This raises some really good questions. A dog bite that was severe enough to require hospitalization was reported to the police, and no action was taken. They're responding to calls about someone's neighbor owning a pit bull, seizing and destroying it, but a dog that actually bites someone gets no attention? Why was the gang member's other dog granted exemption? On a side note, I seriously doubt it was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Bull Mastiff cross, there is a size difference between those breeds of about 100 pounds. Otherwise a well written report that is unbiased and focuses on the owner's vicious behavior and mentions breed only because one of the dogs involved was an illegal breed. A perfect illustration of the enormous impact the owner has on the temperament of their dog. It's hard to blame it on the dog when the owner was yelling "Get' Em!", obviously in an incredibly aggressive state of mind, and stabbing someone to death. I think even Colleen Lynn might be able to agree that that upbringing and those conditions would cause even the "sweetest" Golden Retriever to attack.
"Jon Eachus, of the RSPCA, said: "The whole dangerous dogs situation, irresponsibility with dogs, has increased 10-fold in the last couple of years.
Another really excellent article. Even with a breed ban in place, "It is just too easy to acquire them". It talks about the entire issue, "We are getting more children's play areas ripped apart and generally more antisocial behaviour.", not isolating it to breed of dog, but putting the proper emphasis on human behavior. Did bull breeds suddenly become incredibly aggressive in the past few years? No, even if aggression was genetically determined (which John Paul Scott has shown us through research that it is not) it is not possible to have such a drastically different animal in the time span of a single generation. Now if they can just the connect the banned status of the dog to the desirability for that breed by criminals.