Police dog PTS for being pit type

[Alec Swan]

I know a lot of people who have retired Greyhounds who live very happily with a cat, ....... In actual fact they are not trained to kill a cat but hares.

A correction for you. All so often half grown kittens are thrown in with greyhounds in the belief that it 'Gingers them up', and I'm quite sure that it works. Greyhounds are not trained 'on hares', as coursing is now illegal, and there, to a greyhound anyway, is no difference between a cat and a hare. The greyhound which will share its bed with a cat and in a kitchen, will quite probably kill that very same cat when it's a hundred yards from home. Single Greyhounds (though far worse as a pair), will when loose and in a public place, spy the small and vulnerable Skye Terrier, the tiny Poodle or Dachshund, and they will kill it without a second thought. I've witnessed such an event, and it was ghastly.

There is no difference to a Greyhound, between a hare, a cat, or anything else which is small, furry and mobile. There's a very good reason why those with sense, muzzle Greyhounds in public, and those who don't, should, in my opinion.

Alec.

 

[Arizahn]

The are still not addressing the real problem which is owners, I really think all dogs should be licensed and perhaps have to wear an identifying disc on their collar, the revenue from the licenses could fund more dog wardens who would have the power to take the dogs off the owner. It would affect pounds etc but hopefully only for a short while and hopefully result in fewer dogs and making people more responsible for their dogs.

We have this here in Northern Ireland, along with mandatory microchipping. Unfortunately, as usual only the responsible owners are affected by it anyhow.

And the microchips are not as helpful as you would think. EG - pups are microchipped by their breeder, as you must have a licence to acquire a dog, and the dog cannot have the licence issued unless it has a chip. However, what many people seem to miss is that the microchip details must also be updated to have the new owner instead of the breeder, otherwise the chip and licence will not match up and the licence will technically be invalid.

None of this seems to have any impact on backyard breeding, status dogs, or idiots in charge of dogs I suspect if the licence were issued to the human as an owner/handler, as opposed to the dog, it could be better managed. You know, like a driver's licence.

 

[Crabby]

We have this here in Northern Ireland, along with mandatory microchipping. Unfortunately, as usual only the responsible owners are affected by it anyhow.

And the microchips are not as helpful as you would think. EG - pups are microchipped by their breeder, as you must have a licence to acquire a dog, and the dog cannot have the licence issued unless it has a chip. However, what many people seem to miss is that the microchip details must also be updated to have the new owner instead of the breeder, otherwise the chip and licence will not match up and the licence will technically be invalid.

None of this seems to have any impact on backyard breeding, status dogs, or idiots in charge of dogs I suspect if the licence were issued to the human as an owner/handler, as opposed to the dog, it could be better managed. You know, like a driver's licence.

Hi.. I'm moving to Antrim in September and my dog is microchipped ..will I need a dog lisence too? I grew up in the west if Ireland and it was compulsory to get a dog lisence cut it was abolished at some point.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

The are still not addressing the real problem which is owners, I really think all dogs should be licensed and perhaps have to wear an identifying disc on their collar, the revenue from the licenses could fund more dog wardens who would have the power to take the dogs off the owner. It would affect pounds etc but hopefully only for a short while and hopefully result in fewer dogs and making people more responsible for their dogs.

If we consider just how stretched our judiciary are, do you honestly think that legislation will make any difference, at all? The answer is in education, but I'll accept that how we persuade the idiot that he's buying the wrong dog, and for the wrong reason, only adds to the confusion! How we convince 'the idiot' that as those with experience don't want to keep the apple of his eye, so he being less qualified, and so on a collision course with common sense, then educating the said man, is likely to be frustrating.

The answer is that we change the current culture of canine ownership. How we achieve that, I haven't a clue, except that by peer pressure, the very same peer pressure which has encouraged our apparent fascination with baubles, so Society may yet come of age, and reject our pointless and eventually painful, path.

I'm really not sure, and whilst I agree that there's a need for change, I'm certain that pointless and unmanageable legislation, will achieve nothing.

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

Alec, you have a lot of experience with hunting dogs. I'd be really interested in your view of the relative dangers to humans and domestic animals of dogs bred to hunt versus dogs bred to fight another dog to the death in a pit situation?

 

[Copperpot]

The point is a lot of these dogs aren't pitbulls. They are crosses of other dogs not bred to fight to the death who just happen to have the same bodily measurements as a pit bull.

I know which of my dogs presents the most danger to other animals and it's the small terriers. None represent a danger to humans.

Dog aggression or other animal aggression doesn't always equate to human aggression.

 

[Spring Feather]

Quite a few states have lifted the ban on BSL in the US, they were lobbied and with education the powers to be have lifted it.

Not as far as I'm aware. From what I read over here more cities and municipalities are putting in place restrictions/bans for PBTs. Can you provide links for your statement?

Here are the lists of States/Cities/Municipalities in the US who have bans/restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers; there are 43 States who had some form of restrictions or full State bans on them in 2013, so if they've changed this, I'd be very interested to see your link corroborating this.

http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-state-by-state.php

Here are the statistics of deaths caused by dogs in the States in 2013. The breeds of dogs are given and I think you'll see the huge disparity between all other dogs and Pit Bulls.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php

 

[Alec Swan]

cptrayes,

I'm not really sure quiet how we separate the two separate factions. One 'type' is bred to assist man, to be his servant as it were, and the other is bred, again for our own ends, but to achieve ITS own ends, and without the animal giving any thought to a deference to man. I have no experience of dogs which are bred to fight with others of their kind, and I never will. I find the purpose, if not the dogs themselves, behind the breeding of any animal which is designed or bred, specifically for the 'baiting' of another animal and for the entertainment of man, to be totally abhorrent. We have to understand here that the bulk of those 'Fighting' dogs, never actually fight. The bulk of such animals are owned by those who see such 'Hard dogs' as being a status symbol. An extension of themselves, or as they would have the world see them! Perhaps such men spend too much time looking in mirrors.

The danger, as I see it, with those dogs which are bred in such a way as to really only consider their own focus, is that they find the transition towards being a servant of man, very difficult, if not impossible. There are the Bull breeds, Greyhounds, English Pointers, if I'm honest most of the Hound breeds, and so the list goes on. Before D_R leaps to the defence to his favourite type of dog, whilst almost always non-aggressive, they can be rather wayward in their resistance to conformity. Compliance and obedience aren't really needed in the Pointing breeds, nor Greyhounds, and nor for that matter, the fighting or baiting breeds, and that's where the problem lies, I think. Rarely if ever are they ever taught to walk to heal.

Let us consider the GSD, and others of its type, which would include the Doberman, The Rottweiler, the Schnauzers, and so on. Their aggression has been harnessed (or should be), and the animals energy should be directed towards its handlers wishes. The Bull breeds, and the Greyhounds, for instance, are encouraged to have a non-compliant and so a possibly dangerous aspect. The please-myself-attitude, can make those dogs which are bred with 'attitude', to be dangerous to man.

This is all very well, but if we exclude all those dogs, those which were bred to do a job of work, from the Pet-Dog roster, then what do we have left?

I'm more than happy to be contradicted!

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

Interesting, thank you Alec. I must say I am disturbed by the number of working dogs that I see in pet environments, often left alone all day while their owners go to work. It doesn't seem to me to be any life for any dog, never mind one bred to work

 

[Broodle]

Not as far as I'm aware. From what I r read over here more cities and municipalities are putting in place restrictions/bans for PBTs. Can you provide links for your statement?

Here are the lists of States/Cities/Municipalities in the US who have bans/restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers; there are 43 States who had some form of restrictions or full State bans on them in 2013, so if they've changed this, I'd be very interested to see your link corroborating this.

http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-state-by-state.php

Here are the statistics of deaths caused by dogs in the States in 2013. The breeds of dogs are given and I think you'll see the huge disparity between all other dogs and Pit Bulls.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php

I urge lexiehb, and any others who mistakenly regard the pitbull as 'the family dog if choice in the US' to read the whole contents of the bottom link in SF's post. Harrowing stuff :-(

For those arguing that the current legislation, with it's emphasis on measurements, is flawed - what on earth is the alternative? Pit bulls are bred to type so dna is no use. And 'breed not deed' is nice in theory, but it relies on someone being hurt/killed before action is taken.

I'm afraid I regard the small number of 'innocent' victims of this legislation to be necessary, albeit sad, collateral damage.

 

[lexiedhb]

Surely dogs used in fighting need to be compliant and obedient to their owners in order for their owners to remove them from said fight, train them without getting bitten themselves? Bullbreeds certainly can be trained to very high standards in many disciplines.

 

[lexiedhb]

I urge lexiehb, and any others who mistakenly regard the pitbull as 'the family dog if choice in the US' to read the whole contents of the bottom link in SF's post. Harrowing stuff :-(

For those arguing that the current legislation, with it's emphasis on measurements, is flawed - what on earth is the alternative? Pit bulls are bred to type so dna is no use. And 'breed not deed' is nice in theory, but it relies on someone being hurt/killed before action is taken.

I'm afraid I regard the small number of 'innocent' victims of this legislation to be necessary, albeit sad, collateral damage.

But any dog can bite, doesnt mean they do so why should normal, friendly family dogs be pts because they have a wide head and are x cm's tall? Could be any mix of dog breeds.... could as the dog in the op be useful to society! Yes dangerous dogs need to be dealt with but not on the basis of a set of measurements.

 

[Crabby]

Interesting statistics SF.. Couldn't find the UK ones but from memory I'd say they were the same breakdown and in exactly the same circumstances ..visitors to home being top of the list and or dogs newly acquired ..The 4 year old mauled to death last year by bull type breed near me had only been in the home a short while.
Reading that report I was reminded of an incident from a few years back when I visited my friend who had two Rottweilers who were primarily guard dogs. I'd only mat them a few times so when we get back to his home he had to run upstairs to the loo. However both dogs had followed him indoors and were in front of me so I was left with a choice to go back out and shut the door or stand my ground and tell them to leave. I chose option 2 being as confident as my fast beating heart would allow I'd swear those two dogs had a conversation with each other about what to do. They looked at me and they looked upstairs to where their master had gone and they looked at each other before finally deciding to leave quietly and I could draw a very deep and very relieved breath as I shut the door behind them. Funny thing though ..afterwards one of them selected me for special preferences and would always come to me first. Had I read those statistics I'd have chosen option 1 and left quietly and waited until the owner had returned.

 

[Broodle]

But any dog can bite, doesnt mean they do so why should normal, friendly family dogs be pts because they have a wide head and are x cm's tall? Could be any mix of dog breeds.... could as the dog in the op be useful to society! Yes dangerous dogs need to be dealt with but not on the basis of a set of measurements.

Did you read the link? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

The issue is that my lab crosses could bite in theory, yes, but the consequences are unlikely to be death. A dog with the physical traits (and potential inbred characteristics) of a pit bull type could also bite, but the chance of the result being death of the human are far far higher.

What is your proposed alternative to our current legislation?

 

[Copperpot]

In theory your lab crosses could also fall foul of a tape measure and be deemed type. Perhaps you would think different of the law then?

 

[Broodle]

But any dog can bite, doesnt mean they do so why should normal, friendly family dogs be pts because they have a wide head and are x cm's tall? Could be any mix of dog breeds.... could as the dog in the op be useful to society! Yes dangerous dogs need to be dealt with but not on the basis of a set of measurements.

In theory your lab crosses could also fall foul of a tape measure and be deemed type. Perhaps you would think different of the law then?

Given that the other half is poodle, it seems unlikely

Seriously though, I do get your point and I'm quite sure I would be devastated. But I still don't see a viable alternative being proposed.

 

[Alec Swan]

Surely dogs used in fighting need to be compliant and obedient to their owners in order for their owners to remove them from said fight, train them without getting bitten themselves? .........

Sadly, not so. Obedience and compliance are at the bottom of the priorities list. Breed from generation after generation of such animals, and what are we likely to end up with? The answer is "What we have".

Alec.

 

[Clodagh]

Sadly, not so. Obedience and compliance are at the bottom of the priorities list. Breed from generation after generation of such animals, and what are we likely to end up with? The answer is "What we have".

Alec.

I bet they were originally though, temperament would have been top of the list. The owner would need to be able to go in the ring with a blooded, energised, fighting animal and safely remove it without getting mauled himself.
Like game cocks (chickens) while aggressive with all other chickens tend to be very affectionate and easily trained with people.
Trouble is most of the dimwits breeding fighting dogs nowadays know nor care about anything other than a fast buck.

 

[Copperpot]

I don't know the ideal solution. What I do know is it isn't taking people's pets for no reason and destroying them.

Personally I'd be happy to pay £100 for a dog licence. Have my ownership skills checked and my home checked also. I have 4 dogs and I think it should be a licence per dog not per owner. I know the people that I don't want owning dogs would fail to comply with this and in the short term a lot of dogs would be removed from their owners. But perhaps in the long term it would deter people from owning dogs to use as weapon or status symbol.

Once at work I saw some youths with a tiny staffy puppy. It was on the train platform, no lead, just wandering about. I told them to pick it up. I then got on the same carriage as them. The tiny puppy was looking to the owner for attention and he just kept roughly pushing it away and generally being horrible to it. I thought what chance has that poor dog got. If I hasn't been in uniform (I work for the train company) I'd have grabbed it and made a dash for it!

These are the type of people I don't want to own any dog especially a staffy type dog. They destroy a good dogs reputation and breed them with other larger dogs. These dogs are incredibly people orientated. And it's all to easy for people to abuse that for their own agenda.

Unfortunately you can't catch these people with a tape measure! And it's far easier to go after law abiding people will cough up the money to get their beloved pet back.

 

[cptrayes]

Surely dogs used in fighting need to be compliant and obedient to their owners in order for their owners to remove them from said fight, train them without getting bitten themselves? Bullbreeds certainly can be trained to very high standards in many disciplines.

There's one dead dog in the ring by then, is the other not half dead too, and fairly easily removed? Ditto in training, the dog will already have killed whatever 'free to a good home' dog it's been trained with, and be fairly easy to remove from its victim, I would have thought?

The law is a problem, but it is interesting that there seems to be no viable alternative

 

[cptrayes]

I urge lexiehb, and any others who mistakenly regard the pitbull as 'the family dog if choice in the US' to read the whole contents of the bottom link in SF's post. Harrowing stuff :-(

For those arguing that the current legislation, with it's emphasis on measurements, is flawed - what on earth is the alternative? Pit bulls are bred to type so dna is no use. And 'breed not deed' is nice in theory, but it relies on someone being hurt/killed before action is taken.

I'm afraid I regard the small number of 'innocent' victims of this legislation to be necessary, albeit sad, collateral damage.

I'll summarise. The crux of the issue is this:

SIX per cent of US dogs were pit bills in 2013

SEVENTY EIGHT per cent of people who were killed by a dog in the US in 2013 were killed by a pit bull.

If they are bred by type and not recognisable by DNA, what is the alternative to the current law?

 

[Broodle]

But any dog can bite, doesnt mean they do so why should normal, friendly family dogs be pts because they have a wide head and are x cm's tall? Could be any mix of dog breeds.... could as the dog in the op be useful to society! Yes dangerous dogs need to be dealt with but not on the basis of a set of measurements.

I don't know the ideal solution. What I do know is it isn't taking people's pets for no reason and destroying them.

Personally I'd be happy to pay £100 for a dog licence. Have my ownership skills checked and my home checked also. I have 4 dogs and I think it should be a licence per dog not per owner. I know the people that I don't want owning dogs would fail to comply with this and in the short term a lot of dogs would be removed from their owners. But perhaps in the long term it would deter people from owning dogs to use as weapon or status symbol.

Once at work I saw some youths with a tiny staffy puppy. It was on the train platform, no lead, just wandering about. I told them to pick it up. I then got on the same carriage as them. The tiny puppy was looking to the owner for attention and he just kept roughly pushing it away and generally being horrible to it. I thought what chance has that poor dog got. If I hasn't been in uniform (I work for the train company) I'd have grabbed it and made a dash for it!

These are the type of people I don't want to own any dog especially a staffy type dog. They destroy a good dogs reputation and breed them with other larger dogs. These dogs are incredibly people orientated. And it's all to easy for people to abuse that for their own agenda.

Unfortunately you can't catch these people with a tape measure! And it's far easier to go after law abiding people will cough up the money to get their beloved pet back.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but the point of the legislation in question is to get rid of a whole breed/type. To me, given the pitbull's characteristics and history, I'd say the aim is correct. And I don't see any viable alternative for putting that aim into effect.

I guess my question is do you - and others- disagree with the aim of eradicating the pitbull? And if not, how else should that aim be achieved?

 

[MrsElle]

I'll summarise. The crux of the issue is this:

SIX per cent of US dogs were pit bills in 2013

SEVENTY EIGHT per cent of people who were killed by a dog in the US in 2013 were killed by a pit bull.

If they are bred by type and not recognisable by DNA, what is the alternative to the current law?

The problem with statistics is that they are just that. They can't show the circumstances of the dog attacks. Because pit bulls and the like tend to be the 'weapon of choice' of certain members of society they are of course more likely to attack and kill, having been encouraged to do so.

If the new 'weapon of choice' breed was a Lab, for example, having been whipped up into aggressive frenzies by their owners, then statistically more Labs would be injuring and killing than any other breed.

I am a great believer in deed, not breed, and while of course some dogs have breed traits, I don't know of any that were bred to attack and kill humans.

We have recently got a JRTxLakeland pup, and even at 10 weeks of age he is displaying his breed traits. It is down to me as a responsible owner to channel those traits in the best possible way to ensure he doesn't become a menace. This is the same for all breeds in my opinion.

 

[cptrayes]

I said it was a summary

Each individual case is described in detail if you have the stomach to read about grannies being eaten in their hotel room. And children becoming the dog's dinner

 

[Spring Feather]

The problem with statistics is that they are just that. They can't show the circumstances of the dog attacks.

It's a shame you didn't read the link I posted as it describes in detail how the people were killed by the dogs.

 

[Spring Feather]

Personally I'd be happy to pay £100 for a dog licence. Have my ownership skills checked and my home checked also. I have 4 dogs and I think it should be a licence per dog not per owner. I know the people that I don't want owning dogs would fail to comply with this and in the short term a lot of dogs would be removed from their owners. But perhaps in the long term it would deter people from owning dogs to use as weapon or status symbol.

We have dog licenses over here and dogs must wear their tags. What difference do you think it would make to anything by having licenses in the UK?

I have a kennel license as I own too many dogs to be allowed to live on the same premises within our municipality. 3 is the maximum amount of dogs allowed per household in our municipality and I have 6 dogs. My farm was inspected by the authorities who granted me a kennel license. My dogs don't have to wear tags as they do not have individual licenses; they are individually covered and come under the umbrella of my kennel license. People with only 1, 2 or 3 dogs have to apply for each dog they own and are given individual licenses and tags for each dog. I'm not 100% certain what happens to the money 'earned' from all of these dog licenses. There is a codicil on all applications and licenses that the license can be revoked at any time, which, if invoked, would then mean you'd have to either give up your dogs, or move to another municipality. I'm not sure I get the point of dog licenses tbh and I guess the UK don't either as years ago when I lived in the UK we did have to buy dog licenses; they cost 37p from what I remember.

 

[Copperpot]

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but the point of the legislation in question is to get rid of a whole breed/type. To me, given the pitbull's characteristics and history, I'd say the aim is correct. And I don't see any viable alternative for putting that aim into effect.

I guess my question is do you - and others- disagree with the aim of eradicating the pitbull? And if not, how else should that aim be achieved?

No I don't agree with eradicating pitbulls. What then. Another dog breed will take their place and become vilified by the press and then we will have to eradicate that also. I think it's a slippery slope.

When I was young I remember everyone being scared of Rottweilers and Dobermans. Those dogs luckily for them went out of "fashion" with people. I hope the staffy x types do too. Although some poor other dog breed will take their place.

I would like to eradicate bad and irresponsible owners. But god knows how we do that.

I would also like the people in charge of deciding whether dogs are "type" to have some decent training and meet proper pitbull type dogs. The vast different shapes and sizes they deem at pitbull types is ridiculous. Some of the traits such as "almond shaped eye" are too generic. All my dogs have eyes that shape. The inconsistency is what I find hardest.

Most cases I have seen on the DDA website, the owners proceed to court and get their dogs back. Which is good. They are legally exempt and have to follow certain rules. This doesn't include being muzzled in their own home. So I wonder if people are saying that it's visitors to the home which are often attacked, how this helps.

 

[Copperpot]

We have dog licenses over here and dogs must wear their tags. What difference do you think it would make to anything by having licenses in the UK?

I have a kennel license as I own too many dogs to be allowed to live on the same premises within our municipality. 3 is the maximum amount of dogs allowed per household in our municipality and I have 6 dogs. My farm was inspected by the authorities who granted me a kennel license. My dogs don't have to wear tags as they do not have individual licenses; they are individually covered and come under the umbrella of my kennel license. People with only 1, 2 or 3 dogs have to apply for each dog they own and are given individual licenses and tags for each dog. I'm not 100% certain what happens to the money 'earned' from all of these dog licenses. There is a codicil on all applications and licenses that the license can be revoked at any time, which, if invoked, would then mean you'd have to either give up your dogs, or move to another municipality. I'm not sure I get the point of dog licenses tbh and I guess the UK don't either as years ago when I lived in the UK we did have to buy dog licenses; they cost 37p from what I remember.

It would allow the council to know who owns what and where they are keeping them. I'd also like it to specify that all bull breeds are neutered or speyed, as we have far too many in rescue. And it would stop back yard breeders making a few quid and not caring about what they are breeding.

Dog licences before we not used to track who owns what dogs and where.

People with known criminal records for certain offences could be refused a licence to own a dog. I guess it could be used in a number of different ways.

 

[lastchancer]

I said it was a summary

Each individual case is described in detail if you have the stomach to read about grannies being eaten in their hotel room. And children becoming the dog's dinner

I read it, such a horrific end for the victims. I can't understand why people keep breeding them, dog fighting was banned long ago, therefore fighting breed dogs should surely be obsolete except possibly a few kept by heavily monitored, licensed enthusiasts.
Then even Pitbulls could be kept going, but only by those who have the time, finance and intelligence to do so safely.
We have a lot of muppets keeping 3 or more of these dogs in small family homes then they wonder why it ends in tears..

 

[Luci07]

Interesting comments about the licensees although I have to agree that it would be law abiding people who would cough up and not the lowlifes who add to our massive dog problem.

There are states in the US which have recently overturned the BSL..I shall go and dig it out but by focusing on a breed, you largely excuse the human who made the dog the way it is.

Not being flippant but I did wonder if the money from breeding dogs could be classed as income and taxed... Or benefits reduced. Possibly not easy to police but I did wonder if the threat might reduce the unwanted dog numbers, even just a little.

I have had years with staffords, only dog that ever bit a member of my family was a black lab. Came as a surprise as my uncle had working labs and there was not a chance in hell that one of his dogs would ever have done something like that.