P.W.

What the RSPCA says now differs from their original stance, they were great supporters of BSL along with the lost dogs home, does any one remember Dr Hugh Worth & Graeme Smith? Their support for BSL in the media influencing the public and submissions to government were instrumental in BSL becoming law.

Laws differ in Germany's 16 states, but in Hesse, Lower Saxony, and North Rhine - Westphalia, they contain some version of the following provisions: Category I dogs- dangerous breeds that cannot be imported, bred, or sold - includes the American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Neapolitan Mastiff, Spanish Mastiff, Dogue de Bordeaux, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasiliero, Roman Fighting Dog , Chinese Fighting Dog, Bandog, and Tosa Inu. These dogs must be registered and sterilized. Category II dogs - potentially dangerous dogs that can be owned, imported, bred, and sold if they pass a temperament test and are free of aggressive actions for three years - include Akbash, Briard, Beauceron, Bullmastiff, Doberman, Komondor, Kuvasz, Maremma, Pyrenean Mountain Dog and more. There are also parts where there is weight restrictions putting dogs into this second category except the GSD. It is only logical that if you ban and restrict enough breeds and heavily enforce this then there will be some reduction in attacks. It would though take the total removal of dogs from society to stop dog attacks. Like driving cars, while we have cars on the road people will be injured and killed every year, but we must work on reducing these through education, proper driver training and strict police enforcement. Also swimming pools, many more children are killed and severely injured from these every year then from dogs. People do not need high powered cars capable of going far in excess of the speed limit but choose to, most never drive them like a hoon, that’s why legislation is based to selectively punish hoons not all of us. There are many states in the USA and other countries that have produced in depth articles relating to all attacks, with mandatory reporting in the likes we see here for child abuse in hospitals, relating to population numbers and severity of attacks. Some of this used to be on the EDBA website I also helped produce a CD containing a lot of this information, none stated any thing in line with the media about if a pit bull attacks it will always be a brutal attack and that they show no warnings and never involved in minor attacks, this is a media nonsense. The majority of reported pit bull attacks were very minor, like all the breeds, which draws one to wonder why such a few are so violent and their owners claiming it has never shown this behaviour before? Would this be to draw attention away from their own failings, who knows as here we have BSL and don’t look past the attack and blame the breed every time ANY breed is in the media. Irresponsible owners choose breeds based on what they see in the media fact, in the 70s it was the bully the 80s the rottie the 90s the pit bull, now we are all safe if one uses the media as a place for such a knowledge base. In time the media and owners will change to another breed / type. The media have a lot to answer to for not following a code of conduct and reporting unbiased material in an informative manner, instead they have misled the public and hence the vote grabbing politicians into enacting flawed useless legislation, and drawn all attention away from irresponsible owners, then acting as if there are no serious attacks happening, problem fixed, nice one! One would be naive or silly to believe that pro BSL anti dog people and groups and those in the media believe this, as they are obviously not morons, if one wants to get the ball rolling they must start somewhere and that’s with the easiest breeds to misrepresent, and ones with no proper organisation to represent them. Why isn’t the legislation limited to these breeds but left with scope so any breed can easily be added? Over time with the current trend and public brainwashing, if nothing is done to change this mindset other breeds will be added fact. If you think this is impossible it mabe today, but in the 70s & 80s you said one day there will be a ban on guns and same sex marriage will happen you would have been laughed at! Time to start thinking out side the box dog people, and pop the ANKC bubble!

To me ban the deed not the breed would mean make legislation that is aimed at stoping certain deeds weather caused by owners or individual dogs not focusing on breeds. What it means to others may vary. While rangers and council resources are focusing on dogs of a type, of which the very majority will never bite or attack any thing those who are truly the problem will be thumbing their nose at the laws or if need be changing breeds, lets hope it’s not yours or mine! What’s this law doing to protect us from all other attacks That’s right its only pit bulls that cause serious attacks we are all safe now? BSL has never worked in any country so why will it work here? Serious question my tax is paying for it, I want my kids safe too? People state things like certain breeds are more likely to do damage when they attack then others, yes but there is no evidence linking it to a breed more to size of the dog, and its upbringing, aggression can be highlighted in all breeds weather it be intentional or otherwise. It seems since the bans attacks have stoped how often do we see them on TV? Why are attacks that are very sever from one breed news worthy while when from another not? It seems many people here still take their knowledge base of this subject with a healthy slice of media brain washing instead of looking at actual facts from here and around the world. The German approach to BSL has merit I must admit, and if we go that bit further and ban everything over 10kg it will certainly cut down on attack severity fact. Why not go for this approach if we are truly serious about using this method I believe it will work? However there have been fatal attacks twice in the USA by Pomeranians on infants, how is this possible that an owner would leave an infant alone with a dog, that’s right they weren’t pit bulls they were safe, maybe its lack of education, no parent you would hope would be so deliberately dumb, but some do make you wonder? Had these dogs shown signs of aggression before, who is at fault, why can that person get another dog, with the Australian system no one would ever know? When people state pit bulls do more damage when they attack, what evidence are they relying on? Media brain washing, selective sensational reporting perhaps, which is totally misleading and with out any credible basis? If not please educate me? In the USA government and other bodies have gathered unbiased evidence relating to bite severity and pit bulls are appear no less or more likely to cause serious injuries then other dogs of a similar size. Further more if any one here has evidence of any kind stating when a pit bull attacks it always does massive damage I would like to see it? If the death of one person deserves the banning of an entire breed, why do we not hold the same standard to all breeds, or types involved in DBRFs? Why not ban all mastiff types too it was stated to be ½ mastiff? Or would it be better to look deeper into the incident and see how and why the attack happened, investigate it like it should be. What are we learning from this approach? Why not licence all owners, set conditions, have rangers check fencing requirements, and make owners sit an exam to prove their knowledge and reasons for owning a dog, prior to registration, why not use the media to educate people about dogs and signs of aggression and what to do about them and thats its a serious issue and that its the right thing to PTS in some cases for the whole community, how to train a dog maybe? This could also help with people who think dogs are disposiable and clean up some welfair issues, Why not have hot lines to dob in all dangerous dogs not breeds? Have rangers looking at all dogs and if they appear aggressive, declare them dangerous regardless of breed? Why not remove the licence through a point system, then rangers could break the cycle? No rego no dog! Why not thoroughly investigate ALL serious attacks, looking to see what led to the attack, questioning neighbours and friends of the owners family about the dogs known behaviour, why not evaluate the temperament of the dog after the incident and if warranted charging the owner with serious consequences & removing their licence then reporting it in the media using them for education showing graphic pics to make people think? Ge we do it with smoking and the fatal 5? Thats right i forgot this would not appear popular at first to many in the public, jumping on the hyped up band wagen gets votes for the short term, this period is ending, failed legislation should cost votes, as dog owners what side of the fence do you sit on?

It would be a grave mistake to think that being a member of the ANKC is any kind of safe guard to stop dogs of any breed falling into the hands of the wrong people, it works to a degree at the moment because there is options pure breed, pet shop free etc. First you have to realize the many mindsets of these people, there are those that would steal dogs, illegally breed them regardless of the law, (then the defence of it was from a unregistered breeder will hold less water then a sive, if it needs such controls ban it isnt it inherintatly vicious?) like any prohibition the more something is restricted the higher the price then people will see there is money to be made and want to get some, it does not need to be many to start the ball rolling and get a breed into the media spotlight then the circle will begin again and breeders and their dogs will ALL fall into the spotlight. We also need to look at when the APBT first arrived here you could not get one for under a couple of grand, (which is cheep compared to many ANKC breeds at the moment) at the time of banning they were going for virtually nothing. There is always going to be those in the community who wish to have a vicious dog for protection of their illegal business or them selves because of their personality flaws who can easily afford and obtain any breed and will through their connections, then due to the price might want to get some coin back so breed it sell em to me mates who are also scum! Far to many in the ANKC live thinking they are in an ideal world. There is nothing the ANKC can do to stop any one who really wants to from becoming a breeder / peddler, and there are many laws which they will find they are contravening if they tried to discriminate without reason. So there for if you think unscrupulous people will not still be able to peddle you will be very wrong. It is so false to think that there isn’t already peddlers inside the ANKC. Furthermore one needs to look out side of their own bubble world and see how the general public perceive the ANKC and their pure breeds, its totally the fault of the ANKC and its breeders for the rise in popularity of designer breeds (also how did these dogs become available for such breeding if the ANKC is such a safeguard?), due to the lack of genetic and temperament stability right or wrong. If you think for a second that the government is going to give the rights to breed all dogs to the ANKC you are so deluded (this to me would seem a breach on anti competive legislation) and failing to see the other groups and people who oppose such moves, (Hugh Wirth, Don Burke, PETA are all far from friends of the pure breed dog world just to name a few) these groups are far more powerful then the ANKC, both in following and most importantally cash, also such a move would be even more flawed then the ID systems developed by the ANKC and its sub groups. If BSL is supported by the ANKC for one breed they should support it for all others that are involved in attacks or how does this appear to the general public? If a breed is so dangerous you need to be careful who obtains it then why shouldn’t it be banned to for the protection of the public and to save the children from being mauled? Or should we be promoting responsible choice of dog based more on size and energy levels and promoting responsible ownership, which means to me you should be legally responsible for the actions of your dog, not just responsible for feeding it!!! All dog owners need to stop this petty rubbish about my breed bleat is better this and that, get your head out of your and start seeing the bigger picture, you are falling into the trap that’s been set by the media and many others and start promoting responsible ownership. Stop bleating about pure breeds being safer and start highlighting the real reasons and directions that need to be taken. Stop promoting welfare issues as going to stop dog attacks, with a hidden motive. Stand together and educate the general public about the real causes of attacks. Loose the toffy nose towards crossbreeds or pure breeds you may choose not to own while you have a choice, the dislike shown by some ANKC people towards cross breeds and other pure breeds makes one wonder why they are truly in the dog world at all. I like all dogs even those that are so abused that they must be PTS I still feel sorry for them and see why they are in this situation, not see it as though they deserve it or that they are vicious because they are a cross. Its true, no one needs to own an APBT for any reason FACT, nor do they need a guarding breed, hunting breed, gun dog or really any dog at all, its like you aren’t going to die when all dogs are gone. Look and see what breeds or pets in general PETA want you to own, and oh yes they are regularly in consultation of animal welfare and control laws, shame the ANKC usually are not!!! Double shame when they are they support BSL for breeds that aren’t theirs. Unless BSL is fought constantly until it is overturned it spreads in every country. It would be here to unless people like moko moko fought to prove its known flaws.Due to unyealding dedication BSL has been overturned in other countries and with luck will be in the UK then as it was used to promote the introduction here it can be used as a reason for its demise here. UNITED WE FIGHT DIVIDED WE ALL WILL FALL!!!

(((I would like to see the attack stats for ANKC papered pure breeds purchased from registered breeders, anyone have those statistics on hand?))) It so strange how similar this poster sounds to the once upon a time BORDO, unfortunately many in the ANKC still do, it seems there are still some people who are so deluded as to think that being a pure breed “makes them safe”. Or do they really believe this nonsence? This being the case, WHY are so many breeders of the ANKC and rightly so, worried about who obtains their breed to the point of near paranoia? Do they really believe this? Any breed or cross is more then capable of attacking, who is behind the leash is more of the issue, who is drawn to certain breeds and WHY? Back yard breeders will get more breeds and pure breed them and cross them, papers or not will not negate the breed unless focus is on WHY did it attack then knowledge can be obtained and used to further educate owners and punish those who neglect and train dogs till they are vicious or through their own misgivings fail to obtain the knowledge to raise a dog properly as a companion. Then and only then will irresponsible owners fear the law! Do you think when there is a market people will not become registered breeders to enable them to peddle, do you think there are no peddlers already in the ANKC? To examine attack stats one needs to look much deeper then this, however you will not be too likely to see this from many in the ANKC bubble world. As a person with a long history with many breeds, I can say I believe pure breeds are less likely to attack mostly from the environment they are raised in, eg Rotties have in this country in the past been directly in the spotlight, but due to a past when people were more inclined to listen to conmen sense then knee jerk reactions both Rotties and Bullies were saved from this by the appearance of the APBT on the scene. There have been calls in the media to ban both these breeds in the past in Australia, and still are in other countries where they hit the media, what will save them in the future? How limited is the breed history or memories of owners of these breeds and all dog owners? If we do not learn from history it is bound to repeat it self. DO you honestly think that a person who wants a vicious dog or miss treats a dog will be likely to get an ANKC papered one, not unless they have to. CCC sold out APBTs to save their own by producing back yard ID books long before any state law ch 17A existed to gain favor with councils because of their own fears of extension. When all the APBTs are gone and people are still allowed free rain to get what ever dog is needed either from neglect or intension there will still be the one breed seen as vicious and it will be what ever the media says it is. When your breeds head is on the block it will be added to the list, then everything you stated for APBTs will be for you to follow will you be so high and mighty then? If all owners do not unite and get a common voice and APBT owners and their many supporters give up and fail as many in the ANKC want more will follow. Many in the bubble world will say sell out everything but the pure breeds, but attacks will continue, then they have NO leg to stand on as they supported the law 17A which has scope for breeds to be added, what’s good for one vicious breed is good for em ell. Or are they so supportive because they hope that more money will be there to be made from a controlled market of dogs of which many are very expensive? Rules of supply and demand will kick in and breeds will still get the chop. As for ethics i think so many in the ANKC fail to take off thier blinkers with regards to the genetic problems they have enflicted upon nearly every breed on their registery in chasing some ever changing breed standard at the whim of judges interpretations, cruelty comes in many formes,i am sure to now hear endless bleating about how they are working doing this and that to eliminate such problems, far too little far too late the damage is done so many pure breeds are seen as undeririable by the general public, one who lives in a glass house should not throw stones!If this is ethical and in the betterment of thier supposidly chosen breeds WAKE UP FOOLS!

Vicious dogs always sells, blaming owners would take thought and investigation as slander etc applies to owners not the dogs, they can be slandered with no threat or repercussions and after an attack has occurred they are not to likely to admit anything which could incriminate them as being in any way to blame, he has never shown any signs of aggression is regularly stated, what a load of, either there was signs or they failed to seer them either way who is to blame and where has blaming dogs and breeds taken us in terms of effective legislation? Which I am sure is the aim of both pro and anti dog sides, never be fooled that people sighting bsl are only after 4 breeds. Certain political parties are inherently prone to follow the media for short term vote gains. We must never forget to place the blame at these parties feet, to remind them that when ever they feel the need to legislate like this we the dog owning voters through the long term will be there regardless of time with long memories to hold them accountable, Beattie may be gone but the party is still there and must be accountable for his actions, which were knee jerk, expensive, flawed, ineffective and now have been proven to be as such to say the least. Reminding them how they could have listened to those with knowledge of dogs, US, but chose not to, asking what they have achieved, nothing, what could have been a decade of improvement in overall attacks and dog ownership education and control on owners. NO BODY BUYS A KING CHARLES IF THEY WANT A VICIOUS DOG, THEY OBTAIN WHAT EVER IS PERCEIVED AS VICIOUS IN THE MEDIA, THIS IS PROVEN THROUGH THE DECADES. BLAME THE DEED NOT THE BREED!!!