Recently, the BBC aired a show concentrating on the problem of illegal pitbulls and dog fighting in the UK.
I have mixed feelings about this programme- on one side, it was met with great apprehension following word that it omitted an interview with Dogs Trust, who likely would have put in a good word for the dogs, and a bad word for the owners. However, when I watched it, aside from being very upsetting, they did actually give good point that the BSL regulations in the U.K. can cause healthy and friendly dogs to be euthanised, simply for their appearance.
But something did upset me a lot about this programme; its attitude towards rules vs animal cruelty- all of the houses that got busted for having an illegal dog were squalid, unkempt places, with slobs and chavs and a great amount of neglect for the poor creatures involved. Although they did charge the owners they raided with animal cruelty, would they have gone in there in the first place for a 'legal' dog...?
We can all agree that something does need to be done. Are the pitbulls and pitbull types that remain getting into such trouble -because- they are illegal? Does making a dog breed illegal cause it to become more dangerous? This show didn't seem to hold many answers, in my opinion. It just told people that it happened. It had good points, but was still lacking, and still felt bias.
It failed to remove any pitbull types from 'normal' housing, and I'm not sure what this says... if that is good or bad... if the houses seem fine, with no reports of animal neglect, cruelty, dog fighting, etc, are they allowing the pitbulls to stay? And why? This could be very good or it could still leave a lot to be desired in term of answers concerning this issue. As you can see, this programme raised more questions than it answered...
I can only hope that all viewers will agree; banning the breed doesn't solve the problem- and so staffies will be protected.