[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[Amadeus]

Wow - arguing over a mutt for 17 pages. One could think there aren't any more important issues.

 

And anyway - a public service announcement:

 

CHILL

 

PILL

 

EVERYONE

 

Or I'll take this thread to the vet and have it put down.

[pamplemousse]

I don't particularly want the dog to die, I just don't want to logon one morning to see a thread entitled...

 

"Local Pit Bull 'Champ' rips child's face off"

 

Get him off our Island, and take Sara too.

 

So we repatriate not only dog but owner too, the former because of a presumption that it may harm someone and the latter, to pander to your unpleasant social prejudice? That's one hell of a can of worms you're opening. I'm not sure who you think 'our Island' belongs to, or who you speak on behalf of, but it's the Island I was born and brought up on, and you do not speak for me.

 

I understand that technically, this dog - if it is an American Pit Bull - is banned. But it's banned because it is considered dangerous.

So, here's an aside - when I was growing up, we had two Staffordshire Bull Terriers which were the sweetest, least volatile dogs you could imagine. Then a few years ago, I suffered a completely unprovoked attack by an unleashed Irish Wolfhound. It knocked me to the ground and inflicted puncture wounds on my stomach and arms but I was 'lucky' in that the owner called it off before it could do more damage.

I reported it to the police immediately but heard nothing further. Follow-up phone enquiries produced no further results. It wasn't until a year later, when I prompted a policeman I knew to enquire as to whether anything had been done, that I got a phonecall from Douglas HQ. They had "had words" with the owner. That's right - words.

I don't need to ask you to imagine the possible consequences if the dog had attacked a small child, and the owner had not been in the immediate vicinity.

 

I'm not saying I know what the answer is. MANY breeds of dogs, in the wrong owners' hands, have the potential to harm people and even within a breed which is not considered dangerous, you may still get a 'bad apple' - and it doesn't seem pragmatic to start banning left, right and centre. But equally, it seems inadequate to wait for an attack to happen before taking measures, whether it's muzzling or putting the dog down.

 

I just hate the kneejerk fear and loathing of bull breeds when in reality, it's not that simple.

[Bananaman]

in reality, it's not that simple.

 

It is when it comes to American Pit Bull terriers though.

[P.K.]

I just hate the kneejerk fear and loathing of bull breeds when in reality, it's not that simple.

Exactly, it is that simple - they're banned. End of.

[Lonan3]

LINK

 

It's an old article (2004), but the thing that makes it still relevant is:

 

A compilation of statistics by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on fatal dog attacks on human beings shows that American pit bull terriers, or pit bulls, have the worst record of any breed. Between 1979 and 1996, there were 60 fatal attacks across the country by pit bulls on humans. The second-worst record was for rottweilers, with 29 fatal attacks, followed by German shepherds with 19.

An official with the Humane Society of the United States said Friday that breeds are selectively bred to accentuate specific characteristics. In the case of some retrievers, for example, the dogs were bred over the years to leap into the water at a moment's notice, retrieve downed birds and carry them softly in their mouths back to hunters.

Pit bulls, however, were bred to fight other dogs in closed environments such as pits or arenas, said Eric Sakach, director of the West Coast regional office of the Humane Society of the United States.

"They were selectively bred to cause maximum damage, which includes grabbing, holding and shaking, which causes tearing," Sakach said.

Breeders also gradually eliminated from the animals some of the typical signals of coming aggression, like barking, growling or raising the hair on the back of their necks, he added.

"These animals offer little or no indication that an attack is imminent," he said.

[pamplemousse]

in reality, it's not that simple.

 

It is when it comes to American Pit Bull terriers though.

 

Aye, I know that. What I meant was, issues like are clouded by a great deal of fear and prejudice about dogs which are thought to be dangerous because they're bull breeds, when there are potentially extremely dangerous dogs wandering around off the leash and unmuzzled, which get nowhere near the same amount of bad press because they don't come with negative associations (chavs, hard men, dog fighting etc). I was only saying, because in a lot of cases that same fear and prejudice seems to inform people's opinions as much if not more than what the actual facts are. That's all.

[Cret]

So we repatriate not only dog but owner too, the former because of a presumption that it may harm someone and the latter, to pander to your unpleasant social prejudice? That's one hell of a can of worms you're opening. I'm not sure who you think 'our Island' belongs to, or who you speak on behalf of, but it's the Island I was born and brought up on, and you do not speak for me.

 

She did actually say herself that she would leave the island of her own accord if the dog gets 'whacked'.

 

One thing I was wondering is whether all this aggro is being paid for by all of us as taxpayers, or by her?

Yes there's all this question of whether poochie is actually a pitbull or not, and I'm not getting into that squabble, but the bottom line I think is that she registered it as one, and as they're illegal to have here, if it needs to be proven that it subsequently is not this breed all the cost should be footed by herself, as presumably this is something that could get very costly very quick.

 

After all, completely aside from whether it's friendly/cool/aggressive or whatever, she was the one that registered it as this presumably, so why should all of us pay for sorting out her mistake whether intentional or not?

 

I don't think it's an unreasonable question to be asking. I for one would be most annoyed if the taxpayer is paying for all this fuss, not because I have anything against her, her dog, or anyone else, but because it mainly seems to be due to her inconsistent story variations, and initial blunder of saying she has a banned breed that this has come about.

 

It'd be nice to know without getting embroiled in the trap of being accused of being a dog hating cad, being told to shutup because I don't know the dog, without hearing the phrase 'deed not breed', or hearing any 'yeah but no but' style comments if possible.

[Silentbob]

The other issue is that Pitbull owners are fighting for 'The deed not the breed'.

 

What if that 1 deed is the maiming of a 5 year old kid?

 

EVERY ANIMAL ON THIS PLANETS IS CAPABLE OF ATTACKING FOR NO APPARENT REASON.

 

The legislation is in place to protect people against the repercussions of that attack. If a poodle goes on a wobbler, the damage would be superficial, but you cannot argue the fact that American Put Bull Terriers have been bred to be physically superb specimens designed to be efficient killers.

 

Regarding the petition, since there is no (or from the signee's adresses does not seem to be) and Isle of Man option. I am sure (if I was a sick fucker) I could find worldwide over 600 people who think that messing about with 9 year olds is perfectly acceptable. Do you think we should change those laws too? Online petitions are not worth the pixels they take up. It sure as hell should not be admissable to an Isle of Man Court of Law.

 

Again, I am not hardline to have the dog put down, but it has no place on the Island in my opinion.

[loaf]

Wow - arguing over a mutt for 17 pages. One could think there aren't any more important issues....

Well, it would be a fraction of its length if the story didn't keep changing!

[manshimajin]

Wow - arguing over a mutt for 17 pages. One could think there aren't any more important issues....

Not enough photos though....Amadeus can you oblige?

[Scottish Terrier]

I just hate the kneejerk fear and loathing of bull breeds when in reality, it's not that simple.

Exactly, it is that simple - they're banned. End of.

 

The problem with the law banning Pitbulls is that the Pitbull isn't actually a recognised breed, it is a "type" which is identified by certain characteristics not specific to the Pitbull.

 

That is why they are so difficult to identify and also highlights the inadequacies with the dangerous dogs act.

Despite what some may say on this forum, most experts agree the dangerous dogs act is seriously flawed and are calling for change. The British Vets Association has published a paper calling for this as well but then again most on this forum would rather read the hysterical rantings of a tabloid editor than a considered solution to the problem.

[Amadeus]

Wow - arguing over a mutt for 17 pages. One could think there aren't any more important issues....

Not enough photos though....Amadeus can you oblige?

Sorry, Media Rule #1: Don't work with kids or animals.

[rednut]

I'm a dog lover and would prefer if possible to not see a healthy dog put down. But I'm also a realist.

 

Within all this talk of whether the dog should live or die, be taken off the island or allowed to stay blah blah blah most people have forgotten the results of the expert test. It came back with the dog was fine around people, but not at all ok around other dogs.

 

So if Champ can't abide other dogs to the point of feeling rage and wanting to attack it....how long before this transfers onto other small animals (someone's cat or rabbit).....and how long before it transfers onto a child.

 

It does also seem like the owner has known about Champ being put down if she can't find him a home for a while and has done bugger all about it. Correct me if I'm wrong. And her story does seem to change slightly every time I read it but I have put that down to her being desperate and emotional about her pet which she loves a lot and who has helped her through some tough times.

 

If she is allowed to keep Champ then are there going to be stipulations to it, ie, Champ must be muzzled and on a lead 100% of the time it is outside her front door and garden.

 

I don't know the right answer for this but all I've picked out is the dog loves adult people....and nothing else.

[Scottish Terrier]

I'm a dog lover and would prefer if possible to not see a healthy dog put down. But I'm also a realist.

 

Within all this talk of whether the dog should live or die, be taken off the island or allowed to stay blah blah blah most people have forgotten the results of the expert test. It came back with the dog was fine around people, but not at all ok around other dogs.

 

So if Champ can't abide other dogs to the point of feeling rage and wanting to attack it....how long before this transfers onto other small animals (someone's cat or rabbit).....and how long before it transfers onto a child.

 

It does also seem like the owner has known about Champ being put down if she can't find him a home for a while and has done bugger all about it. Correct me if I'm wrong. And her story does seem to change slightly every time I read it but I have put that down to her being desperate and emotional about her pet which she loves a lot and who has helped her through some tough times.

 

If she is allowed to keep Champ then are there going to be stipulations to it, ie, Champ must be muzzled and on a lead 100% of the time it is outside her front door and garden.

 

I don't know the right answer for this but all I've picked out is the dog loves adult people....and nothing else.

 

Have you not seen the photo of Champ sitting next to the owner and a Spaniel. He didn't look too bothered and if you listen to the MSPCA interview on the Border News website, you will see the staff there saying that there hasn't been any problems with the dog.

 

I think the information about the dog not being trusted with other dogs came from the DAFF spokesman and if you read his comments in full, you will realise he is making it up as he goes along.

[Chinahand]

... most on this forum would rather read the hysterical rantings of a tabloid editor than a considered solution to the problem.

I do not think that is true.

 

Look let us find areas of agreement.

 

It is a sad fact that large numbers of dog owners are unwilling even to pick up the excrement their animals leave on the streets.

 

There should be a strong recognition that owning a dog is a big responsibility. Especially when that dog is big and powerful.

 

Now my problem is that I simply believe many dog owners do not put in the effort to look after their dog responsibly. They rely on luck - for it not to get out, to not get caught letting it foul the street, for it not biting someone. The dog isn't trained - in fact I'd almost take it to an extreme - alot of dog owners make light and even a game of things like barking at postman etc. While a responsible owner should be training a dog that certain people are allowed to enter their territory unchallenged.

 

I will agree that the Dangerous Dogs Act is a blunt instrument. There is an uncertainty and it is not clear where the line should be drawn. But I do believe that dangerous behavioural trates have been bred into certain breeds and these traits make the dogs totally unsuitable to in public. Dogs that have these traits are powerful enough to maim and kill and it is the unfortunate fact that their past behaviour is NO guide to when they might turn and attack.

 

I've read report after report about dogs that have lived in families all their lives, that have never bit anyone or showed any agression suddenly turning - often on a child, but with pitbulls often on adults to. The results are too horrible to imagine.

 

IF it was possible to filter out these dogs from ones that look the same but do not have this behavioural problem I'd say do it - but you can't and I doubt we ever will.

 

The result is the law approximately as it stands now - some dog types have a tendency to attack and maim which is unacceptable for them to be owned by the general public.

 

Scottish Terrier do you really believe that you can suddenly pass a law which will successfully mandate all owners of powerful dogs to suddenly become responsible dog owners. How?

 

The law has to be practical - the UK cannot even enforce a general dog licencing scheme. Evasion of registration, training, insurance would be massive if these were mandated.

 

One bite and you are out doesn't work in the case of pitbulls and similar fighting dogs.

 

I can see no simple way for the state to create a law which is as effective as an out right ban with additional clauses concerning dangerous behaviour of non banned dogs.

 

Any law that bans dangerous breeds AND has additional measures to control dangerous dogs will be more effective than one that just has the additional measures. That is a fact of logic.

 

I believe that whatever measures are brought in they will have such a rate of evasion that they will always have significant problems controlling dangerous dogs and the results will be maimings. So a blanked ban will help.

 

Sure suggest better measures to control dangerous dogs - if these can be shown to be so effective that dogs like bull mastiffs etc become as dangerous as toy poodles then you can make a case that they can also be applied to pitbulls.

 

But I don't think you realistically can do that.