What would it mean if a dog breed is added onto the DDL?

The Dangerous Dogs Act [DDA] that was an ill conceived piece of legislation at its inception, enacted by politicians who wanted to be seen to be doing something to address the “problem” of dangerous dogs [even though per head of population dog bite incidents resulting is death or serious bodily harm are rare occurrences]. The DDA identified the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro and Dogo Argentino as most likely to exhibit vicious behavior and therefore deemed to pose a greater risk to the public.

The "Pit Bull Terrier" is not a breed but a generic term that includes the American Pit Bull Terrier and any dog that is deemed to have sufficient characteristics to fall within the widely construed pit bull "type", which can be a cross bred dog or mutt with multiple breeds in the mix.

It would have been unjust for people who purchased breeds when it was legal to own them to be guilty after the fact, so there was a small window of opportunity for owner to legally register their dogs on the index of exempted dogs. The idea was the number of American Pit Bull Terriers and types would reduce naturally as the dogs dies – ha, well that failed! There are now MORE dogs registered dogs on the IED as people keep breeding, as if prosecuted as the courts discretion a dog can be registered and owned legally thereafter – if the owner complies with the requirements.

If the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was deemed to be a "dangerous breed" by politicians the DDA would be amended to include it and owners who purchased the breed when it was legal provided with a window to register their dogs on the IED. Failure to comply would result in prosecution if a dog was identified as a SBT [or type] and the case disposed of by the dog being killed or at the court's discretion registered on the IED IF the owner agrees to comply with all the provisions - breach the provisions and the dog can be seized and killed.

In a nutshell breed specific legislation is out of step with rational common sense as no one breed should be classed as genetically predisposed to exhibit vicious behavior toward humans. If the Dog Control Bill becomes law, the DDA would be repealed bringing an end to breed specific legislation, not before time.

We have just had some dangerous dog laws passed in australia and from my understanding it means that your dog HAS to be registered and you have to register to own a dog on the DDL. And if you do not complete the registration before the set date then yes your dog can be seized and destroyed. Its basically a part of deterring irresponsible dog owners from getting percieved high liability pets that they are now being made accountable for.

Im sure there are probably other laws/conditions involved but they definitely arent going to start seizing the breed and just eradicate them.

Like the other four breeds on the list, they will be 'grandfathered' in and you will be permitted to keep the dog under the conditions that it is microchipped, neutered and kept on a lead and perhaps muzzle at all times in public. You would be able to keep your dog but won't be allowed to breed him, the idea is to allow the breed to die out in the country of the ban.

A staffy cross can still be seized and destroyed now if it meets the measurement criteria of a 'pit bull TYPE', as a type does not need to conform to a single breed but includes all those dogs that match the measurements set out. It is why DNA tests are not of any use in fighting the seizure of a dog.

Your peers are fully and utter garden breeders. Backyard breeders mostly THINK that what they are doing is ok, and so they just like the gains they get from promoting the dogs. A man or woman jogging a dog mill isn't mostly below the phantasm that they are doing whatever k; they rather handiest care approximately the gains. Neither time period has an overly concrete definition, despite the fact that, so others would possibly certainly remember your peers a dog mill. If they definitely cared for his or her puppies, they definitely would not placed them by way of the strain and dangers of being pregnant and delivery. If they definitely cared for his or her puppies' dogs, they do not need bred their puppies within the first situation. I assurance that your peers will probably be immediately dependable for a minimum of one (without doubt extra) puppy(s) being given up for adoption. Consider what number of dogs they are grinding out and what number of come to be in shelters each and every unmarried 12 months. The statistical figures exhibit that their puppies' offspring (or their offspring's offspring, etc etc) will probably be aspect of the 4 million puppies given up annually. It additionally appears like they do not care who will get the dogs (yet another crimson flag). Sure, they in general verify out the folks who solutions the commercials.. to a few measure. But it definitely does no longer sound like they seek for the superb houses for his or her priceless toddlers, the households that they recognize will probably be dependable, loving and a correct fit for the breed and person. If the man or woman pays, they are able to have the dog, appears like. Quality breeders are not making gains. Why? Because wellness trying out and displaying is EXPENSIVE.

I think there would be a period where existing animals would have to be neutered, and muzzled in public. And there will be yet again, a huge influx of dogs being handed into Shelters, as if there aren't enough Staffie and Staffie-types in Shelters already. I seriously doubt the Staffie will go onto the DDL, but never say never.

Yep, your dog would be gone. Along with mine, and every other staffy-staffy mix that they can get hold of. Any dog that resembles one would be gone too. Not that that would ever happen, i don't think. Pit Bulls are still rife in our capitals, despite the ban

Aww if they ever passed the law here in Florida that we couldnt have pitties/staffies, heck! they aint takin' my dog! They hafta take me and put me ihn the "cell" with em'