I was sent an article today about Italy reversing all breed bans.

Its a far more intelligent way to approach this issue.

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/node/4229



Ed

i might be misreading, but is it implying that training protection dogs will now be illegal??

Way cool. I agree with most everything.

Very interesting, I wonder how a vet will determine which dogs are dangerous though. Both my gsd's must be muzzled at the vet, but are fine with people on/off lead.

It clearly implies no schutzhund or ring sport or PP training. I wonder if there will be an exception for military/police dogs.

I wonder what "dangerous cross-breeding" is?

Angela, that's true. But, it does at least allow ownership. It's the first step in the right direction.

Yes, as a person who lives where pit bulls are illegal, I have to say it is quite an improvement. I forgot to say that in my last post.

I remember this article. I am glad to read the reversal of breed bans

However, I do not agree with "It also forbids training dogs to be aggressive, using stick and protective body gear...". The vast majority of dogs trained in these sports have extensive obedience training and are rarely dogs in the news for attacking someone. You are much more likely to get bit by a yappy ankle biter or crazy Cocker Spaniel, then a well trained sport dog. IMHO.

The best thing I see about this new law is it is going to force EVERY dog owner to be more responsible but I see a down side to such as more public obedience classes being promoted.

I'm proud that they're doing away with the idiotic breed bans but it seems they're introducing just as much negative stuff as they're doing away with.

1) It clearly states no more sport dog training. And I whole heartedly agree with Alex. So in that respect I can't support the new law.

2) It outlaws no surgeries for non-health reasons. Well who defines this, vets? What about ear crops? Tail docks? Given they are done correctly, I don't think they harm and I wouldn't want to take an owners right away to do them. And for that matter, I could argue that spays and neuters don't offer health benefits either.

3) No dangerous cross-breedings. I see the logic but again you're taking away an individuals rights to breed what they want based on what? If it were between two "aggressive list" dogs I could support that however.

4) And finally, the vets are going to be responsible for determining an aggressive dog when they see one? What about the dogs who hate the vet but are good elsewhere? And I've worked at vet offices for the past 7 years and a vet is the last person I'd want to be determining anything behavioral. They have no training on the issue.

Overall I congratulate them on thinking outside the box and attempting to come up with a more logical solution. However all the the little "side-laws" thrown in almost out weigh the good, IMO.