[westendlass]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

The dangerous dog act is a worthless knee jerk piece of legislation brought about in response to public outcry! All dogs have the potential to be dangerous it's in their nature, but the influence of the owner can reduce or increase these responses.

The act itself covers; Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero & cross-breed derivatives, yet many bites & attacks are the result of the family pet which isn't one of those listed above. I know this from personal experience because in the last couple of years I've had the pleasure of being nipped by a Rotty in the calf (drawing blood), had my left hand punctured between thumb & forefinger by a terrier cross ( lots of blood & a trip to A&E) & the most recent, only this Tuesday just I had the hem of my right trouser leg savaged by some hairy Russel type rat! (Highly embarrassing but no blood). Like I said all of these incidents involved dogs not listed, but their actions could & should class them as dangerous.
Police & Military use Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, Rottweilers & Belgian shepherds, as various attack, guard or war dogs so surely these must be deemed more aggressive & as such dangerous but they aren't! Which reinforces my personal view that the governments hasty policy was more in response to outraged screaming than to an actual thought out preventative policy.

I see you have a natural affinity with dogs Dave, they must really love you. Do you have the same effect on cats?