a repeal of section 1. It’s time to address the specifics rather than oppose the concept. We have BSL, we need to replace it. End BSL Author Details Ryan O'Meara is editor-in-chief of K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers. He lives in the East Midlands with his own two dogs, Mia and Chloe. http://www.dogmagaz ine.net/archives /1677/rspca- speaks-out- over-bsl- dangerous- dogs-act/

fantastic! i wish this would happen in australia... finally they're looking at punishing the deed NOT THE BREED!!! two thumbs Way up!

do you believe that an animal is human aggressive just because of its breed? or does the way in which it is raised have an effect on the individual animal? what about the chihuahua who has a go at my staffy and then because i've trained my staffy to be neither dog or human aggresive, doesn't retaliate, does this mean we should start red flagging that breed? in my opinion, i am so frustrated with the perception of larger breeds being more feisty, when the small breeds, who, by my own observation, instigate... are worse!!! this country sucks for BSL and i am fed up with the stupid owners of these pussy dogs who are DA getting away with it because they're so 'cute' and 'cuddly' and now we might just have to investigate my rotti, or my staffy, because it tried to get the little yappy dog off its back at the park? this is bullshit. straight forward...