Twenty years since it was brought in, and there are now pressures to scrap it, in favour of judging dogs on their individual personality. Dog bites/attacks have apparently increased over this period, which is apparent "proof" that the DD Act isn't working. Just been watching the BBC news channel that spoke to several peeved pitbull owners complaining about the restrictions they have to bring up their dogs under - muzzled, on a lead, held by adults, etc. Instead of moaning, in my opinion, they should just not have selected one of the four dangerous breeds named in the Act in the first place, there are hundreds of other breeds available, and thousands of Heinz 57 dogs available. Anyway, how would judging each dogs personality work? Sounds like a dog's dinner to me.
Any person that thinks it's acceptable to keep a 'Japanese fighting dog' as a pet should be taken to the nearest vets and destroyed
I was listening to the RSPCA’s contributor to Newsnight and finding the argument perplexing. Sure, everyone knows that dogs are as well behaved as their owners treat them. ‘Dave’ the Rottweiler on Gogglebox looks perfectly friendly. Another Rottweiler, raised by criminals to hurt others would be an effing menace. But there is a massive difference between bringing a pug up badly and a pit bull terrier. The latter has a phenomenal biting force and won’t let go. The latter only exists to fight. Like @zztop says, there are lots of dogs. Have another and keep the ban on breeds that are selectively bred for aggression. Apply the philosophy of blame the owner to established pet breeds that get out of control. What angers me about this is that the Dangerous Dogs Act is largely in force to protect children. It’s usually children who die when APBT’s get out of hand. Plans to get rid of it are an attack on children’s safety and mean that dangerous dogs will usually only be tackled once it’s too late.
Perhaps they should replace it with a Tw@ttish Owners Act. The vast majority of these four breeds are bought as status dogs by people who want them to be aggressive to fit in with some hardnut image they want to cultivate (another indicator of small pen1s syndrome?). Whilst I'm at it, the same Act could be used to prevent those who seek to alter a breed to suit an image of what it should 'look like' from doing so, ie. bulldogs that can't breath properly because they've been bred to have flat face or whatever. And those who seek to buy them!
I'd like to see legislation go the other way and tighten up in a number of areas - puppy farms, well intentioned but incompetent breeders, dog theft, animal cruelty, fox hunts abusing the law etc As for the DDA leave it alone
A lot of this is already underway, isn’t it? https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lucys-law-spells-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-puppy-farming Discussions at the moment of a specific offence relating to pet abduction: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-pet-abduction-offence?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Another dog attack on a child over the weekend, the owner was injured protecting her child and had to stab it to stop it from being worse.
I'm sure a lot of these dangerous dog owners only owned the dogs as a form of intimidation which led to others wanting them as a form of protection. The ban clearly needs to stay in place. There are plenty of legal breeds to choose from if someone genuinely wants a dog as a pet.
