manshimajin Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I think that it's unfortunate that this dogs will be destroyed, if it has not been aggressive then there are questions about why it can't be re-homed. The acid test - would you give it a home and take full financial responsibility should it injure people or other peoples' pets in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Did I ever tell of the time a rather unpleasant family brought a Pitbull for my wife to have a look at? They argued and argued with her that it wasn't a Pitbull but an 'Irish Staffordshire Terrier'. County Staffordshire........ would that be one of the occupied counties or in the free state ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 County Staffordshire........ would that be one of the occupied counties or in the free state ? This incident happened about 5 years ago. Like now it still gets brought up in conversations. The fact that they were arguing so brazenly with my wife that it was an Irish Staffordshire Terrier, there aren't many of them which is why she hadn't heard of that breed before. An Irish Staffy. Ppppfftttt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Oooh! Look what I've just found http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/irishstaffords...bullterrier.htm Have to say it looked nothing like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comeover Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Oh yes!! Hear that one a lot on the island that they're Irish Staffies!! Must think we were born yesterday!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 It took me 10 mins to find someone in Ireland that would rehome the dog, the wonders of google. now if it were my dog and i wanted it to live i would rehome it and do the legal thing afterwards so at least the dog would be alive. Seems to me that either the owner is a muppet or really dosnt care about the most important thing in the equasion: the poor dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannin Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 The acid test - would you give it a home and take full financial responsibility should it injure people or other peoples' pets in the future? It's an academic question as the law states it must be destroyed, that aside I think you misunderstand my post. I'm lucky enough to be able to keep my animals where they are safe from others (and by implication others are safe from them.) I would be able to house this dog in a place where it would pose no risk to anyone or anything. In order to provide and alternative the to the dog being destroyed I would be prepared to take it on. As to the question of would I ever choose this 'breed' in the first place, then no. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not an animal right activist, what I am saying is that through no fault of it's own (should the reports be true that it has not attacked/been aggressive) this animal is going to lose it's life. The only think that it has done 'wong' is getting born a pitbull. The 'breed' has been created by fuckwits, these are the ones who should be punished not the animal. IMHO it would be better for there to be somewhere they could be re-homed and managed. To say they should be destroyed is like saying that all tigers should be destroyed because they pose a risk to other animals and people. Ideally this type of dog should be removed from where they are a risk and place in a controlled and managed environment rather than destroyed at the drop of a hat. In reality that will never happen so the law has decreed they should be destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 There have been COUNTLESS articles where a dog has suddenly 'turned' for no good reason and with no prior warning. There have been countless times when humans have flipped for no good reason and with no prior warning (Dunblaine, Hungerford to mention a couple). The issue is here is what the fallout of that can be. A man can flip out with a hammer and it might result in an injury and 'maybe' a death, same situation and the guy has a closet full of guns and the outcome is usually much more devastating. The same is true with animals, no amount of behavioural tests can say that in 3months or 5 years that dog is not going to have a moment of madness and go crazy, if it did, the outcome would be devastating for the poor soul stood in its way. They are banned for a good reason, and have been labelled as dangerous dogs a LOT longer than 5 years. Woman who owned her pitbull 'since it was a pup' took her arm off her. I have zero sympathy for anyone who knowingly purchases this type of dog, then complains when it is taken away from them. I do however feel sorry for the dog, as it had no choice in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 she was given 2 weeks to rehome the dog in Ireland, then another 2 weeks but still didnt do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouse30 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 The owners of the dog are very responsible and the animal has been neutured and microchipped and licensed. Why wasn't the situation brought to light earlier? Surely the vet who carried out the neuturing would have been aware that the dog was an illegal breed? The dog hasn't attacked a child or another animal so I think that it is wrong that he should be destoyed for something that he hasn't and (because he has a responsible owner) wouldn't do! If the same rules were being extended to humans, a few "aggressive looking " chavs could be rounded up and swiftly given an appointment to ride the lightening, just in case in the future they do decide to harm somebody. I think ill behaviour in dogs is the same as it is with people - down to nurture not nature! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vix Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 The dog has been seen by a behavioral specialist who has said the dog is perfectly safe. I think the comments are above are pathetic... stereotyping people without knowing any backround is not fair. Think before you post! Bullshit! Was this 'behavioral specialist' who said the dog is perfectly safe a qualified veterinary surgeon? You Vix are an out and out cock! Scarily my beautiful wife had to go and destroy another pikey chav scumbag's pet a few months ago. Somehow the Gypo lot had managed to get their hands on an Alaskan Timberwolf. Now here's the rub. They took it to my wife (caged, somehow pikeys really respect vets) to have it's vaccinations. Beautiful wife said; This isn't leaving the building I don't care how much you paid for it. Was destroyed under the dangerous dogs act before any silly arsed animal lovers could try to re home it. A fucking timber wolf! Staffies don't cut the mustard with the chav bunch no more (Which is a shame - I like Staffs). You have been warned! Perhaps your wife could 'put you down' and do us all a favour?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 One thing that interests me in this is the claim that the owner of this dog applied for and was granted a dog licence. If the dog licence form doesn't highlight that a dog licence will not be issued to illegal breeds then methinks a certain amount of redrafting needs to be undertaken. Ideally there should be a box where the breed should be identified with a caveat that if the breed is disputed the animal will be examined by a government vet and if found to be an illegal breed it will be impounded, and after due process, put down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 The acid test - would you give it a home and take full financial responsibility should it injure people or other peoples' pets in the future? It's an academic question as the law states it must be destroyed, that aside I think you misunderstand my post. I don't think it is an academic point. I do understand and sympathise with the points you are making. Nobody really likes the idea of a healthy animal being destroyed. If a home can be found for it in Ireland it can go there. But the reality is that most people would never consider having a pitbull in their home. In the final analysis it is the owner's rationale for having a pitbull that really worries me. Why buy a dog breed that, whilst it may only have been put on the IOM dangerous dog list relatively recently, has been on the dangerous dog list in the UK for some time? The owners of the dog are very responsible and the animal has been neutured and microchipped and licensed. Why wasn't the situation brought to light earlier? Surely the vet who carried out the neuturing would have been aware that the dog was an illegal breed? I think ill behaviour in dogs is the same as it is with people - down to nurture not nature! This is all logical and worthy but does not answer the basic question of why on earth did the owners buy this type of dog? They must have known that the breed was classified as 'dangerous' elsewhere. Ultimately this is happening because they bought a known dangerous breed - not the dog's fault. Hope it finds a home in Ireland but not in Co.Cork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 From the facebook link, it's clear the owner knows that it's a breed bred for fighting, and banned. They've got two weeks to re-home it before it gets put down, so why haven't they re-homed it? The fact that they blagged a dog licence is irrelevant - you could get one for a tiger if you wanted. Doesn't mean you should get to keep one, even one that's never harmed anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Why buy a dog breed that, whilst it may only have been put on the IOM dangerous dog list relatively recently, has been on the dangerous dog list in the UK for some time? Banned on the Island since 1991, according to this press release from Jan 07: http://www.iomguide.com/news/general-news.php?story=101687 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.