[crazywiggy]

sacrificed = eradicated or killed or not bredpublic necessity = placate the ignorant and safety

Yes, the first definition could be implemented, and would of course be preferable to simply killing existing dogs.

The second definition is a matter of opinion. You believe certain breeds of dogs are a safety concern. I believe certain individual dogs are a safety concern.
However, what we do know for certain is that governments decide their policies in order to win votes. They would not care if we had all the concrete evidence in the world - if "Jo Public" who know absolutely nothing about dogs, wanted pits banned, the gov would do it to win their votes.

But you do have problem when large number of innocent dogs are removed together due to our inability to pick out only dangerous ones?

Yes. I also have a problem with wasting time, money and resources bringing in legislation that WILL NOT WORK!

If we do that, and also eradicate pit bulls, could it be even safer?

No. Because ANY dog can bite. ANY dog can kill. And ANY dog can be a fantastic and safe family pet.

We will have one less issues.

No. Because PEOPLE will still create individually dangerous dogs, so people will continue to be bitten and killed - just by other breeds.

I don't see why we can't consider the other things dangerous dogs often have in common rather than breed alone. We could bring in legislation based on these things and actually reduce dog attacks. Not only that but such laws would also be a gerat leap forward for animal welfare at the same time. And by limiting ownership to responsible people you would also reduce problems such as fouling and straying. Some well thought out legislation would be more effective for the purpose, and have so many other benefits too. Surely this is therefore the logical and compassionate way to go?

For those that still believe genetics has a big part to play in aggression why not legislate breeding?
Legislate the breeders to ensure high standards of care for the dogs and puppies (vital for good early development).
Legislate the dogs themselves. The American Temperament Test and KC Canine Good Citizens Award Scheme both give good indicators of temperament - for example, behaving around other dogs and people, coping with unusual and potentially scary situations, being handled and touched all over etc. If we made it mandatory that only temperament tested dogs could be bred from, we could eradicate any dogs that are "naturally" aggressive - from EVERY breed. Same for health/mental problems such as "rage syndrome". Stop people breeding from dogs with rage in their bloodlines, and it will cease to exist.

And then there are all the other factors affecting aggression...

Many dog bites are caused by entire dogs - make it mandatory that every dog that is not certified as safe to breed is neutered, and reduce those attacks.

Many biters are undersocialised. Many are untrained. Many have been abused or spoiled (both equally dangerous and stupid things to do). So legislate the breeders and owners. Make approved training classes mandatory. Make people learn then pass a test to prove they understand the importance of socialisation and training and how to do it. Prevent the completely ignorant, the criminals, etc from owning dogs and watch dog bites plummet.

What would bringing in this type of legislation achieve?

1) A significant reduction in dog attacks. Only temperament tested dogs would be bred by responsible, knowledgable breeders. Pups would be properly raised in the correct environment. Dogs would be owned by knowledgable, responsible people. They would be well socialised and trained, and neutered.

2) A significant reduction in other anti-social dog problems. Responsible owners do not let their dogs roam the neighborhood. Responsible owners do not let their dogs drive the neighbours mad with their barking. Responsible owners scoop the poop. Responsible owners do not treat dogs as weapons and use them to intimidate people.

3) A massive improvement in animal welfare.
By legislating the breeders and the "breeding dogs" we would significantly reduce the number of dogs being born - eradicating puppy farms and BYBs, not to mention most impulse buys. Less dogs born means less dogs dumped on the streets, surrendered to rescues and destroyed. We could solve the problem of overpopulation.
By including health testing in this legislation you would not only reduce the chances of dogs biting because they are in pain, but could prevent the immense suffering (pain, disability, early death etc) of hereditary diseases.
By enforcing high standards of care you would improve the welfare of millions of dogs, and prevent most cases of outright abuse or neglect. It would also help to eradicate dog fighting.
By enforcing proper socialisation and training we would have less dogs living in fear of scary situations (being left alone, fireworks, strangers, etc). Less dogs being repeatedly chastised and punished for wrong doing because they don't know any better. Less dogs being bored stiff because they have no mental stimulation in their lives - training (humane) is GOOD for dogs.

We could accomplish all this and probably more - without demonising any innocent breed, or punishing any innocent dog or owner.

I do not understand why anyone would choose ineffective BSL over the more sensible, humane, effective, and far-reaching alternative.

Ziggy

Why do we just put down a dog who has attacked someone. Why not put the owner in jail as well instead of giving that person a slap on the wrist with a fine and allow them to go and own another dog that will repeat the same actions because the owner is still an idiot that knows nothing on how to properly train his dogs?

I completely agree. I believe the penalties for being responsible for a dog bite should be much higher. Responsible owners generally do not have aggressive dogs because they treat them right. Responsible people that take on rescue dogs with aggression problems work through these problems in an appropriate manner and take necessary precautions such as muzzling.