Breed Specific Legislation - Don't Believe the 'Type'!

Bullseye1

As many of you are aware there is a campaign to repeal the legislation in Ireland with respect to the Restricted Breed List. I am aware that the forum does not allow for petitions so I want to respect that by asking respondents not to discuss that part of the campaign. That information is widely available.

Here is an interesting response by the RSPCA with regards to the similar legislation in the UK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tQl2euz6ZM

Here is a response from Phil Hogan to question on the current legislation.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2014-01-15a.1459

As you can see Phil is still living in the dark ages and is either unwilling, lazy or just does not give a damn about poorly constructed legislation.

It is time that legislators be educated on important matters such as these.

Karlitto

There is a website in my signature, you can find all of the information about the campaign itself there, as well as the facebook page (if you have not already got it)

In relation to Phil Hogan's response.... he is a tool!

And I think the only quote you need to see from his whole message is

It is not my intention at present to revoke the provisions of this legislation. My Department does not maintain statistics on injuries due to dog attacks.

Great argument Phil, great argument....

needs of society to be protected from dogs with a significant capability to inflict very serious injury.

Furthermore, I would like to know if he actually believes this tripe...

Edit: Haven't watched the video yet due to being in work

Bullseye1

Karlitto wrote: »

There is a website in my signature,

Same.

Karlitto

Also, I am going to bring a suggestion to the organizer of the campaign for a walk up to Leinster house, RB dogs, non RB dogs, people with no dogs, all are welcome.

Obviously we would all need to abide by the law for this one in terms of muzzles and leads etc.

Just a thought

Karlitto

Brilliant video from the RSPCA!

What has he said, the link is not working.

sillysmiles

I can't access that link to what Hogan has said, anyone have a link ?

Karlitto

Weird, seems kildarestreet.com is down. I will see if I can find it elsewhere.

Karlitto

Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)

535. To ask the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government his plans to introduce dog breed neutral legislation in relation to the control of dogs here; if legislating restrictions or bans by breed has resulted in reduced injuries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1753/14]

Phil HoganPhil Hogan (Minister, Department of Environment, Community and Local Government; Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

The primary legislation in relation to the control of dogs – the 1986 Control of Dogs Act - is already dog breed neutral in that it requires all dog owners or persons in charge of a dog to keep the dog under effectual control. Further specific control requirements in relation to certain breeds were also set out in the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs ) Regulations, 1991 and updated in 1998. The decision to introduce further specific control requirements in relation to certain breeds was taken as a balanced and workable arrangement which recognises the rights of dog owners versus the needs of society to be protected from dogs with a significant capability to inflict very serious injury. It followed detail consultation with interested parties , including the Irish Kennel Club, the ISPCA, the Irish Veterinary Association, the Irish Veterinary Union, the Association of Dog Wardens, the Search and Rescue Dog Association (Ireland), the Irish Guide Dogs Association and Bord na gCon. It is not my intention at present to revoke the provisions of this legislation. My Department does not maintain statistics on injuries due to dog attacks.

Karlitto

Hmm, just something there, when he says that this was endorsed by the Irish guide dog association, did they give a reason as to why GSD's are guide dogs?

Bullseye1

This is the type of thinking we need.
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-waterloo-dog-ordinance-ready-for-review/article_3fc15e30-fd52-5b7f-86c9-3519e1a6ed83.html

KSeraSera

Apologizing in advance about jumping in here with my question but because you are interested in restricted breeds and the laws regarding it I'm thinking you may know... Is it just Dublin City Council that wont allow people living in co-operative housing to keep restricted breeds? Or does the same apply in County Council etc

Rips

I have to say, I'm on the fence about the petition to remove the legislation.

As the owner of a RB myself, I saw the petition/campaign and almost got involved as I think the premise of the legislation is ridiculous.

However, when I thought about the effect the legislation has had, I couldn't in good conscience add to the petition, as quite simply, it is the only legislation that is actually being enforced and it has had some possibly unexpected good results.

The simple fact of the matter is, there is certain type of owner, who predominantly own and contribute to the backyard breeding of these animals. The owners who keep particularly Rotties, GSDs and Staffies as 'status dogs' and a large percentage of these are in innercity apartment complexes, co-operative or county council housing estates. People on low income or no income.

Prior to the legislation, as long as the dogs had food and water and weren't severely and obviously mistreated, there was absolutely nothing being done for these animals.

These dogs are being selectively illbred and abused, often out of a desire to make them aggressive and after successive generations, it can unfortunately be seen - working in a certain area for example, I have to say, every GSD and Rottie I met were of an inherently nervous disposition. Its disgusting. And yes, when they were seized or impounded they were destroyed, and its sad and preventable.

Of those dogs, two I was personally involved with, were saved and sent to rescue, but they went to breed specific rescues in the UK, as they did need a good deal of socialisation and behaviour modification. They were inherently good dogs, but as a result of the way they were treated, they could not be trusted in just any good home.

One of the dogs was microchipped and registered to the owner - and when he was contacted and told of the fee he would have to pay to release the dog, he said it was alright, she wasn't a good guard dog anyway and he'd 'got a new one', a puppy. He lived in a council housing estate, so, he was reported, whether the dog was seized or he was fined for having no licence, I don't know but it was taken seriously. Seriously enough that he rang back and ranted and threatened down the phone.

My own dog, was absolutely bred and brought up for this exact purpose, he was beaten and tied and concrete, and eventually abandoned at 8months old, because he didn't have an aggressive bone in his body. He's not a nervous dog but he still cowers in certain situations as a result of the way he was treated.

I have seen people who would never have stretched the funds or cared enough, bringing in their staffy bitches to have them spayed or receive some sort of medical care so they could provide proof to council that the dogs were cared for - and were 'family' dogs ... so they wouldn't be impounded. (so they are using the legislation as a threat but not necessarily enforcing it in all cases?)

You could report a scumbag 7 days of the week, and no one would take any notice. Report a restricted breed owner - BANG, and the dirt is gone.

The instant euthanasia of course is despicable, but I'm sorry to say, but there is a serious overpopulation problem, there are more dogs then good homes, and some of these dogs were better off dead, and/or WERE going to be, or WERE dangerous as a result of their ill treatment (not their breeding)

Most pounds are doing what they can with limited resources, working with welfare and keeping some dogs longer then necessary looking to home them - its a pity they can't implement some behaviour training qualifications among the workers, vets or wardens, to sort out what is what.

The one obstacle it has caused which is a concern, is that vets who would usually do a small amount of rehoming, are sending RB's straight to the pound, as they won't rehome because of liability issues. Still, if they are conscientious, and its a good dog, they can give appropriate welfare soc or breed rescue the heads up. I have done this in the past with good results.

I'd have to say, that if it is inherently aggressive, and it bites, and its in the pound, then so be it - sure, it may have been the owner or the abuse/neglect, but there are enough good dogs and not enough homes.


The higher release fee/licence fee and fines mean that once the dogs are picked up, they weren't being reclaimed or chased down ...brilliant. Weeded out the crap owners from the good ones. If you are prepared to pay the fine and release fee, chances are you are prepared to spend money on the dog.

Yes, its leaving the problem at the door of welfare in some cases, to get these dogs out of the pound... but again, working with welfare only last week, where someone involved was literally just *waiting* for a chance to get abused dogs out of a similar situation.

b_mac

Rips wrote: »

I have to say, I'm on the fence about the petition to remove the legislation.

As the owner of a RB myself, I saw the petition/campaign and almost got involved as I think the premise of the legislation is ridiculous.

However, when I thought about the effect the legislation has had, I couldn't in good conscience add to the petition, as quite simply, it is the only legislation that is actually being enforced and it has had some possibly unexpected good results.

The simple fact of the matter is, there is certain type of owner, who predominantly own and contribute to the backyard breeding of these animals. The owners who keep particularly Rotties, GSDs and Staffies as 'status dogs' and a large percentage of these are in innercity apartment complexes, co-operative or county council housing estates. People on low income or no income.

Prior to the legislation, as long as the dogs had food and water and weren't severely and obviously mistreated, there was absolutely nothing being done for these animals.

These dogs are being selectively illbred and abused, often out of a desire to make them aggressive and after successive generations, it can unfortunately be seen - working in a certain area for example, I have to say, every GSD and Rottie I met were of an inherently nervous disposition. Its disgusting. And yes, when they were seized or impounded they were destroyed, and its sad and preventable.

Of those dogs, two I was personally involved with, were saved and sent to rescue, but they went to breed specific rescues in the UK, as they did need a good deal of socialisation and behaviour modification. They were inherently good dogs, but as a result of the way they were treated, they could not be trusted in just any good home.

One of the dogs was microchipped and registered to the owner - and when he was contacted and told of the fee he would have to pay to release the dog, he said it was alright, she wasn't a good guard dog anyway and he'd 'got a new one', a puppy. He lived in a council housing estate, so, he was reported, whether the dog was seized or he was fined for having no licence, I don't know but it was taken seriously. Seriously enough that he rang back and ranted and threatened down the phone.

My own dog, was absolutely bred and brought up for this exact purpose, he was beaten and tied and concrete, and eventually abandoned at 8months old, because he didn't have an aggressive bone in his body. He's not a nervous dog but he still cowers in certain situations as a result of the way he was treated.

I have seen people who would never have stretched the funds or cared enough, bringing in their staffy bitches to have them spayed or receive some sort of medical care so they could provide proof to council that the dogs were cared for - and were 'family' dogs ... so they wouldn't be impounded. (so they are using the legislation as a threat but not necessarily enforcing it in all cases?)

You could report a scumbag 7 days of the week, and no one would take any notice. Report a restricted breed owner - BANG, and the dirt is gone.

The instant euthanasia of course is despicable, but I'm sorry to say, but there is a serious overpopulation problem, there are more dogs then good homes, and some of these dogs were better off dead, and/or WERE going to be, or WERE dangerous as a result of their ill treatment (not their breeding)

Most pounds are doing what they can with limited resources, working with welfare and keeping some dogs longer then necessary looking to home them - its a pity they can't implement some behaviour training qualifications among the workers, vets or wardens, to sort out what is what.

The one obstacle it has caused which is a concern, is that vets who would usually do a small amount of rehoming, are sending RB's straight to the pound, as they won't rehome because of liability issues. Still, if they are conscientious, and its a good dog, they can give appropriate welfare soc or breed rescue the heads up. I have done this in the past with good results.

I'd have to say, that if it is inherently aggressive, and it bites, and its in the pound, then so be it - sure, it may have been the owner or the abuse/neglect, but there are enough good dogs and not enough homes.


The higher release fee/licence fee and fines mean that once the dogs are picked up, they weren't being reclaimed or chased down ...brilliant. Weeded out the crap owners from the good ones. If you are prepared to pay the fine and release fee, chances are you are prepared to spend money on the dog.

Yes, its leaving the problem at the door of welfare in some cases, to get these dogs out of the pound... but again, working with welfare only last week, where someone involved was literally just *waiting* for a chance to get abused dogs out of a similar situation.

So basically, what I have got from that, you are saying my dog should wear a muzzle because of a few scumbags.

Rips

b_mac wrote: »

So basically, what I have got from that, you are saying my dog should wear a muzzle because of a few scumbags.

I try to think about dog welfare on the whole when it comes to things like legislation, not just my own personal considerations.

b_mac

Rips wrote: »

I try to think about dog welfare on the whole when it comes to things like legislation, not just my own personal considerations.

Sorry I didn't mean to be rude there. I agree with you but I still think there has to be a different way in dealing with the problems you have mentioned.

Rips

Well this post was put up for discussion, I would like to hear what the proposed replacement legislation the petition/Facebook group are recommending?

Discussion on EastCoastFM radio mentioned Scottish system, track record, 'asbo's for dogs' ... its just doesn't seem enforceable. And its not removing dangerous dogs from the home, where most incidents, and most unreported incidents occur.
The scumbag's children will still be mauled

I might add, that muzzle law, as far as I have seen, has not been enforced, only, as I suggested in my post, they have been using the current legislation to their advantage when required - not a perfect system either.

I was approached by an unmuzzled GSD just last week, which then attempted to bite me. The owners had it on a lead and they neither warned me, nor acknowledged the behaviour. If I was on the street, I'd have no problem giving them a piece of my mind, but I was at work, and it wouldn't be appreciated.

We've a big sign on the wall (received just this week actually) which points out the fines in place - and that, I could point out to them, pointed to the fine and kindly pointed out, that if the dog did that to anyone else, they would be in for a shock.

If the Scottish system was in place, how would it work for me, as a employee, to report that dog? Owners would feel victimised and possibly not come back? My boss certainly wouldn't hear of it.

Bullseye1

You make the point that the current legislation is being enforced. That is simply not the case.

It is proposed to make the owner responsible for the actions of their dog no matter what the breed.

This is about punishing bad owners not entire breed of dog because of some bad apples.

mosi

The simple fact of the matter is, there is certain type of owner, who predominantly own and contribute to the backyard breeding of these animals. The owners who keep particularly Rotties, GSDs and Staffies as 'status dogs' and a large percentage of these are in innercity apartment complexes, co-operative or county council housing estates. People on low income or no income.

These dogs are being selectively illbred and abused, often out of a desire to make them aggressive and after successive generations, it can unfortunately be seen - working in a certain area for example, I have to say, every GSD and Rottie I met were of an inherently nervous disposition. Its disgusting. And yes, when they were seized or impounded they were destroyed, and its sad and preventable

.

You're right in that there are bad owners who are backyard breeders, want "aggressive" dogs and deliberately make them that way and who often do fit a certain demographic.

I have my own firsthand experience of such an owner who has a habit of acquiring RBs. I have one of his former dogs myself and also rehomed another that he abandoned on the street. He didn't feed them right or get them any vet care and he deliberately kept them undersocialised.
He lives in private rented accommodation though...as do plenty who shouldn't own dogs.

As for bad owners in council estates, I don't see the ban as improving welfare. Either their RB gets taken off them and they get another, or they get a different breed, not on the list, that suffers just as much. The amount of Siberian Huskies and Alaskan Malamutes living in unsuitable conditions with unsuitable owners is shocking. What do we do, add them to the list and wait for the next unfortunate breed to take their place?

While some breeds come into fashion (like the Northern Breeds) I sometimes wonder if the wrong types of owners are drawn to certain breeds, partly because of the legislation. A dog that has the stigma of being a restricted breed may possibly be attractive to an idiot who wants a knob extenstion just because it's deemed to be dangerous or tough.

Prior to the legislation, as long as the dogs had food and water and weren't severely and obviously mistreated, there was absolutely nothing being done for these animals.

Nothing is being done for them, or for the alternative breeds that bad owners get

Discussion on EastCoastFM radio mentioned Scottish system, track record, 'asbo's for dogs' ... its just doesn't seem enforceable. And its not removing dangerous dogs from the home, where most incidents, and most unreported incidents occur.
The scumbag's children will still be mauled

That's a matter for responsible ownership. Recent high profile maulings in this country have been by dogs that are not on the RB list. Also, there are plenty of scumbags in private accommodation...how do you suggest they be dealt with?

If the Scottish system was in place, how would it work for me, as a employee, to report that dog? Owners would feel victimised and possibly not come back? My boss certainly wouldn't hear of it.

Do you not think the owner would feel the same if reported under the current legislation? Regardless of muzzle laws, an owner should not allow a dog to bite. If the owners are made to feel victimised for being irresponsible, then rightly so.

Karlitto

Rips wrote: »

as quite simply, it is the only legislation that is actually being enforced

I have to say, every GSD and Rottie I met were of an inherently nervous disposition.

I read the first sentence, was willing to let it slip, read the second and have stopped reading your post.

Reason being, you clearly have no clue about what you are talking about. You really think RBL is the only dog legislation being enforced? We you are wrong, so very very wrong. Secondly, if every GSD or Rottie you have met was of nervous disposition, you have not met many at all. As I am sure most of the people on this forum will agree with me (and I meet many dogs day in day out) I have never met a single nervous (or aggressive for that matter) Rottweiler or German Shepard.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are maltreated Rotties and GSD's out there, but don't try and advocate they are all of the same condition.

Anyway, I am not going to bother even discussing this with you, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about something.

DBB

Karlitto wrote: »

 As I am sure most of the people on this forum will agree with me (and I meet many dogs day in day out) I have never met a single nervous (or aggressive for that matter) Rottweiler or German Shepard.

Inherited (i.e. not acquired) anxiety and fearfulness are well documented in German Shepherd dogs, and they are the fourth most common breed to be referred to behaviourists in the UK, after crossbreeds, Labradors, and collies.
I'm willing to bet that if you performed a straw poll of people who work with dogs, they will tell you that there are plenty of nervy Rotties about too, despite not having been cruelly treated.
Whilst I would not label every one of either breed as nervous, I've met more than my fair share of them, particularly German Shepherds.

Karlitto

DBB wrote: »

Inherited (i.e. not acquired) anxiety and fearfulness are well documented in German Shepherd dogs, and they are the fourth most common breed to be referred to behaviourists in the UK, after crossbreeds, Labradors, and collies.
I'm willing to bet that if you performed a straw poll of people who work with dogs, they will tell you that there are plenty of nervy Rotties about too, despite not having been cruelly treated.
Whilst I would not label every one of either breed as nervous, I've met more than my fair share of them, particularly German Shepherds.

No straw polling, I am just talking about being out on walks be it with my dogs or without, I usually go to the likes of St. Anne's park in Raheny or Castletown in Celbridge. To be honest, most nevous/anxious/fearful dogs I find are actually great danes, Irish wolfhounds. While I have not met nearly as many of them as I have Rotties/GSD's, I find them far more nervous or timid.

DBB

Karlitto wrote: »

No straw polling, I am just talking about being out on walks be it with my dogs or without

To be fair, you said that most people on this forum would agree with you, in that they would never "have met a single nervous (or aggressive for that matter) Rottweiler or German Shepard (sic)".
It was a pretty huge claim to make. I posted to voice the fact that I'm not one of the people you're referring to, and in the case of GSDs at least, the scientific data does not back up your assumptions.

Karlitto

DBB wrote: »

To be fair, you said that most people on this forum would agree with you, in that they would never "have met a single nervous (or aggressive for that matter) Rottweiler or German Shepard (sic)".
It was a pretty huge claim to make. I posted to voice the fact that I'm not one of the people you're referring to, and in the case of GSDs at least, the scientific data does not back up your assumptions.

Oh crap, yea, wasn't meant to come across that way, that was me saying two things at once because my brain is still in my bed :P

Rips

Bullseye1 wrote: »

You make the point that the current legislation is being enforced. That is simply not the case.

It is proposed to make the owner responsible for the actions of their dog no matter what the breed.

This is about punishing bad owners not entire breed of dog because of some bad apples.

It is as far as I have seen it, except for the muzzle law aspect ... which has the same problem as fines for dog fouling, in that it has to be seen.

If compulsory microchipping is enforced as planned, the current RB legislation could have far reaching effects as far as fining and prosecuting owners of dogs who do not meet the basic criteria, such as having the dog licenced, tagged or keeping it in a restricted area where these exist.

Cut the numbers of this demographic of people, these ill cared for animals, cut the population problem, and its a start. I don't think it was designed for this purpose, but that is the effect it is having. In a lot of cases, you have owners simply denying responsibility for the dog, which is a good thing if it gets the dogs out of their care.

As I said in my first post, I own an RB, a gentle docile RB who absolutely does not need to wear a muzzle and is safe around anybody - I would not be on the fence about the issue, if I hadn't seen the effects of it myself. I also love the breed, GSDs in particular and its a shame to see them being bred to be progressively ill-tempered, if its left up to those owners, they will start to earn the bad rep.

Is placing the responsibility on owners working? In any aspect of care?

Rips

mosi wrote: »

He lives in private rented accommodation though...as do plenty who shouldn't own dogs.

Generally with irresponsible owners, these dogs are coming in off the street, sometimes with tags/chips, more often without ... but it becomes a problem for them when they want to reclaim the dogs. It varies between the pounds, but reclaim fee + higher licence fee, plus boarding?
Reported by concerned neighbours is another way. With the larger breeds, of which most RB's are, there is generally a bigger issue with inappropriate housing, and that's where the complaints come in. If these dogs are locked up, they are locked up in small yards and causing a disturbance to neighbours.

At the very least, it gets them on the radar. There are more reasons, however ill-conceived, for these dogs to get on the radar.

Recent high profile maulings in this country have been by dogs that are not on the RB list. Also, there are plenty of scumbags in private accommodation...how do you suggest they be dealt with?

Its certainly not perfect, and I do disagree with the premise of it - firm believer in deed not breed. I'm the one that wants to hear what the alternative suggestions are!

Do you not think the owner would feel the same if reported under the current legislation? Regardless of muzzle laws, an owner should not allow a dog to bite. If the owners are made to feel victimised for being irresponsible, then rightly so.

I don't, this blanket restriction is bad in one sense that it includes responsible owners too, but a blanket law leaves no room for anyone specifically to feel they are being 'targeted' if they are not conforming to the law. I used to work for a conscientious employer who made it their responsibility whether they agreed with it or not, to say, look, under current law your dog should really be muzzled etc No victimisation there, its the law, simple.

The alternative is a grey area. You'd have to wait for that dog to bite, which should never have to happen.
Its much harder to say or judge, in the scenario where there is no defined law, who is being responsible or not, outright.

Is anyone going to take any notice if they are told, 'you must be responsible for your dog, its the law?' Are they doing it now?!

Rips

Karlitto wrote: »

I read the first sentence, was willing to let it slip, read the second and have stopped reading your post.

Reason being, you clearly have no clue about what you are talking about. You really think RBL is the only dog legislation being enforced? We you are wrong, so very very wrong. Secondly, if every GSD or Rottie you have met was of nervous disposition, you have not met many at all. As I am sure most of the people on this forum will agree with me (and I meet many dogs day in day out) I have never met a single nervous (or aggressive for that matter) Rottweiler or German Shepard.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are maltreated Rotties and GSD's out there, but don't try and advocate they are all of the same condition.

Anyway, I am not going to bother even discussing this with you, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about something.

You have taken what I said out of context, I said every GSD and Rottie from a certain area, ie; where the demographic exists; was of a nervous disposition.

Neither did I say, that they were of an aggressive disposition. Though often an abused nervous dog has the potential to become aggressive.

You also speak of your experience as 'being out on walks' ... believe me, the owners of these dogs, don't walk them. They certainly aren't taking time out of their day to go to the nearest park.
Its likely that if you are meeting dog walkers, its the responsible portion of the population!

mosi

Rips wrote: »

Generally with irresponsible owners, these dogs are coming in off the street, sometimes with tags/chips, more often without ... but it becomes a problem for them when they want to reclaim the dogs. It varies between the pounds, but reclaim fee + higher licence fee, plus boarding?

Not a breed specific issue though. My little terrier boy had owners identified but they wouldn't pay the pound fees and fines. I know of other instances too where non-RB dogs have not been reclaimed due to owners not wanting to pay up.

Reported by concerned neighbours is another way. With the larger breeds, of which most RB's are, there is generally a bigger issue with inappropriate housing, and that's where the complaints come in. If these dogs are locked up, they are locked up in small yards and causing a disturbance to neighbours.

At the very least, it gets them on the radar. There are more reasons, however ill-conceived, for these dogs to get on the radar.

I agree that inapproriate housing is an issue, but again it's not breed specific. As I've said before, lots of dogs who aren't on the list are being kept by bad owners, in particular the Northern Breeds that have become fashionable in recent years. Besides, the issue of a large dog being kept in a small yard won't get animal welfare officials to make a visit. Maybe with the new legislation, it might but I was told by the DSPCA before that they can't do anything about that. When my neighbour got two more dogs last year, I called the DSPCA and also the dog warden as he is someone who really should not be allowed to own dogs. Neither were interested as he had been quick enough to get a muzzle for the older dog. The DSPCA eventually called when someone else called. I'm not sure what came of it except that the dog was gone shortly after their visit (the young pup was long gone by that point).
It seems that the only concrete way an RB can be removed from a home is if keeping the dog is in contravention of the tenancy agreement as is the case with Dublin City Council...again, that raises the spectre of the slippery slope toward outright bans.

Its certainly not perfect, and I do disagree with the premise of it - firm believer in deed not breed. I'm the one that wants to hear what the alternative suggestions are!

I don't, this blanket restriction is bad in one sense that it includes responsible owners too, but a blanket law leaves no room for anyone specifically to feel they are being 'targeted' if they are not conforming to the law. I used to work for a conscientious employer who made it their responsibility whether they agreed with it or not, to say, look, under current law your dog should really be muzzled etc No victimisation there, its the law, simple.

The alternative is a grey area. You'd have to wait for that dog to bite, which should never have to happen.
Its much harder to say or judge, in the scenario where there is no defined law, who is being responsible or not, outright.

Is anyone going to take any notice if they are told, 'you must be responsible for your dog, its the law?' Are they doing it now?!

I think that alternatives could place the onus on the owners rather than any one breed. I agree that, while problems arise across the board, there do seem to be some clear welfare and ownership issues across certain demographics. I am also aware that certain breeds do seem to be over represented across certain demographics...and not just RBs.
I see what you're saying insofar as anything that removes dogs from bad owners is a good thing. I just think that these owners need to be targeted in some way rather than specific breeds.
Should everyone be made to pass a test in order to have a dog, in a licencing system similar to car ownership? Maybe.
Should such a test be focussed on high risk demographics?
Should it be limited to the owners of RBs and/or dogs over a certain weight?
Should people with criminal convictions be barred from having certain breeds (but then get around it by getting other breeds)?
Should it be easier to ban certain individuals from owning a pet?
There are plenty of possible solutions, each with their own problems and potential unintended consequences. I don't know what the best way forward is but the emphasis should be on protecting dogs of all breeds from bad owners.

Rips

All very valid, it was just my personal experience of the effects I have seen, mainly a huge increase in RB's coming out of the homes they shouldn't be in as a result of the legislation - also homes where they could potentially become a concern - as any breed would.

Most strays not on the RB list never make it to the pound in my experience, they get as far as local vets and are returned to owners without any fees or licence etc.

I won't be in a rush to sign the petition TBH. Not without a definite strategic, enforceable alternative.

The RB legislation which applies to me as a RB owner are not compromising my dog's health or welfare.

I don't know if there is a PC way to otherwise target a whole demographic!! :D