[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[Scottish Terrier]

Read my other posts, these dogs should only be kept by appropriate owners who know how to handle them responsibly.

 

 

Can you define an appropriate owner for a dog that has been bred specifically for fighting?

 

I think you will find that there are a lot of dogs out there that were historically bred for fighting or hunting but don't get the publicity that Pitbulls do. We as a race have modified there behaviour over the years to make them more acceptable as pets however the underlying instincts are still there. That is why they need controlled

 

Let's take Staffy's as an example since that is the breed I own. These have been softened over the years and are no longer recognisable as fighting dogs. They are also only one of, I believe, two breeds of dog which are mentioned as being good with children in their breed standard. Did the kennel club include this for a joke or do you think this is a reputation which has been deserved over years for exemplary behaviour around children.

 

Did you know boxers were originally bred for fighting. Your not seriously going to tell me they pose a threat and should be banned are you?

 

 

You can't answer me then?

 

You've also shot yourself in the foot too with this pointless argument about keeping an animal that is ILLEGAL to own.

 

Tell me why this woman thinks she is above the law?

 

What makes you think her dog is illegal? Are you a vet specifically trained in identifying mongrels?

These dogs are almost impossible to identify even by experts.

 

Even if the dog is a genuine pitbull, I still maintain the law is wrong. I am not the only one with this opinion, practically every expert and vet in the UK disagrees with the Dangerous Dogs Act as it stands.

[WTF]

Well if we agree that responsible owners can handle powerful dogs but that the risk can never be reduced to nil then what we are talking about is degrees of manageable risk.

 

A child that lives with a powerful dog, and responsible owners, will face less risk than he or she will every day of it's life when it crosses a road.

 

A child that lives with it's chav parents and staffy called Tyson is obviously more at risk hence my argument of targetting owners.

 

Do we really as a society want to make certain breeds of dogs extinct because people can't take the time or gain the knowledge to control their dog?

 

one minute you are saying its a mongrel, and then you are refering to breeds being extinct?? you can't have it both ways, but i think i understand what you are saying. but we don't have lions overhere and they are quite hapilly living ELSEWHERE. the extract from a website above just shows how the story is ever changing to suit the moments situation. on the radio she has had it 5 months, in that post a year. then she goes on about 'our money' in reference to licencing!! who is our?? she keeps changing from me to we and back again. the fact that she has had the dog 5-4-1years-6months depending on the version of the truth at the time makes you wonder, but she and dean NOW have no idea where it came from wheras a while back it was happilly claimed as from ireland?? everyone keeps chirping about it being put down, when all that is needed is for it to go to ireland now, BUT that is not what they are looking to do. it is get public sympathy to get our own way by claiming the only option is death. there is no provission in the wildlife act for excemptions under the circumstances they are in regardless of how cute and fluffy and safe the dog may be.

[Ronague Ram]

I will be leaving the Island for good if they put my dog to sleep.

 

If it means so much then she could go to Ireland, take the dog with her and spare its life.

[Bananaman]

I don't know the person or her background so I cannot comment.

If she was someone who wasn't suitable, and I say if, then the dog should be re-homed through the MSPCA, not destroyed.

 

Right is it me being stupid here? What has someone's background GOT TO DO WITH OWNING AN ANIMAL WHICH IS ILLEGAL TO HAVE.

 

 

 

Gahhhh! You're making me all shouty now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUMPETS!

[Chinahand]

... at what point did you equate my statement on playing to me suggesting that children should be involved in these "games". Only an idiot would let a child play with a powerful dog as these dogs do play rough and do get over excited.

 

Read my other posts, these dogs should only be kept by appropriate owners who know how to handle them responsibly.

 

Also do you have no respect for the damage a small aggresive dog can do (you seem intent on equating powerful with aggressive for some reason)? I once had a nasty bite from a Jack Russell, fair enough, it wasn't going to kill me but it still hurts a lot!

Let us start at the begining - a video with champ playing a biting game with a child laughing at him in the background.

 

I said this was dangerous.

 

You said he was just playing.

 

I said you cannot let pitbulls get exiting in biting games around children.

 

From what you have said above we now agree that the owner of Champ was an idiot. Or are you still going to say it was fine for that child to be there when Champ was behaving that way on the rope? If so we are still going to be saying claptrap to each other.

 

I most definitely am not saying that only big dogs can be aggressive. I grew up with fox terriers and fully know what a small dog can do.

 

But this entire thread is talking about a large powerful dog specifically bred to be aggressive. THAT is the point. Those two combinations show that these animals are dangerous and that the proportions of serious maulings that involve these dogs is simply too high to be acceptable.

 

You cannot keep a lynx - an animal smaller than Champ with less bite force etc. Why because no matter how well looked after it is you cannot control its aggressive instinct. A similar aggressive instinct has been bred into Pitbulls over generations.

 

Sorry, but have you actually owned a Pitbull, not a staffy or a bull terrior - dogs I also know well and enjoy.

 

Are you really going to ignore all the evidence of these animals unpredictably mauling people, causing deaths etc. Well great. But you don't make the laws of this land, and the fact is that after soberly looking at the evidence a decision has been made that these animals, just like a Lynx, are too dangerous to be kept.

 

I for one totally agree with that and firmly believe that too many dog owners inappropriately handle their dogs, but no matter how good the owner pitbulls are too risky and so should be banned.

[Scottish Terrier]

Well if we agree that responsible owners can handle powerful dogs but that the risk can never be reduced to nil then what we are talking about is degrees of manageable risk.

 

A child that lives with a powerful dog, and responsible owners, will face less risk than he or she will every day of it's life when it crosses a road.

 

A child that lives with it's chav parents and staffy called Tyson is obviously more at risk hence my argument of targetting owners.

 

Do we really as a society want to make certain breeds of dogs extinct because people can't take the time or gain the knowledge to control their dog?

 

one minute you are saying its a mongrel, and then you are refering to breeds being extinct?? you can't have it both ways, but i think i understand what you are saying. but we don't have lions overhere and they are quite hapilly living ELSEWHERE. the extract from a website above just shows how the story is ever changing to suit the moments situation. on the radio she has had it 5 months, in that post a year. then she goes on about 'our money' in reference to licencing!! who is our?? she keeps changing from me to we and back again. the fact that she has had the dog 5-4-1years-6months depending on the version of the truth at the time makes you wonder, but she and dean NOW have no idea where it came from wheras a while back it was happilly claimed as from ireland?? everyone keeps chirping about it being put down, when all that is needed is for it to go to ireland now, BUT that is not what they are looking to do. it is get public sympathy to get our own way by claiming the only option is death. there is no provission in the wildlife act for excemptions under the circumstances they are in regardless of how cute and fluffy and safe the dog may be.

 

I am quite clear on this...

 

As the law stands, this could potentially be a banned breed. I am not convinced it is however the danger with the law is that it requires mongrels (hence the words Pitbull "Type") to be identified as Pitbulls.

 

That aside, I am pointing out that I believe this law is wrong in any case and we should legislate against people, not breeds of dog. i.e. People should be licenced to own certain breeds.

 

We do it for guns, and other dangerous animals for that matter so why not dogs.

[Scottish Terrier]

.

 

Are you really going to ignore all the evidence of these animals unpredictably mauling people, causing deaths etc. Well great. But you don't make the laws of this land, and the fact is that after soberly looking at the evidence a decision has been made that these animals, just like a Lynx, are too dangerous to be kept.

 

 

 

I think you will find you can keep a Lynx, or a Tiger, or a Lion if you have the appropriate arrangements and a licence.

Isn't that what I proposed for certain breeds of dog?

[Bananaman]

practically every expert and vet in the UK disagrees with the Dangerous Dogs Act as it stands.

 

 

Ermmm no they don't. In fact they couldn't be more for it. I suggest you look at what the BVA and the RCVS have to say about this. There are many countries where this type of dog is illegal to import. New Zealand and Australia to name but two and Australia has funnel web spiders and box jellyfish.

 

Edited to add - no I'm not an expert nor am I a Veterinary Surgeon - never professed to being either. Just someone who listens to common sense.

[Scottish Terrier]

practically every expert and vet in the UK disagrees with the Dangerous Dogs Act as it stands.

 

 

Ermmm no they don't. In fact they couldn't be more for it. I suggest you look at what the BVA and the RCVS have to say about this. There are many countries where this type of dog is illegal to import. New Zealand and Australia to name but two and Australia has funnel web spiders and box jellyfish.

 

Edited to add - no I'm not an expert nor am I a Veterinary Surgeon - never professed to being either. Just someone who listens to common sense.

 

I think you are playing with words...

Most Vets would want a dangerous dogs act, just not the one we currently have which offers little protection and doesn't achieve what it sets out to do, i.e. protect the public from dangerous dogs.

 

I do however a a big issue with the funnel web spiders and box jellyfish, should we perhaps petition Tynwald to ban these dangerous creatures

[Chinahand]

I think you will find you can keep a Lynx, or a Tiger, or a Lion if you have the appropriate arrangements and a licence.

Isn't that what I proposed for certain breeds of dog?

We are now getting to a rediculous level of pendanty. If you say you JUST want people to be allowed to keep Pitbulls in zoos then I think I will agree with you.

 

If you are saying they can be kept anywhere that people may inadvertently stumple in on them, in a home, or in circumstances where they can be in public - then I disagree with you and will remain content with the law of the land.

 

Have you read this report?

 

[P]it bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern: children are normally at greatest risk from dogbite because they play with dogs more often, have less experience in reading dog behavior, are more likely to engage in activity that alarms or stimulates a dog, and are less able to defend themselves when a dog becomes aggressive. Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are. They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning ... Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog.

 

The traditional approach to dangerous dog legislation is to allow "one free bite," at which point the owner is warned. On second bite, the dog is killed. The traditional approach, however, patently does not apply in addressing the threats from pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, and wolf hybrids. In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question.

 

... t is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers ... as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances. Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

 

Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all.

[Skeddan]

I don't know the person or her background so I cannot comment.

If she was someone who wasn't suitable, and I say if, then the dog should be re-homed through the MSPCA, not destroyed.

That view seems fair enough to me. Likewise if she had been keeping a tiger.

 

There seems to be a bit of a difference in the view of what makes someone a suitable owner. With a staffie or poodle, the risk of someone being maimed or killed is low. With a Pitbull Terrier it is extremely high. Perhaps she might be a suitable person to own a staffie, but Pitbull Terriers are in a different league - simply from this 'actuarial risk'.

 

The presumption is she is not a suitable person to own a Pitbull unless she has satisfied the authorities and obtained a special license for a dangerous animal. That's how it works - if she disregards the regulations controlling dangerous animals - well, that by itself shows she is far from suitable.

 

What stands out though is that amidst all this talk by the owner about it all being about the dog's best interests, the carry-on is anything but this. She seems to insist it is a pitbull when this seems doubtful. She could take the dog off the island. She could contact the MSPCA and ask them to take ownership of the dog. Remember the story of King Solomon and the dispute over the baby - with the real mother being prepared to give up the baby rather than it be killed.

 

Really all the carry-on seems to be just about wanting to keep Champ as 'a member of the family' (in a garden that is not properly fenced, near a newborn baby, and looked after by an owner who is flaky and unreliable and - sorry to say this - comes across as a bit soft in the head).

 

So if you want to campaign for Champ to be handed over to the MSPCA if she is too hopeless to deal with re-homing the dog herself, it's a whole different thing, and I don't think too many people would object to that.

[Scottish Terrier]

Are you saying we should never challenge the law of the land or that you have never yourself broken a law?

 

I have never stumbled across someones pitbull by inadvertently walking into their home.

These dogs can be safely homed by well educated and responsible people who are willing to put the time in to control them.

 

As for your report, if I search the internet, I will find a report that says Elvis is alive, it doesn't make it true!

 

I believe Staffy's are an extremely safe breed to have around children however I personally would still have them classed as a breed that would require owner licensing, not because of the dog, but purely because they can be dangerous in the wrong hands (and there are plenty of idiots who have or want to own them).

[Scottish Terrier]

I don't know the person or her background so I cannot comment.

If she was someone who wasn't suitable, and I say if, then the dog should be re-homed through the MSPCA, not destroyed.

That view seems fair enough to me. Likewise if she had been keeping a tiger.

 

There seems to be a bit of a difference in the view of what makes someone a suitable owner. With a staffie or poodle, the risk of someone being maimed or killed is low. With a Pitbull Terrier it is extremely high. Perhaps she might be a suitable person to own a staffie, but Pitbull Terriers are in a different league - simply from this 'actuarial risk'.

 

The presumption is she is not a suitable person to own a Pitbull unless she has satisfied the authorities and obtained a special license for a dangerous animal. That's how it works - if she disregards the regulations controlling dangerous animals - well, that by itself shows she is far from suitable.

 

What stands out though is that amidst all this talk by the owner about it all being about the dog's best interests, the carry-on is anything but this. She seems to insist it is a pitbull when this seems doubtful. She could take the dog off the island. She could contact the MSPCA and ask them to take ownership of the dog. Remember the story of King Solomon and the dispute over the baby - with the real mother being prepared to give up the baby rather than it be killed.

 

Really all the carry-on seems to be just about wanting to keep Champ as 'a member of the family' (in a garden that is not properly fenced, near a newborn baby, and looked after by an owner who is flaky and unreliable and - sorry to say this - comes across as a bit soft in the head).

 

So if you want to campaign for Champ to be handed over to the MSPCA if she is too hopeless to deal with re-homing the dog herself, it's a whole different thing, and I don't think too many people would object to that.

 

I agree she hasn't done herself any favours so far.

If I were her and I owned that dog, I wouldn't have broadcasted the word Pit and Bull around.

[Skeddan]

Are you saying we should never challenge the law of the land or that you have never yourself broken a law?

 

I believe Staffy's are an extremely safe breed to have around children however I personally would still have them classed as a breed that would require owner licensing, not because of the dog, but purely because they can be dangerous in the wrong hands (and there are plenty of idiots who have or want to own them).

I'm all in favour of the idea of owner licensing for Staffys and other big potentially dangerous dogs.

 

By all means challenge the law - in court. Lobby and campaign for a change in the law. Pursuade and convince people. If you think classification of Pitbulls as dangerous is mistaken and misguided, then it is up to you to make your case and seek a change in the law.

 

If you want to say that you think she is justified in keeping Champ as this is only breaking a law which in you opinion is misguided - well it ain't going to cut the custard with the authorities or help Champ one little bit.

[Chinahand]

Are you saying we should never challenge the law of the land or that you have never yourself broken a law?

 

No

 

I have never stumbled across someones pitbull by inadvertently walking into their home.

 

Good for you. What relevence is this to our debate. The fact is a considerable number of people unfortunately have and have suffered the consequences.

 

These dogs can be safely homed by well educated and responsible people who are willing to put the time in to control them.

As for your report, if I search the internet, I will find a report that says Elvis is alive, it doesn't make it true!

 

This is where I disagree. I am pretty certain the evidence presented in the report is accurate, it fits in with the information I have seen elsewhere and with countless newsreports of these animals suddenly attacking. Do you have ANY evidence contradicting this? I ask again have you ever had any dealings with a Pitbull, or are you just projecting your knowledge of Staffies on to them?

 

Well educated and responsible people cannot control the environment around a Pitbull enough for them to be safe if they are kept in a private home. The evidence that this is so is manefestly obvious from the number of people who always assumed they were able to control this type of animal who found they were wrong to their cost.

 

I believe Staffy's are an extremely safe breed to have around children however I personally would still have them classed as a breed that would require owner licensing, not because of the dog, but purely because they can be dangerous in the wrong hands (and there are plenty of idiots who have or want to own them).

 

This entire debate is about illegal dogs, Staffy's are not illegal dogs, and your opinion on them is irrelevent to this issue.