UK looks at banning yet more breeds

[Bahamutt99]

Huh. I wonder why their law isn't working?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government told to ban more breeds


Last Updated: 2:06am GMT 30/12/2007



The Government is facing calls to review the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was introduced after a spate of attacks by "devil dogs".

The law, imposed in 1991, outlawed four breeds as pets - but rottweilers were not one of them.

The banned breeds were pit bull terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro.

The Liberal Democrats said yesterday the law was not working and that other potentially dangerous breeds may need to be added to the list, or owners may need to be licensed.

The Government said, however, that it had no plans to amend the legislation or add rottweilers to the list of banned breeds

Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said: "A review should look at the breeds to be banned."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0/nrott230.xml

[Dizzy]

Originally Posted by Bahamutt99

Huh. I wonder why their law isn't working?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government told to ban more breeds


Last Updated: 2:06am GMT 30/12/2007



The Government is facing calls to review the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was introduced after a spate of attacks by "devil dogs".

The law, imposed in 1991, outlawed four breeds as pets - but rottweilers were not one of them.

The banned breeds were pit bull terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro.

The Liberal Democrats said yesterday the law was not working and that other potentially dangerous breeds may need to be added to the list, or owners may need to be licensed.

The Government said, however, that it had no plans to amend the legislation or add rottweilers to the list of banned breeds

Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said: "A review should look at the breeds to be banned."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0/nrott230.xml

Lib Dems haven't had power.............. well ever I don't think LOL

[DryCreek]

In 1991, after a series of serious dog attacks, the UK passed the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 that essentially banned four breeds of dog: Japanese Tosas, the Dogo Argentinos, American Pit Bull Terriers and Fila Brasileiros (Brazilian Mastiffs).

The ordinance was updated again in 1997.

Since the passing of the 1997 update, the UK has seen a 50% increase in the total number of people admitted to hospitals because of dog attacks. In the past year, 4,574 people were admitted to hospitals in the UK due to dog bites -- a 10% increase over the year previous. 1/3 of these victims were children under the age of 14.

Critics of the Dangerous Dogs Act call it a knee-jerk reaction that did "nothing to address the real issues of responsible pet ownership. Another critic noted that "Any dog can be trained to attack, so a breed-specific ban misses the point."

In fact, in a BBC radio poll earlier this year, the Dangerous Dogs Act was the single UK law that the majority of people wanted to repeal.

The UK should serve as an example of what happens when you create poorly thought-out laws that ban breeds of dogs instead of human behaviors that lead to the dogs being aggressive. Until we start focusing on the human problems, people will never be safer from dog attacks. A 50% increase in 10 years is NOT success. It's complete and utter failure - -and what happens when you focus time and resources on trying to solve the wrong problem.

This is the type of law that is being discussed in other areas of the US as I type. A state representative in Minnesota is wanting to look at a state-wide ban on five different breeds of dogs (Am. Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, Akitas, Chow Chows and Dobermans).

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogbl...killed-by.html

More bans + more laws = less dogs. It's a simple equation, I don't understand why people support laws that, if they continue in the same ilk, will end dog ownership for all.

The most disturbing thing to me (and I wish I had saved some examples of it) is that what is presented to the public as a simple law to improve the life of animals, usually carrys extra's that the average Joe won't investigate. These little "add ons" slide right through with the original legislation unnoticed.

Don't take what's presented at face value, find the exact legislation and read the fine print. It's flippin scary!

[DryCreek]

Huh. I wonder why their law isn't working?

I thought the numbers for the UK were bad!

Since the passing of the 1997 update, the UK has seen a 50% increase in the total number of people admitted to hospitals because of dog attacks

Then I saw the numbers for Scotland!

Apparently, the results have been even more of a disaster in Scotland, where they have seen a 150% increase in dog attacks between 1999-2000 and 2006-2007 from 239 to 623. Yikes.

How much more proof do they need that bans don't prevent attacks!

[Lilavati]

All I can say is that someone is unclear on the concept here. Sigh.

[FrenchKissed]

It's not that they are unclear on the concept its just that they are lazy and want an EASY solution. Unfortunately this is the mindset of many today, including Americans. They want the Gov't to fix the problem. They want the Gov't to protect them. They want the Gov't to hold their hand and make it all better. People need to stop being whiny and helpless and start being responsible for their own actions. If you don't watch your kid and it wanders into the neighbors yard and the dog bites them, guess what! It's not the dog's fault....if some boys tease a dog through a fence and get bit...guess what!!! it's not the dog's fault. But the problem is people don't want to take the blame they want to pass the buck! They want someone ELSE to do something about it.
People often look back in history and wonder how a country can allow their gov't so much power and control...well I have news for them, this is how it starts. Just like gun laws dog laws don't work. Just like so many useless stupid legislation it doesn't work. Start with the court system and the firvolous law suits, kick them out...and then start on the stupid half cocked legislation that does nothing but suck away constitutional rights. If people would just start managing themselves rather than trying to manage the world, we would all be so much better off.

[Renee750il]

If people would just start managing themselves rather than trying to manage the world, we would all be so much better off.

Butbutbutbut . . . that's just too obvious . . . and it would involve *GASP* being RESPONSIBLE . . . . not blaming someone else for all your screw-ups

I so agree with FrenchKissed. I have owned Rottweilers for nearly 20 years, and I have never had a single bite incident. I know MANY people who can say the same thing, many who have owned the breed for MUCH longer and in larger numbers than I have.

Yet I feel the walls closing in on a daily basis. If Rottweilers do not join the APBT in the graveyard of extinct breeds within the next 20 years I will be surprised.

Can't we just outlaw, restrict, or require huge insurance policies for stupid people instead?

[Renee750il]

You would think that the obvious would assert itself at some point: that no matter what breed is outlawed, the people who caused the trouble in the first place will always find another breed to replace the banned one with . . . . or create new ones.

[Lilavati]

Originally Posted by Renee750il

You would think that the obvious would assert itself at some point: that no matter what breed is outlawed, the people who caused the trouble in the first place will always find another breed to replace the banned one with . . . . or create new ones.

This is what I meant by unclear on the concept. The reason BSL doesn't work is that the DOGS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. The owners and, to a lesser extent, the breeders are. (I say lesser because even a poorly bred dog can turn out ok with a good owner . . . in many cases, at least). They'll just keep banning dogs until all we can have are muzzled, caged Chihuahuas . . . and it still won't fix the problem.

FK, I agree, except for one thing . . . they want an easy solution . . . and there are easy solutions that though odious, actually work . . . this is an odious easy solution that doesn't work . . . making is sheer raving stupidity . . . and cruel to boot.