-
A stressful 24 hours. The background - I got Luna from a guy whose bitch had a litter of 14 puppies. He adopted her at 3 and she is a mix of staffy and indeterminate other breed - possibly American Bully, possibly (and I think more likely) lab, possibly ridgeback - basically a breed that brings a red/liver nose and is bigger than a staff. He also owns the dad, who is full staffy.
He was selling the pups at a price that pretty much covered the cost of vaccinations and vet fees - a few hundred quid. One of the last homes one of the pups went to (at 5 months) came back to him and said she had bitten the new owner and he wanted to return her and wanted double his money back, or he was going to the police. He provided no evidence of anything other than being nipped by an excitable puppy - and who wants double their money back in such a situation other than a total fucking chancer. Anyway, the guy I got Luna from took the pup back immediately, but only gave the bloke back the money he'd paid. More than reasonable.
Yesterday, the police arrived at his house with a warrant to enter and search the property, under the Dangerous Dogs Act, and seized the bitch as a suspected banned breed (pitbull). The warrant also gave them the authority to seize electronic devices with a view to tracking any pups from the bitch that had been sold. So I didn't sleep at all last night, with the very real possibility that Luna could be seized and, ultimately, destroyed.
This afternoon, after the bitch had had multipe measurements taken and undergone a temperament test, she was thankfully returned to her owner and determined not to be a banned breed/type. She is no longer at risk and nor is Luna or the other pups. Kudos to the police for processing it so quickly (it can take months sometimes) and not putting her under more stress other than being dragged away with a grasper.
But what an absolute cunt move and what a fucking waste of everyone's time. BSL is beyond a joke and the DDA is universally recognised as being utterly flawed and not fit for purpose. I'm now on the sofa, though, with my two and thanking my lucky stars.
-
That's freaking scary @Markyboy. I wonder if the police are acting quickly at the moment because there has been a rceent glut of serious dog attacks in the news?
-
Mark(yboy) have you considered a DNA test for Luna to find out her actual genetic makeup?
I considered it with our last pup (RIP Murphy) but other priorities got in the way.
You can get kits for about £40, if you are curious.
I met someone in the park who did it and was told they had a "super mutt" basically an even split with a different dog for every step of its lineage, mongrel after mongrel with no "main" breed (I think they send you a breakdown like: 50% staffy, 25% chihuahua, 25% poodle) but this was 7% across the board
-
I have, I’m curious but not particularly bothered as it wouldn’t change anything for me.
DNA tests make no difference to how the DDA is applied due the insertion of the word “type” in the legislation. The verdict and decision to destroy a dog comes down in the end to a tape measure and perception.
-
Yeah, I was only thinking for curiosity reasons, rather than "oh no, my lovely little puppy is part hyena, how will I sleep at night!"
Was talking about this with MrsDeth and are both in agreement that the DDA is basically bullshit.
"any" dog can be dangerous, and labelling a breed or breed "type" dangerous is ridiculous -
Was talking about this with MrsDeth and are both in agreement that the DDA is basically bullshit.
"any" dog can be dangerous, and labelling a breed or breed "type" dangerous is ridiculous
As you say, its more an issue of responsible ownership. Some breeds require very experienced and devoted owners to train them. Its more about people getting a breed they can't handle, than the problem being with the breed itself.
The thing is, is there a better alternative to the DDA to reduce the number of people getting dogs of breeds they can't handle?
-
Was talking about this with MrsDeth and are both in agreement that the DDA is basically bullshit.
"any" dog can be dangerous, and labelling a breed or breed "type" dangerous is ridiculoushard disagree. No one argues against collies likeing to herd or labs to retreive things, it's no different when it's a breed that was created for attacking other animals or for guarding livestock. Denying it is putting your dog and other people/animals at risk.
-
Was talking about this with MrsDeth and are both in agreement that the DDA is basically bullshit. "any" dog can be dangerous, and labelling a breed or breed "type" dangerous is ridiculous
It's surely based on the balance of probabilities though.
Any dog can be dangerous
There are no breeds (DDA included) where a dog is guaranteed to be dangerous simply because of being that breedTo claim otherwise is obviously ridiculous
Given what certain breeds have historically been bred for, there is a greater chance that any given dog in that subset of breeds (caveat, breeds aren't clear-cut) may tend be dangerous. That chance will be reduced with an experienced owner.
But DDA is an arbitrary line based on a balance of probabilities. It can only ever be that, and it'll be unfair to some dogs and to some owners. But I don't think that means that the notion of a line is wrong, and I'm not sure what a reasonable and pragmatic alternative is.
I definitely don't know enough about the stats behind how the line is drawn, but I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of the line needing to be drawn somewhere (and accepting that it'll not be fair to some)
-
I think that policy decisions are skewed by the popularity of breeds too. I seem to remember that Labradors were identified as the breed most likely to bite somebody fairly recently...but thats surely a reflection of how many people own them rather than anything else.
-
Interesting that in the US (humans owning) pitbulls are still by far the worst offenders. Or at least were in 2018. Would be interesting to see this sort of thing standardised for prevalence.
1 Attachment
-
-
I didn't really want to get drawn into this, but since I started it by posting up what happened this week, here are my thoughts.
I agree with @Sumo that not all breeds are the same and what they were orginally bred for is important in assessing the risk certain dogs pose to people or other animals (although I'm pretty sure this is no longer the case with the British Bulldog...). Unless all dogs with a fighting, hunting and guarding past (Sharpeis, GSDs, Rotts, Dobes, Wheatens, Bull Mastiffs, etc.) are banned, then we are reliant on knowdledge of the breed and traits and responsible ownership, something that is in short supply with all breeds. Anecdotally, I meet far more growling, snappy, aggressive and unfriendly small and furry dogs that I do bull or guardian breeds.
The 1991 DDA is a perfect example poorly thought through knee-jerk legislation drafted by people with no experience of the issue on which they were legislating. They focused on four breeds (only one of which was present in any significant numbers in the UK at the time, and two of which were not thought to be here at all) none of which were recognised by the KC so that there would be no organised resistence and lobbying. I'm not aware of BSL working anywhere and the DDA has not been effective in preventing tragic attacks. People who want status dogs for the wrong reasons will find a way to have them, and move on to another breed if necessary. When I was a kid, Alsations/GSDs were the "devil dogs", then it was Rotts, then Dobes and so it goes. This is what worries me about "exotic" breeds like the XL Bully - bred for looks with very little understanding of temperament, sold to vain people with £5K to spare and no experience of owning and looking after a dog.
I think there should be restrictions and legislation in place, but not the DDA, which determines whether a dog should be destroyed on the basis of a set of measurements, set out in the orginal legislation when no one knew how to properly identify the four breeds concerned. There are countless examples of dogs with no pit in them (and often with a lot of lab) being destroyed under the act. This is not what was intended, is clearly wrong and doesn't protect the public. I'm afraid I don't know what the alternative is, but it shouldn't be impossible for legislators to properly consult and draw up something much better.
I won't gon into too much detail on @Stonehedge 's data above, other than to say that all data on dog bites and attacks is unreliable, not least because most people are incapable of identifying a pit bull properly. The dog in the graphic is certainly not an APBT. The BBC reports of the recent fatality in Liverpool (?) quoted a bystander/witness (presumably an expert, or why else quote them...) as describing the dog as looking like a pit bull or staffy (two very different looking dogs), yet it turned out to be an XL Bully. That said, I'm absolutely sure that pits top the list, as much because of who owns them and why, but I would bet a lot of money that a significant proportion of those 284 were not pits.
Bottom line - different breeds pose different risks (not just because of character, but also because of their physicality), idiots own dogs (no dog, whatever the breed, should be off-lead in public without a reliable recall), risk needs to be managed, the DDA hasn't worked. The fact that I came close to losing a pup that is not one of the four breeds included in the DDA, makes me feel even more strongly about this.
It is worth noting that the DDA goes beyond BSL, yet this tends to be what the police focus on. I would have more faith if I saw more action on dog behavior that is also covered by the act.
Over and out.
Markyboy
kl
DethBeard
ltc
yoshy
Jung
%~}
Stonehedge
Sumo
duncs
-
Post a reply
About
I want to get a dog but I have to work, how does everyone on broadway market do it ?
Posted by
Happy for you, it's a great feeling when things start to fall into place.