[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[Mr. Sausages]

Over 1,500 facebook members now. We've got to put an end to democracy before the underclass takes over.

[loaf]

Only 658 of them signed the petition though.

 

Jeeeze... 267 posts of complete and utter shite.

Nice to see that you've included your own earlier post in that statistic.

[King Lear]

If this dog is a pitbull type or subtype then it should be removed from the Island or put down.

 

That is the intention of the law.

 

All this crap about cuteness, or the fact that he hasn't bit anyone yet, etc is irrelevent.

 

I don't care how many people have signed a petition, bought a balloon or whatever - the law is the law. If the authorities do a fudge on this it will be disgraceful.

 

But who doesn't worry that some parish pump interferring MHK, or official at the MSPCA will try and find a loop hole.

 

And guess what Manx law is often badly drafted which allows loop holes exist. As John Wright has said - the law only dealt with importing, no one bothered about a dog that had been here for years - what if a brood bitch was illegally brought in and whelped.

 

The quicker this dog is gone or dead the better.

[manshimajin]

I don't think that Champ should be put to sleep because he hasn't attacked or injured anyone and I'm sure that the owner would be sensible enough not to let him be around a child or other dog unless he was supervised.

 

Most of the attacks that have been carried out by so called "dangerous breeds" could have easily been avoided if the owners would take more responsibility for their pets

Just to be clear, the government's first response was not to put the dog down but to get the owner to recognise that she has broken the law and to rehome the dog off Island. All told she has had 3 moths to do that. At a minimum it would have been a wise precaution when the owner was told of the potential consequences for the dog for her to arrange for it to be put in kennels in the Republic of Ireland whilst she conducted her campaign here.

 

She and her supporters spend their days criticising the government and conducting a PR campaign rather than looking to the dog's welfare. She has played 'first to blink' with the dog's life. Is this the action of a responsible owner?

[Lonan3]

Anyone who chooses a dog of this type gives up the right to be considered a 'responsible owner.' (IMO)

[Skeddan]

And guess what Manx law is often badly drafted which allows loop holes exist. As John Wright has said - the law only dealt with importing, no one bothered about a dog that had been here for years - what if a brood bitch was illegally brought in and whelped.

Easy - Lodge a complaint that the dog is dangerous to a court as per The Dogs Act 1990. The court can then order the animal to be destroyed - whether or not it was illegally imported or a banned breed. It might be legal to import Alsatians, Rottweilers or even maybe a Pitbull-Tosa cross, but the dog could still be seized and destroyed upon a complaint that the animal is a dangerous dog.

 

However if people buy lots and lots of yellow balloons and put sunglasses on the animal, the decision by the court that the dog is dangerous doesn't count anymore, and it becomes a case of horrible persecution of a loving member of the family by mean nasty people. The decision of whether or not a dog is dangerous should be left to Facebook!

[Scottish Terrier]

And guess what Manx law is often badly drafted which allows loop holes exist. As John Wright has said - the law only dealt with importing, no one bothered about a dog that had been here for years - what if a brood bitch was illegally brought in and whelped.

Easy - Lodge a complaint that the dog is dangerous to a court as per The Dogs Act 1990. The court can then order the animal to be destroyed - whether or not it was illegally imported or a banned breed. It might be legal to import Alsatians, Rottweilers or even maybe a Pitbull-Tosa cross, but the dog could still be seized and destroyed upon a complaint that the animal is a dangerous dog.

 

However if people buy lots and lots of yellow balloons and put sunglasses on the animal, the decision by the court that the dog is dangerous doesn't count anymore, and it becomes a case of horrible persecution of a loving member of the family by mean nasty people. The decision of whether or not a dog is dangerous should be left to Facebook!

 

That is one of the most ill thought suggestions I have seen in a long time.

You have suggested lodging a complaint that the animal is dangerous to get round a potential loophole that may exist, i.e. the animal may not have been imported / or at least wasn't imported by the owner.

 

If this loophole exists and it could potentially save the dog then a complaint to the court that the dog is dangerous would need to be backed by evidence that the dog has been aggressive or has been out of control, etc.,

 

Are you suggesting someone commits perjury just to have the dog executed?

[Chinahand]

Lodge a complaint that the dog is dangerous to a court as per The Dogs Act 1990. The court can then order the animal to be destroyed - whether or not it was illegally imported or a banned breed. It might be legal to import Alsatians, Rottweilers or even maybe a Pitbull-Tosa cross, but the dog could still be seized and destroyed upon a complaint that the animal is a dangerous dog.

 

I would hope you are right- it would be slightly interesting, as surely some evidence has to be presented that the dog is dangerous; which is the problem we are having with Champ at the moment. I wonder if a clever advocate would attempt to say that the "potential to danger" is insufficient; and so the breed being on a banned list in another country is not enough.

 

The IOM doesn't seem to have a ban on Manx born dogs, only on their importation - and I wonder if the common law precident is enough for the Deemster or whoever to consider the UK's law - why not Canada's which doesn't ban the breed!

 

A simple ban on ownership - whether the dog itself is (currently) well behaved, wearing sunglasses or floating over Douglas using helium balloons - can be applied much more easily.

 

We really should have a simple law which bans this breed from the Island no matter what!

[Bananaman]

The decision of whether or not a dog is dangerous should be left to Facebook!

 

I've just been looking and that. Ack! To say it's a load of vomit inducing twaddle is an understatement.

 

 

Disillusioned piffle springs to mind as well.

[Chinahand]

As ever Scottish Terrier proves the point - ban this breed, pure and simple, no ifs no buts, no Scottish Terriers demanding a child has to be attacked before it is admitted one of these dogs is dangerous.

[sheswiththeband]

if that dog is an American Pitbull, i swear i have got two heads. ive known that dog since it was born and i will swear its a mastiff crossed with a staffordshire terrier. APB's are a totally different shape to the dog in question. before the government put him down or whatever, they should trace his papers and his breeding history and find out.

 

my mates little Chihuahua is more vicious than Champ.

[WTF]

A better idea would be to ask the owner to sign a legally binding document to state that the dog must wear a muzzle whenever it is in a public place, and failure to do so would result in the dog being put down- even though this would be harsh at least the dog would be spared his life and as is owners are desperate for their much loved pet to be returned I'm sure they would be only too happy to comply wih this

 

firstly, you can't have a legally binding contract allowing you to be breaking the law. secondly, the law was broken in the first place ( not knowingly perhaps? ) so what is the point of asking for laws to be followed now? there is more chance that this farce will just get the law relooked at and things made even tighter for dogs in general which may or may not be a good thing.

[Scottish Terrier]

As ever Scottish Terrier proves the point - ban this breed, pure and simple, no ifs no buts, no Scottish Terriers demanding a child has to be attacked before it is admitted one of these dogs is dangerous.

 

At what point did I say a dog should attack a child before it is considered dangerous?

Grow up and try to keep the debate rational.

 

I remember at time around 1990 when there has been a couple of Rottweiller attacks, all the national newspapers wanted to ban "Devil Dogs".

Back then, nobody had heard of Pitbulls (apparently they didn't attack people back then) and Rottweillers and Dobermens were the child killers.

 

Since then, it has become more fashionable to pick on "Pitbulls" and apparently Rottweillers have cleaned up their act and no longer bite people.

 

It is exactly the hysterical reactions we see on this forum, and which we had in the late 80's / early 90's which resulted in the poorly drafted legislation which is the Dangerous Dogs Act. If you actually want to protect the public, breed specific legislation is not the way to achieve results.

[Chinahand]

Scottish Terrier - do you eat meat? You are also responsible for using emotive language. You murder execute a lamb with no more compunction than feeling a bit hungry, no matter how cute they are.

 

I've already posted a report that explains that Pitbull behaviour is problematic as it has been statistically shown that they suddenly can bite. With most other breeds it is possible to monitor the behaviour and say whether or not it may bite in innocuous circumstances. That has been shown to be too difficult to do with dogs bred for fighting.

 

All dogs could bite someone in certain circumstances - and you cannot mitigate this risk totally. With most dogs this risk is worth taking, but with Pitbulls once they get their wind up the result is too often a serious maiming. That is the issue for me pure and simple - no matter what training or containment a normal household can attempt (I am not talking about zoos) the risk is too great.

 

And the law agrees with me.

 

One simple question to you - if the ban was lifted would there be more or fewer maimings? Why do you think those maimings are less important than a dog?

 

Edited to make it accurate to what ST said.

[DRIVER]

As ever Scottish Terrier proves the point - ban this breed, pure and simple, no ifs no buts, no Scottish Terriers demanding a child has to be attacked before it is admitted one of these dogs is dangerous.

 

At what point did I say a dog should attack a child before it is considered dangerous?

Grow up and try to keep the debate rational.

 

I remember at time around 1990 when there has been a couple of Rottweiller attacks, all the national newspapers wanted to ban "Devil Dogs".

Back then, nobody had heard of Pitbulls (apparently they didn't attack people back then) and Rottweillers and Dobermens were the child killers.

 

Since then, it has become more fashionable to pick on "Pitbulls" and apparently Rottweillers have cleaned up their act and no longer bite people.

 

It is exactly the hysterical reactions we see on this forum, and which we had in the late 80's / early 90's which resulted in the poorly drafted legislation which is the Dangerous Dogs Act. If you actually want to protect the public, breed specific legislation is not the way to achieve results.

 

 

Read Todays Examiner The Devil Dog breeder in ramsey doesn't even bury their carcases, that must have been what the smell has been, and also has anyone asked lancashire/merseyside & cheshire police what people do with pitbulls, they have seized dozens of them.