Morning:
8°c
Huge rise in dangerous dog seizures as more are bred to fight
Katharine Barney, Evening Standard5 Aug 2008
The number of dangerous dogs seized by police in London has rocketed in the past two years.
Just 35 animals were seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act in 2005/06 but the total soared to 480 in 2007/08.
In addition, the number of patients aged under 18 treated for dog bites rose from 58 in 2002/03 to 127 in 2006/07.
The figures were revealed by Mayor Boris Johnson in a written answer to Conservative London Assembly member Steve O'Connell.
It follows the news that all dogs owned by people living on council estates in Wandsworth are to be microchipped in an effort to stop organised dogfighting.
Mr O'Connell, a Metropolitan Police Authority member, said: "There seems to be a growing use of certain breeds to create intimidation and an aggressive threat on our streets.
"They have become a weapon of choice in the same ways as knives and guns.
"It's just a matter of time before a young person is killed by being attacked by a dog set upon them by someone else.
"I would like us to look at the issue of microchipping, but we need to recognise that the majority of dog owners are responsible.
"We need to work with animal welfare groups and also look at instances where people having dogs may be against the tenancy agreement."
The rise of dangerous dogs has seen police marksmen in Haringey use taser stun guns to kill one. Another was killed by officers in Hammersmith after it threatened a child.
The trend of training animals to fight has also caused problems in London's parks. More than 100 trees in Kensington and Chelsea have been killed by pit bulls whose owners encourage them to gnaw on trees to strengthen their jaws.
Haringey has said it will have to destroy 20 trees in Finsbury Park after they were damaged by dogs.
Bull breeds make up 42 per cent of Battersea Dogs & Cats Home admissions - the home receives 30 to 40 per day.
Mr Johnson said the Greater London Authority was working with police, animal-charities and Wandsworth council on the People with Dogs Project, to educate young people about dog ownership.
The BARK scheme, which is underway in Brent and other boroughs, focuses on stopping dogs being used for antisocial purposes and fighting.
Reader views (6)
I own a registered american pit bull terrier and this dog is not a pure bred apbt. Mix ups, mutt breeds, and badly bred pit bulls are too often mistaken for an actual registered apbt. I would guess this dog has rabies from the looks of it's red eyes and foam coming out of it's mouth. Don't bash an animal you know absolutely nothing about.
- Aaron Byrum, crofton, kentucky, 08/02/2010 20:32
Report abuse
its not the pits its the people that own them
- Emilly, redway, ca, 09/10/2009 12:47
Report abuse
I would just like to mention that most dogs are vicious as a result of the owners behaviour towards the dog, and also wonder why people link rottwielers and dobermans as dangerous because they are larger, as an owner of a rottwieler he is not a threat to anyone because how he has been brought up, although i would never leave him alone with kids in the first place, but neither should any dog be left alone, you do not know how any animal will react tame or not, just feel people are judgemental to larger dogs, which in my opinion are just as dangerous as a jack russel!
- Anonymous, scunthorpe, 09/10/2009 11:47
Report abuse
I 've known of a few scumbags who have abused dogs by making them fight and over 50% of them have gone on to abuse kids as well, seems that abusers will abuse anyone animals or kids, its not the dogs that should be targeted but the abusive thicko's that force them to be come aggressive and force them to fight, we need well strong punishment for the backward owner/abusers and not the dogs that have been deliberately badly trained. It's true weak scared poor excuses for men try to make them selves look big and important by breeding and abusing man's best fiends, they are pathetic losers and everyone knows it, they should be put together and forced to fight to the death, it would not be so great then would it?
- Sean O'Leary, london england, 09/10/2009 11:47
Report abuse
I highly doubt the dog in the picture is UKC or ADBA registered. It looks to me like a STaffy cross. No matter what it is, the owner is ultimately responsible and bites and attacks may happen regardless because the reasons for dogs attacking are not simple, but complex ones. it is up to us to make the difference.
- Linda Carey, canada, 09/10/2009 11:47
Report abuse
A microchip does NOT make a dog any less dangerous. If we have a problem with dangerous dogs, or more to the point dangerous owners, we have to wake up and smell the coffee, our legislation should be directed at the owners. We need a dog ownership suitability test for all dog owners. Then we'd see positive results. Microchipping is all well and good but really it's rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It's a gimmick.
- Ryan O'Meara, Editor K9 Magazine, East Midlands, 09/10/2009 11:47
Report abuse
