Taken From A Anti BSL Site BSL

I think you've contradicted yourself there, you said that not all dog owners know their rights and then go on to say the DDA id high profile, so in reality most people should know something of the DDA. Ignorance of the law is no defence.
As to dogs being siezed that aren't listed that isn't true, the list includes dogs of pitbull type so regrettably if your dog is deemed to be type then it is a listed 'breed'. However, as the exemption register can be reopened I doubt there'll be many dogs acctually PTS, I think the owners will just have to comply with the register and the dogs will be returned unless they are proven to be a danger.
Becky

What if a possible 'type' dog who, despite training and socialisation, can show aggression towards other dogs - and through no fault of it's own but because it has been attacked on 2 separate occassions, once by a westie and once by white and brown terrier (exact breed not sure of). Or, might seem afraid of some people on the rare occassion, due to sadly having possibly been badly treated early on in life.

I dont think you read my post thoroughly Becky, my point is that the current situation (not the DDA) is high profile, so a lot of people who bought dogs that now appear to be type, may not have been aware of the DDA at all when they bought the cute little pup 1, 2, 3, 4 etc etc years ago.

Also, 9 out of 86 dogs sieazed under the amnesty are to be taken to court for their owners to prove they are no danger to the public before they are put on the exemption register. That means 77, dogs have been pts, or are about to be. I for one, do not believe that all of those are illegal as KC Staffs, AB's, genuine Irish Staffs have all been caught up, as is clear from messages left by distraught owners on forums including the liverpool echo.

Great post Azz, I think that you have hit the nail on the head so to speak.Discussion among ourselves is just that discussion.I know that nissanmad,myself and Sara (whom i have spoken to through pm) are only highlighting the wrong things that are going on.We are not scaremongering in fact quite the opposite,it is us that are scared that should this amnesty become a nationwide event,just how many innocent dogs will die in the hunt to find the real fighters.I have no argument with anyone on here as i can quite obviously see that we are all dog lovers and are all entitled to our own point of view.As you say Azz i can also see Mini's point which i feel until now is a very valid one,but the fact remains that dogs that are not listed have been pts.So in effect they have unofficially decided that any dog that they want can be pts or you can go to court in possibly two years and still maybe not get your dog back.Im sorry but whatever way you look at this,it is wrong.If any of you beleive for one minute that i am sticking up for the dog fighters or that i don't feel for the parents of the little girl that died,then you couldn't be more wrong.Its a very emotive subject but one as a bull breed owner i feel very strongly about.

I knew what you were trying to say Nissan. We must all wonder where will it end :-(

I think this is really sad and I cant believe that the police have said that KC papers will not save your dog.
I understand why certain breeds are banned and but the police cant just go round seizing any dog they dont like the look of, whats happening to the world?
In a way im really glad that I live on the Isle of Man and we are not subject to these issues at the moment. We have a completely diferent legal system and at the moment the DDA just isnt a big problem here. I have actually never heard of a dog attack here.
I completely understand where you are all coming from, I think if I owned a staffy in the UK at the moment I would be worried as well.

One fact, It does not matter how well trained or socialised your dog is, during the amnesty if it looked like type ven if it was a cross of two none bul breeds, the police would have taken it. Providing you knew your rights then you may have the option of fighting for your dogs life through court. That option is not available to all and not all people knew it was an option.

I don't think anyone thinks that at all, didn't even cross my mind. I think it's fair to say that no-one here on this site supports dog fighting - and if they did they would get booted off rather sharpish

Being a bull-breed owner myself, I know how Staffy owners in particular are feeling right now - hence why I can appreciate why Nissanmad posted this thread.

I also agree that we can't just brush it under the carpet - hence why we created this section to begin with.

It would be nice if we could play everything back down to how it was, but unfortunately we can't, because the tabloids will never let it rest - and why I think that dog owners, need to make the first move and be part of the decision making process either by campaiging or getting invovled in other ways - rather than us having to live with the results of the decisions that non-dog lovers make and impose upon us.

We have had this law for many, many years Azz, including through incidents involving breeds not banned but the Government has not considered it necessary to increase the scope of breeds up till now nor shown any inclination to. Why do you think that is imminent now, particularly as the crack down has very clearly been centred on pitbulls and their types?

I think the moment kc staffies, pedigree ab's, irish staffies and staffy crosses amongst others are in danger of being scrutinised by being seen as "type", that was when the "crack down" went beyond pit bulls.

Kenneth Baker has recently (3rd January, still recent in my opinion) made a statement that proposed the strengthening of the current law, and the inclusion of other breeds. Yes, he is one person, but he has the platform to get across his opinions publicily. On a range of forums, since then, concerned members of the public of echoed his calls. Put in a search for dangerous dogs online debates, and you will find a large number of people calling for breeds such as rotties, staffies, dobermans to be included on the DDA. This is happening now, so we, as lovers of a particular breed would rather be proactive and show our disapproval now, rather than reacting when its too late.

This isn't new but has been the case since the law's inception, the KC staffie only being under scrutiny when it does not resemble the KC standard of course.

Because the problem is worse now. And likely to carry on getting worse. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the frequency and severity of these attacks increase.

In the last few years, dogs have become an accessory again. Just take a walk round any of the estates to see this. More dogs of undesired type/temperament are being sought out, bred and purchased. Just look at the culture on the streets - it's getting worse, not better.

So, because these dogs don't end up in responsible homes, they will be represented unfairly, because no-one will look at the well behaved, well socialised, well trained - they'll just see what they see on the streets and in the tabloids.

Clearly I'm not alone in thinking this, as so many people are starting up Anti BSL specific websites in an effort to not only make a stance against BSL but to try and combat the wider issues at hand too, those that led to the BSL coming into effect in the first place.

If you think the situation is getting worse then surely you will see a need for a crackdown. As I have tried to explain in another thread this law is the best way of preventing abuse of other breeds that might cause them to be added to those unwelcome in society. It would be nice if we could just alter the personality of the people who use dogs in this way but that is not reality is it?

But by having a law that bans breeds that these idiots are attracted to, they move onto another, so how is the ban protecting other breeds? Yes, altering people's personality is not possible, so by making it easier to police irresponsible ownership on the whole (regardless of breed) would surely be the only way to resolve the situation.