[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[Scottish Terrier]

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.

 

I agree that challenging the law won't work for her.

Her only hope is if an expert says the dog is not a pitbull and a court agrees. Other than that happening, which is unlikely, the dog should be re-homed off Island rather than be put down.

[Scottish Terrier]

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.

 

You really struggle with logic (and sarcasm)....you make points and when I counter them, you suddenly deny there relevance.

 

With regard to the report, have you ever seen Cezar Milan (Dog Whisperer on TV if you have one).

I believe he keeps close on 40 dogs, mostly Pitbulls, togther in one pack and never has agression or other issues.

 

Since I have actually seen this work with my own eyes, I think I'll respect his opinion before you interent source.

[manshimajin]

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.

You are spot on Scottish Terrier. I might add why would anyone actually want a pitbull terrier when you could have a Westie or a Cairn or a Scottie? And given she has said it is a pitbull terrier why is she now saying it might not be?

SARA

I as the owner do not know what breed champ is he could have been a labrourdoodle for all I care. He didn't come with papers and I was told he was an APBT. That does not make him automatically an APBT just because someone said he is.

a little earlier

STAFFY Owner Ramsay

to me it looks nothing like a Pitbull or American Pitbull

but then again, earlier on the same thread

SARA

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

SARA

Its not his fault hes a Pitbull.

I think she is grasping at straws to justify having a pitbull. The dog starts out as a pitbull. When the law says its illegal to have one it suddenly became the fault of the vet and the Government for letting her licence it. Then suddenly it may be a cross. Then it becomes indeterminate. Then someone says its more like a Staffy. Then she retracts what she has said about it being an ABPT, and now she is calling for tests.

 

She has a dog the authorities say is a pit bull terrier and she licensed it (so she says) as a pitbull terrier and is blaming the authorities for allowing her to do that. I would have thought that that is the believable bit of her story as it is what she said to start with. If she stuck to one story it might be more credible.

IOM Today Thread

[Bananaman]

She has a dog the authorities say is a pit bull terrier and she licensed it (so she says) as a pitbull terrier and is blaming the authorities for allowing her to do that. I would have thought that that is the believable bit of her story as it is what she said to start with. If she stuck to one story it might be more credible.

IOM Today Thread

 

 

Obviously the guy with a lot to say is not a true dog or animal lover so shouldn't be passing your comments.

SARA

 

 

Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh! At least he is respecting the bloody law!

[Chinahand]

With regard to the report, have you ever seen Cezar Milan (Dog Whisperer on TV if you have one).

I believe he keeps close on 40 dogs, mostly Pitbulls, togther in one pack and never has agression or other issues.

Since I have actually seen this work with my own eyes, I think I'll respect his opinion before you interent source.

Sorry - one minute you are saying you fully believe that Pitbulls should be dealt with responsibly in a controlled manner, now you are going on about having 40 of them roaming about in a pack.

 

Are you really saying you think this is acceptable behaviour?

 

Can you give a little more information about what you mean by seeing it with your own eyes - you mean you've seen it on T.V.?

 

Are you really saying you do not think Pitbulls are dangerous.

 

Try google news - they only cache about a month of stories - Pitbull attack 2,392 reports. Rottweiler 219. Alsatian 13.

[slinkydevil]

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!

 

WTF? Elvis is dead?!!!

[Skeddan]

I agree that challenging the law won't work for her.

Her only hope is if an expert says the dog is not a pitbull and a court agrees. Other than that happening, which is unlikely, the dog should be re-homed off Island rather than be put down.

As I said earlier, maybe she could challenge if the process under S.19 of The Dogs Act 1990 hasn't been properly followed and if the seizure etc. wasn't lawful under any other legislation.

 

You say the dog 'should' be re-homed rather than put down. I don't think the court can order the MSPCA to do this. If you want you and Friends of Champ can ask the MSPCA to offer to take Champ and re-home him, and apply to the court to change the order to one under 19(2)(a) rather than 19(2)c).

 

However as I understand it there isn't much enthusiasm to take on a dog which a behavourial specialist supposedly says 'isn't good around other dogs' (dangerous around other dogs - i.e. a dangerous dog). Basically unless a suitable proposal is presented then there isn't really any option other than to destroy the dog. If no one cares enough to make arrangements with MSPCA and efforts at re-homing have failed despite the court giving an opportunity to do this, then you can't really hold the authorities to blame for destroying the animal.

[Scottish Terrier]

I agree that challenging the law won't work for her.

Her only hope is if an expert says the dog is not a pitbull and a court agrees. Other than that happening, which is unlikely, the dog should be re-homed off Island rather than be put down.

As I said earlier, maybe she could challenge if the process under S.19 of The Dogs Act 1990 hasn't been properly followed and if the seizure etc. wasn't lawful under any other legislation.

 

You say the dog 'should' be re-homed rather than put down. I don't think the court can order the MSPCA to do this. If you want you and Friends of Champ can ask the MSPCA to offer to take Champ and re-home him, and apply to the court to change the order to one under 19(2)(a) rather than 19(2)c).

 

However as I understand it there isn't much enthusiasm to take on a dog which a behavourial specialist supposedly says 'isn't good around other dogs' (dangerous around other dogs - i.e. a dangerous dog). Basically unless a suitable proposal is presented then there isn't really any option other than to destroy the dog. If no one cares enough to make arrangements with MSPCA and efforts at re-homing have failed despite the court giving an opportunity to do this, then you can't really hold the authorities to blame for destroying the animal.

 

I am not disagreeing, I know it is hard to convince a court a dog is not a Pitbull type.

The re-homing should be done by the current owner if all other legal avenues fail.

[Scottish Terrier]

With regard to the report, have you ever seen Cezar Milan (Dog Whisperer on TV if you have one).

I believe he keeps close on 40 dogs, mostly Pitbulls, togther in one pack and never has agression or other issues.

Since I have actually seen this work with my own eyes, I think I'll respect his opinion before you interent source.

Sorry - one minute you are saying you fully believe that Pitbulls should be dealt with responsibly in a controlled manner, now you are going on about having 40 of them roaming about in a pack.

 

Are you really saying you think this is acceptable behaviour?

 

Can you give a little more information about what you mean by seeing it with your own eyes - you mean you've seen it on T.V.?

 

Are you really saying you do not think Pitbulls are dangerous.

 

Try google news - they only cache about a month of stories - Pitbull attack 2,392 reports. Rottweiler 219. Alsatian 13.

 

I believe it when I see it on TV when the source is a well renowned dog trainer who is actually quite well known.

If you believe he runs round the streets with a pack of forty dogs then you are obviously a bit silly.

His dogs are kept in a secure compound but are free to roam with each other.

He doesn't work like other dog trainers which teach commands and responses but instead relies on changing dogs state of mind so they don't actually feel aggressive and generally comply with the pack leader, i.e. the human owner.

 

Maybe you should see this for yourslef before you comment further and make yourself look even more ignorant.

[Bananaman]

Why doesthe title of a Sex Pistol's compilation album keep popping into my head?

[WTF]

I agree that challenging the law won't work for her.

Her only hope is if an expert says the dog is not a pitbull and a court agrees. Other than that happening, which is unlikely, the dog should be re-homed off Island rather than be put down.

As I said earlier, maybe she could challenge if the process under S.19 of The Dogs Act 1990 hasn't been properly followed and if the seizure etc. wasn't lawful under any other legislation.

 

 

as i said earlier, the dogs act 1990 has had absolutely NOTHING to do with this case, it has ALL been done under the wildlife act. what is S.19 anyway??

[Chinahand]

The only trouble with all this, Scottish Terrier, is that you seem to think you can take these individual examples and apply them generally. I find that panglossian - and basically tautological - all you are saying is that if you keep Pitbulls in an environment safe for people then people will be safe.

 

The issue is can you do that in a complex and diverse society where mistakes occur and there are SNAFUs - and if you can't what are the consequences of the SNAFUs.

 

Even with current legislation there are still deaths from Pitbulls in the UK. I simply believe what you are suggesting is absolutely impractical in reality and you cannot sufficiently control Pitbulls to mitigate the risk. Pitbulls and crosses have been responsible for 110 deaths and 636 maimings in Canada in 14 years. Practically how do you make all Pitbull owners now and into the future responsible owners - I believe you can't and as a result given the nature of dog people will die.

 

Oh and I dread to think what would happen if a mistake occurred and a person found themself unexpectedly in Mr Milan's compound: very definitely they would NOT be in a safe environment. That is the problem with his approach - a stranger will not be viewed as a top dog by a pack animal - quite the opposite.

[WTF]

You say the dog 'should' be re-homed rather than put down. I don't think the court can order the MSPCA to do this. If you want you and Friends of Champ can ask the MSPCA to offer to take Champ and re-home him, and apply to the court to change the order to one under 19(2)(a) rather than 19(2)c).

 

 

as the dog can't be here legally according to the wildlife act, i don't see how a legal place can be found for it in the dogs act or the wildlife act?

[loaf]

Not enough has been said of the precedent the government would be setting if somehow they allowed the dog to stay. This could give out the message to other people that they can also import dangerous breeds into the island.

 

I notice that there are about 1200 members of the Facebook group, yet only 500 signatures on the petition site. A few of these signatures are in fact objections, other signatures have evidently been sourced from American/international forums, presumably pit bull forums. So far there's more than half, around 60% or more not signing the petition.

[Cret]

Pitbulls and crosses have been responsible for 110 deaths and 636 maimings in Canada in 14 years.

 

That's way more than has ever been attributed to sharks, and you can't keep them as pets.

 

I think that says it all folks.