Comments on: RSPCA Commended For Breed Specific Legislation Stance

By: Amber

Amber — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:41:56 +0000

Well done to those who will simply stand up and say yes this law does need to be repealed! The more groups that support a repeal the stronger the message. The campaign for change is so very important and I hope people unite to make this happen.

By: selwyn marock

selwyn marock — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:55:38 +0000

Kris it is iall about enforcement,you have the law-abiding who have family pets,and you have the
Dog-fighters who have objects or weapons they create out of these poor animals,this type of SCUM
are not interested in any laws.The DDA of 91 does not discrimate it merely states "MURDER ALL
PITBULLS" so a council and there police have a choice to either go after the law-abiding ,which is much easier and definitely much safer for them than going after the Dog-fighters who are generally
the Drug-Dealer's involved in many other spheres of Criminality and are ARMED.It is very much
a cowardly approach by some of the police forces,and even the magistrates who hand down these laughable sentences ,2 months suspended for running a dog-fighting ring.In the states sentences
of 10 and 15 years ar being handed down which will impact on these SCUM.
Once again RSPCA CONGRATULATIONS on having the Courage to go Public.,and helping get
this EVIL act "HITLER'S BSL ABOLIHED once and for all.

By: Shules

Shules — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:29:28 +0000

I have to say that the RSPCA was one of the main supporter for the DDA and have spent many hours attending the court cases of siezed dogs since its being passed.
I am glad that they have finally realised that this legislation was knee jerk and badly done.

By: kris

kris — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:15:41 +0000

This is a quote direct from the RSPCA´s own website.

[The RSPCA have been concerned about dangerous dogs used in dog fighting for many years.
Recent high profile investigations with the Police and seizure´s of such dogs has shown that there has been an increase in the ownership of dogs which are not legally kept.
This poses the question of whether the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are adequate and ´WHY´ are people keeping such dogs ?].

NOW call me naive if you wish to do so…but isn´t this a bit of a turnaround for them given having read this on their website!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.