I totally agree with you. You don’t need to own a dog designed and bred to do serious damage, they do not need to exist.
Can anybody look at the picture of that dog that killed Jack and justify having dogs like that in our midst ? Just get rid of them all and stop with the excuses.
It is a hard one, but as the idiots seek the latest most powerful thing there needs to be some control measures. I lived in Australia and met lovely pit bulls, the banning of them over here has possibly made them more desirabe, because tbh if you were not an idiot you wouldn't want a banned breed anyway.
That’s a ridiculous comparison, all dogs growl, pit bulls kill people and that dog, already named Beast, was a liability waiting to happen. I can’t understand how or why anyone can want them in our neighbourhoods.
Well obviously some people DO want them, and that is actually the problem that needs to be addressed. I agree with you in that there is absolutely no need to own any of these sorts of dogs (what I would class as fighting dogs or attack dogs), but there is a desire from some people. I have met some lovely pit bulls, akitas, cane de corsos, dogos argentinos, etc., but I wish that they were not allowed. I thought that was what the prohibited breeds legislation was all about? Is it not enforced?
People want all sorts of dangerous weapons but we have laws to limit them in our communities, the dangerous dog law was hopeless and i think we should stop ignoring the problem, just seize these dogs and get rid of them. Dogs breed quickly, the numbers are rising and the only way to stop them is to mean it. It would help considerably if others stopped defending them, inevitably they aren’t living next door to the beast.
And so it carries on ....
Can anyone explain to me why they feel it is justifiable to own a dog that has a strong genetic propensity for aggression? I know that they can be lovable, goofy characters and all that, but so can other breeds that are less likely to bite with intent, and have the musculature and jaw shape to make it count.
There are two deaths of babies by terriers and all the other fatal attacks are by pit bulls, staffies, Rottweilers etc.
Because as long as people defend pit bulls and go on about the lovely ones that they know others will keep breeding them. There seems to be a lucrative market for what’s called American Bullie XL, there is plenty of ads on gumtree etc for them, if you’ve got the thousands of pounds to purchase one. There should be no discussion about pit bulls in my opinion, the numbers are increasing, they are getting bigger and it won’t be long before someone else is mauled by one.
Why ? No one is disputing that small dogs can and have killed babies but it’s a bit desperate if you are using a 20 year old case in America. All the cases of children and adults being mauled to death are by dogs of a certain type. The argument should be do we want dangerous dogs living in our midst and I don’t think many people would include dachshunds in that list.
I don’t see many warmblood stallions in the street and I suspect if one was it wouldn’t end well for the horse. Slightly off tangent argument !