"Pit type" explained

[staffilover]

under current legislation, many innocent dogs are seized each year simply because of the way they look. these dogs are well behaved family pets who have committed no crime other than being assessed as an illegal breed which is banned in the uk under the 1991 dangerous dogs act.
this breed specific legislation does little to protect the public from so called "dangerous dogs" niether does it address the root problem which is mainly due to irresponsible owners with untrained dogs.
any dog which is seized and assessed as an illegal breed or crossbreed will be destroyed although, under the 1997 amendment, owners can apply to a court to have their pet registered on the index of exempted dogs but this is solely down to the judges discretion.

this is what the law classes as "pit type"

ears folded forward or sideways

muzzle not pointed

broad wedge shaped skull

straight solid front legs

broad deep ribcage

well muscled thigh

long hind legs

tail - low down in hind quaters hangs like "pump handle"

short single smooth coat

height 45 - 55 cms

even if the dog has no "pit" what so ever in it, if it fits this description it could be classed as "pit type" (eg) staff crossed with lab or boxer crossed with lab.

[skunkstripe]

staffilover that is very helpful and informative, thanks for posting!
That list seems like it would include a lot of dogs. :mad:
Is there any recourse or possibility of getting the Act repealed?

Edited to add: I found something that is astonishing to me from the Merseyside police web site. Aside from the description of an "illegal dog" this Q&A in the FAQ.
I own a dangerous dog; although it is not an illegal breed can I hand it over?
No, the hand over is for illegal dogs only. If you have a dangerous dog you must seek advice from your vet. If the owner, keeper or the person in charge of a dog fails to keep the dog under control they will face prosecution.
In other words, they will do nothing about a truly dangerous dog! :wtf:
http://www.merseyside.police.uk/html/aboutus/campaigns/dogs/faq.htm

[applesmom]

staffilover that is very helpful and informative, thanks for posting!
That list seems like it would include a lot of dogs. :mad:
Is there any recourse or possibility of getting the Act repealed?

Edited to add: I found something that is astonishing to me from the Merseyside police web site. Aside from the description of an "illegal dog" this Q&A in the FAQ.

In other words, they will do nothing about a truly dangerous dog! :wtf:
http://www.merseyside.police.uk/html/aboutus/campaigns/dogs/faq.htm

That makes sense though. The government shouldn't be expected to clean up our messes at taxpayers expense!

If the owner turned the dog over it would be put to death. He needs to take responsibility and make his own choices. He can have it euthanized at his own vet without putting it through the trauma of being kenneled and surrounded by strangers. Or he can call in a behaviorist or keep it in a safe enclosure for the rest of it's life.

The situation shouldn't require government intervention.

[lilpantz]

staffilover that is very helpful and informative, thanks for posting!
That list seems like it would include a lot of dogs. :mad:
Is there any recourse or possibility of getting the Act repealed?

Edited to add: I found something that is astonishing to me from the Merseyside police web site. Aside from the description of an "illegal dog" this Q&A in the FAQ.

In other words, they will do nothing about a truly dangerous dog! :wtf:
http://www.merseyside.police.uk/html/aboutus/campaigns/dogs/faq.htm

That makes sense though. The government shouldn't be expected to clean up our messes at taxpayers expense!

post #1050

If the owner turned the dog over it would be put to death. He needs to take responsibility and make his own choices. He can have it euthanized at his own vet without putting it through the trauma of being kenneled and surrounded by strangers. Or he can call in a behaviorist or keep it in a safe enclosure for the rest of it's life.

The situation shouldn't require government intervention.

Sorry Apple I have to step in here....

If the aim of these laws against "specific breeds" or in this case "a blanket ban based on physical descriptions (which is absolutely rediculous)," is in fact to make the public safer... then why does it not make sense for them to allow you to turn over a truly "vicious" animal?

To me the fact that they don't, only goes to prove they are singling out Pit 'types' with this legislation... To me, it proves it's not about protecting citizens from the behavior but more about abolishing a breed or 'type.'

post# 1050

[iwantmypup]

Oh boy...

staffilover, this is a very interesting thread. It's quite sad what they think of as the "pit type". That really would include lots of dogs. And that..well that isn't good.


*sigh*
-Ali

[sheplovr]

And some have tiny little ears barely seen. It is kinda hard to thoroughly describe this poor breed of dog.

It is the owners that buy them to control them, but banning should be in many breeds for that matter, we are judging because of ignornat humans that fight this dog.

[applesmom]

Sorry Apple I have to step in here....

If the aim of these laws against "specific breeds" or in this case "a blanket ban based on physical descriptions (which is absolutely rediculous)," is in fact to make the public safer... then why does it not make sense for them to allow you to turn over a truly "vicious" animal?

To me the fact that they don't, only goes to prove they are singling out Pit 'types' with this legislation... To me, it proves it's not about protecting citizens from the behavior but more about abolishing a breed or 'type.'


post# 1050



It's not as if the owner of a vicious dog has nowhere to turn. The job in question is simply to enforce the breed ban. They are not dog catchers in the routine sense of the word.

From what I understand this involved the police department's point of view only. In just about any civilized country there are agencies (here it's Animal Care and Control) that will euthanize a dog if the owner brings it in. They'll also come out and pick up dogs that the owner declares as vicious and euthanze them.

Both services are available. Just through different agencies!

[skunkstripe]

Well it doesn't make sense to me, for the following reason. The Dangerous Dogs Act was enacted to protect the public from dangerous dogs (how's that for a tautology? :D ). What it specifically provides for is that dogs may be deemed dangerous and seized by the police despite having no prior history of posing a danger to anyone, but based on their appearance. However, dogs who HAVE in the past been dangerous are not at risk of being seized. This to me is an inconsistency.