RedQuake
New member
First off, i don't agree with the ban. Anything with teeth can bite and even my toy breed (Papillion) can dish out a nasty bite.
What is concerning me more than ever is that Michael Bryant has included some very vague rules with the legislation that don't even refer to pit bulls at all. Police now have the right to come into your home and remove and or distroy any dog deemed to be a menance. This means that if your neighbour doesn't like your dog they can call officials and bye bye doggy.
They have failed first, in not defining what exactly *menacing behaviour* means (is a barking dog now considered menacing because it barks at people who walk by the house?) and second because they didn't get input from any experts on dogs or pitbulls. Instead they went straight to what they felt would satisfy the majority of the public. Michael Bryant couldn't even pick out the pitbull on a sheet with 20 dogs. This causes more of a rift because now owners of dogs that *LOOK* like a pitbull will have to prove it isn't. How many people have actual papers stating that? So if you don't and you can't prove it your dog could be up for the needle.
If he had taken the time to listen to the experts for even one second he could have introduced legislation that would actually be affective and reduce bites. As i see it now, they haven't solved the problem. Getting tough with owners of mistrained and violent dogs is one, a muzzle is another. Very simple.
What is concerning me more than ever is that Michael Bryant has included some very vague rules with the legislation that don't even refer to pit bulls at all. Police now have the right to come into your home and remove and or distroy any dog deemed to be a menance. This means that if your neighbour doesn't like your dog they can call officials and bye bye doggy.
They have failed first, in not defining what exactly *menacing behaviour* means (is a barking dog now considered menacing because it barks at people who walk by the house?) and second because they didn't get input from any experts on dogs or pitbulls. Instead they went straight to what they felt would satisfy the majority of the public. Michael Bryant couldn't even pick out the pitbull on a sheet with 20 dogs. This causes more of a rift because now owners of dogs that *LOOK* like a pitbull will have to prove it isn't. How many people have actual papers stating that? So if you don't and you can't prove it your dog could be up for the needle.
If he had taken the time to listen to the experts for even one second he could have introduced legislation that would actually be affective and reduce bites. As i see it now, they haven't solved the problem. Getting tough with owners of mistrained and violent dogs is one, a muzzle is another. Very simple.