tybrax Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) Breaking: Britain’s Ban on Pit Bulls Extended to Previously Legal Breeds March 26, 2009 by Alison Green An anti breed specific legislation group has reacted in horror to the confirmation that previously legal dog breeds and cross breeds are to be caught up in the net designed to outlaw ‘Pit Bull Terrier type dogs’. Legislators in the UK have put together a piece of law which will ban previously legal breeds and cross breeds. The bill will, it is promised, see Britain free from dog attacks by ‘the dangerous dog breeds’. Legislators behind the bill claim it will “eradicate the more dangerous dogs that can inflict injury upon children” and will better protect the public from serious, fatal dog attacks. They go on to set out the grounds of the new bill and exactly which dogs could fall foul of the new legislation. Any dog weighing in excess of 20kgs. Any dog in excess of 16” of height to the shoulder. Dogs carrying liver, black, white or brindle markings. The bill will not take in to account parentage, breed or DNA profiles. Any dog weighing over 20kgs or taller than 16” to the shoulder could be banned. It is acts regardless of the behaviour exhibited by the dog meaning any dog that fits the criteria above will be in breach of the new bill. Any dog who falls within the above criteria must be neutered, tattooed, chipped and kept on lead and muzzled at all times in public. Owners must also ensure their dog is covered by special third party liability insurance. The bill also makes it illegal to be in possession of, sell, give away, allow to stray or advertise an un-exempted dog fitting the illegal criteria. Owners in breach of the law will find themselves liable for prosecution, which could lead to a fine, criminal record and up to six months in prison. The dog will also be seized and destroyed. With the bill finalised the authorities will spend millions of pounds building up teams to enforce the law and ensure dangerous dogs are taken and destroyed. For those who may be affected by the new legislation the following information may be useful. Still reading? I’ll bet you are. The bill I’m talking about is actually the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. It’s not new. We’ve had it for a while. And I apologise if it caused you to gulp as a result of the manner in which I presented it. Your dogs aren’t illegal. Well not most of them anyway. Some of you may have a dog that someone pushes into “pit bull type” and sadly you’re not safe. But I am willing to bet some people’s hearts were a flutter. Welcome to the world of anyone who owns a dog that *might* catch the attention of an over zealous DDA enforcer who sees a large, shall we say for example, Staffy x Boxer and decides he’d better nab it and get it off the streets ‘just in case’. If that seems cruel, indiscrimnate and likely to tear people’s lives apart, it’s because it is and it does. So technically, and make no mistake about this, previously legal (and still legal) breeds and cross breeds ARE being caught up in the vicious ‘pit bull net’. How cruel it is to tell people their dog’s illegal because it’s a bit tall or a bit heavy. But remember that lump you had in your throat for a moment back then, thinking it might be your dog about to get caught in the DDA dragnet, that’s the daily life for many owners of perfectly legal dogs as they live in fear. Fear about walking their dog. Fear about taking their dog to the vets. Fear every time the door is knocked. And why? For no other reason other than they own a dog which happens to look a certain way. Good people, just like you, the person reading this, have their dogs removed because it doesn’t look right. You may be a little bit hacked off at me right about now but you know what? Be grateful you got a second chance to own your pet without fear. BSL is similar to cancer. It spreads. If you want to keep a hold of your feeling of security help repeal the law. It’s not your dog today and in all probability it won’t be your dog tomorrow, but someone’s dog is going to be taken and someone else’s dog will lose its life - purely because of how it looks. This can’t go on. http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/2165/b...y-legal-breeds/ tybrax Edited March 26, 2009 by tybrax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Leaves the standard Stafford untouched by the looks of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quickasyoucan Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Leaves the standard Stafford untouched by the looks of it There's a few fat staffords around the Northern Beaches I reckon would be over 20kg! I know we are talking about UK here though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I guess their logic stems from the AST not being a recognised breed, therefore anything over the standard Stafford size must be a Pit Bull or a Pit Bull cross. Owners continue to ignore whatever current legislation is in place, so the pollies up the stakes and further the bans. Let it be a lesson to those who ignore the legislation in this country, we can expect to follow suit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Dogs carrying liver, black, white or brindle markings. Show me a Stafford without white on it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) All under 16 inches as mature adults, all under 20 kgs Edited March 26, 2009 by PPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 OK 5 out of errr 5000? (25000 in the UK) I've got a black brindle bitch here with no white on her front, but she has white in her groin area - show me underside shots LOL I read it to be over 20kg or over 16 inches (wonder why there's the mix of imperial and metric measurements???) or no liver or no brindle or no white not "and". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) Hang on and I'll go and turn a few upside down. ETA: A couple of brindles and a few greys from a scar . Edited March 27, 2009 by PPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) Hang on and I'll go and turn a few upside down.ETA: A couple of brindles and a few greys from a scar . You're out - no brindle markings allowed. Actually I'd like to see them try to apply a law like this (no, not really!) no white markings - that takes out all the collie types and most of their crosses, plus a huge section of the Lab and Lab x population. No Liver - whoops sorry Chocolate Labs, Liver GSPs..... And no black - WTF? What does that actually leave if the dog's not allowed to be white, liver, brindle or black? Red, Merle, Blue ? Edited March 27, 2009 by Sandra777 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Good post tybrax, - 3,252 days (9 yrs )– the longest period any dog has been held under the DDA and died of a stroke in the kennels, it's absolutly disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R00 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) So does that piece a legislation aim to cover those dogs not registered with papers? In other words if you had an American Staffordshire Terrier with papers then that is ok (unless the actual breed is banned)? I can't help thinking the legislation is aimed at dogs of questionable parentage as oppose to registered pure bred dogs with papers? Just missing the "unless dog is a registered approved breed" bit. Similar to here AST is allowed but a APBT is not Or am I a bit simple? (eta "I") Oh and nice Stafford PPS Edited March 27, 2009 by Roo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 So does that piece a legislation aim to cover those dogs not registered with papers? In other words if you had an American Staffordshire Terrier with papers then that is ok (unless the actual breed is banned)? I can't help thinking the legislation is aimed at dogs of questionable parentage as oppose to registered pure bred dogs with papers? Just missing the "unless dog is a registered approved breed" bit. Similar to here AST is allowed but a APBT is not Or am I a bit simple? (eta "I") Oh and nice Stafford PPS My understanding was that at the time it wasn't *intended* to be aimed at registered breeds - bearing in mind that the Amstaff wasn't in the UK then so really didn't get considered. Since the legislation has been introduced however (not in the form posted mind you) KC registered Staffords have been caught up in the net - bigger than standard ones but still registered Staffords. So, in theory perhaps they did intend to not include the SBT in practice they did include (some) SBT. Like all laws written by idiots and for the wrong reason, it was never going to work. According to some there are now many MANY more 'pit bull types' in the UK than there was before they were banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Iv never personally seen an ANKC staffy show dog which is over 20kg, but many are over 20kg in the general population, and not because thier fat. There was one I saw the other day which looked around 25, and he was typical of alot that I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Sandra I guess that's what happens when there is continued and blatant disregard for the laws, all sorts of law abiding owners and non offending dogs get caught up in it. They have obviously drawn the line in the sand now at 16/36 and the pit bulls now have no where to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quickasyoucan Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) Is it any bull breed looking dog with these features as otherwise that would include as someone said above: GSPs Labs (no doubt no 1 breed in UK). Curly coated retrievers Flat coated retrievers Standard Poodles Greyhounds (come in brindle) Boxers (brindle) etc etc. Also is it an 16 inches and 20kg or 16 inches or 20kg?? By that I mean what about a dog weighing 19.5kg who was black and over 16 inches would that be okay whilst an identical dog of 21kg would not? I am a bit confused is this a new take on old legislation ie a new way of looking at it or a new amendment to the legislation? I thought GB was reviewing its BSL laws? Edited March 27, 2009 by Quickasyoucan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Iv never personally seen an ANKC staffy show dog which is over 20kg, but many are over 20kg in the general population, and not because thier fat. There was one I saw the other day which looked around 25, and he was typical of alot that I see. I know one big winning dog 15+ years ago that the owner was proud to say weighed 65 pounds (29.5kg). Bearing in mind that 65lb is getting on for 75% over the permitted weight standard that's a pretty scary idea. I have seen a fair few dogs at shows which would be 45 pounds (20.5kg) if they were an ounce. There are plenty of Staffords (very well bred ones!) getting around the UK which would be closer to 18 inches than 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Is it any bull breed looking dog with these features as otherwise that would include as someone said above:GSPs Labs (no doubt no 1 breed in UK). Curly coated retrievers Flat coated retrievers Standard Poodles Greyhounds (come in brindle) Boxers (brindle) etc etc. Also is it an 16 inches and 20kg or 16 inches or 20kg?? By that I mean what about a dog weighing 19.5kg who was black and over 16 inches would that be okay whilst an identical dog of 21kg would not? I am a bit confused is this a new take on old legislation ie a new way of looking at it or a new amendment to the legislation? I thought GB was reviewing its BSL laws? Read it again - this is the original 1991 law we're talking about, not a new law. They just never got around to using half of their hare-brained ideas. And yes it is OR OR OR, not AND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Sandra I guess that's what happens when there is continued and blatant disregard for the laws, all sorts of law abiding owners and non offending dogs get caught up in it.They have obviously drawn the line in the sand now at 16/36 and the pit bulls now have no where to hide. Well apart from the 15" 15kg Pit Bulls of course (Yes they do exist). This is not a new law - it's the old one revisited.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Course they exist, the best ones are under 20kg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 What I eventually see happening ( especially in Australia ) is the move towards no ANKC/ KC papers, with matching microchip = pit bull People continue to disregard the current legislation and it's only going to get tougher, eventually there will be no where to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now