The DDA and criteria

R

Ranyhyn

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 November 2008
Messages
21,273
Location
Funny farm
Visit site
After watching the Panorama programme and continuous doggy type thoughts as any dog lover should have, I got to thinking about the criteria of the DDA and how they have classfied dogs that are "dangerous".

Ok so Defra website briefly defines the 4banned breeds as

* the Pit Bull Terrier
* the Japanese tosa
* the Dogo Argentino
* the Fila Brasileiro

Tosa - from the reading up I've done, primarily bred as a fighting dog only. From the research I have done into it (which is only marginal granted) this seems like the only breed actually bred to fight.

All the rest were bred with specific purposes, the APBT much like our native staff, to bring down wild game etc. The Dogo (one of my huge loves) bred to hunt wild game and the Fila, bred to work cattle farms etc as a guard dog incidently Filas are of the Molosser group of dogs which includes our very much legal mastiffs, boxers, dog de bordeaux and perhaps most notably Newfoundland, St Bernards and Greater Swiss Mountain dogs.

Ok so the Dogo, bred from the Cordoban fighting dog (now extinct) in the 1930s say, thats 70 years of breeding away from the fighting dog into now what is a amicable pack hunter and loyal guard dog to many a home. Isn't 70 years enough for them to have gotten themselves away from their fighting roots? It clearly is for Europe and America where you can watch videos of the Dogo bringing down large game in packs, in a high octane situation - with guess what, no fighting...
Boxers were bred to hunt deer and boar as were it seems Mastiffs? So whats the difference?

If we ban APBTs why not Staffs? They are or were bred to do the same job effectively, sadly for the APBT a lot have been used for fighting, but the same can be said of our native Staffordshire bull.

And lastly the Fila, derived it seems from Mastiffs, bulldogs and bloodhounds, all of which are legal in this country so why not the progeny? A guard dog, no better or worse it would seem than our "legal" rottweiler.

A very incoherant ramble from me I know, but what I am getting at is the criteria seems very touch and go. We have a lot of accepted breeds who contributed to or were bred for the exact same job as our banned breeds - so what is the defining factor?

Thoughts please :)
 
Last edited:
I'm confused, when they say Apb type what does that mean, because many crosses such as, lab x boxer or lab x staffy look like apb. Because of their looks are they in danger too?:(
 
That's exactly it, put it this way, you have a dog of an APBT "type" remembering they are not a recognised breed here, ergo - no breed standard to look for, just a type.. you could be in trouble ;)

Defra says
It is important to note that, in the UK, dangerous dogs are classified by “type”, not by breed label. This means that whether a dog is considered dangerous, and therefore prohibited, will depend on a judgment about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited 'type'. This assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court.

But remember that applies to all breeds on the banned dogs list. So the person making a decision at court - is he a dog man, or is he some chump put infront of some pictures, deciding the fate of dogs he has no idea on? Most people cannot even identify the breeds on the DDA!
 
Short answer: Whoever came up with the law are a bunch of nobbers.

Slightly off-tangent answer: You'd think they'd ban the top ten breeds that cause fatalities, in which case many of us would be buggered...

1. Pit Bull
2. Rottweiler
3. German Shepherd
4. Siberian Husky
5. Alaskan Malamute
6. Dobermann Pinscher
7. Chow Chow
8. Presa Canario
9. Boxer
10. Dalmatian

Except that for each fatality, there are '670 hospitalizations and 16,000 emergency room visits, 21,000 other medical visits (office and clinic), and 187,000 non-medically treated bites.' Which could be from Fluffy the ankle-biter bichon from next door. :p That's US figures, I should add.

It's arbitrary and it makes no sense at all. I'm sure we've discussed on here before how it is very often impossible to tell a staff from a pit or a crossbreed. Hell, there's a chap in my town with an American bulldog - the long-muzzled type - who could pass for a pit any day.

As said in the other thread, we don't really have an answer. I wouldn't be averse to licensing, personally, but it's penalising the many in the vague hope of catching the few.
 
The DDA is a notoriously bad bit of legislation, passed as a knee-jerk reaction to a series of attacks on children by dogs. I think I'm right in saying that three of the breeds banned have never actually been in this country anyway. It was then amended in 2005 as a reaction to many family dogs being taken away and PTS on suspicion of being 'pitbull types' when they had never caused any problems. The amendment means that some 'section one' dogs are not PTS, but can be kept as long as strict conditions are adhered to by the owners, including keeping the dogs muzzled and leashed at all times in public, and having third party insurance.

I believe that it is generally police dog specialists who identify banned breeds, or vets. The fact that the pitbull is not a breed but a type obviously makes this an incredibly difficult job.

What thought went into the Act I don't know, but generally it is held up as an example of governments rushing legislation in as a reaction to a media outcry, so that they say that they are doing something. Making good legislation is generally not something that can be done in a matter of weeks - it takes time. Rushing this process can result in messes like the DDA.
 
If anybody had/has seen a Fila, Tosa or Dogo walking down the street before or after 1992, I for one would be very surprised.

I'm working with a girl who's Am Bulldog x Lab has been in kennels, location unknown, since May :( why? He fitted the measurement 'criteria' for a Pit.
 
The DDA is currently being reviewed, because the powers that be have eventually realised it is impossible to implement, and as has been said 3 of those breeds aren't even in this country! Don't hold out much hope that is will be much better but anything would be an improvement.
 
If the D.A comes off the list I would almost certainly have one in my lifetime, I flapping well love dogos ;)

Apparently you can have a banned breed if you seek court exemption beforehand though :D
 
Depends on the powers that be in each region and I wouldn't want a dog who had to be muzzled all the time through no fault of his or her own. We never took our dogs on holiday in Ireland for the same reason, through principle.
 
The exemption should have a little sense about it and dogs who show aggression should indeed be muzzled and dogs who don't, shouldn't.

It still to this day amazes me that a perfectly behaved pitbull can be seized and destroyed, however an asbo *insert legal dog breed* could possibly go ahead terrorosing people for yonks!
 
I don't disagree with your points but I think the only way you can get the exemption is if the dog is muzzled in public, neutered, authorities notified etc. It isn't a case of 'should' or 'shouldn't' - it's the law.

Does anyone know if anyone has ever applied for an exemption and if it has been met?
 
A pretty useless exemption to a pretty useless act it would seem!

I would love to meet some people who actually think the DDA is a good idea (are there any such people around) and see if they could pull those dogs out of a line-up!
 
I'm liking the FB!

I don't understand why some breeds are banned and others not, given any dog has the potential to bite/turn. For eg, there is a lab in our local woods who invariably goes for my dogs but the owner says he only ever goes for mine. Hmmm. There is also a pack of 4 Springers (like mine) that act as a pack and protect the one bitch with them and also attack my two whenever they see them.

The law is just odd.
 
Exempted section one dogs MUST be muzzled and leashed at all times in public, and what kind of a life is that for a dog? They must also be neutered, tatooed, microchipped, and you need third party insurance, which I bet would cost a bomb.

The exemption was brought is as a response to dogs which had shown no aggression being seized and destroyed.

According to one online source which may or may not be any good, only 39 dogs were added to the Index of Exempted Dogs between 2000 and 2006, in 2007 185 were added, with a further 331 added in 2008, due to increased enforcement of the law. The IED is the official register held by DEFRA to which all exempted dogs are added.
 
I agree with that Spud in essence, but if you had a banned breed and were insistent on bringing it into the UK, at least that exemption exists.
 
It is badly thought out, seen as some as suggested where possibly rarely seen in the Country to start with, there should be more breeds added and I agree that if pits are on (IMO they should be) so should staffs, they can cause jsut as much damage, Akitas should also be on there (even though I have one) as unfair as it sounds dogs that can cause immense damage and cannot be controlled in that given situation by human intervention (then they should be on a list of some sort) maybe not banned, but all registered, neutered, chipped and have fully comp insurance (if they don't they should be removed) im sure they could employ warden to scan dogs randomly for chips, the insurance would not be cheap and will obs be more in liability terms for the bigger, more powerful or deemed more likely to cause more damage, maybe people could be encouraged to train their dogs for a cheaper policy, like a pass plus for driving, and cheaper still for neutering.
If the dog is reported it should be investigated and if proved the owner is at fault )the insurance should sky rocket) just like it does when u crash your car.

Im still not having all this well such as such a dog is evil, yep I agree but the damage some dogs can cause has no comparison to others, simples, it would be lovely for the owners to take the blame and be punished accordingly, but it ain't gonna happen, so as always the dog suffers. (for that reason I would rather not see the dog brought into the world in the first place) I may change my mind if a decent policy was brought in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top