Dog law change - sign this petition please

dirtydog said:
I don't agree with what the petitioner says. Some dogs are simply more inherently dangerous than others - it isn't just about how they've been brought up.
Click to expand...

Some dogs are more powerful than others, that obvious due to theire size and strength,

But all dogs are dangerous if brought up wrong. Where do you draw the line, dogs over a certain size? Dogs that chave like? dogs that look 'ard?
 
Dogs that have more propensity to attack, and have the muscle to back it up.

That'd be the most sensible decision, no?
 
Wicksta said:
Yes, and corgis are quite well known for their bad temprement so you've kind of disproved your own theory. :p
Click to expand...

Really the stuff I'm reading on Corgi's seems to be the same for a great dea lof dogs, have you got any links about Corgi's being well know nfor their bad temprements?
 
I think this returns to the human idea related to this - are we all born with the same potential and it's simply a matter of upbringing?

I personally would say no, there are things inherent in ourselves that set us apart from others, attractions, aptitude for learning, physical strength, height, weight, temper. Sure, these can all be affect, shaped and changed by upbringing and training - but those that are fundamentally 'stronger' in one area are always going to be stronger if they train it, no matter how hard the 'weaker' trains.

But to make my point clear: Dogs, just like humans, are born with variations, some stronger, some smaller, some weaker, some bigger, some more temperamental, some more docile - it does no one harm to ban the ones that are overtly strong and violent. That's not to say..wipe them out, 'cause that's like wiping out an entire species. But make them illegal for personal ownership - especially if they're going to be trained to use that strength against intruders and babies.
 
Gilly said:
Dogs that have more propensity to attack, and have the muscle to back it up.

That'd be the most sensible decision, no?
Click to expand...

Well I'd say that a great deal of dogs have the propenisty to attack and the even smaller ones have the ability to cause injury, especially to children.

I'd say the most sensible decision would be to bring back tests for all peple wanting to own dogs, including knowledge of the breed & temprement, a legal obligation to attend training classes, maybe to get the dogs neutered/spayed if they are not intended to be shown.

In short look at more meaningful ways to increase education and not jump on a bandwagon to the detrement to the vast majority of responsible owners.
 
Last edited:
chimaera said:
Personally i believe that whilst upbringing is very important, the dog breed does come into it, a Pit Bull is more likely to hurt someone than a poodle.

In the same way that terriers generally like to chase small animals, you just can't change the nature of a dog, if it's nature is to fight then it shouldn't be allowed.

Therefore I'm quite happy for the legislation to ban certain types.
Click to expand...

How can you be for something when you Obviously don't understand the question or the subject.

Pit Bulls are Terriers you Mis informed poster of false hoods :p
(Carefully avoiding a Personal attack there i think ;))
 
I agree that a great deal of dogs have a propensity to attack. That's why they should be banned.

I'm not an advocate of removing well-trained dogs from settled homes. However, I believe there are certain breeds that shouldn't be widely available.
 
Heres some google stats (ok its not accurate but you get the picture)
Labrador mauling - 44500 results
Bull terrier mauling - 64800 results
Now bare in mind that the term Bull Terrier can mean more than one sort of bull dog.

The fact is the papers love to slander bull dog type dogs and make them big story's. It sells more papers than "Labrador mauls 10 year old girl."

Any dog has the capability to be dangerous, the breed makes little impact on there danger!
 
i wont be signing it. The amount of times i have heard people say "oh he wont bite you" only for the dog to bite is unreal regardless of bread. To a certain extent it is who owns them but then certain breads are just evil and aren't safe to be kept as pets.

On a slighty related note i keep seeing far far to many scallys walking rottys around here and not having them on a lead. Literally 15 mins ago i saw some tracksuit clad chav with a large rotty running about freely on the pavement carrying the base of a large traffic cone in its mouth...someone people shouldn't be allowed pets
 
However we petition the government to recognise that it is not the breed of a dog that causes it to attack
Click to expand...

personally I'd rather the results of a scientific test over the opinion of a collection of highly biased people, though i expect such an experiment would be worthless (monetarily) and also deamed illegal by animal rights laws.
 
Gilly said:
I agree that a great deal of dogs have a propensity to attack. That's why they should be banned.

I'm not an advocate of removing well-trained dogs from settled homes. However, I believe there are certain breeds that shouldn't be widely available.
Click to expand...

The thing is thats just going to end banning a huge number of breeds. Dogs that you probably thing have a propensity to attack are mostly dogs that are reliable when brought up correctly, it's only when in the hands of idiots that there is a problem.

Taken from http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/boxer.htm written about a breed that I know you like: Boxers.
This breed is noted for courage and makes great guard dogs. Boxers have a wide use in military and police work. Training should start young and be firm and consistent. This breed requires a dominant owner

Another point is after pits got banned, what happened? chavs started getting dogs like staffies/american bulldogs. Ban them they'll just get another breed and get that banned.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom