Why if pitbulls and other so called dangerous dogs are banned is no one up holding the law?

Question

DONT GET ME WRONG I LOVE PITBULLS! I know a couple of real softies but everyone goes on in the news about pitbulls mastiffs and akitas being banned due to agressive tendancies. Yet is no one stopping them being bred if owning one against the law why arent owners arrested? Why does it seem that the law doesnt abide concrete to everyone? I love all dogs but can see both sides of the dangerous dogs arguement when my own dog was savaged by a akita 2 years ago but I also know wonderfull staffs so where do u draw the line between law and the right to live.

Answer 1

Pure laziness, double standards, and most of all apathy in our law enforcement. :(

Answer 2

You have made a very good point.
The real problem is the people behind these dogs. Why would anyone want to breed or own a dog for the purpose of strength, ferocious temperament and ability to fight? They are crazy! Pit bull breeders should be arrested, the dogs should be removed and assessed for rehoming like any other dog (if dangerous they are destroyed) and banned from owning or breeding dogs for life.
How do we police this? Through a national system whereby every dog owner is required to have and pay for a dog license. The cost of running the scheme can be funded by a license fee. The cost of policing the scheme is worth it because of the innocent lives that have been ruined by poor dog owners and the peace of mind it will afford the anti dog lobby.

Answer 3

Banned? Against the law? Not where I live, and nor should they ever be. Anyway, the cops have more important stuff to do, like locking up criminals, not pet owners.

If you live in the city, or an apartment complex somewhere I can see how owning a "pitbull" could be a problem. Idiot owners are generally the problem, not the dog. And unless the "illegal" dog is causing a real problem or threat, I see no reason for the police to be involved.

Answer 4

There's loads of other crimes that also go unpunished too. The police can only do so much, and as others have said, it only ever becomes a priority when it's in the papers because some kid got savaged.

In the UK, Akitas are not covered by BSL, nor are most mastiffs (exception - the brazilian mastiff, aka fila brasiliero).

APBT are covered, but I know of 3 in my area (no, not staffordshire bull terriers, there's thousands of those) and each is well socialised and friendly.

You draw the line when things get nasty. BSL is a controversial law, and the police have other priorities - rightly so in my view.

Answer 5

Pit Bulls are not banned everywhere and people are fighting legislation geared to getting rid of the breed. Unfortunately, it seems to be the latest bandwagon world-wide, like "CQI" was a popular bandwagon for hospitals world wide when "Continuous Quality Improvement" was mis- represented as being about providing better quality service when in fact it was just laying more burdens on people who got more work and more titles but no extra pay. Services that cost the company that were good ones many times, were axed. Yet people were programmed that it was about "Improvement".
With breed specific legislation, the root of the problem is not being addressed. It is not the breed but it is the owners and breeders who are responsible for what the dog is.
Banning a breed to try and solve a problem is like taking a race in society and looking at statistics for crime without considering causes and addressing those causes, but instead enacting legislation that would force a race to be sterilized and annihilated instead of addressing the societal woes that are the cause of those statistics.
A human race would no longer stand for that, and would protest and have the support of the world.
Dogs cannot read or write and are considered property. It is up to their guardians, their people to protect them and care for them and it is their guardians, their people that need to be responsible for their appropriate training, socialization, up keep and appropriate containment. That is where enforcing existing laws, like leash laws come into play. The cities need to start using their forced city tag fees and other city resources to enforce exisiting laws and stop the problem before it turns into a tragedy.
It is not a free country when government becomes so parental it forces responsible citizens to get rid of good dogs because of their breed.

Answer 6

-because the whole Breed Specific Legislation thing is plain stupid. BSL is a terrible idea, for many reasons. The point of BSL is to try and prevent powerful, or so called "dangerous" dog breeds from attacking people, and to try to put a stop to dog fighting. Yet, the reason these dogs attack is because of irresponsible owners who don't properly train or socialize their dog, or purposely train them to attack to guard their drugs. And its the wanna-be gangster thugs and low-life scum that are behind pit fighting now a days. Think about it. When a breed is banned from an area, the irresponsible owners and the gangster thugs aren't gonna follow the law and get their dogs out of the area. Why would they? Its not like they ever followed the law before. They will ignore it. Just like they ignored the fact that they needed to properly train and socialize their dogs, and just like they ignored the fact that dog fighting is illegal. BSL will NEVER work.

Answer 7

Saw a programme on the other night about it and the reason the police are not really up holding it is that it takes a lot of police time, money and resources to follow it through and a lot of the dog owners if they can prove that their dog isn't dangerous can get it back. It is a bit more complex than that but basically the law is not as black and white as it is made out - too many loopholes and the dogs end up back where they were originally taken from. Hence the police not bothering to waste their time and taxpayers money

Answer 8

I believe in addition to the enforcement of such policies being so expensive and time consuming that there are good, responsible owners out there who take good care of their family pets. Those people NEVER make the news. Its only the ones who escape from their solitary, lonely, caged/fenced hellish existance that make the news. A good, responsible owner of a dog who has injured another pet or another person would take necessary (even if extreme) measures to make sure it did not happen again. However, those measures are IN PLACE AND taught BEFORE a tragedy has a chance to happen.
You can't punish one entire breed for the crimes of some lazy, irresponsible owners.

Answer 9

If you are a good owner then you got nothing to worry about ,the law after the under side the fighting dogs that are breed just for money an they are every were so it is hard to stop ,i have got a Stafford terrier an people ask me is your dog ok I'm getting sick of it really it becomes annoying .

Answer 10

That's probally because it is a extremly difficult "Law" to up hold. The facts are "Pitbulls, Rottwiellers, Cane Corso's" and other so called dangerous dogs are not "Dangerous Dogs" They may be owned by irresponsilbe owners but to ban an entire breed is not only uncalled for but ignorant.

Answer 11

i live in Las Vegas and there is no Ban here, THANK GOD! even if there was i would not put down my 1 yr old Pit. She loves people and other animals. [She lives with 2 mini pinchers] the only naughty things she does is eat my clothing.
BSL is stupid.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Mahatma Gandhi