I was just wondering what everyone thought about Breed Specific Legislation(designed to place restrictions on ownership of certain breeds of dogs).

I personally believe that BSL is an idea that to the general public sounds good on paper, but is totally unrealistic. For example:
What exactly is a "Pit Bull"--does that include AmStaffs, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bull Terriers, or any mixed breed that "kinda-sorta-looks-like-a-Pit Bull"? Where do you draw the line?
What do you consider a "dangerous" breed? I have owned Pit Bull mixes (one Pit Bull Rotweiller mix), German Shepherds and Dobermans, most with behavior issues, and never with a serious bite. The worst bite I ever received was from a Walker Coonhound. (not counting of course Chihuahuas, Yorkies, etc--they may bite more often but with less damage--if it doesn't require stitches or a tetanus shot I don't really consider it a bite.)
I would rather see dogs placed into groups suitable for beginner, intermediate and experienced owners, with a test required to advance beyond beginner. This wouldn't be practical either, but it makes more sense to me to direct legislation toward potential owners than the dogs.

One time I was looking on the internet at the top 10 dangerous breeds of dog and I was surprised to find huskies at 5 or 6. They say its because of there high prey drive and the fact that they are unpredictable. My dog loves our cat though and he isn't unpredictable. But as I looked closer at the list the dogs there were all working.

The nicest dogs I know are dogs that were on that list, pitbull, doberman, german shepherds... How is it possible that they can target only certain breeds and say they're to blame for all the dog attacks? How can they take countless dogs away from there owners and take them to be "humanely euthanized"

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?