Patch's Poll: Should Countries Be Allowed To 'Ban' Certain Dog Breeds?

It's illegal to own a pit bull in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, a central point in a recent controversy in which the Belfast City Council put down a dog that resembled that breed.


A 7-year-old dog named Lennox, who authorities in Northern Ireland impounded two years ago due to concerns of it being a "danger to the public," was put down last week.

According to the BBC, the City Council in Belfast, where the dog was seized, had been embroiled in a two-year dispute over the ability to put the dog to sleep.

Why was the dog a presumed threat? , which is an illegal dog in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and banned in that country.

The BBC reported that once the council received confirmation that it was able to put the animal down, that council members began getting death threats about the proposal. According to the Huffington Post, Lennox inspired supporters and detractors on both sides of the Atlantic, with many online campaigns geared toward saving the animal.

So, Patch readers, we’re curious to hear your reactions to this fact that a specific dog breed is deemed illegal in a country. Do you agree with or disagree with this?

Should towns, states or countries be allowed to "ban" certain dog breeds, like pit bulls? Take our poll and share your thoughts in the comments.

Donna Pearlman July 16, 2012 at 09:21 PM
Me I am voting NO although I know it stems from insurance issues. If I could I would lobby to get the "five dangerous dogs" exclusion struck from every United States homeowners and renters policy. Pit Bulls and other "certain" dog breed are not dangerous - bad owners are
d singer July 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM
No - breeds should never be banned. There should be laws in place to control the people who breed them and train them to be mean. A dog starts out as a sweet and innocent animal. It is led by it's human to be what it will be when it grows up. The person is at fault not the innocent animal who had no choice in owners or it's training or lack thereof. Dogs/animals are totally dependent on us so how can we not be to blame?
Meredith Tiffany July 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM
I'm a pittie and rottie mama and I VOTE NO...haven't met a dog I haven't LOVED and as for humans there are many on the list that I don't care for. You train your dog to be what it is. I have rescued all of mine and they know nothing but love.
Meredith Tiffany July 16, 2012 at 11:44 PM
There is a company here in CT that insures your individual dog therefore your homeowner/renter policy can't drop you and your dog is insured on or off your property...I think it is a GREAT idea for people who like the bsl laws for insurance reasons because then I come back at them with how about if the dog is insured on or off his/her property!!
John Sheehan July 17, 2012 at 01:16 AM
I have lived with two pit bulls and one rotwieller. They were kind and gentle because they were loved. I blame owners, not the dogs. I agree with d singer.
Tiffany E Williams July 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM
It's the people! And more often than not they end up in a shelter. And still they can love and be loved.
REVMAN July 17, 2012 at 11:42 AM
There are certin breeds that are labled dangerous and when getting a license should be required to show proof of insurance(home owners,ect.).
Bettyjane Paul July 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM
No! No banning of any animal anywhere! Banning an animal is like giving them a death sentence! EnD BSL. It is some people that should be banned!
Daniella Ruiz July 17, 2012 at 12:44 PM
caution, they rarely ever bite the hand that feeds them! dogs are not 'dumb' by any means, and they respond with similar love when it is shown them, much as those two legged homosap critters do. then again, brain damage from drugs, alcohol and foetal abuse does result in some very severe behavior also.
Daniella Ruiz July 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM
just as some of the two legged critters end up in a shelter, called a JAIL, where they are fed and watered daily. love in a shelter is apparently not allowed.
davis bacon July 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM
to John Sheehan: I have also lived with a pit bull but my experience was not as favorable. However, once the divorce became thins improved.
Foofaraw July 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Tougher penalties for breeding dogs to fight, neglecting and letting dogs run free into the street---I am sick of other dogs coming out after me and my GS as we are regular runners and the stupid is as stupid does owners are always "sorry"...pisses me off, and a big set back for my GS who has agressive tendencies. So tired of the ignorance, the fear and the lazy!
David Irons July 17, 2012 at 01:00 PM
What is important to remember is that "pit bull" is not a breed of dog. The definition of pit bull in Merriam-Webster reads "1. a dog (as an American Staffordshire terrier) of any of several breeds or a real or apparent hybrid with one or more of these breeds that was developed and is now often trained for fighting and is noted for strength and stamina." We tend to lump these dogs into one category when, in fact, many of those same dogs of these breeds are docile, friendly and well behaved pets in households. Each dog needs to be considered and judged individually. If we are to pass laws regarding a group known as pit bulls, how long before we are passing laws banning groups such as black humans?
LiveForFreedom July 17, 2012 at 02:31 PM
No. As a Libertarian I believe that the government does not have the right to control our decisions, and everyday behavior. Banning a breed of dog is another blatant example of over reaching government controlling our lives.
Foofaraw July 17, 2012 at 02:46 PM
Should ban ownership (of "Pit Bulls) for people with past convictions of a serious nature, which in my opinion include: any drug offense or violence against another person or animal and burglary or armed theft...among other things.
REVMAN July 17, 2012 at 02:51 PM
Try buying or lion or alligator not to mention certain birds
John Yannacci, Sr. July 17, 2012 at 03:49 PM
I have a cute little cocker spaniel that I adopted in December. It came from a abusive situation in Arkansas. The first couple of weeks were difficult. The dog was used to abuse and neglect. When it thought it was being threatened, she stopped being cute. She could be fast and bloodthirsty. Slowly, with patience, understanding and tons of love she is coming around. I take her to the dog park in Waterford every morning. Ninety-nine percent of the time, she plays with the other dogs and is very sociable but, if she feels threatened, she reverts to violence until we're able to convince her that everything is alright. The bad situations are happening with much less frequency. There is a gentleman who also brings his pit bull, Lucille, every morning. Lucille looks to be very formidable but she is just the sweetest dog. She and another dog play non-stop. It looks like they are playing rough but both dogs seem to enjoy it and both owners keep a close eye on them. My cockers, Bella and Buffy play with Lucille as well as all the other dogs. I have never seen an issue that wasn't resolved immediately with very little fanfare. My point is that when the owners care for and train the dogs and when the dogs are allowed to socialize in a controlled area then, regardless of the breed, harmony reigns.
Clark van der Lyke July 17, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Some years back New London tried to institute a program that required all persons buying a dog license to show proof their insurance policy covered their dog, regardless of breed. A disaster as some insurer's cancelled policies and the state said it was illegal for the city to add restrictions to a state statute. We need to encourage dog registration and it is unfortunate that vet's don't issue licenses instead of the city or town. New London only gets a buck per dog license, unless they are late. Probably less than 400 dogs licensed in New London today compared to 1,100 in the 1990's. It's not the dogs fault, as usual it is the owner not being responsible.
Genevieve Triplett July 18, 2012 at 01:25 AM
Agreed. Banning dog breeds by law is similar to banning certian books/Authors in our High Schools. Foofaraw, I like the idea of banning criminals from having certian breeds, however lets get gun laws under control with domestic abuse repeat offenders first. Then we can make laws about dogs.
Carolyn Johnson July 18, 2012 at 04:14 AM
Hmmmm... never heard of a "five dangerous dogs exclusion .... in homeowners and renters policies." What is that?
Donna Pearlman July 18, 2012 at 09:42 AM
Used to be there was a list of five most dangerous dogs not to be covered (excluded) from insurance coverage for homeowners/renters including pit bulls due to the extra third party liability issues in answer to the above. And it is very interesting to hear Connecticut has policies to insure individual dogs thanks for that information good to know.
REVMAN July 19, 2012 at 02:44 PM
You would have to be crazy to own such a breed because of our state laws making you responable for any infraction your dog does.
Diane Amburn September 01, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Daniella Ruiz September 01, 2012 at 03:34 PM
i just read daves comment, made me chuckle!
Daniella Ruiz September 01, 2012 at 03:44 PM
easy there Dave, discriminating between four and two legs may soon be against some law as well!! know all men by these presents, the grey areas are just getting wider and wider! you may be a sage indeed! ;-))
REVMAN September 01, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Diane --If your dogs bite ANYONE you are lible (medical,ect.)and if they bite the second time you may not have a choice of surrendering it.
Daniella Ruiz September 01, 2012 at 04:12 PM
perhaps a law similar to those applied to threatening or assault can be used to control or quarantine individual animals that demonstrate aggressive or dangerous behavior. in other word, PUT SOME TEETH in the existing animal control officers ability to prevent these incidents. even a required placement of those animals in an animal training class paid for by the owner or caretaker, would place some responsibility where it is deserved. any 'blanket' law will be applied poorly and subject to cost and manpower limitations. people with truly docile animals would have no reason to ever feel their animal would be TAKEN from them if they did not 'find them in the radar' of violent or viscious behavior actions.
John Martin September 01, 2012 at 05:56 PM
No, but owners should be legally responsible for training their dogs and responsible for any harm or damage that dog may commit. For some idiotic reason, instead of harshly punishing people who do wrong, we punish everyone. I would say that I don't get it, but I do - statists want the people to be accustomed to having liberties curbed in the name of a mythical 'common good'.
R Lee Balderdash September 01, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Any dog is capable of attacking people. The instinct to hunt, kill and eat other animals can't be trained out of a dog. Humans have trained dogs to accept an alternative food supply- that's all. Banning a breed won't do any good. The same applies to banning guns- when guns are banned; only outlaws have guns- when pit bulls are banned; only outlaws will have pit bulls.
ZIGGY September 02, 2012 at 12:46 AM
put every pit-bull in a room with Obama & Romney-----see which one it bites 1st...nuff said............


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something