Appalling!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10960407/Police-forced-to-put-down-their-own-sniffer-dog-because-it-was-an-illegal-breed.html
They can be kept if tattoo'd well behaved and muzzled why couldn't they do this?
I watched this program too, i seen him be rehomed..he was no where near type!

This story broke my heart when I heard it a couple of days ago! why couldn't the police privately rehome as exempt he didn't need to be PTS

I don't understand this either, particularly the last paragraph of the article:

A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commented: "The laws on prohibited type dogs are there to protect people from types of dogs bred for fighting."

How could anyone prove this dog was bred for fighting ?

It is scarey how many dogs get classed as type and so unfair that an innocent animal is destroyed.
I was so upset when it was mentioned in another thread and had to google it to see if it was true.

The guidelines for identifying banned breeds are so ambiguous that you could almost say a cat was a banned dog breed.

If a dog handler says I believe its a (insert dangerous animal here) then it's done.

It's one of the most lunatic laws you can imagine. The more you understand it the less it makes sense. It basically says that a dog can be killed on looks alone, regardless of what breed or cross-breed it is and irrespective or whether or not its actually dangerous. There's a check list of features and every single criteria on there is subjective - e.g., powerful thighs, broad hip, balanced head - and even more absurdly there is no set number of criteria that need to match before a dog is declared a 'pit bull' breed. So some self-proclaimed expert can look at a dog, say it matches a few of the checklist points and hey presto it's carted off and killed.

Worse still, the entire law is based on the ridiculous idea that some dog breeds are inherently dangerous whilst some are not.

article wrote:"In Tyson's case, it was our expert Dog Legislation Officers who identified the physical traits."

Er, no it wasn't, it was a moron with no knowledge of dogs who needs to get a proper job.

Mind you, we should be grateful we don't live in some US States. Here's the scientific, highly accurate method by which the former Attorney General of Ontario, Michael Bryant, advocates we should distinguish pit-bull breeds from any other.

Michael Bryant wrote:If it walks like a pit bull, if it barks and bites like a pit bull, wags its tail like a pit bull, it’s a pit bull."

Brilliant. Thanks, Mike, you total and utter pr**k.

I must say that I have to agree with the RSPCA on this that the law is unfair and unworkable. IMO, this legislation is at best ambiguous and is just someone's opinion of what a dog 'looks like'. Does my head in.   

They can't be rehomed if they're still the property of a rescue centre, it's illegal, and as he was on trial with the police he wasn't even their property yet. I've worked with the staff the staff at that centre and they adore bull breeds, but they have to abide by that ludicrous law unfortunately.

Extract from Defra guidelines to id a pit type. Tell me this isn't ambiguous...


Identifying Pit Bull Terrier (PBT) types
The following information is aimed to provide a starting point for identifying Pit Bull
Terrier (PBT) types. It should not be seen as an exhaustive list of characteristics and
further expert advice and guidance must be sought at an early stage.
There are no photographs provided to assist with this as these animals can look very different yet
have a substantial number of characteristics present and be considered a PBT.
If you cannot obtain advice from your local DLO and need assistance in identifying an alleged s1
dog you may contact the Status Dogs Unit at the Metropolitan Police at statusdogs@met.police.uk
The standard used to identify a PBT is set out in the American Dog Breeders Association standard of
conformation as published in the Pit Bull Gazette, vol 1, issue 3 1977 – please refer to this for the full
description and also relevant cases 20 as this is only a brief overview. Although the law does not require
a suspected PBT to fit the description perfectly, it does require there to be a substantial number of
characteristics present so that it can be considered ‘more’ PBT than any other type of dog.

• When first viewing the dog it should appear square from the side, and its height to the top of
its shoulders should be the same distance as from the front of its shoulder to the rear point of
its hip.

• Its height to weight ratio should be in proportion.

• Its coat should be short and bristled, (single coated).

• Its head should appear to be wedge shaped when viewed from the side and top but rounded
when viewed from the front. The head should be around 2/3 width of shoulders and 25 per
cent wider at cheeks than at the base of the skull (this is due to the cheek muscles).

• The distance from the back of the head to between the eyes should be about equal to the
distance from between the eyes to the tip of its nose.

• The dog should have a good depth from the top of head to bottom of jaw and a straight
box-like muzzle.

• Its eyes should be small and deep-set, triangular when viewed from the side and elliptical
from front.

• Its shoulders should be wider than the rib cage at the eighth rib.

• Its elbows should be flat with its front legs running parallel to the spine.

• Its forelegs should be heavy and solid and nearly twice the thickness of the hind legs just below
the hock.

• The rib cage should be deep and spring straight out from the spine, it should be elliptical in
cross section tapering at the bottom and not ‘barrel’ chested.

• It should have a tail that hangs down like an old fashioned ‘pump handle’ to around the hock.

• It should have a broad hip that allows good attachment of muscles in the hindquarters and
hind legs.

• Its knee joint should be in the upper third of the dog’s rear leg, and the bones below that
should appear light, fine and springy.

• Overall the dog should have an athletic appearance, the standard makes no mention of ears,
colour, height, or weight.

You could interpret from that description just about every Staffy on here, pedigree or not. Those guidlines are a load of bull (excuse the pun)

I was devastated he didn't look type at all    Something underhand going on there.

Those specifications are disgusting, every staff out there has some or one of those features....does that make them type...its why I gst so worried about it and why I am vigilant in making sure hes behaved. This law makes me so mad