Petition NOT to add staffies to BSL

For those who don't go into the BSL section of our forum...

During recent submissions to Parliament on Breed Specific Legislation within Dangerous Dogs Act, PETA (that bastion of animal welfare) called for staffies to be added to the list. There is now a petition to Parliament NOT to add them. You'd like to think that the chance of it happening was small enough not to worry about it but we are talking about an irrational piece of legislation so the risk might be greater than it should be, so please sign the petition to keep our staffs off the list, and please share widely:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/222419

" Reject calls to add Staffordshire Bull Terriers to the Dangerous Dogs Act
PETA, an organisation that is meant to be dedicated to protecting animals, has proposed to the UK government that it should add Staffordshire Bull Terriers to the dangerous dogs act, effectively banning them outright. Breed Specific Legislation is not the solution to the problem of dog attacks. "

(thanks to Kosmos for picking this up)

Signed.

I can't believe it's even considered!! I'm looking at my furry baby and my heart ache. Signed,

My friend just has sent this to me
https://www.peta.org.uk/blog/why-peta-supports-breed-specific-legislation/

Yes, I saw that
Their reasons are not only flawed, but ridiculous.

PETA are cracked, flawed, militant, reactionist IDIOTS!

I have just sent PETA this:

I have just read the statement on your website where you try to explain your absurd and outrageous support not only for BSL but for your ill-advised suggestion of including staffies in it. I would like to pick up a few of the points that you make and ask you to reconsider your position.
It is beyond belief that any legislation that results in the incarceration and destruction of innocent dogs is ‘what’s best for dogs’. Yes, shelters do put dogs down and yes there is a problem with over-breeding. Over-breeding is an issue that needs to be addressed but not through the means of bans and restrictions. Not only is singling out specific breeds of dog as needing to bear the brunt of the problem unfair on that breed, it will not make any difference. Banning staffies will not stop people breeding dogs.
While pit-bulls may sometimes be owned by people who abuse and abandon them, in the UK I can assure you that there are other breeds who suffer equally, if not more, such as lurchers. I speak from the experience of regular volunteering at a RSPCA affiliated rescue and rehoming centre, where underweight and sick lurchers are more common than pit bull types. If, as you erroneously seem to believe, ‘appropriate breed-specific protection legislation […] is designed to safeguard them from homelessness and abuse’, are you also proposing banning lurchers for the same reason?
Finally, you say you’re ‘not advocating for any dogs to be removed from loving homes’. That’s exactly what you are potentially advocating. Unless you personally write the legislation and ensure it is passed through Parliament word for word, ensuring that existing dogs are exempt, you are risking adding a greatly loved family pet, our fabulous staffies, to this hideous law.
Could I strongly urge you to change your positionand acknowledge that NO breed should be subject to bans or restrictions simply based on their looks alone.

I wouldn't normally want to have any contact with them but that statement just made me see red.

gillybrent wrote:Yes, I saw that
Their reasons are not only flawed, but ridiculous.
PETA are cracked, flawed, militant, reactionist IDIOTS!

read it as well ..
still .. reminds me of nazi eugenics in '30s-'40s europe
in fact the whole Breed Specific Legislation has me thinking of that
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

didn't know much about PETA 'till now

googled "Ingrid Newkirk" ..
and whilst there's much positive PR and such ..
PETA not being very nice in my mind .. to say the least ..
came across these ( negative) links ..

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/my-disturbing-encounter-with-the-mind-of-peta/

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/douglas-anthony-cooper/peta-kill_b_1387030.html?guccounter=1

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/whistleblower-peta-employee-allegations_b_6648696.html?guccounter=1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i posted the petition at " www.landyzone.co.uk "
so far 54 replies .. mostly positive .. keeping it on a front page ..
and 276 views .. so hopefully more sigs. added to the petition
( to view that particular sub forum .. 'anything goes' ..
( one needs to register and sign in

have also emailed friends .. and been around to neighbors ..
all who know my staffy 'Lady' ..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

41,288 sigs. for the petition now .. and climbing

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LizP wrote:I have just sent PETA this:

I have just read the statement on your website where you try to explain your absurd and outrageous support not only for BSL but for your ill-advised suggestion of including staffies in it. I would like to pick up a few of the points that you make and ask you to reconsider your position.
It is beyond belief that any legislation that results in the incarceration and destruction of innocent dogs is ‘what’s best for dogs’. Yes, shelters do put dogs down and yes there is a problem with over-breeding. Over-breeding is an issue that needs to be addressed but not through the means of bans and restrictions. Not only is singling out specific breeds of dog as needing to bear the brunt of the problem unfair on that breed, it will not make any difference. Banning staffies will not stop people breeding dogs.
While pit-bulls may sometimes be owned by people who abuse and abandon them, in the UK I can assure you that there are other breeds who suffer equally, if not more, such as lurchers. I speak from the experience of regular volunteering at a RSPCA affiliated rescue and rehoming centre, where underweight and sick lurchers are more common than pit bull types. If, as you erroneously seem to believe, ‘appropriate breed-specific protection legislation […] is designed to safeguard them from homelessness and abuse’, are you also proposing banning lurchers for the same reason?
Finally, you say you’re ‘not advocating for any dogs to be removed from loving homes’. That’s exactly what you are potentially advocating. Unless you personally write the legislation and ensure it is passed through Parliament word for word, ensuring that existing dogs are exempt, you are risking adding a greatly loved family pet, our fabulous staffies, to this hideous law.
Could I strongly urge you to change your positionand acknowledge that NO breed should be subject to bans or restrictions simply based on their looks alone.

I wouldn't normally want to have any contact with them but that statement just made me see red.

can i post that in my 'landyzone' please ??
as ppl would be interested and it would be another reply
to keep the petition on their front page

cheers

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ve signed it.. are they for real? What on earth did they think would happen if this goes through, all the staffies here now won’t get PTS just no more breeding.. yet their points stating them as a danger and about them getting abused just contradicts everything they have said if they still want the current number of Staffies to stay alive. Idiots. I stopped following them on social media because of all the vegan pushing, and basically saying if people eat meat then they don’t love animals.

Signed & shared on facebook

kozmos wrote:
can i post that in my 'landyzone' please ??
as ppl would be interested and it would be another reply
to keep the petition on their front page

Of course you can. Being on a car forum will be a first for me

Nice letter Liz - well done!

I've signed already and I'm sure all our members sign too.

100,360 signatures now .. and still rising :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good to hear!

PETA's reply...

Thank you for getting in touch with us about BSL.

Many PETA staff share their homes with staffies and we know they can be wonderful family companions. That said, staffies and other pit bull types are so vulnerable to abuse, neglect and abandonment that they need special protection. If we could, we’d change the name of the Act to the Vulnerable Dogs Act – because this is how we see these dogs.  Of course, any amendments to the legislation should allow dogs who are well cared for to remain in their homes for the rest of their lives, but be spayed or neutered to spare future dogs from abandonment and abuse.

When properly enforced BSL does work. Communities that have passed breed-specific protections for pit bulls have drastically reduced the number of these dogs entering their shelters and, subsequently, the number of pit bulls euthanized. Springfield, Missouri, recently reported that before its pit bull ordinance was implemented, the municipal shelter had to euthanize hundreds of these dogs every year—but by last year, the number had been reduced to 26. Likewise, the number of pit bulls euthanized at San Francisco's animal control facility dropped by 24 percent just 18 months after the city passed a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bulls. We know that the legislation is not perfect and that there are issues with its implementation but we have recently met with the RSPCA and support an amendment to the legislation.

We are in the midst of an animal overpopulation crisis. In the UK alone, an estimated 20,000 dogs are euthanized in shelters every year because there are too many of them and not enough good homes. With this in mind it makes sense to back efforts to reduce the population of any breed of dog through the use of breeding bans.

I hope this addresses some of your concerns. For more information you can head to our recent blog post on this: https://www.peta.org.uk/blog/why-peta-supports-breed-specific-legislation/

Thanks again for taking the time to email us and for everything you do to help animals.


And mine back to them. Do I sound just a bit peed off with them?

I’m sorry but I’m still completely amazed at your position. Arguing that BSL must be a good thing as there are now fewer pits to abuse or kill is like arguing that poaching is a good thing because there are now fewer rhino to poach. Should we go about protecting all groups of vulnerable animals by banning them?

Your position that BSL is in any way related to protecting vulnerable dogs is quite frankly one of the most extraordinary claims I’ve ever heard about it. It is part of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was brought it as to address media fuelled worries about dogs harming humans, and for no other reason. If you are going to put yourselves out as being an authority on a subject, you may be well advised to get your facts straight first.

You cite numbers from the US. It is UK legislation that you are suggesting changing to include staffies. In this country, we are talking of dogs locked up for months, if not years, often in inhumane conditions, with well meaning and innocent owners being dragged through the torture of having their pets ripped from them, of having months of uncertainty and expensive court cases, oftentimes only to have their dog killed at the end of it. This is the reality of BSL in this country. Is that how you go about protecting vulnerable dogs?

I apologise if I sound angry and rude, but the potential harm you are doing is too great. Do you not realise that the outcome may be that some bright spark thinks it is a good idea to simply add staffies to the list, and that they will then suffer the same fate?

As I said before, there are other ways to address dog population numbers in the UK. I would vote for banning internet sales by those other than breeders on a central, publicly accessible register, with a registration fee to deter back yard breeders and the like. This would include advertising dogs on social media and on sites such as Preloved, with the aim of concentrating the mind of the instant gratification with option to return shopper of this day and age. I would restrict the number of dogs imported from other countries for rehoming, with charities encouraged to help the UK dog population or to support those other countries in addressing their stray dogs problems without bringing thousands into this already over-crowded rescue population. There are no doubt other means too, all better than subjecting more dogs to the horror of BSL.

Sadly I fear you will continue to disagree but if my arguments have made any headway, then thank you for listening and reconsidering.

For one moment I almost felt sorry for the woman who emailed me (Claire Fowler), but then I remembered that she has chosen to work for this mob and my sympathy vanished.

Well I'm glad PETA don't have any say in human affairs as I'm sure they would want my husband with Cystic Fibrosis put down to save him any pain!

Your response was fantastic as always Liz.

We won
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/222419
We won't let them hurt ours babies

Fab response Liz! They are making absolutely no sense whatsoever! If there only reason is to stop bad breeding etc then they need to have a new law made which I would happily back because I agree with everything you put forward on how to stop breeding and dodgy sales of dogs, do they think we are stupid wanting to add staffies onto the danger dogs act is still going to mean every other breed and going to be have more pups and be mistreated, just because they want to wipe out staffies people will just go to another dog, such as the French bull dog they are a popular dog and there’s been a woman recently been caught in my area of using her French Bull dog a a puppy machine and she’s got so sick she nearly died she made thousands and thousands from her and got her zero vet care, that’s what they need to stop!

Great news. I've seen in FB page called blue staffy king ragnor a letter from a mp called Christopher Pincher and he has responded saying they will not be adding staffs to BSL. They are known for being loyal and loving dogs. Well done that man xxx

Good man!!!

Thanks for the update, Emma.

Signed the petition

A letter was posted on fb from the Minister concerned (unfortunately I can't find it now) stating categorically that the SBT will NOT be added to the banned list. Unfortunately, it also said that the BSL will remain.

PETA's proposal is absurd. They claim that BSL is nonsense and ineffective, and of course they're right, but then they want to ADD to it. What they fail to understand is that even if one breed is banned, another breed or cross-breed will take its place. Do they really think the dog fighters will shrug their shoulders and say, "Huh, Staffies are too difficult to get hold of, we'll just go play Dungeons and Dragons instead,"? Absolute idiots. I stopped giving PETA money when they sent me an email about the harsh treatment of prawns. These people need their melons adjusting.

The issue they describe is obviously a serious problem. The thing is, we could solve it tomorrow. Proper punishment for dog abusers. The recent case of a sub-human turd who regularly beat his Staffy (I won't link to it because when I read it the first time I had a hard time not getting in my car, crossing the country and slitting this filth's throat) and ended up biting off its ears, its nose and stabbing and kicking it half to death. In court he received... well, nothing. Not even a day's jail. And in ten year's time he can legally get another dog. You couldn't make it up.

Dog abuse needs a maximum life term. People like this scum need to go to jail for 20 years. Dog fighting should attract a minimum 10 year sentence, and that includes anybody who supports or watches it. Breeders need to be regulated up the kazoo. Unlicensed breeders should be jailed and stripped of their assets. All dog sales and trading on social media should be banned. And I'd also support a return of dog licencing, backed up by very strict laws.

All of that is totally commendable but unenforceable. It would be impossible to police - they can't even properly police the current regulations!

It would actually be very easy to police. All that would be needed is for the police chiefs to do their job and prioritise their work. Look at what the police spend their money on; billions over the last few years policing what people say to each other on social media. Write a naughty word on Facebook and the cops will bash your door down before the day is out, but torture a dog and they don't want to know (if it weren't for the RSPCA using public funds for private prosecutions no animal cruelty would ever be prosecuted as the police and the CPS don't believe it's their job). The police are actually mandated by law to do this but refuse.

Another example; look at the outrageous sums of money spent on the phone hacking 'scandal'. A bunch of over-privileged celebs moan that people have been listening in to their voicemail and lo and behold, the entire Met goes from protesting they don't have enough resource to tackle burglary and mugging to dedicating hundreds of detectives over several years and spending over £100m of taxpayers' money. The police have no problem finding manpower and funding when it suits.

Don't be fooled by the nonsense in the media, the police have ample resource to tackle crime, especially in this case when you consider that dog licencing and breeder licencing would bring in billions a year.

Exactly. You've proved my point. It WOULDN'T be policed ('policed' meaning enforced, not taken up by the police services).

But actually, it wouldn't be down to the police to enforce, it would be left to the local councils & it would be the same as years ago when there WERE licences - nothing would be done.

Plus, murderers often don't get 20 years, so animal abusers certainly wouldn't.

As far as animal abuse/puppy farming/indescriminate (accidental) breeding goes, you have to be practical. Yes, we'd all like to see tougher laws, but the extremes you suggest just won't happen - even if 5,000,000 people sign a petition, it won't happen.

We should not accept the government, police and judiciary not doing their jobs. Saying it's inevitable that they will continue to not do their jobs on account of them not having done them properly in the past is defeatist and won't achieve anything. You must always demand what you want, not what you think you'll get. If I negotiate for providing a service I'll go into negotiations high, the buyer will go low and we'll meet somewhere in the middle. If you say, "Oh, I'll just ask for the minimum because that's all I'll get," then you'll actually receive even less, and likely nothing at all.

Petitions and protests only have limited effect, but voting is the key. People continue to vote for the three main parties despite the fact they shaft us on all counts at every opportunity and don't give two stuffs about animal welfare (Gove is possibly, just possibly, an exception). Morrissey came out recently and said, "There is a new party called For Britain. They have the best approach to animal welfare, whereas no other party even bothers to mention animal welfare." Here here. I'm not suggesting everyone should vote for For Britain, the Green Party for example also have dog licencing and animal welfare in their manifesto, but if you vote for a party that does not value animal welfare then you're part of the problem.

Oh my.

I bite for the party who comes closest to my ideal of how the country should be run. The Green Party are great for animals, but don't have a clue when it comes to politics & running a country.

I make it a 'thing' to not discuss politics or religion & I won't break that now. Let's just say that most animal rights 'politicians' would lead the country in to chaos.

I'm not arguing, I'm not dissing other people's politics. But I will say that the 'animal rights' parties would destroy this country because they have tunnel vision.

That wasn't quite my point. Of course these small parties can't run a country, but they can absorb votes, and when the Conservatives or whoever realise they are losing votes they will change their policies. That's how it works.

Dogface wrote:That wasn't quite my point. Of course these small parties can't run a country, but they can absorb votes, and when the Conservatives or whoever realise they are losing votes they will change their policies. That's how it works.

I'm afraid they never have, and they never will. Because they know, when it comes down to it, people won't give the important votes to a party that can't run the country.

I agree with your sentiment, but it won't work.

Well, voting for a party that could never get into power resulted in us leaving the EU, the biggest political upheaval in the past 100 years. If we can do that, dog licencing is a piece of cake.

Dogface wrote:Well, voting for a party that could never get into power resulted in us leaving the EU, the biggest political upheaval in the past 100 years. If we can do that, dog licencing is a piece of cake.

I don't quite get that - the vote was stay or leave, not for a party.

The Conservatives were forced to offer a referendum because they were losing so many votes to UKIP. If it weren't for people voting UKIP, the referendum would not have been offered and we'd still be in the EU.

Sorry, peeps, this is way off topic. Either back to talking about dog legislation or I'll have to lock it.

The point is that BSL and its associated nonsense will only be rescinded if people change their voting habits at the ballot box. This is the only method that has been proven to work, and indeed is the core function of democracy. It's great that our current brace of clowns have not added Staffies to the BSL list but at the end of the day it's a minor point (a Staffy ban doesn't even need modified legislation as the mechanisms are already within the BSL, which judges dogs not on DNA, history or behaviour, but solely on appearance; all a Staffy ban requires is a directive to the police). It's no use complaining about BSL and the like, then come the next election voting for the very people who implemented it in the first place. Petitions are all very well, and I sign them myself, but the government takes no notice of them, even when they're forced into a Commons debate, which usually attracts half a dozen dullards into the chamber, three of whom fall asleep and the others who wander in by accident and don't know what's going on. If anyone has an idea how to get proper dog protective legislation in place using another method then I'd be interested to hear it.

LizP wrote:Sorry, peeps, this is way off topic. Either back to talking about dog legislation or I'll have to lock it.

Sorry Liz. But as to BSL, it doesn't matter which party us in - both parties have been in government since BSL was brought in & did jack all to rescind it.

The only thing in recent years to bring a government down was poll tax. But dog law won't be at the top of most people's priorities. Most people don't even understand BSL, or why it's wrong and ineffective.

Education is the way forward. Until EVERYBODY sees the futility of BSL it won't change.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/62d17595-483a-4445-bb0b-7ffc90f511a5

Can watch the debate here about the petition, all thought it wasn't really a debate as they had already made it clear staffies wouldn't be added on to the list. They are all very pro staffy only shame is at that they aren't going to revisit and alter BSL

The first intervention was spot on - laws are already in place to deal with bad owners (albeit with woeful sentencing options) but the police don't care and the neither do the courts. Then again, they're the government, they can change the sentencing options and guidelines, so it's mostly hot air.