.

Patch's Poll: Should Countries Be Allowed To 'Ban' Certain Dog Breeds?

It's illegal to own a pit bull in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, a central point in a recent controversy in which the Belfast City Council put down a dog that resembled that breed.

 

A 7-year-old dog named Lennox, who authorities in Northern Ireland impounded two years ago due to concerns of it being a "danger to the public," was put down last week.

According to the BBC, the City Council in Belfast, where the dog was seized, had been embroiled in a two-year dispute over the ability to put the dog to sleep.

Why was the dog a presumed threat? , which is an illegal dog in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and banned in that country.

The BBC reported that once the council received confirmation that it was able to put the animal down, that council members began getting death threats about the proposal. According to the Huffington Post, Lennox inspired supporters and detractors on both sides of the Atlantic, with many online campaigns geared toward saving the animal.

So, Patch readers, we’re curious to hear your reactions to this fact that a specific dog breed is deemed illegal in a country. Do you agree with or disagree with this?

Should towns, states or countries be allowed to "ban" certain dog breeds, like pit bulls? Take our poll and share your thoughts in the comments.

REVMAN September 01, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Diane --If your dogs bite ANYONE you are lible (medical,ect.)and if they bite the second time you may not have a choice of surrendering it.
Daniella Ruiz September 01, 2012 at 04:12 PM
perhaps a law similar to those applied to threatening or assault can be used to control or quarantine individual animals that demonstrate aggressive or dangerous behavior. in other word, PUT SOME TEETH in the existing animal control officers ability to prevent these incidents. even a required placement of those animals in an animal training class paid for by the owner or caretaker, would place some responsibility where it is deserved. any 'blanket' law will be applied poorly and subject to cost and manpower limitations. people with truly docile animals would have no reason to ever feel their animal would be TAKEN from them if they did not 'find them in the radar' of violent or viscious behavior actions.
John Martin September 01, 2012 at 05:56 PM
No, but owners should be legally responsible for training their dogs and responsible for any harm or damage that dog may commit. For some idiotic reason, instead of harshly punishing people who do wrong, we punish everyone. I would say that I don't get it, but I do - statists want the people to be accustomed to having liberties curbed in the name of a mythical 'common good'.
R Lee Balderdash September 01, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Any dog is capable of attacking people. The instinct to hunt, kill and eat other animals can't be trained out of a dog. Humans have trained dogs to accept an alternative food supply- that's all. Banning a breed won't do any good. The same applies to banning guns- when guns are banned; only outlaws have guns- when pit bulls are banned; only outlaws will have pit bulls.
ZIGGY September 02, 2012 at 12:46 AM
put every pit-bull in a room with Obama & Romney-----see which one it bites 1st...nuff said............

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »