Police dog PTS for being pit type

lexiedhb said:
It is deed not breed I dont give a flying pig what breed your dog is- if it attacks mine, or me I will report it, however if that dog is minding its own ambling along why would anyone report it for just the way it looks? Which is what the law allows, and what happened to Tyson.
- does not mean breeds do not have traits- just that not all individual dogs will show one or another- like collies- a friend of mine got a dog from good farm working stock- he was due to be held under in the water trough because he was absolutely petrified of sheep- useless to the farmer. So not every dog of a certain breed will show its supposed "traits".

ummm if you read mine I agreed they can be more tenacious than other breeds. Personally i do not believe they have more "determination" than any other, ever tried to get a determined terrier out of a hole???. It is also NOT the reason they are banned..... that is down to a few high profile attacks, and the government needed to look like they were doing something- hence useless banning (making more scum want them) and BSL law
Click to expand...

Why would you report it? Er, because it's a banned breed?

And for a painful bit of repetition...NO not ALL types of a breed will show 'traits'. BUT many of those breed types WILL, and that is why pits are currently a banned breed.

Thirdly, I actually happen to know quite a lot about why they are a banned breed, other than the argument of 'the government needed to look like they were doing something'.

Fourthly, I have not once on this thread, or any other of similar nature, said I agree with the banning of any breed, or what my personal opinions on any breed are. My posts are based on fact.

And finally, I am feeling far too hormonal to continue, so will end there lol!
 
It's an unfortunate law which was a knee jerk reaction to dog attacks and which to me makes little sense. The dogs don't get born with 'attack human' imprinted in their brains. They get made that way by dreadful owners who think having a macho dog enhances their image and who get a kick out of having dogs that only they can handle. I seem to remember that there were several attacks by Rottweilers around the time the law was introduced yet they are bit on the banned list..not suggesting they should be btw just making a point.
 
Crabby said:
It's an unfortunate law which was a knee jerk reaction to dog attacks and which to me makes little sense. The dogs don't get born with 'attack human' imprinted in their brains. They get made that way by dreadful owners who think having a macho dog enhances their image and who get a kick out of having dogs that only they can handle. I seem to remember that there were several attacks by Rottweilers around the time the law was introduced yet they are bit on the banned list..not suggesting they should be btw just making a point.
Click to expand...

There are four breeds of dog on the banned list currently. All are on there for a reason. That reason is NOT because any have 'attack human' imprinted on the brain, as I have already pointed out. It is because of certain characteristics which make them far more likely to inflict serious injury, or fatalities IF they were to attack a human. It has nothing to do with general daily temperament.
 
So you must believe BSL is good- as dogs should be reported- doing NOTHING wrong just for the way they look? - crazy

If you know so much as to the why's and wherefores you really could explain better......
 
lexiedhb said:
So you must believe BSL is good- as dogs should be reported- doing NOTHING wrong just for the way they look? - crazy

If you know so much as to the why's and wherefores you really could explain better......
Click to expand...

I really can't be bothered. It's like banging my head against a brick wall.

And I have already pointed out (yet again, you appear to not be reading my posts properly), that I HAVE NOT said what my beliefs are. I have stated WHY they are on the banned list currently - not whether I agree or disagree.
 
I have read all the responses and where they fall down, completely, is that these dogs are NOT PURE BRED PITBULLS. They are deemed to be of "type" if they physically reach certain measurements and they are being destroyed due to how they look. God help a larger Stafford cross as they are first in the line though boxer and lab crosses have fallen foul as well. As these dogs are not a breed, how on earth can you then align breed characteristics to them?. And if any dog that could be deemed to be "of type" was automatically dangerous, how can the DDA manage to get a number freed and returned to their owners? I follow, with great interest a number of pit bull pages and the success rate for rehabilitating real Pitt bulls seems high. I respect people's opinions but challenge you when you simply seem to leave a dogs behaviour simply down to breeding and not what the human does at then end of the lead. And as Lexie said, if you want to support the view that Pitts are more dangerous, then you must also accept that this breed has been bred to be far more tuned into and accepting of humans.
 
So dogs are placed on the list because of their tenacity, and ability to do damage if they were to attack. Yet the staff is not on it, (tenacious no?) nor any other large breed (ability to cause vast damage no?) The logic simply does not follow.
 
In that case my Lakeland terrier should be on it as well as my dobie. One is extremely tenacious and the other large and powerful.

May as well add all large dogs to the list then as well as terriers. Daschunds were bred to dig to badgers. You gotta be tenacious for that. Better put them on!
 
Pit bulls were placed on the DDA list for very good reason. There is far more illegal dog fighting going on in this country than anyone knows about. Therefore, many of these dogs are trained from pups to fight. Some don't have the full on instinct and are therefore sold on. To become pets, or to become the "criminal's dog of choice".

The ones that do have the instinct to kill go into the underworld, and when they have won so many fights, they command a high price to be bred from. This is why these dogs are so unpredicatable, and the fight instinct is so very near the surface.

I did training at the Met's pit bull pound when the DDA came in. You never ever went into a kennel without a break stick. They are able to lock on and hold, and the ONLY way to get them off is to use a break stick, or if need be, shoot them. These dogs were in the pound to be identified by specialists whether they were piut bull or not. Most had the fighting scars, and they were pitiful. yes, HUMANS do that to them. They breed the fight instinct into them. Have done since these dogs baited and killed bears in pits for entertainment. And yes, they locked onto the bulls which were chained up.

So whatever you say about these dogs,or indeed me - why be so rude on threads (children), this law is not an airy fairy knee jerk reaction. A lot of kids were seen by these sub fighting dogs as targets, thought to be by certain cries/screams they make. there were a lot of incidents.

Think what you like, but perhaps scratching the surface of the underworld where these dogs are bred illegally might enlighten a few commentors on here. And I hope that the ruduction in pits, Akitas and the like has not only reduced the dogs suffering, but has reduced the number of aggression incidents in homes the dogs just do not understand.

Copperpot particularly, learn the harsh facts of dogs bred to fight.
 
Last edited:
Er interestingly akitas are not banned. I know cops who are involved with bsl, not dda, who think its garbage, because they are 2 very seperate things - one is basically dog racism, the other to protect the public from out of control dogs of whatever breed. Also catagorically dog dog agression does not translate to dog human/child aggression. Whilst I get theremis dog fighting going on, the handlers need to be able to train, potentally live with their prized possession, so human aggression would be an enormous no no.
the other huge, enormous issue is the "type" could be boxer, lab, rottie mix and still be murdered for no good reason other than a daft check sheet says so.
 
Last edited:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/1

"any dog bred for fighting" - encompasses a large range

http://www.dog-breeds-expert.com/Dangerous-Dog-Breeds.html

The DDA is unfortunately subjective and did not go in any way far enough.

ps. the word "murdered" is very emotive,smacks of bunny hugger, and is not helpful. There are too many dogs in this country because people keep BREEDING them, and then the RSPCA and council has to "MURDER" them - humanely and painlessly put them to sleep to protect them from further cruelty or abandonment - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO HOMES !!!

In my life, I put down every sort of animal on a daily basis. There was no -where for them to go, no-one wanted them (only fluffy babies), and at least this way, they would never suffer again. I hated it, but that is how it is. Buy a puppy, another rescue dog loses a chance of a home, and more pups are bred for the financial gain.
 
Last edited:
Can Lhaso Apsos be added ? One bit me last year..and I was minding my own business ! Sorry being flippant :(

Do DNA tests get taken into account .. Just that I know someone who had it done for a rescue dog which people had commented on being of 'type' and the dog turned out to be a Great Dane X
 
Murdered is apt, in this instance, this dog not only had a home, but a job useful to society. He was not rotting in a kennel, he was killed purely 100% because of how he looked!
 
Crabby said:
Can Lhaso Apsos be added ? One bit me last year..and I was minding my own business ! Sorry being flippant :(

Do DNA tests get taken into account .. Just that I know someone who had it done for a rescue dog which people had commented on being of 'type' and the dog turned out to be a Great Dane X
Click to expand...

No. They wont take dna testing into account, just what some "expert" says, and a list of criteria.
 
Trust me, my terrier has to be "managed" - if she had not made an agreement with me, I would fear for her life !

I know her boundaries, she knows mine, but trim her poo hole and she needs a muzzle full on. Bit hubs down to the bone recently. DDA - yup. Zylkene works on her though - phew.

i hate to have to be so forth right about Pit bulls etc - it's just that when you have seen the videos/real fights, and you see the dogs suffering, it breaks your hurt and makes you very angry.
 
Last edited:
Humans are the problem not the dogs so why punish people who want to own dogs that under this ridiculous law may measure in as type. They aren't pitbulls many are staffy crosses.

Punish the under ground people. Bring in dog licenses, so only responsible people can own dogs.

The pathetic DDA law does not punish these people. Infact it makes a lot of money by seizing people's innocent pets, holding them for months and charging a fortune for it. Meanwhile you see the type of people who shouldn't own dogs walking down the street with a dog they clearly see as a status symbol without a care in the world.

And if what the Police deem as a pitbull is the standard you work to, then god help dogs.

Taking a dog from a loving home, locking it away in often crap conditions, certainly isn't reducing suffering to dogs.
 
Moomin1 said:
The reason pits are a banned breed is because they've been bred over many years to have a determination no other dog has. When one does turn, they don't stop. It's nothing to do with them being any more temperamentally aggressive than any other dog - it's purely down to the fact that IF they turn, the consequences are a hell of a lot worse.
Click to expand...

I don't think people quite grasp the difference until they see it first hand. A friend of mine was put in intensive care for 2 months after her 2 bull breed dogs turned on her, out of the blue. Had her strapping 6' son and his mate not arrived when they did she would without a doubt have been killed. Eaten in fact.
 
lexiedhb said:
Murdered is apt, in this instance, this dog not only had a home, but a job useful to society. He was not rotting in a kennel, he was killed purely 100% because of how he looked!
Click to expand...

No, Steven Lawrence was murdered because of how he looked. That dog was quietly and humanely destroyed. Maybe if there were no other unwanted dogs in the country it might matter a little bit, though nothing in comparison to the murder of a human. Given the number of homeless dogs in the country, what does it matter if this one was destroyed or another one?
 
cptrayes said:
No, Steven Lawrence was murdered because of how he looked. That dog was quietly and humanely destroyed. Maybe if there were no other unwanted dogs in the country it might matter a little bit, though nothing in comparison to the murder of a human. Given the number of homeless dogs in the country, what does it matter if this one was destroyed or another one?
Click to expand...

But this dog had a job and a home so was not another homeless dog
 
This is a crazy law, dogs of type conform to certain measurements , a Staffy x Lab could for instance actually be of type but his fellow siblings could measure not of type. The pitbull is not actually a breed so DNA testing would be of little use, because its down to measurements there are always going to be innocent dogs who measure as type. This to me is grossly unfair and a typical ill thought out knee jerk reaction for the events that occurred at the time, far better to go with deed not breed, the amount of dog attacks hasnt diminished because the root cause hasnt been addressed, as an aside more people die every year from bee stings than from dog attacks.
 
cptrayes said:
No, Steven Lawrence was murdered because of how he looked. That dog was quietly and humanely destroyed. Maybe if there were no other unwanted dogs in the country it might matter a little bit, though nothing in comparison to the murder of a human. Given the number of homeless dogs in the country, what does it matter if this one was destroyed or another one?
Click to expand...

The comparison between dog and human has no relevance. Yes it matters, the police royally screwed up, this little dog lost his life simply because of how he looks, not because he did anything wrong, highlighting how this law is a complete total waste of time.
 
lexiedhb said:
The comparison between dog and human has no relevance. Yes it matters, the police royally screwed up, this little dog lost his life simply because of how he looks, not because he did anything wrong, highlighting how this law is a complete total waste of time.
Click to expand...



It has great relevance to me in the use of the word murder to describe the humane destruction of a dog.

You are right of course, the comparison between a dog and a human has no relevance, which is why it was wrong, imo, to describe this dog's death as murder, which is the killing of one human being by another.

I agree with you that the law is rubbish if genetic testing does not save an animal.
 
Last edited:
I think it's telling that Pitbulls are banned or restricted in almost every civilised country of the world. There's a reason for that. And I'm not sure where the poster who claims that Pitbulls are the breed of choice in the USA got that idea as it is simply not true. Pitbulls are banned/restricted in most cities and some States have totally banned them within the whole State. Where I live they are banned from being bred or imported. Those who were alive prior to the legislation coming in have been allowed to live but under incredibly strict guidelines.

As Alec and the other say, yes dogs have inherent traits, of course they do, which is why when people choose a dog they look to the breed which stereotypically have the desired traits for whatever job the owner wants. Of course there are some dogs in each breed who are not typical of their breed but that is a small minority. I own a Czech bred GSD, by and out of border patrol parents, and yes she is totally typical of her breeding, as are all my other dogs. Mine are mostly quite challenging breeds and do need to be in the right hands. I have jobs for my dogs, the jobs they were bred for, and that keeps them focused. Most of my own dogs, in the wrong home/hands could be very destructive and it's unsurprising to me that a couple of the breeds I own are banned/restricted in certain States/cities as they are not, and never were, bred to be pets.

So, in essence, although I'm not a fan of BSL, I can completely understand why it was imposed in so many countries of the world.
 
Did anyone actually see the programme he featured on?

I saw a dog who acted like a spaniel but unfortunately for him, did not look like one.
He was assessed by a police officer in a compound where other dogs were running free and he was neutral but pleasant when approached by them. He was more into humans and kept jumping into the arms of the officer, who he had apparently only just met.
He had crazy ball drive and retrieved a 'dead' tennis ball which had been placed in a thicket (which not all thin-skinned dogs would have been happy to do) and then blind, from a well hidden area behind a sofa inside a shed.
He was a very happy, busy little chap, from what I could see from my armchair ;)
I'd be more than happy if my dog behaved the way he did.

The law is flawed and the way we breed, register, sell and identify our dogs is flawed, the American Pit Bull Terrier is not recognised by the FCI and therefore not by the UK Kennel Club, therefore there is no relevant breed standard or dedicated breed club/registry with a DNA database against which to test.
Within the DDA you have to prove what the dog is not, not what it is.
 
Last edited:
Havent read any comments since my last post causs havent got time, but i will say that any pit of staff that showed a mere hint of human agression (be that a snarl or god forbid a lunge) was, in the fighting rings, hit over the head with a hammer immediately. Human aggression is NOT tolerated in fighting dogs, so to say they are bred to fight which makes them more tenacious and likely to bite humans is wrong. The most bite cases are strangers (that uncludes friends and family the dog has met before), in a new/other home. Statistically, bites happen to owners the dog has had since birth the least. unfortunately they are the kind of dog that gets passed about a lot and that upsets them greatly.
 
^^ that is a very incorrect statement, corvax

The DDA states that ANY DOG BEHAVING DANGEROUSLY IN A PUBLIC PLACE is subject to coming under the law. Why have people not grasped this ?

Further, there is legislation going through now that will prosecute owners of ANY dog if it attacks people whilst in the owners house, and yup, those dogs will have an order on them to be destroyed.

It is the owners at fault. They take on dog they CANNOT HANDLE, in the wrong environment, the dogs snaps, that's it.
 
As you probably know Shysmum, I was talking about the application of the DDA in relation to banned 'breeds' or types - none of which are recognised in the UK so how on earth do you benchmark what a dog is or isn't.

This dog was not behaving dangerously in a public place and was probably in the best hands it could have been, with a knowledgeable handler, doing a job. I just think it's a shame for all concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top