- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree, the only alternative would be a special license required to keep some dogs. Just like you need for snakes. There is a twofold problem;Joanna said:Sorry............Whereas I agree that responsible ownership can eliminate agression problems to a degree, I do think that certain breeds have traits which could endanger. Until there is an idiot scan which will prevent fools from owning these breeds, the only thing we can responsibly do is to ban the most dangerous breeds of dog. As we have just observed in Merseyside, a dog which was perceived as being a friendly, family pet has maimed and killed a child. We need to be realistic!
why not?bezza said:I will definitely not be signing.
Why??? There MUST be people out there who have actually BRED these dogs - which under current UK legislation is illegal. But then they know this already don't they? Thus had they adhered to the law of the land there would be no young dogs to be PTS.Macha said:why not?bezza said:I will definitely not be signing.
My own quibble would be that I might accept that some breeds should muzzled in public (better safe than sorry) though I'm against automatic euthanasia of dogs deemed to be a particular type.
If the law was adhered to - the dog which killed the child would not have been born.Smiffy@VeronnaV said:Why??? There MUST be people out there who have actually BRED these dogs - which under current UK legislation is illegal. But then they know this already don't they? Thus had they adhered to the law of the land there would be no young dogs to be PTS.Macha said:why not?bezza said:I will definitely not be signing.
My own quibble would be that I might accept that some breeds should muzzled in public (better safe than sorry) though I'm against automatic euthanasia of dogs deemed to be a particular type.
It would be foolhardy to say that the APBT is a kindred spirit of the SPBT - the staffie was exported to the US in the 19C for the express purpose of dog fighting. They found them too small and bred them much larger and sadly for this day and age, more aggressive. And that is the rub, because it's nature not nurture in this particular breed - would I trust an APBT? - not with a flea never mind one of my grandchildren. There is no place for such a type of dog in the ever smaller world in which we find ourselves living. They use them a guard dogs of property in the US - just because they kill first and ask questions later. They are unpredictable, unreliable (otherwise they would be used by the services, police and prison), and highly intelligent. A dangerous combination. Why would anyone want to own a potential killing machine unless it is to do just that? Kill.
So tell me why anyone would want to sign a petition which demands that they be allowed to live when they should never have been born in the first place? They are not cuddly little whippets, but they ARE killing machines. (Weren't these bred for the dog pit??).
I will not be signing because in the absence of empirical data it is reasonable to assume that certain breeds are more physically able and temperamentally more likely to attack people than others. I think the recently bereaved parents of the children recently killed by the breeds in question would look on this petition with a mixture of horror and incredulity. If it could be proven that all dogs present exactly the same amount of risk then I will sign the petition.bezza said:I will definitely not be signing.
Join our vibrant online community dedicated to all things canine. Whether you're a seasoned owner or new to the world of dogs, our forum is your go-to hub for sharing stories, seeking advice, and connecting with fellow dog lovers. From training tips to health concerns, we cover it all. Register now and unleash the full potential of your dog-loving experience!
Login or Register