The owner of a pet, whether it be a dog or not, is responsible for its well being and upbringing. This includes the proper training for the pet to be distinctive as a domesticated animal and therefore a pet.

Dogs, in particular, need training not only to keep the owner's house in a decent state but to allow the dog to grow into a domesticated animal. Those who bring up dogs to fight or do not even train them properly should be accounted for when the ideas of prosecution of dogs that are dangerous is made.

It is the owners responsiblity to properly restrain their animals and to prevent them from becoming dangerous. Although certain types of dog are classed as 'dangerous' it does not forgive the fact that the owner is responsible for that animal. After all a dog is the property of the owner and is under their control. It should be the owner that is prosecuted in cases where a dog has committed an act which renders it dangerous.

The owner, might buy and then train a dog for his/her own protection. The fact that dogs get ill,mad or attack people that the owner did not intend them to, is not the owner's responsibility.

Dogs have killed many owners, it is only fair that an owner calls on the proper authority to save his/her own life.

Owners need to be trained/educated on proper dog training and handling before they can be held accountable for the negative consequences of their positive intentions.

How can the owner be blamed when there is no such legal process on dog training?

Owners who breed dogs for fighting are definitely to blame for dangerous acts being committed by dogs.

The dogs are trained to fight under circumstances where they become scared. This not only leads to the injuries of the dogs but also can result in attacks being committed by dogs on other people and, as it has happened, children. In these circumstances the dogs should be allowed some form of redemption or to be trained to react differently.

It is the decision of the owner to breed dogs for fighting so why shouldn't they be fully blamed for the acts that an animal commits under the influence of fear? The dogs refer to their animalistic instincts and fight under particular circumstances. It is illegal to train dogs and use them for fighting yet it does not stop people. There should be harsher punishments on the owners to try and deter dogs being trained for fighting. Being unable to breed certain dogs in this country is a form of deterence but people will always find more ways of breeding and training dogs to fight. When attacks happen outside of the dog-fighting arena then it becomes a public act and the punishment should be placed on the owner.

Owners have the right to choose whatever breed of dog they want. Although there are particular breeds of dog that are not permitted to be owned within Great Britain it is ultimately up to the owner what they choose to buy or take on as a pet.

There are certain dogs that can be seen as dangerous breeds. With this the owner has the right to take on what can be seen as a dangerous breed however it is then up to them to take responsiblity and train it properly. Certain dogs like labradors and retrievers are seen as family dogs as they are known to be good with children and new situations. They are a popular breed of dog to own and this is due to their calm temperament. If more owners looked into the breed that they which to own in terms of characteristics and attitudes rather than just for the way that they look.

Even when getting a dog from a dogs' home or a charity then the owner is told about the dog's temperament and its past. A dogs past can severely affect its attitude towards people and this should be considered when getting a dog. This is why it should be the owner that is punished for the actions of the dog when it is classed as a dangerous act.

There is no real restrictions within the dangerous dogs act as it does not include crossbreeds. The restrictions are not defined properly within the act meaning that it is not set in stone as to what is acceptable or not.

It is therefore not fair to restrict certain breeds of dog, and allow others very similar to be bred and allowed. There are only four breeds of dog that are banned in the UK those are pitbull terriers, Japanese tosas, Dogo Argentinos and Filo Brazilieros^[1] Due to lots of crossbreeds particularly within the pitbull terrier restriction it makes it difficult to understand whether the breed of dog owned is classed as dangerous or not. Therefore it is about how the owner rears the dog and how it is trained that means it should be classed as a dangerous owners act

1. ^ http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/dogattacks/Dangerous-dogs-39Thoughtless-owners-still.4191053.jp

For the same reasons: There is no real restrictions within the dangerous dogs act as it does not include crossbreeds. The restrictions are not defined properly within the act meaning that it is not set in stone as to what is acceptable or not.

It is therefore not fair to restrict certain breeds of dog, and allow others very similar to be bred and allowed. There are only four breeds of dog that are banned in the UK those are pitbull terriers, Japanese tosas, Dogo Argentinos and Filo Brazilieros^[1] Due to lots of crossbreeds particularly within the pitbull terrier restriction it makes it difficult to understand whether the breed of dog owned is classed as dangerous or not. Therefore if it has traces of a breed that is supposedly dangerous then why should it be up to the owner to take the blame when they could be mistaken as to what dog they have bought.

1. ^ http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/dogattacks/Dangerous-dogs-39Thoughtless-owners-still.4191053.jp

An animal's nature is an animal's nature. I had a German Shepherd with epilepsy. After a seizure, he was scared because he didn't know where he was. He felt threatened by the other dogs and us, who were in the house, and for those moments he did not recognize us. He did nothing. He was NOT aggressive because he was not an aggressive dog. This hoopla and ignorance about pit bull terriers is sickening, specifically in the current case of Bruce, taken from his home in Northern Ireland to JAIL. Please. Let the dog be returned to his family as he has done nothing wrong except be a pit bull. (I think?) We have civil rights acts to educate people not to judge people by the color of their skin. Is this something we need to do? We can't single out people so now let's focus on something else to pick on? I can understand a precaution about an aggressive dog. Give the owners a chance to keep that dog in check. But this situation is ridiculous, inhumane, ignorant and outrageous. Release Bruce in Northern Ireland.

Just as any animal dogs have characteristics that they turn to when in fear or they feel in danger. They are not made to be pets and when they commit and act that is classed as dangerous then they should be taken out of public attention and should not be a part of society.

The owner holds some responsibility yet the dog is an animal and it will always return to its natural instincts. This idea of natural instinct can not be controlled by an owner or another human being for that matter and so the blame can not always be put on the owner.