The most-respected Yes argument was a complaint about the question itself. “Extremely confusing wording/question”, it began, before the voter explained that they backed Yes because the law, if anything, goes too far. A second No voter likewise complained that the for and against arguments were the wrong way round. No won comfortably, yet the vote carried a good deal of puzzlement about what each side meant.
The most-respected No case was aimed at breed bans, not at the new law's timidity: mandate pet licences and dog training, because “It's the HUMANS that are the cause of this”. Other No voters echoed it, with one arguing that existing laws are sufficient and another asking for a wider principle that no dog be left unsupervised around a child.
But No also housed the opposite instinct. “Literally no-one should be allowed to own such breeds”, wrote a well-respected voice, and others demanded bans, put-downs and an end to exemptions. For these voters, No meant the law did not go far enough.
Yes voters mostly argued from owner responsibility. One said the law “seems sensible but its really about bad parenting rather than dogs”, while another asked, “Why must we replace common sense with laws?” Across both sides, voters repeated that no young child should be left alone with any dog.
The result is clear, though the arguments behind it ran in two opposite directions.
78 Opinions
Instead of banning breads, which is pointless and does nothing at all except harm perfectly happy and peaceful dogs, mandate pet licenses and dog training. It's the HUMANS that are the cause of this, not the dogs. The owners should be punished, not the poor animal.
Extremely confusing wording/question. The question is "does it go far enough", a no would mean... no it does not go far enough. So why in the "against" is it against more restrictions? And similarly, "yes it goes far enough" paragraph implies more restrictions? I voted yes because I think yes, the law goes far enough. Too far, if anything. Edited
Literally no-one should be allowed to own such breeds. Frankly they are just machismo badges for those with inferiority complexes. Ban them all
Breeds already known to present a risk to humans should be banned. We don't allow large cats such as Leopards or Tigers to be privately owned for this very reason. Such dogs were bred specifically to be aggressive however the existing laws are sufficient.
Another strange one in that I'm not sure which way to vote. But essentially you shouldn't be leaving children alone with any dog really.
No, because any big dog can seriously harm, or kill child or even adult. World is full of breeds that are even more danger that the ones on the list. On the other hand well raised dog will gladly sacrifice own life to protect family, including children and would never harm human members of his/her family. IMO the responsibility should stay with owner, after all it usually owners children are at stake.
Breed specific legislation has not reduced the number of injuries and fatalities caused by dog attacks. Any dog can turn violent for any reason, so I'd like to see a wider principle that no dog should be left unsupervised around a child for long. It takes only seconds for disaster to strike.
Any dog can have a bad day. Breed-specific legislation does not remove the responsibility of owners to supervise dogs around children. XL Bullies are already banned without exemption, and exemptions carry strict conditions. The priority should be enforcing existing laws, holding negligent owners accountable and teaching sensible precautions around all dogs. A child can be seriously injured by a dog that has never previously shown aggression. Responsible ownership matters. Edited
Firstly, no young child should be left alone with any dog. At the end of the day they are not in a position to control any dog and any dog has the potential to snap and bite. Doesn't matter if YOU think it's a safe dog... No dog is truly safe... sorry.
I voted yes, however no young child should be left alone with any dog ever. I had a loving and soppy soft mouthed PBGV but if a child had mistreated her she might have bitten in annoyance or self defence. No dog likes having Lego forced up its nostrils for instance.