I think it's a really good idea to bring in licences for dangerous dogs. They do seem to be status symbols these days, so an extra £500 probably wouldn't bother the owners so much. Also, normal family pets like collies and labradors won't be affected.

I woke up this morning to the bbc1 news about dangerous dogs in council houses in wandsworth. I own a staffordshire terrior dog, who is well maintained, who obeys my commands and is very affectionate when out in public places or at home. If these tennants can not control their dogs then they should not own these types of dogs because these dogs can become dangerous to the public when off the lead. However making money out of good dog owners should not be the answer. Perhaps you should consider raising the age limit to 25+ with pet insurance, on a lead or mussled in public places. ps staffordshire terriors have the best known tempermant out of these dogs
mentioned above and should not be regulated.

Well I love dogs and Always have and will, believe it is a good ideal that something should be done, not keen on the £500. My dog was stolen from around wandsworth, and the guys that took it had a Dogo Argentino it was very agreesive just like the oweners who left me half dead, broken nose, head injury and no action was taken. so I am glad something is being done, the boys also lived in a council estate. I had a presa canaria cross and was very friendy.

"He said the council was also pushing for wider powers to control dangerous animals, including bringing back the dog licence for breeds including Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliera ........"

Since these breeds are banned he won't get many licence fees for them. If anybodt had one they aren'e going to admit it and get a licence are they?

absolutly disgusting doing this as responsible dog owners are being punished for the idiots who use these dogs as intimidation, yet again a money making scheme and not dealing with the vile element living in this country, heres an idea, how about get the morons who cause trouble out of thier homes dont rehouse them and leave the innocent alone because the only mugs to pay the money will be us responsible dog owners and as far as collies being a less dangerous dog thats laughable, and just shows the ignorance of those wanting this stelth tax, all is happening is the moronic ellement is being avoided as it is too much trouble and costs money instead of making money.and as for must have the money to pay £500 to line a councils pocket is a disgusting attitude, i saved for a year to pay 250 for my baby and pay every month for insurance incase of hefty vet bills if i had to find another £500 i would have to rehome my dog to god knows who to do god knows what to her, and jsut a word to the wise most drug dealers would no doubt have alot more money than myself and my hard working husband and they are the type who have dogs who are a danger and proberbly either wont care about the fee or simply wont pay it let the dog get pts and just get in another, yes very intelligent idea that

I have no problem with a dog license as may make people think before getting a dog even though £500 is a stuiped high price. Plus it is stuiped just choose the cetain breed. They is no such thing as a bad breed of dog. For F**K Sake when will some idiots know that they is no bad dog just bad owners. Any breed of dog can & has biten. I have been biten by a collie but do i hate all collieS- NO OF COURSE I DON'T. PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED.

Is Wandsworth Council proposing a reversal of the existing Dangerous Dogs Legislation, in order for ownership of Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliera to be legalised once more? I look forward to the day that I am able to legally import one of these breeds into the UK; £500 is a small price to pay for the privilege of owning own one of these beautiful breeds!
(Sadly, I suspect that this was not Cllr Listers meaning; perhaps he should consider his politically motivated statements more carefully in future!)

It might be taken more seriously if people could get dog breed names correct.

It's Bullmastiff all one word not split into two and is Dogue not Douge.

I would prefer that all dogs had to be licenced irrespective of breed, all dog owners should also have to have liability insurance and participate in training. Responsible owners do this already (bar for the licence) and no breed is singled out.

The kind of people described should not own any type of dog and it's these people who get the breed a bad name because of their behaviour. It's not the dogs fault that they got that owner rather than a responsible one.

Dog breeding should also be better licenced so that the wrong type of owners don't get dogs.

It's very easy to target the large dogs - just like it was easy for hitler to target the jews. If people showed the same kind of discrimination to one another that its socially acceptable to show towards the larger breeds then you would be guilty of racism - so why is thinking of breed not deed acceptable?

Maybe the people who blame the breed not the deed are throw backs to the victorian era, who revel in al kind of isms ranging from racism to sexism to homophobia - because this is how they portray themselves. They will judge by their own prejudices rather than the reality. Can we not have them banned instead? We may have a better society for it.

A licence is a must. Also employ people to carry out a yearly check on people owning dogs, bit like the checks carried out on kennels.
I believe all councils should have fenced areas where dogs can run free, other than that they should be kept on leads. Dogs found off lead away from these areas would cause their owners to be fined on the spot.Also a
bit like cars, the bigger the dog the higher the licence. It may make the bad owners think twice before using an animal as an extension of their pathetic egos.

How about making certain breeds completely illegal?
Anyone going round the street with one gets put in a boot camp!

Peter wrote:
How about making certain breeds completely illegal? Anyone going round the street with one gets put in a boot camp!

Yeah and shall we ban the dutch from the UK? Or get rid of all the poles or the french? shall we start exterminating ehnic minorities?

Dog breeds and human races are equivalents (the term for plants is cultivar). If you believe that banning a breed is OK then you also indicate that people can be judged on their race.

You can't seprate the two morally as they are no different.

I ofen wondered how Hitler managed to do what he did but its easy to see given peoples atitudes how it happened. People are all too happy to believe in prejudice rather than make their own judgements.

What is being suggested is nothig short of the ethnic cleansing of dogs.

how we laughed wrote:

Peter wrote: How about making certain breeds completely illegal? Anyone going round the street with one gets put in a boot camp!

Yeah and shall we ban the dutch from the UK? Or get rid of all the poles or the french? shall we start exterminating ehnic minorities? Dog breeds and human races are equivalents (the term for plants is cultivar). If you believe that banning a breed is OK then you also indicate that people can be judged on their race. You can\'t seprate the two morally as they are no different. I ofen wondered how Hitler managed to do what he did but its easy to see given peoples atitudes how it happened. People are all too happy to believe in prejudice rather than make their own judgements. What is being suggested is nothig short of the ethnic cleansing of dogs.

The difference is that these dogs are bred from dogs with psychiatric disorders by evil people to intimidate and terrorise people and also make money from dog fighting.

Joe wrote:

how we laughed wrote:

Peter wrote: How about making certain breeds completely illegal? Anyone going round the street with one gets put in a boot camp!

Yeah and shall we ban the dutch from the UK? Or get rid of all the poles or the french? shall we start exterminating ehnic minorities? Dog breeds and human races are equivalents (the term for plants is cultivar). If you believe that banning a breed is OK then you also indicate that people can be judged on their race. You can't seprate the two morally as they are no different. I ofen wondered how Hitler managed to do what he did but its easy to see given peoples atitudes how it happened. People are all too happy to believe in prejudice rather than make their own judgements. What is being suggested is nothig short of the ethnic cleansing of dogs.

The difference is that these dogs are bred from dogs with psychiatric disorders by evil people to intimidate and terrorise people and also make money from dog fighting.

No these dogs aren't bred from dogs with psychistric disorders. Most giant breed dog breeders put temprament at the core of their breeding program and go to great lengths to ensure that the dogs are steady and affecionate.

The breeders you refer to are Back Yard Breeders - they care nohing for their dogs or the breed. They put anything to anything don't provide pre and post natal care.

Dog fighting is abhorrent to most people especially the responsible owners of the breeds mentioned.

You are so full of sterotypes its sad, not everyone with a rottweiler or a large dog is a scally or dodgy - and not eveyone with a chihuahua is a fine and upstanding member of the community.

You have a lot to learn about generalisations and the fact that they aren't always true.

The people you mention are the people that most responsible owners wnat to get rid of as well - but by putting them in the same group you alienate potential allies.

If the press and media didn't lable these breeds as "devil dogs" and "killers" do you think they would appeal to people you describe? The press doesn't help by consistntly protraying the same outdated and stereotypical image.

I really think that a £500 fee is not going to solve the problem. The dogs mentioned, Pitbull Terrierr are a banned breed and should not be owned by anyone in the first place. These young people who use Staffs and other breeds to intimidate the public should be heavily fined and the dog taken away. You need a law that will work not one that just makes more money for the local authority. Also any dog should be on a lead when in any public place and under the owners control. Bring in a law that makes the owners pay heavily for not being responsible, don't make every responsible dog owner pay. I have owned terriers in the past and they have always been on a lead in public and my full control. If a dog license is needed it should be at £50 not the 500 for the council, it is just another excuse for another tax. Be responsible for your dog not it is not the other way around.

I often wondered how Hitler managed to do what he did

The E.U have the same goal as Hitler , one Europe forced to live under one government with out any choice or say on the matter.
Back to dogs , im amazed how many owners have dogs that can talk , although ive never personaly heard one speak ive lost count of the times owners have mentioned to me that " he/she won't bite ".

still laughing at small minds wrote:

Joe wrote:

how we laughed wrote:

Peter wrote: How about making certain breeds completely illegal? Anyone going round the street with one gets put in a boot camp!

Yeah and shall we ban the dutch from the UK? Or get rid of all the poles or the french? shall we start exterminating ehnic minorities? Dog breeds and human races are equivalents (the term for plants is cultivar). If you believe that banning a breed is OK then you also indicate that people can be judged on their race. You can't seprate the two morally as they are no different. I ofen wondered how Hitler managed to do what he did but its easy to see given peoples atitudes how it happened. People are all too happy to believe in prejudice rather than make their own judgements. What is being suggested is nothig short of the ethnic cleansing of dogs.

The difference is that these dogs are bred from dogs with psychiatric disorders by evil people to intimidate and terrorise people and also make money from dog fighting.

No these dogs aren't bred from dogs with psychistric disorders. Most giant breed dog breeders put temprament at the core of their breeding program and go to great lengths to ensure that the dogs are steady and affecionate. The breeders you refer to are Back Yard Breeders - they care nohing for their dogs or the breed. They put anything to anything don't provide pre and post natal care. Dog fighting is abhorrent to most people especially the responsible owners of the breeds mentioned. You are so full of sterotypes its sad, not everyone with a rottweiler or a large dog is a scally or dodgy - and not eveyone with a chihuahua is a fine and upstanding member of the community. You have a lot to learn about generalisations and the fact that they aren't always true. The people you mention are the people that most responsible owners wnat to get rid of as well - but by putting them in the same group you alienate potential allies. If the press and media didn't lable these breeds as "devil dogs" and "killers" do you think they would appeal to people you describe? The press doesn't help by consistntly protraying the same outdated and stereotypical image.

Yes they are bred from dogs with psychiatric disorders, it is not natural for a dog to fight to the death or attack people without warning. Although some dogs can be made vicious by ill treatment most become cowed and timid. These fighting dogs have been bred continually from dogs that are vicious, just as collies are bred from dogs that are good at herding, gundogs are bred from dogs that are good a retrieving etc. Normal dogs do not fight to the death and most dogs do not attack people without being trained to do so.

I am amazed that the public are allowing Wandsworth Council to bring in a NEW law. New laws are supposed to to go through Parliament. It is stupid to suggest that a £500.00 license will stop these idiots having dogs they won't or cannot control. To the person above you must be stupid to approach and touch a dog that you don't know. If a dog bits than the owner should have it muzzled. If you are a stranger to a dog than DON'T touch it, it is common sense not rocked science.

Joan D wrote:
I am amazed that the public are allowing Wandsworth Council to bring in a NEW law. New laws are supposed to to go through Parliament. It is stupid to suggest that a £500.00 license will stop these idiots having dogs they won't or cannot control. To the person above you must be stupid to approach and touch a dog that you don't know. If a dog bits than the owner should have it muzzled. If you are a stranger to a dog than DON'T touch it, it is common sense not rocked science.

If you are referring to me, when in my post did I say that I would approach and touch a dog that I do not know?

Joe I was not referring to you. Suzy t above you. Wandsworth Council cannot possibly think that this kind of TAX will be paid by honest dog owners.

I had an American Pitbull Terrier and one cat for many years. I am an experienced dog owner and I have to say that "it is not the breed, it is the owner". Many people buy dogs and they have no clue whatsoever how to train and look after powerful breeds. Anyone who can say that one breed is vicious or evil simply don't know what they are talking about. If a dog bites than maybe the person it bit deserved it. I mean if an intruder broke into your home than the dog is within its rights to attack. On the street all dogs should be on the lead and under the full control of the owner. There is no way that a £500.00 license is going to solve the yob with a dog problem. When I had my pitbull it never once attacked another dog or bit anyone in the street. Off the lead it would do whatever I commanded it to do, but never off the lead in a public place. So Wandsworth Council should be ashamed of themselves as this is another example of Bully local authority. They have no back bone to tackle the yobs, so they are going to hit the honest and hard working dog owners. Another far left idea that won't work.

I agree with Harry it is not the breed but the owner. If a poodle bites and attacks someone than does that mean all poodles are vicious. I think not. I have owned dogs and it is a fact that some dogs owners buy a powerful dog and allow it to do what it wants. They are brain dead if they think it won't become a problem. There should be a law that owners should have a dog on the lead in public places, I don't agree with muzzling as this is not going to teach the dog not to bite. If it bites than train it not to, that simple. Any dog can be trained or retrained at any age. These yobs have no respect for anyone or anything, they just won't pay a fee, How can it be enforced? It does seem to be another far lefty idea that won't work. The left seems to punish all instead of the yobs that should be punished. It is all a complete shambles. Another way to pay for the councils that are incompetent.

Fighting dogs are aggressive otherwise they would not be fighting dogs.They are dangerous to other dogs, I had a spaniel which was attacked by a bull terrier, the bull terrier never showed any signs of aggression until we went past it and then it just lunged at my dog and would have killed it, my dog was not a fighter and just rolled over on its back, but this dog still tried to get at its throat, that is not normal behaviour. It was only after I managed, by luck, to kick it up the backside that it ran away. If a dog does not fight back the other dog should leave it alone. These dogs enjoy fighting, it is what they are bred for. I walk dogs at a rescue kennels and staffs and english bull terriers cannot be kennelled with other dogs, whilst most of them are friendly towards people they have to be kennelled on their own, most other dogs can be kennelled in twos and threes, bull terriers will fight to the death if they are kennelled together, that is not normal behaviour it is is manic behaviour. Just one other thing, you never see thugs walking around with a collies, labradors, spaniels etc do you.

Even if a dog like a bull terrier fights, it is usually because it has not been socialised properly. Or owners have wound them up to fight.The owners of these dogs keep them away from other dogs and than the dog learns to be aggressive towards them. It is the owners not the breed. Evan if a dog has been breed from fighting dogs it does not mean it is guarenteed to be a fighter if it is brought up with proper handling. I have had so called fighting dogs and they lived until they were 10 years and 15 years, in all that time I never had any of them fight another dog. My bull terrier and kerry blue would play with my friends rottie and alsation, in the fields, never had a problem because they were properly socialised. It is certainly not the "breed" that is dangerous but the uncaring or inexperienced owners that are to blame. Believe me I know what I am talking about. I have trained and handled powerful breeds, the owners are responsible not the type of dog or certain breeds. Unless you have owned one of these breeds you cannot possibly know how good they can be if properly handled. Blame the owner not the breed.

I certainly do not want to see responsible owners penalised, and as many say, it is not the dog that is the problem, but the owner. If Wandsworth goes about this the right way and absolutely hammers those fools who think it is clever to let their dogs behave in vicious, intimidatory ways, then I will support this action. Those people who think it is OK to let their animals behave in this way have to be evicted and declared "intentionally" homeless". This will be the only way that they will learn and will allow those who treat and train their animals properly, not to be lumped in with the idiot brigade.

johnny wrote:
Even if a dog like a bull terrier fights, it is usually because it has not been socialised properly. Or owners have wound them up to fight.The owners of these dogs keep them away from other dogs and than the dog learns to be aggressive towards them. It is the owners not the breed. Evan if a dog has been breed from fighting dogs it does not mean it is guarenteed to be a fighter if it is brought up with proper handling. I have had so called fighting dogs and they lived until they were 10 years and 15 years, in all that time I never had any of them fight another dog. My bull terrier and kerry blue would play with my friends rottie and alsation, in the fields, never had a problem because they were properly socialised. It is certainly not the "breed" that is dangerous but the uncaring or inexperienced owners that are to blame. Believe me I know what I am talking about. I have trained and handled powerful breeds, the owners are responsible not the type of dog or certain breeds. Unless you have owned one of these breeds you cannot possibly know how good they can be if properly handled. Blame the owner not the breed.

Not all bull terriers are fighters, but the majority will fight any other dog without provocation and the trouble is that most people do not know how to handle them, it is alright saying you have never had one that fought but the rescue kennels are full of bull terriers because people cannot handle them and that is scant consolation for people who have had their dogs killed or maimed by them.

Congratulations to Wandsworth Council for leading the way in making it safer to walk on our streets, I hope they keep up the momentum and encourage other Borough Councils to do the same. Please note that it is a Conservative council at the forefront of this campaign. I think that says it all. We've all had enough of anarchy on our streets. Apart from helping the citizens of the borough, it will help the poor dogs that have to live under the hands of these violent drug ridden little criminals, often at the receiving end of terrible abuse. Any true dog lover should welcome this move.

Typical Tory attitude. Tax the working class more and more until they can't even own a dog. Anyone can see that £500.00 is far too much. Tax people with cars £500.00, they kill more people through fumes than dogs do. Bring in a law that punishes those who are purposely having the dogs that are out of control, not the dog owners that are responsible. This council is going back to the Charles Dickens era. Don't need too many brains to analyse that.

fear people will simply abondon their dogs, and so we will have a stray dog problem.

and the monsters that abuse dogs and make them fight/attack/ect will just ignor the law, or simply switch to a different breed.

I would much prefer a licenceing system, similar to a driving test, that should cost just enough to cover paperwork ect, for ALL breeds of dog

I do not think having a typical tory attitude has anything to do with this ongoing problem. As far as i know the WBC is only targeting certain known dangerous type breeds which should not be in the hands of these useless slimeballs any way. I also think all these types of dogs should be muzzled in public at all times making it safer for normal sane dog owners to go out. I think that Joe's remark about staffs and english bull terriers having to be separated from other dogs in the Rescue kennels says it all. If these people can afford the hundreds of pounds they pay to use these poor dogs as an exstension of their non existent manhood, then they can afford a £500 liscence fee.

What people don't seem to understand is that anyone with a bull-terrier is not responsible for the yobs with the same dogs. This rule will apply to anyone with a "type" bull-terrier breed, which will include cross breeds, or any dog that looks like it has bull terrier in it to pay £500. It is unfair on those who are "responsible". It won't do any good to charge everyone with a dog that falls into the listed breeds, as the yobs, whom this is meant for, simply won't pay. So the honest, responsible, owner will be paying. As Joe only seems to deal with those bull terriers that are ill treated his remarks are not representative of the breed. As an example it is very rare for a bull terrier to attack a person. Even though Pitbull Terriers are banned the yobs are still bringing them into Britian via france and Ireland unchecked. So much for the banned breed. Also it is silly to suggest that because you can afford to buy a dog, you can also afford to pay a £500 tax. That is just like saying anyone who can afford to buy a car, can also afford to pay £500 more road tax. I have owned Terriers, Bull Terriers and Kerry Blue Terriers, not once did any of them attack a person or another dog in the street or park. Also if a dog or owner of the dog is attacked than the dog has a right to attack. Most people have Alsations for example to protect them. Alsations have attacked more people than most other breeds and you never hear about it. Ask yourself why?

I am shocked and apualed by wandsworth's council, to propose adding more breeds for breed specific legislation (BSL).

as this article shows
http://www.wandswort

h.gov.uk/Home/MyWand

sworth/Pressreleases

/newspage_detail.htm

?id=5487

I am even more apualed at the fact steve maynar, apears to have done little or no reasearch.

""The problem is that just about anyone can own a dog. Most of the problems we have today are caused by young people aged between 13 and 17 who keep these menacing dogs yet have no understanding of the responsibilities of ownership."

1. Since the protection of animals act (1911), it has been illegal for a person under 12 to buy a live animal, When the animal welfare act (2006) came in, it made it illegaly for a person under 16 to buy a live animal.

2. As a fairly young-ish person myself, i feel the notion of young people not being aware of responsibilities and only getting dogs to be menacing, incredably offensive, and steryotypical. I have done courses in animal care / manegement, and have worked in catteries, dog grooming, and vets. I am fully aware of responsibilities, and the five freedoms etc, and i would never use any animal as a threat.

"Given the money that people are prepared to spend on these dogs I really don't see why we should not be looking at a licence fee of around £500."

although people would probably expect to pay this much for a dog from a reputable breeder. People do get dogs from rescue homes, these come fairly cheaply and are often vaccinated, neutered, microchiped, and health checked (in my opinion rescue dogs should get priority)

"Only four breeds are covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act – the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliera. Most problems with fighting dogs involve Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Bull Mastiffs, Douge De Bordeaux and Rotweillers which are excluded."

can someone please tell mr maynar, that the majority of the breeds he listed are NOT fighting breeds.

dogo argentino was bred for big game hunting in packs

fila braziliera was bred for guarding and tracking (when slavery was legal the fila was used to track down escaped slaves and bring them back to the master, UNHARMED)

bull mastiff was bred to track down, tackle, and hold poachers, WITHOUT biting

I am not entierly sure what the dogue de bordeax was bred for

rotweillers were bred to protect and drive cattle ( I don't think people would have bred dogs to be "mad, vicious, and uncontrolable. if they wanted to have them round their livestock).


the american pitbull terrier, japanese tosa, and staffordshire bull terrier are fighting BREEDS, but that does not mean a dog that is american pitbull terrier, japanese tosa, and staffordshire bull terrier, is a fighting DOG.

eg: my friend has a staffie, which was originally bred for fighting, and so would be a fighting BREED. but he has been socialised and trained, and is never used for fighting, so is not a fighting DOG.

the dangerous dogs act (1991) as ammended (1997), and other BSL laws, did not, do not, and will not work... because of the following reasons.

* It assume all dogs of a certain breed are dangerous, even if the dog is the best behaved in the world, and has passed good canine citizenship test ect.

*it drives resposible owners away from the breed, and enforces the breeds "hard" look so encourages criminal owners to get them.

*many people dont want to be caught with an illegal dog, but also dont want the dog to be distroyed, so they simply abandon the dog (the breed that tops the shelter dog list is the staffie, there are more staffies in shelters, than any other breed, including the "mixed breed"breed

*on dog attacks it removes resposiblity from the owner, WHERE IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE.

*it implies the breeds not listed do not have to be trained oir socialised my cuzions neibour has a labrador (which isnt on the dangerous breed list in this country, howver in some other places it is), and she never walks it, it has never been trained or socialised, it is not taken to the vets, and stayed on a short chain outside in a tiny shty patio, with no toys, all the time, and growls and barks in an extreamly agressive mannar when someone goes by.
i dread to think what would happen if the dog got loose.

*it implies other dogs are safe be exclusion, which is extreamly dangerous. I was walking with my friends akita, charlie, and this women and 3 five year old kids and a yorkie came out of the shop, and they spoted charlie, and the mother shouted "oh look a teddy" and activly encouarged the kids to rum up to him, and they all started, pulling on his his fur, shouting in his ears, and sticking the yorkie in his face, all without asking me, and then the mother started slapping him across the face and saying this is how you greet a big tedddy dog. Now Charlie was as soft as anything, and will put up with alot, but if he snaped who would get the blame? and who could get put down?.

* it encouages attacks, after bsl was introduced in germany many owners of the listed breeds (which in some areas, were any dogs over 40 cm / 20kg)(who were mostly responsible owners ) found themsleve reciveing death threats, being spat on, kicked, and police shooting their dogs, and even cases of dogs set on fire, ect (even in front of children).

*Criminal/iresponsib

le owners simply switch to a new breed. in the 60's the german shepard was the "hard" breed of choice, in the 70's it was the doberman,in the 80's it was the rotweiler, and today its the pitbull, but it could be your breed next (your breed might be a family breed now, but so was the pitbull not too long ago).

*if someone states your dog is of a breed listed, then they do NOT have to prove your guilty, you have to prove that you inocent, if you dont have tonnes of paperwork declaring your dogs breed its time to say bye bye doggy, which goes against the eu human rights law whcih states a person must be presumed inocent untill proven guilty not the other way round

*it treats dog attack victims unfairly, not too long ago a child had her face almost ripped open by a golden retreiver, upon learning that the dog had attacked before the mother requested the dog be put down, and another incident where molly malones face was riped of be a shih-tzu the request was denide, now would that happen if it was a listed breed? i dont think so. In 2004 in canada, the liberals went on a campaign to ban "pitbulls", during a public descution on the issue, a mother whose own daughter was killed by a bullmastiff did a speech on targeting the owners insted of the breed, one of the witnesses later sayed "I was shocked when I looked over at Liberal MPP David Zimmer during Donna’s presentation. He acted bored, fiddled with his PDA and scowled as this brave woman talked about the death of her child.
Then, when asked if he had any questions, Zimmer did not even look up, but just waved his hand.With that one dismissive gesture Zimmer waved away the value of Courtney’s short life and insights into how her death could help prevent others like it"

*many sized dogs may not have been full vacinated, and diesease can spred quickly through the kennels, not to mention the inadequete care the dogs receive, there have been report of siezed dogs getting parvo, having to be euthanized because they were so stressed, and even returning home mutilated (the longest time a dog as been kept in these kennels, who most wouldn't touch witha barge poll, was 7 years, 6 months+ is typical)

* Many child welfare charities, and animal welfare charities, ect, such as RSPCA, SSPCA, ASPCA, GB kennel club, UKC, AKC, CDC, victoria stilwell, ect strongly oppose BSL.

*Even people like ian armstrong, krys pritchard, donna trempe, deidre and shaun doherty, who have been seriously injured, or have had loved ones injured/killed by dogs, agree that BSL is not the answer

*it is etreamly difficult to say if a dogs a listed breed, the guidlines writen by defra are extreamly vague a labrador could be described as 90% pitbull. In one infamous court case in which a pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terrier was on trial, a police officer `expert' gleefully told the court that `a Kennel Club pedigree isn't worth the paper it's written on'. The court ruled that although the dog was a pedigree Staffie it was also a Pit Bull `type' dog!"The one thing that really stuck was when they asked an animal control officer to identify several dogs; he claimed they were all Pit* or Pit* crosses, Rottie or Rottie crosses. Not one was. The dogs were all champions of record and the breeds included a Boxer, a Lab, a Bullmastiff and a couple others. How reliable is this guy when deciding what dog is a Pit or not? Note: this was in a city and not some rural town. Supposedly the city employee knew his breeds."
(note: This quote was from america, and as such the term "pitbull terrier" is likley to refer to three breeds: the american pitbull terrier, the american staffordshire terrier, and the staffordshire bull terrier.)

* There have been reports of dog theives, masqurading as animal controll officers, knocking on dog owners doors, and stating there dog is a banned breed, and taking away their dog (dog theft is a serious crime, and some stolen dogs have their microchips dug out with potatoe peelers, 75% of all stolen dogs are staffies)

*Without the breeds listed under the DDA and proposed by wandsworth councill, then: anthony romaro, autum marley, justin and antateshia pickens, alyssa gould, andrea potter and gene martinez, master myers, mike henrickson, kevin cavanaugh, brainnah trewey, joan maguire, james fritz, travis rappold and amanda searle, noella mitchell, mandy holmes, gary watkins, frank and katie and cody humpries, jane ellol and barbara tollison, ann, roach, cream, john murray, chuck and rebecca thompson, and many other people, would not be here today.


*it is expensive, the "dangerous dog amnesty" ie dog cull in merseyside ALONE, cost the taxpayer£160,000

as for the non-breed specific part of the dda.

* it can only be enforced after an attack, so is not a good preventive.

* it only applies to dogs that have attacked in public, or where they should not be, or have commited "multible attacks". even though 90 % of dog bites are commited in the home, or by a familiar dog

* it only applies to dogs that have attacked humans, and although you should NEVER confuse dog-dog agression, with dog-human agression, people do not like having there dogs attacked.

BUT ON A LIGHTER SIDE OF THINGS.

I think the wandsworth dog licences are a GOOD idea, just so long as they apply to ALL breeds.

however the pricing does make me feel uncomfertable, Im sure wandsworth council are not intentionaly doing this, but £500 for a licence makes it seem like a way to line their pockets. Its like dog fighting, the sentances dog fighters and other animal abusers get are jokes, my friend had a theory that, they prosecute dog fighting, not because they felt sorry for the animals, but becuase the goverment was lossing so much money through all the gambling, I have a terrible feeling he might be right.

I think it should be as cheep as possible, otherwise, you could have one guy that can afford the licence but is only just up to scratch and would get the dog, and another guy who is 1p short of the cost but passes the test with flying colours would not get the dog, and rather the more knowledgable person got the dog, rather than the wealthiest. also if the license is expensive the owners might use the old excuse of, we havwe to compremise the animal welfare to afford the licence

* Also dog owners, must be allowed to keep their dog, while doing the test.

* Dogs should legaly be required to walk on a lesh, except in areas free from livestock / traffic.

* Dogs that are not being breed, should be required to be netured. And all dogs should be microchiped. Many councils offer free microchiping and neutering

* if a dog has attacked a person, then the owner must pay for the damages, unless they can prove that the dog was provoked. and the dog should be temperment tested imediatly, and if found to be vicous, require it to either be muzzeled, attend traing classes,

* The test should include a homevist, and should check of the person knows how to and can provide the five freedoms, and do everything to minimize attacks.

The dangerous wild animals act (1991), which lists animals that are "so wild, dangerous, or difficult to control" that they require a licence to be kept in privet. In 2007 the goverment changed the list and added some animals to the list, while taking some off. The RSPCA felt strongly against this move, stating that many people do not have knowlege of how to care for "exotic" animals.

now, i can see what they are all trying to say, but...

* a couple of years ago my friend brought a dog along to our dog show, now this dog had a greatgrandparent who was a grey wolf, and so was the purest wolfdog you could get without requiring a licence. And he did not lunge at people or try to rip there throats out, no he was well controlled, and friendly.

* my friend owns a toy tiger (toyger) which was orgiginally listed, and is a sweet natured cat, who is forever hyper.

* wolfs, are on the list but deer are not? Despite their reputation wolfs are very shy and timid when around humans, shepards in europe only need to shout at the wolves to protect their sheep from them. The first comprehensive and detailed report of attacks by wild wolves on humans in Europe, Asia and North America has now been published (Linnell et al 2002), they found that: Most fatal attacks were by rabid wolves (rabies as been extinct in britain since the 1980's), There were few fatal predatory attacks and none in North America, There were no fatalities when wolves attacked defensively. yet wolfs are on the list, but deer are not? Deer are incredably strong, and have high stamina, and are armed with hoves, horns, and sometimes even tusks, the non-human animal responsible for most fatalitities, in north america, is the white tailed deer.

* it lists the europian adder/viper, when this is naitve to the uk, and is seen in the wild.

* Large lizards like the komodo dragon and the nile montior are not listed. No don't get me wrong I have known a rescue nile monitor for many years, and he is lovely (he basks all the time), but at what point did this country decide that a 2meter long flesh eating reptile was safer than a breed of fully domesticated dog?


* It implies that owners looking for "domestic" pets do not have to research about them. One day at my old vets, a man came in with is rabbit, after carefull examination my collegue concluded that it was flystrike, and proceded to ask the man if he had clean the rabbit out durrinng the summer, his reply was "No? was i ment to do that? what is flystrike?

I think that the licence should cover all animals, but obviously have different test depending on species.

All this is rubbish. What happens if people refuse to pay the fee. I for one will not be paying that amount. I feel that car owners should pay the £500 fee for all the polution they cause. Why don't wansworth council target the yobs and take their dog away. The national government should "BAN" all staffs, Rotys,and bull terriers, so the problem will almost be resolved. I know "BAN" All dogs that way there is no problem. It is just an excuse for the council to charge another "TAX" to get more funds, for all the fat cat salaries to be payed. This is all nonsense. I bet it does not even happen!

This is such a difficult subject to discuss.Too many people dicussing dogs as if they are experts.Just like the dog wardens who deem a dog a pit bull, but have no breed specific education. Even less than E.Lister i presume.For example 1 of 4 households in the USA during 1900-1950's had a pit as a family pet.They appeared on frequent propoganda leaflets in the USA and UK during WW2.Man bred these dogs to behave a particular way and now the dogs suffer. There are no longer real dog men. A game dog will always do as its owner instructs.Believe me this attitude towards certain breeds is a recent phenomenon,but will definitely continue.Next breeds to be targeted are kangals,presa canario,alanos,ameri

can bulldogs and even the great British family tradition the SBTerrier. I meet on daily walks young men stating they have a certain breed of dog, for example a presa canario. All white dog with no resemblence of this breed at all. Someone is making good money out of uneducated young men and i wish them good luck. To own some of these breeds you need experience. A 15 year old will not have the strength or knowlege to control an unneutered full grown male presa weighing 70-80kgs. Something needs to be done to prevent decades of cruelty and irresponsible ownership.The uneducated people who post comments stating all Breed Specific Legislation should be enhanced are also continuing the ignorance surrounding some breeds.There are great family pets that are pits,tosas,filas and dogos.Before making uneducated guesses regarding these breeds research and educate yourself thoroughly and i do not mean on silly web sites. All these breeds have the potential to be family pets and as time passes the qualities that defines them will make them just that. We just have to get passed the spotty teenager with low self esteem and a chip on the shoulder. To all real dog enthusiats and dog men its a very sad situation.