Every year in the UK, many family pets are legally taken away and killed, simply because they "look like" or indeed are, of a certain breed. Regardless of their nature, behaviour or track record, based on their breed alone, any dog who is suspected of being a:

Pit Bull Terrier
Japanese Tosa
Dogo Argentino
Fila Brasileiro

Is at a very real risk of being taken away and killed.

I believe dogs should be judged on their behaviour, and owners should be more responsible. I would like to see breed specific elements of the law removed, and replaced with displayed behaviour. I would also like the law to make it mandatory for dog owners to attend behaviour and socialisation classes with their dog before being allowed to take the dog out in public without a muzzle  and leash. After classes, by being in a public place with a dog, the owner is displaying that their dog is not dangerous. If a dog was then to bite/injure someone, i believe it would be appropriate to consider a number of options for the dog, including being destroyed.

Dog owners: Search the banned breeds on google, and consider if your dog looks similar. Can you imagine being accused of your dog falling into one of the above categories? The burden of proof, would then be on YOU, to satisfy the courts (if you could even afford to contest it) that your dog is NOT of that breed. There is no opportunity given to prove your dog is not aggressive, that doesn't matter.

Lets judge dogs on their behaviour and lets put more responsibility on dog owners to bring up well behaved and well socialised dogs.

Article from "newsletter.co.uk'

Battersea's "What’s Breed Got To Do With It?" report reveals 74 per cent of professionals said breed was either irrelevant or only slightly important in determining aggression levels in dogs.

A total of 86 per cent said the way a dog is brought up by its owner is an important attack factor – with the socialisation of man’s best friend playing a critical role.

A dog’s size was only considered relevant in terms of an attack outcome as “small dogs are just as likely to attack as larger dogs”, but larger dogs have the capacity to “inflict greater injury and damage”.

Claire Horton, Battersea’s chief executive, said: “This new research by Battersea sets out the failings of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in focusing on how a dog looks, rather than on anything that it has done or the actions of its owner.

“There are, of course, some dangerous dogs on our streets but for a quarter of a century this legislation has condemned too many innocent dogs to be put to sleep whilst systematically failing to reduce dog attacks in our communities.

“Battersea is dismayed that this outdated, knee-jerk piece of legislation is still on the statute books. There is a clear need to replace it with a law that targets irresponsible owners.”