They are (in large part). In practice I don't think the ban is enforced unless the dog actually does something to bring it to police attention....

>Do I have this right? After banning Pits, dog bites are up 60%? And they still think Pits are the problem?

>>Up 60% in Wales between 2000 and 2010 apparently : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8513921.stm
>>(I think it's a similar story in the UK as a whole ....)
>>
>>>Are there stats on how much difference it's made in dog bites and attacks on people? Here in Ontario the ban seems not to have made much of a dent if at all.
>>>
>>>>>>>It's a stupid and undemocratic ban IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought it was sensible and democratic.
>>>>>>Last time I looked we had a democratically elected government and they chose to pass a law banning the ownership of a breed of dog whose sole raison-d'etre was to pick a fight with a couple of tons of beef :-}
>>>>>
>>>>>Was there a change like "you have to kill all pits xx month after the law is passed" recently
>>>>>or is the ban in effect now for more than one dog generation ?
>>>>
>>>>AFAIR, a dog born before 1991 would not be destroyed (unless there was good reason to believe that the dog was dangerous) but must be muzzled and kept on a lead.
>>>>
>>>>Ah - here it is : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/introduction/enacted
>>>>
>>>>>As GB is one of the countries with least weapons on the streets,
>>>>>a harsher attitude there is quite in line with *their* context,
>>>>>
>>>>>I personally believe with most others here that the dogs behaviour
>>>>>is heavily dependant on the owner, but there have been enough incidents both
>>>>>with special breeds and stupid owners and "harmless" dogs and bad circumstances
>>>>>to allow arguing for some control to follow the rules on arms -
>>>>>where some types are forbidden as well and a lot of variation between countries exists ;-)