[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[Miss Take]

Fluffy reminds me of Jack Black for some reason

[Skeddan]

It is not a pit bull or Japanese Tosa that is banned it is pit bull type or Tosa type. That means crosses and other breeds which look similar

It's an interesting point you raise - I'm not clear if what you suggest is the right interpretation or not - nor what criteria the authorities (and a court) might use to determine whether a particular dog is banned or not. (Breed id?)

 

The DAFF website says: "two domestic types of dog are prohibited, the Pit Bull Terrier and Japanese Tosa." That's not the same as saying 'pit bull type' dogs are banned - at least not in the broader sense to include "crosses and other breeds which look similar". Looking at the Scheduled Wild Animals under Wild Animals (Import & Export Etc) Act 1980 Clicky, under scientific names this lists:

 

Canidae, with the exception of all types of the species Canis familiaris other than the type of dog commonly known as the Pit Bull Terrier and the type of dog commonly known as the Japanese Tosa ( or Tosa)

 

under common names, this lists:

 

This kind includes the wild dog, wolf, jackal, coyote, fennec and fox, except that the domestic dog (with the exception of the Pit Bull Terrier and the Japanese Tosa (Tosa) ) is specifically excluded

 

I'm not sure it would be correct to say that the ban extends to a cross which is not actually a Pit Bull Terrier or Japanese Tosa. I very much doubt that this could be taken to include other breeds which look similar.

 

Now, to be fair to Champ, given observations made that he may well not be a Pitbull Terrier, he might be a bit of a cross which does not actually count as a Pitbull Terrier (though the owner likes to think of her mongrel as such).

 

In general in interpreting legislation effecting rights, liberties and property, the interpretation should not be broader than necessary given the wording of the Act. I'd guess the ban only covers actual 'bona fide' Pitbull Terriers and Japanese Tosas. (maybe there might be an argument that a broader expansive interpretation is warranted? Would this then extend to any dog that looks similar to a Pitbull Terrier - perhaps Staffies?)

 

Pitbull crosses and similar breeds probably ought to be banned - to me it just doesn't look like this is the case, and the ban only covers dogs which can actually be classified as a Pitbull Terrier or Japanese Tosa.

 

Have I missed something?

[ans]

Don't tell her it's not a Pitbull Terrier. She wont want it then.

[Cret]

I'm not especially dog savvy so I'll be ignorant and ask what's the difference really between a pitbull and a staffy?

 

I looked on google image and couldn't really see any difference on the pics I saw.

[Skeddan]

Just becauise it is illegal (and it may not be illegal anyway, see below)does not mean it does not need dog licence. All dogs, legal or illegal, on IOM, need a dog licence. The post office is not there to police what breed, just to collect a tax on dogs,

I think this is correct - the Dogs Act 1990 says a licence is required by anyone keeping a dog. Even if one cannot legally own the dog, the licence is still required. There is nothing to suggest that the licence is a permit to keep the dog.

 

Whilst it may be illegal to import the dog and a dog being imported may be liable to sizure and destruction, once imported, or if born here, I am not sure the subordinate legislation allegedley being used or the 1990 Act allows seizure exclusion or death. If its been here for a few years there may be no legislation covering it, in fact.

FREE CHAMP!

 

I wondered about this. The Dog licence application (note 6) says:

 

6. Under the Schedule to the Wild Animals (Restriction on Importation,etc.) Act 1980, no person shall own the type of dogs known commonly as Pit Bull Terrier or Japanese Tosa (or Tosa).

 

I haven't seen the Act itself - does it say that "no person shall own" these type of dogs? If it prohibits ownership, then maybe the animal could perhaps be treated as a stray?

 

However I'd think the relevant legislation allowing a Pitbull Terrier to be seized, exluded or put down, is in the Dogs Act 1990. Section 19.(1)c) provides that "Any person may make a complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction that a dog is dangerous."

 

A dog banned from import is perhaps prima facie dangerous. However non-banned Rottweillers or even Fluffy may also be complained of. Following a complaint, it is pretty much up to the court what happens next. There is no requirement to satisfy the court that the dog is dangerous - it is entirely in the courts discretion what it does. Section 2 provides that:

 

On a complaint made to the court that a dog is dangerous, the court may make an order directing that the dog

 

- be kept under proper control;

- be destroyed within a time so specified;

 

I don't see a specific power to deport Champ or Fluffy, but that might be something within the court's discretion to offer owner as a 'Kershaw' alternative (which they are under no obligation to accept, and court has no power to impose).

 

So, from what I can see, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1990 seems to allow the court latitude to order any dog, even toothless Fluffy, to be seized and destroyed if a complaint (justified or not) has been filed that the dog is dangerous. A bit loose perhaps. But given the difficulty of banning dogs, perhaps this is best. (though it might be better if it provided that the court should be reasonably satisfied that the dog is dangerous). I'm sure any court would be very reasonable with Fluffy, but I doubt pics of a Pitbull Terrier with sunglasses and reports from 'behavioural specialists' would impress them.

 

However I'm not sure even a Pitbull Terrier can just be seized without a court order following a complaint.

 

Was Champ wrongfully seized? Had there been a complaint made to the court? Was there a court order? Should Champ go free? (at least until someone does make a complaint and a court makes an order that Champ should be destroyed).

 

If Champ should go free because there has not been proper process, the simplest thing would be for Champ's owner to just go along and ask for the dog back under Section 15 of the Act - 'Release of the Dog'. It's even easier than with wrongful detention of people. Otherwise regardless of whether or not Champ is a Pitbull Terrier, it's curtains - unless Champ leaves IoM first.

[hboy]

I am sure I have seen this dog in Strand Street with its owners and lots of admiring dickheads around it! Sure, having a dangerous dogs attracts loads of dubious kudos, much like having an AK47 or an ASBO as a badge of dishonour.

 

The very fact that you want to own a dog like this should instantly bar you from ever owning one. I've still not seen anything to disprove that is just a chav trophy pet.

[WTF]

I'm not especially dog savvy so I'll be ignorant and ask what's the difference really between a pitbull and a staffy?

 

I looked on google image and couldn't really see any difference on the pics I saw.

 

a proper staffie is quite 'short' in height department and looks more muscley. a pitbull looks like a staffy head on a bit bigger body without looking as muscley. the problem with pictures on the net is that they don't give any scale to the animal.

[Cret]

Ok, cheers.

[Bananaman]

Ok, cheers.

 

Temperament!

 

 

Also back on an earlier post about Rottweilers - normally very placid creatures but they are working dogs. Not fighting dogs like the pit bull. They also know that they are big lumps with big teeth. In fact Jack Carter sums up a Rotty very well

 

You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job. Now behave yourself.

 

 

Rotty on a chain guarding its territory, never go close. Let it off it's chain and it's the softest lump going. Working dog. That's how it should be.

 

A Rotty will give you a big warning before they snap. A Pit Bull never will. There's no need in modern life to have such a dog.

 

Or is Champ a Toy Poodle now?

[Gladys]

Gosh, how true and simple, when you think of it.

 

I knew a lovely Rottweiler years ago, very territorial, but that was her job (guarded the local pub). Let her out after hours and she was great fun, just stupid but she was 'off duty'. Her party tricks were to chase the stream of water from a soda syphon and to jump on the pinball machine to chase the balls under the glass, no mean feat for that lump! (I didn't say she was bright!)

 

But as you say, Bananaman, this is a working dog and bred to do a job (now it is guarding premises, in the past it was guarding flocks of sheep, am I right?), so you give it a job to do. On the other hand, breeds that have been bred to fight only have that 'job' and are unfulfilled if they are not allowed to follow the reason for their breeding. As we don't encourage dog fighting that is probably one of the reasons these breeds are so unstable; they are just not allowed to do what they are bred for. We (well, most right thinking people) no longer find dog fighting a source of entertainment. So we are left with a breed that cannot, or shouldn't, follow its instincts borne from ages of selection by our goodselves to serve our purposes.

 

Similarly, I have a Labrador, his breed's purpose is to retrieve and so to exercise him it is a short walk for me, but with lots of ball throwing. That gives him the opportunity to do what he is bred to do; he really enjoys it, chasing the ball, sniffing it out in undergrowth and bringing it back to me, he then comes home worn out. But if I walk him without the ball throwing malarkey, we get home and he is still quite fidgety. In thinking about this more, it is a pure retrieve, not a chase, instinct. We see rabbits and cats on walks but after a quick glance, he passes on chasing them; his preference being to chase the 50p tennis ball everytime, because that is what I have asked him to bring back to me. That is the thing with most breeds kept as pets, they want to be subordinate to the alpha, which usually the owner, and please them as that ensures their meal ticket.

 

So, the end of this argument is that, regardless of the normal disposition demonstrated by any dog, what will out is the innate skill that led them to be refined for a purpose. If that purpose isn't somehow fulfilled you end up with a very frustrated animal that will vent its frustration by a display of its raw nature. What doubles it with dogs like Pit Bulls is that they are bred to be demonstrably and uncompromisingly alpha; they are their own meal ticket, even if it kills them. Add that to the frustration and you do have a recipe for disaster.

[jim]

sorry to say this, put it to sleep.

 

night night

[WTF]

Just becauise it is illegal (and it may not be illegal anyway, see below)does not mean it does not need dog licence. All dogs, legal or illegal, on IOM, need a dog licence. The post office is not there to police what breed, just to collect a tax on dogs,

I think this is correct - the Dogs Act 1990 says a licence is required by anyone keeping a dog. Even if one cannot legally own the dog, the licence is still required. There is nothing to suggest that the licence is a permit to keep the dog.

 

Whilst it may be illegal to import the dog and a dog being imported may be liable to sizure and destruction, once imported, or if born here, I am not sure the subordinate legislation allegedley being used or the 1990 Act allows seizure exclusion or death. If its been here for a few years there may be no legislation covering it, in fact.

FREE CHAMP!

 

I wondered about this. The Dog licence application (note 6) says:

 

6. Under the Schedule to the Wild Animals (Restriction on Importation,etc.) Act 1980, no person shall own the type of dogs known commonly as Pit Bull Terrier or Japanese Tosa (or Tosa).

 

I haven't seen the Act itself - does it say that "no person shall own" these type of dogs? If it prohibits ownership, then maybe the animal could perhaps be treated as a stray?

 

However I'd think the relevant legislation allowing a Pitbull Terrier to be seized, exluded or put down, is in the Dogs Act 1990. Section 19.(1)c) provides that "Any person may make a complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction that a dog is dangerous."

 

A dog banned from import is perhaps prima facie dangerous. However non-banned Rottweillers or even Fluffy may also be complained of. Following a complaint, it is pretty much up to the court what happens next. There is no requirement to satisfy the court that the dog is dangerous - it is entirely in the courts discretion what it does. Section 2 provides that:

 

On a complaint made to the court that a dog is dangerous, the court may make an order directing that the dog

 

- be kept under proper control;

- be destroyed within a time so specified;

 

I don't see a specific power to deport Champ or Fluffy, but that might be something within the court's discretion to offer owner as a 'Kershaw' alternative (which they are under no obligation to accept, and court has no power to impose).

 

So, from what I can see, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1990 seems to allow the court latitude to order any dog, even toothless Fluffy, to be seized and destroyed if a complaint (justified or not) has been filed that the dog is dangerous. A bit loose perhaps. But given the difficulty of banning dogs, perhaps this is best. (though it might be better if it provided that the court should be reasonably satisfied that the dog is dangerous). I'm sure any court would be very reasonable with Fluffy, but I doubt pics of a Pitbull Terrier with sunglasses and reports from 'behavioural specialists' would impress them.

 

However I'm not sure even a Pitbull Terrier can just be seized without a court order following a complaint.

 

Was Champ wrongfully seized? Had there been a complaint made to the court? Was there a court order? Should Champ go free? (at least until someone does make a complaint and a court makes an order that Champ should be destroyed).

 

If Champ should go free because there has not been proper process, the simplest thing would be for Champ's owner to just go along and ask for the dog back under Section 15 of the Act - 'Release of the Dog'. It's even easier than with wrongful detention of people. Otherwise regardless of whether or not Champ is a Pitbull Terrier, it's curtains - unless Champ leaves IoM first.

 

 

 

firstly, there is NO 'dangerous dogs act 1990' on the island, the is a section in the'dogs act 1990' refering to dangerous dogs.. secondly, regarding proper process, the proper process should have been it was seized and dealt with when it first came over, that is all that seems to have been done now it has come to light to the relevant authoritty, if a little late in the day.

[Skeddan]

firstly, there is NO 'dangerous dogs act 1990' on the island, the is a section in the'dogs act 1990' refering to dangerous dogs..

Quite right - The Dogs Act 1990 is the correct title for this legislation. I gave the correct title at the outset, but mis-stated it the third time I mentioned this. Thanks for correcting the slip.

 

secondly, regarding proper process, the proper process should have been it was seized and dealt with when it first came over, that is all that seems to have been done now it has come to light to the relevant authoritty, if a little late in the day.

Quite possibly the Wild Animals (Restriction on Importation,etc.) Act 1980 does allow seizure once imported. However John Wright raised a doubt over this:

 

Whilst it may be illegal to import the dog and a dog being imported may be liable to sizure and destruction, once imported, or if born here, I am not sure the subordinate legislation allegedley being used or the 1990 Act allows seizure exclusion or death. If its been here for a few years there may be no legislation covering it, in fact.

 

It's a fair point he raises. Not having examined the 1980 Act I'm not sure about this either. However even if not covered under the 1980 Act, then as I noted, The Dogs Act 1990 certainly allows seizure and destruction per the process set out in Section 19. If you know the 1980 Act does allow this, maybe you could post the relevant section which might clear that up.

[WTF]

firstly, there is NO 'dangerous dogs act 1990' on the island, the is a section in the'dogs act 1990' refering to dangerous dogs..

Quite right - The Dogs Act 1990 is the correct title for this legislation. I gave the correct title at the outset, but mis-stated it the third time I mentioned this. Thanks for correcting the slip.

 

secondly, regarding proper process, the proper process should have been it was seized and dealt with when it first came over, that is all that seems to have been done now it has come to light to the relevant authoritty, if a little late in the day.

Quite possibly the Wild Animals (Restriction on Importation,etc.) Act 1980 does allow seizure once imported. However John Wright raised a doubt over this:

 

Whilst it may be illegal to import the dog and a dog being imported may be liable to sizure and destruction, once imported, or if born here, I am not sure the subordinate legislation allegedley being used or the 1990 Act allows seizure exclusion or death. If its been here for a few years there may be no legislation covering it, in fact.

 

It's a fair point he raises. Not having examined the 1980 Act I'm not sure about this either. However even if not covered under the 1980 Act, then as I noted, The Dogs Act 1990 certainly allows seizure and destruction per the process set out in Section 19. If you know the 1980 Act does allow this, maybe you could post the relevant section which might clear that up.

 

it's a point, but as you can't legally import the dog?, the law was broken. it has come to the relevant authorities attention and quite rightly they have done something if belated. if i had illegally imported crocodiles or king cobras and kept them for 4 years and then tried rehoming them on manxnet, would you expect there to be nothing the authorities could do cos they'd been here for a few years?? a few years back an ostrich farm got turned down cos they were deemed dangerous !! but they have them in the UK. ( which would suggest we are safer?? or paranoid ) you need to remember the legislation being used is nothing to do with the dogs act, lots of peopel are saying the dogs act this and the dogs act that, but it is wildlife legislation this animal comes under.also, it doesn't work for people who overstay visa's either so why anyone would expect different treatment for a dog. on the subject of people there was something on TV a few nights ago about border controls etc and some buthers had illegals and they got fined 10k per illegal and the illegals got sent back. there didn't seem to be an issue with timing there.

[Bananaman]

There's more

 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 11:59: I am the owner of Champ COB. I did not choose to bring Champ onto the Island he was already here. I rehomed him around about a year ago. I did not take him because he was a APBT I gave him a loveing home because he is such a loyal, affectionate obedient dog and he is irreplaceable as it stands. How can you judge when you don't even know him or have ever been in his company. It is racism against dogs. Its not his fault hes a Pitbull. So he should be killed jst because owners of other Pitbulls have abused them used them as fighting dogs and pumped them full of steroids. I no what humans are like pumped full of steroids it sends you loopy…get a grip COB and don't talk about my dog when you don't even know him. I lost my daughter last year and thanks to Champ and my Spaniel Amber they got my threw the depression and the heartache and I refuse to let him go without a fight. What has happened to this world its disgusting and im appalled at the Manx Govt as Manx resident I will be leaving the Island for good if they put my dog to sleep. Its inhumane and im TOTALLY disgusted that they licensed him and took our money for that long and now say he has to go…….if you cant write anythimg constructive ill ask you politely don't talk about me or my dog again or at least write your name.

SARA

 

From here

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/your-shout/Rehom...rier.4480782.jp

 

Getting to the bottom of the barrell throwing in the race card. I think some one needs to explain to her very very slowly why her dog has been taken off her, maybe even show her photographs of the injuries caused by loving,loyal, softy family pets to their family members. Maybe it might sink in that a pit bull does not make a good pet.