The web page where the proposal is outlined states:

Over the past year we have been actively lobbying the government and would like to see

• an increase in the penalty for owning a banned breed, to bring it more inline with carrying an offensive weapon

Then goes on:

• changes to the part of the law that allows well behaved banned breeds to remain with their owners, so that the process is much quicker, making it better for the dog and saving the police money.

It goes on:

There are four breeds identified in the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which have been banned in the UK (s.1): Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brasileiros.

But a stray of any breed or a dog that is in the hands of an irresponsible owner can be a dangerous dog.

So, let’s summarise:

Increased penalty for owning a banned breed.
Make it easier for people to keep banned breeds (if they are well behaved).

Hmmm.

So, surely, the initial increased penalty for owning a banned breed should really say…..increased penalty for owners of dangerous or out of control banned breeds (but it doesn’t).

Then it claims (as it true) that ANY breed can be dangerous.

So, what’s the deal then?

What’s the need for differentiation between the types of dogs.

Why should the owner of a dangerous or out of control banned breed be any different to the owner of a dangerous or out of control Akita or Dalmatian?

Is it because Kit still thinks that Pit Bulls are comparible to tigers?

At best, this proposal is muddy. At worst, it’s stupid, laughable and convoluted nonsense that STILL – despite the evidence to the contrary – seeks to determine certain dogs as more dangerous than others based entirely on their body shape?

How about this for a radical proposal…..

1) If you own a dangerous dog, that proves itself to be dangerous and/or out of control – you get punished to the full extent of the law.
2) If you don’t own a dangerous dog, then you don’t.

How bout’ that for an idea?

Too complicated?

Warning: Owning a dangerous or out of control
Tiger is already against the law. No need for any
new legislation.

The Most Dangerous Dogs in the World

in reverse order:

5. Badly fed dog.

Badly fed dog is the animal who’s been fuelled up with a diet fit for an Olympic weight lifter, but who only ever gets to expend about 20% of the calories he takes in. He’s got lots of energy and his mismatched diet can manifest in bouts of sudden energetic rampaging. Badly fed dog would ask you to consider; how you would feel spending your day in an office when every inch of your body is throbbing and twitching as you crave the opportunity to actually use up some of those excess calories. Badly fed dog would be happier and safer if his diet reflected his lifestyle.

4. Never had any friends dog.

Otherwise known as ‘totally under socialised dog’.

He was a little naughty when he was a puppy, so his owner decided he’d be better off being kept away from all other forms of animal life. He now spends his days obsessing over what it would be like to chase other dogs around and, by George, one of these days he’s gonna actually do it!

Never had any friends dog is going to present his owner with a lifetime of problems, he has no social skills and has never had a chance to learn natural interaction through the teachings of his own kind. He’ll meet new dogs and will be about as socially adept as a 45-year old virgin at a Playboy mansion party. He’s going to blow it. Big time.

3. Shouty.

Shouty is the dog who has spent most of his life shouting at folks or being shouted at himself. He sees people on his street, he shouts at them. In turn, his owner shouts at him. Shouty presumes being shouted at is a recognition of his excellent work. In fact, hearing his owner shouting in response to his own shouting encourages his assumption that they’re just as upset, anxious, nervous, angry as HE is about the audacity of other people/dogs/pigeons to walk past his window. Shouty is relentlessly encouraged and endorsed in his shouty behaviour and, a bit like no friends dog, shouty spends his days imaging how good it will be when he FINALLY gets his chance to get face to face with the objects of his ire.

2. House proud.

House proud dog is SO touchy about people coming to his digs unannounced, he’ll happily maim you for your insolence in trying to visit his abode without obtaining the correct visitation paperwork.

House proud dog does a line in dishing out injuries to posties, meter readers and delivery people. Fortunately for house proud dog, his owners absolutely REFUSE to believe he is capable of violence, so leave him completely unattended to dish out his own brand of justice to anyone brash enough to consider entering his domain.

1. Spoilt dog.

“That’s mine and these are mine, those are mine, I’m entitled to that, I believe that I saw that first, I lay claim to those, I own all of these, I’m the rightful proprietor of this…”

Welcome to the world of spoilt dog. Quite simply, he believes everything he wants, he can have. Woe betide anyone to tell him differently. His timid owners have never had the heart to let him know that in the human world, simply showing your teeth and growling doesn’t constitute a legal contract on the ownership of goods. They let him off and, worse, they let him keep his spoils, which he’ll gather up and place in his own corner of the world.

Sadly, spoilt dog is, one day, going to meet someone who is unaware that he has previously laid claim to every possession on earth. Unfortunately, unlike spoilt dog’s owners, this person is going to have to find out the hard way just how deep spoilt dog’s sense of entitlement runs. Really hard luck if it happens to be a youngster, blissfully ignorant to the fact that the shiny ball on the floor is spoilt dog’s most prized possession (at that VERY moment). A few stitches and a spell in hospital ought to serve as a permanent reminder though.

[What? You didn't think there was a such a thing as a list of 'dangerous dog breeds' did you? Pffft.]

PS: End bsl.

You know it makes sense.

On March 5th Mrs Freeman was walking her 6 year old Airedale Terrier, Bessie in Ruislip, London when the attack happened. The Daily Mail has reported that the German Shepherd was staying in the home and in the care of Supt Pendry at the time.

The newspaper reports that Mrs Freeman said: ‘Suddenly I heard a woman’s voice shouting,’ she said. ‘Then I spotted a huge German Shepherd running towards my dog, who was rooted to the spot in terror.

‘The German Shepherd jumped on Bassie and started biting her in the belly. The woman came running up and rugby tackled the German Shepherd to the floor.

‘I asked the woman if she was alright and she told me to “just go”. Virginia managed to escape with Bessie who needed veterinary treatment and 12 stitches to stop the bleeding.

Mrs Freeman contacted the police with regards to Supt Pendry and for breaching the Dangerous Dogs Act, under which it is a criminal offence for a dog to be ‘dangerously out of control in a public place’. It has also been reported that Mrs Freeman complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, arguing that Supt Pendry had been protected due to her rank, however this was rejected.

Mrs Freeman has said that she never received an apology from Supt Pendry, however the Met Police has covered the vets bills.

Supt Pendry is responsible for the Met’s status dogs unit, and has in relation to her job role has quoted:

‘Owners have a responsibility to keep their dogs under control.’

‘It would be absolutely fantastic’ to kill the thousands of illegal breed, dangerous dogs confiscated by police.’

A Met spokesman said Supt Pendry was acting in a personal capacity at the time of the incident.

‘She apologised to Mrs Freeman immediately, but was not aware at the time that the dog was injured. When this was brought to her attention, she offered to make a contribution towards the vet’s bill.

‘Whenever the dog is exercised in a public place she will be muzzled and kept on a leash.’

Existing legislation has failed to reduce the number of dog bite incidents in the UK, which have risen in the past five years by 79% in London and 43% nationally*. Meanwhile costs have continued to rise; it was revealed that 10 million pounds has been spent by the Metropolitan Police alone in the past 3 years simply to implement Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, relating to the seizure, kennelling and euthanasia of banned breeds.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) has lobbied against the inadequacies of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for many years and members of the group are now backing a new Dog Control Bill proposed by Lib Dem Peer Lord Redesdale, which will receive its second reading in the House of Lords on Friday (9^th July).  This Bill would consolidate previous legislation and better protect the public by targeting the cause of dog attacks – dog owners themselves.

Lord Redesdale commented: “People deserve to feel safe around dogs and this Bill goes a long way towards protecting the public through tougher action against irresponsible dog owners. The current law has done nothing but make banned breeds and their lookalikes more appealing and created the issue of status dogs because they are a status symbol.

“Owners of aggressive or violent dogs of any kind would be brought to account with this Bill, which in turn will prevent a large number of attacks by dealing with problem behaviour at the first signs of aggression rather than when an attack has taken place, as in current legislation”.

Can you spot the dangerous dog? The answer lies with the owner holding the lead.

If passed, the Bill will introduce major changes to current dangerous dog legislation, which is widely considered to be one of the most ineffective pieces of government legislation ever brought into force. These changes include:

• More emphasis on the owner’s responsibilities – the Bill supports the principle that it is the owner who has the potential to make a dog either well-behaved or badly-behaved. It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression.

• Attacks which take place on private property would also become a criminal offence – a large number of dog attack incidents occur within the home and on private property. The Bill includes various exemptions such as being attacked by another animal, provocation, and attacks on individuals committing an offence for which they could be imprisoned.

• Legislation will no longer be breed specific – since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, public money and resources have been wasted by already overstretched police authorities seizing dogs simply for being of a particular breed or type. Research now overwhelmingly supports the principle of ‘deed not breed’, and proves that genetics (breed) play only a limited part in the temperament of an individual dog, with environment and training having a far greater effect.

The DDASG has been working closely with Lord Redesdale in support of his Dog Control Bill and has long been calling on the government to repeal the current legislation. The Group believes that the breed specific nature of current legislation has caused it to fail, and that focusing on individual breeds has failed to prevent a large number of dog attacks, or reduce the number of Pit Bull Terriers in the UK.

DDASG Chairman Chris Laurence, Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust, said: “We firmly believe that the Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be overhauled to better protect the public and that a new dog control regime that emphasises responsible dog ownership should be introduced.

“The Dog Control Bill supports the principle that it is people, not the dogs themselves that make dogs dangerous. Lord Redesdale’s Bill would allow people to be better protected from dangerous dogs with tougher action taken against irresponsible dog owners.”

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group has also launched a petition supporting Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill which already has almost 10,000 signatures. The petition can be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/repeal-and-replace-the-dangerous-dogs-act.html

The list of breeds was compiled at ‘random’ says reports from The Associated Press and these 12 breeds carry the stigma of ‘fight dogs’. Alexander Willer, a spokesman for Vienna’s main animal shelter, told The Associated Press that it was now harder for abandoned breeds of this kind to find new homes.

“The image of these dogs has hit rock bottom,” Willer said, adding that since Christmas, the number of “fight dogs” seeking refuge in the shelter increased from 123 to 170.

“The majority of people who own these kinds of dogs are normal — they aren’t psychopaths,” Willer said.

The law has caused outrage as some groups say that parks, streets and public places are now safer, whilst others claim this is victimisation against certain breeds of dog.

The AP report that officials estimate that about 2,500 dogs will be affected by the new law in a city where man’s best friend is often spotted snoozing in cafes, riding the subway and sitting outside shops.

If owners don’t comply by this time next year and are caught without a permit, they face fines and could even see their pet confiscated by police.

“The animal doesn’t have to know any tricks, fetch the paper or do a double back flip — all the owner has to do is show that he has it under control in a city setting,” city councilor Ulli Sima said.

“This is not about the criminalisation of any types of dogs,” added fellow councilor Sandra Frauenberger.

Have your say on breed discrimination – tell the Government what you think TODAY at: http://k9m.ag/bslrepeal

David Brinley Braddon is named in several illegal magazines produced by the organised dog fighting fraternity, which were seized by covert inspectors from the RSPCA’s special operations unit.

On Friday (18 June 2010) the 47-year-old was found guilty of keeping a dog for fighting and of causing unnecessary suffering to a dog by failing to seek veterinary care for its wounds. He was also convicted of possessing equipment associated with dog fighting. Braddon admitted five counts of owning pit bull terrier type dogs at a previous court hearing.

He was cleared of keeping another four dogs for fighting and also found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to a second dog.

Members of the RSPCA special operations unit joined officers from South Wales Police who carried out a warrant at Braddon’s home in Glyn Llwyfen, Llanbradach, near Caerphilly, in March last year. A search of the property revealed five pit bull terrier type dogs living in an elaborate kennel set-up in Braddon’s garage, as well as two treadmills with attachments for dog collars, which are commonly used to train animals for fighting.

Inspectors also found weighing scales and a bottle of the penicillin Duplocillin, which is used to treat injured animals.

Chief Inspector Mike Butcher, from the RSPCA’s special operations unit, said: “It is a major breakthrough for us to successfully prosecute someone like David Braddon. He is a major figure among the British dog fighting community, making it all the more pleasing to see him brought to justice.

“Despite this horrific so-called ‘sport’ being banned as long ago as 1835, there remains a network of organised dog fighters still operating across Britain. These people are responsible for some of the most deliberate and barbaric acts of animal cruelty the Society investigates. It remains a constant battle to find these elusive characters and bring them to justice, but the RSPCA remains entirely committed to doing just that.”

One of the dogs found at Braddon’s home during the search was known as Otis. The animal fitted the name, description and photographs of a dog listed in many magazines and fight reports seized by the RSPCA during its investigations into organised dog fighting.

Braddon is due to appear before Caerphilly magistrates on Thursday 15 July for sentencing.

Bull breeds account for around four out of 10 of the aggressors, the findings show. The authors, two of whom work for the UK Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, analysed information on 100 canine attacks on guide dogs between November 2006 and April 2009.

They wanted to quantify the frequency and severity of such attacks, and the impact on both the handler and the dog.

Almost two thirds of the attacks (61%) were made on dogs that were in harness and working with their owner or trainer at the time. Most (85.7%) of the aggressor and (62%) victim dogs were male.

Labradors, golden retrievers, and retriever cross breeds were the types of dog most likely to be attacked, with most of the incidents taking place in public places and in daylight hours between 0900 and 1500 hours.

Most of the attacking dogs (61%) were off the lead at the time. And, excluding cross breeds, almost half of the aggressors (just under 46%) were bull breeds – bulldogs, mastiffs, bull terriers, pit bull types and Staffordshire bull terriers.

This is a much higher proportion than is found in the general dog population of the UK, where bull breeds account for around 6%, say the authors.

Guard dog breeds made up the next largest proportion of aggressors (13.6%), roughly double the proportion of these breeds in the UK dog population as a whole (just under 6%).

Forty-one guide dogs needed veterinary care after the attack. In one in five cases (19%), either the handler or a member of the public sustained injuries, including scratching, bruising, and bites to the hands, ankle or head. In eight of these 19 cases, medical attention was required.

The attack affected either the performance or the behaviour of around half the guide dogs attacked (45%). Two dogs had to be withdrawn from guiding service.

There were also emotional repercussions for the owners/handlers, who received an apology from the owners of the aggressor dogs in only six cases. In eight cases, they left the scene without saying anything to the handler.

This is despite the fact that many of the handlers were shocked and distressed, and unable to see if their dog needed veterinary care after the attack, say the authors.

There are around 4500 working guide dogs in the UK, supported by the Association, and it costs around £50,000 to maintain a guide dog during its life time, they point out.

“The financial implications of attacks on guide dogs should not be underestimated,” they write, “especially if retraining or replacing a guide dog is necessary.”

And they add: “Most importantly, a person in critical need of a guide dog may be without one for a period of time while waiting for a suitable replacement to be trained; this will impact on their quality of life and mobility.”

Source: Veterinary Record

At the dinner, attended by Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead MSP, parliamentarians, key representatives of animal health and welfare organisations and the agri-food industry, and senior members of the veterinary profession, BVA President Professor Bill Reilly outlined the positive links between the veterinary profession, industry, and government in tackling animal disease and securing better welfare.

Professor Reilly also challenged the Scottish Government on a number of important issues, including funding of Scotland’s major scientific institutions and the future procurement of OV (Official Veterinarian) services.

On dangerous dogs, Professor Reilly highlighted the importance of new legislation in Scotland in getting the issue discussed in Westminster. He said:

“I have no doubt that the success of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill was a catalyst in the Labour Government announcing a wide-ranging consultation on dangerous dogs in March.

“For many years we were told by politicians of all parties in Westminster that there was no way we would get the issue of dangerous dogs legislation on the table. By leading the debate on this controversial issue, the Scottish Parliament proved that it does not have to be avoided.”

Dogs Trust has long campaigned for a fresh approach to the management of dangerous dogs in the UK, following the failure of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act to prevent dog attacks. Dogs Trust, as a member of the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), along with a variety of other welfare organisations, the Kennel Club and the BVA, has supported Ms Grahame’s Bill since it was introduced as a Private Members Bill by Alex Neill MSP.

Dogs Trust believes that the issue of dangerous dogs is a social problem and that any solution must address the problem of dangerous owners. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill highlights the responsibility of the owners to prevent dog attacks to protect the public and places less emphasis on the breed of dog. Dogs Trust does not consider Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) to be effective, and fully supported the amendment lodged by Patricia Ferguson MSP which removed the reference to a dogs’ ‘size and power’ when assessing whether or not the animal is out of control. The Bill does stop short of a complete repeal of BSL. BSL has not prevented dog attacks, nor has it eradicated the Pit Bull in the UK despite having devastating consequences for some breed-types.

Clarissa Baldwin, Dogs Trust CEO commented:

“Whilst Dogs Trust is extremely supportive of the Bills intention and considers this an excellent start to addressing a national problem, there is more to be done. Dogs Trust would like to see the next UK Government introducing the compulsory microchipping of dogs, taking action to address the worrying trend in bull-breed type dogs in urban areas, and implementing a cross-departmental approach to education on responsible dog ownership.”

K9 Magazinecomments:

It has been confirmed by the BVA (see comment here) that The Scottish Parliament is not able to change Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (the part of the act that bans dog breeds) but they are hopeful that it can provide a template for The Government to consider a repeal of Section 1 without ‘political wrangling’.

K9 Magazine supports a full repeal of Section 1. If the law bans dog breeds, it endorses breed specific legislation. Breed specific legislation is a definitive concept, in other words – a country either does operate a BSL policy or it does not. It’s not possible to have a law that is ‘a bit BSL’ any more than it would be conceivable to be ‘a bit pregnant’. We either have BSL, or we don’t.

Whilst the UK maintains its ban on dog breeds, assuming them to be dangerous by virtue, exclusively, of what they happen to look like or who their parents were, we operate BSL. No law, absolutely none, can be claimed as a defeat for BSL UNTIL BSL is properly struck from our statute books, as it has been in The Netherlands.

The RSPCA revealed, the Governemnt has NO intention of doing this. This despite the fact that all major canine organisations have categorically stated their opposition to BSL.

Given this, K9 Magazine will NOT be taking part in the DEFRA public consultation on dangerous dogs as the Government has completely mislead people in to believing they will listen. They have refused to tell the public that the issue of BSL is NOT even up for debate, according to The RSPCA.

Help raise awareness about the BAD STUPID LAW that is breed specific legislation >>

The horrific incident happened in 2009 when the toddler was in the care of his Grandmother. The owner of the dog happened to be John Paul’s Uncle and he has been charged with two counts of possession of a dangerous dog. He also faces one count of breeding a dangerous dog and one count of giving a dangerous dog as a gift.

Mr Christian Foulkes, 21, will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on 27 April.

The toddler was savaged to death by the dog who was described by locals as an “American pit-bull” type. The dog also attacked the 63-year-old Grandmother’s legs as she tried to protect the boy. The dog was shot on the spot by police who were called to the scene.