could somebody explain this please ?
Discussion
Im not sure how to properly explain what I mean so please bear with me I cannot understand how the dangerous dogs act bans a few dogs yet dogs that have a very similar description are legal? for example:
dogo argentino is illegal
cane corso is legal
what is the difference and why is the dogo illegal?
dogo argentino is illegal
cane corso is legal
what is the difference and why is the dogo illegal?
I'm not sure that anyone can explain the DDA. IMHO it was a knee jerk reaction and badly thought out/implemented. Assuming a dog is dangerous on the basis of breed alone just cannot be right surely?
Anyway, dogs don't have to be purebred - they can be classed as 'type' in the case of a suspected Pit: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cru...
Anyway, dogs don't have to be purebred - they can be classed as 'type' in the case of a suspected Pit: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cru...
The dangerous dogs act was originally formed because the breeds such as the dogo argentino were seen as statements of strength and used as intimidation by cetrain types of people. The dogs were bred for fighting and encouraged to be aggressive to suit the intimidation purpose and as a result there were many incidents of these dogs attacking people.
The act was formed to stop those people from owning these dogs and using them as weapons. Admittedly there are flaws as any dog can be used aggressively however as these breeds of dog had the 'streed credit' for being aggressive and intimidating these were the ones chosen to be banned. For example a chav walking around in a hoody and trackies with a barking cavalier king charles spaniel doesnt look as good or threatening as one with a dogo.
The major improvement to controlling this type of thing is to simply test the people wanting to own the dogs with the view to maybe banning people with criminal records or a history of violence to owning any dogs like the dogo instead of banning the dogs themselves. However i do feel that no dog should be bred for the purpose of fighting and that should a dog need to be aggressive, such as a police dog, then it should be trained into them so that it is more controlled than just breeding an aggressive dog which could attack anything even its owner should it feel like it.
The act was formed to stop those people from owning these dogs and using them as weapons. Admittedly there are flaws as any dog can be used aggressively however as these breeds of dog had the 'streed credit' for being aggressive and intimidating these were the ones chosen to be banned. For example a chav walking around in a hoody and trackies with a barking cavalier king charles spaniel doesnt look as good or threatening as one with a dogo.
The major improvement to controlling this type of thing is to simply test the people wanting to own the dogs with the view to maybe banning people with criminal records or a history of violence to owning any dogs like the dogo instead of banning the dogs themselves. However i do feel that no dog should be bred for the purpose of fighting and that should a dog need to be aggressive, such as a police dog, then it should be trained into them so that it is more controlled than just breeding an aggressive dog which could attack anything even its owner should it feel like it.
Just seen this.
Stupid, isn't it?
The sheer amount of crap people come out with when they stop to talk to us about our dogs (staffy and english bull terrier)...
"Do they bite?"
"They're well vicious them, aren't they."
No. And. No.
Never mind banning arbitrary breeds of dog. Idiotic humans should be banned!
Stupid, isn't it?
The sheer amount of crap people come out with when they stop to talk to us about our dogs (staffy and english bull terrier)...
"Do they bite?"
"They're well vicious them, aren't they."
No. And. No.
Never mind banning arbitrary breeds of dog. Idiotic humans should be banned!
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff