[BJungNan]

“International experience shows that banning particular breeds such as pit bulls has no impact on the number and severity of attacks, people who would ordinarily seek to have a pitbull will acquire other types of large and powerful dogs and the risk to the public remains,” said Dr Blackman. “We believe that with better enforcement of current legislation and better pet owner education most of these attacks can be prevented. The vast majority of the individual dogs within the breeds that appear prominently in lists of dog attacks have responsible breeders and owners and are not dangerous. Banning the breeds would be both ineffective and unfair.”

Hey, if this is what you are proposing, it is a start. I sure don't see anything like that now. At present anyone can go and buy a "tough breed" dog.

Yes, put them through an education course before the can own the dog. Then if they don't follow what they have learned, take the dog and yank their ability to own another one in that jurisdiction.

The program can be paid for with fees for the course and increased license fees, with fees for "strong/tough dog" breeds being higher.

Are you really alright with this as a start? I mean, it is a suggestion that moves solving the problem forward.

[GMMAC]

"The program can be paid for with fees for the course and increased license fees, with fees for "strong/tough dog" breeds being higher."

Hardly the first indication we've see that you're quite plainly no philosophical conservative ... snicker!

What you're advocating is absolutely no different from - and based upon the same 'government knows best', social engineering mindset which justifies - openly discriminatory sky high taxes on everything from gasoline to liquor to tobacco.

Face it - you're a pro nanny-state socialist !!!

[Fair Go]

As Plato said: "never argue with a fool".