[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[Bananaman]

It's a bit like a man with really long arms having kids with a woman with really long arms, and their really long armed kids having kids with other really long armed kids, and then people calling them "long armed humans". Now, if one of those long armed humans has a kid with someone with medium length arms, and that kid has longer than normal arms, but not as long as a long armed human arms, is he a long armed human? I don't know but he's definitely a long armed type of human and he can tickle you up. Tickle you up real good.

 

Ahh, now if said kid wore sunglasses?

 

Eh?

[Cret]

One other important thing that ought to be considered is whether or not the dog in question has ever been seen on a skateboard.

 

Not necessarily at the same time as wearing sunglasses I hasten to add, but I think it's an intriguing question all the same. If one google images "pitbull skateboard" there are not many useful results, but if it could be shown that this one does, I think we'd have its future secured. Maybe.

[Gladys]

But only if wearing a red neckerchief.

 

You really are quite clueless about dawgs.

[Bananaman]

One other important thing that ought to be considered is whether or not the dog in question has ever been seen on a skateboard.

 

Not necessarily at the same time as wearing sunglasses I hasten to add, but I think it's an intriguing question all the same. If one google images "pitbull skateboard" there are not many useful results, but if it could be shown that this one does, I think we'd have its future secured. Maybe.

 

Safe Search

 

 

 

 

On or Off?

 

Should I filter out flagrant law breaking long armed tickly skateboarding dogs that will luv you and hug you and kiss you and hug you?

[Bananaman]

But only if wearing a red neckerchief.

 

You really are quite clueless about dawgs.

 

 

This will be the same 'RED NECKERCHIEF OF COOL' that er er errrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Fuck it. That stupid people put on their dogs and then change the poor bloody dog's name to 'Rebel' or 'Jack Daniels'.

 

 

 

Ackkkk!

 

 

PPuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttchoooeeeeiiiiiiiiiiuuuu!

 

 

Ugg, ahhhhhhhh uhhh ugggh!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

app upp err!

 

 

 

Wankers!

 

 

And all this was hypothetical - imagine if I had to face these types in real life.

[Lonan3]

And can it say "Sausages" on an Esther Rancid programme?

[Gladys]

It's hard to accept, but in a hard world, hard choices have to be made. Red neckerchiefs are de rigeur. Now you can call me a wanker, you can call me a wohndag, but you have to accept a dawg ain't a dawg without a red neckerchief.

 

Especially when said dawg is skateboarding and wearing sunglasses!

 

Anyway, Champ has now been invited to be a roving ambassador for TV prog 'Who Do You Think You Are?' as they delve into his antecedents, probably to find he is bloodlined to half the royal families in Europe via his teeth.

 

(BTW is Champ a dog or a bitch?)

[Scottish Terrier]

I really should pay more attention, I've never heard of fishkettle or Scottish Terrier.

 

Are they just here for the pitbull?

 

Stav.

 

looks like it. if only they knew what they were on about....

 

Sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed in your private members club! I actually work for a living and generally don't have much time to mess about on my computer....you do know there is a whole big bright world out there!

 

I have no interest in the outcome of this particular Pitbull story however I do feel stongly about the Dangerous Dogs Act and its implications.

 

WTF - WTF have you said which is even remotely accurate or interesting

 

it was only said as a flippant jest and was not intended as a serious comment on your posts. but,

concentrating on the last line, what have i said that you feel is inacurate??

 

and as to your post before this one, i will say again ( you agreed before somewhere ) there is NO dangerous dogs act in the isle of man, if you hate the dangerous dogs act so much you should be ranting on UK websites where the act is valid. there is a 'dogs act' ( with no reference to breeds ) and a 'wildlife act' ( that makes pitbulls illegal to be here ) and the wildlife act is what has been applied to this case as that is where the dogs are listed.

 

it is not about how cute champ is, it is about the FACT he shouldn't be here, and CAN'T be here legally.

 

Interesting to note that back in January 2007, our government advised that our Dogs Act covered dangerous dogs and our law didn't require amending.

 

The Department would advise that the Dogs Act 1990 is an Act of Tynwald which contains numerous provisions including those related to dogs causing danger, nuisance, etc. Unlike the legislation currently in force in the United Kingdom, there is no list of prescribed species of dog. The Dogs Act 1990 also contains provisions regarding dog licences, etc., and is enforced both by this Department, through the services of its contracted Dog Warden, and the Isle of Man Police. To date, the Act has been considered to be adequate by both agencies for dealing with problems associated with dogs, dangerous or otherwise.

 

John Shimmin, Minister for Local Government and the Environment said,

 

“Unlike the UK we do not need to prove by the use of DNA tests that the control of a specific dog falls within the parameters of our legislation. We have recognised for many years now that all dogs have the potential to be dangerous and we have the means to deal with them”.

 

Now if we are to believe the part in bold, there is no need for interference from DAFF on any issues relating to dogs. I believe there was also a statement this year saying that the proposed new act would focus on deed not breed. I would be willing to lay a large bet that we end up with a list of banned dogs in the new legislation in light of recent events.

[Chinahand]

I would be willing to lay a large bet that we end up with a list of banned dogs in the new legislation in light of recent events.

Fine by me!

 

The only reason they got away with it was due to the fact there wasn't a pitbull population on the Island and they banned imports. Now that lawyers have a real case to get their teeth into the holes in the legislation become more apparant.

 

I feel very little for those who protest that they should have a right to keep these type of dogs.

 

I feel they cannot guarantee to uphold the responsibilities to protect people in all circumstances - and that it would be cruel to keep a dog like this muzzled 100% or the time or whatever, but otherwise attacks will still occur in the family home if the dog turns unexpectedly.

[WTF]

I really should pay more attention, I've never heard of fishkettle or Scottish Terrier.

 

Are they just here for the pitbull?

 

Stav.

 

looks like it. if only they knew what they were on about....

 

Sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed in your private members club! I actually work for a living and generally don't have much time to mess about on my computer....you do know there is a whole big bright world out there!

 

I have no interest in the outcome of this particular Pitbull story however I do feel stongly about the Dangerous Dogs Act and its implications.

 

WTF - WTF have you said which is even remotely accurate or interesting

 

it was only said as a flippant jest and was not intended as a serious comment on your posts. but,

concentrating on the last line, what have i said that you feel is inacurate??

 

and as to your post before this one, i will say again ( you agreed before somewhere ) there is NO dangerous dogs act in the isle of man, if you hate the dangerous dogs act so much you should be ranting on UK websites where the act is valid. there is a 'dogs act' ( with no reference to breeds ) and a 'wildlife act' ( that makes pitbulls illegal to be here ) and the wildlife act is what has been applied to this case as that is where the dogs are listed.

 

it is not about how cute champ is, it is about the FACT he shouldn't be here, and CAN'T be here legally.

 

Interesting to note that back in January 2007, our government advised that our Dogs Act covered dangerous dogs and our law didn't require amending.

 

The Department would advise that the Dogs Act 1990 is an Act of Tynwald which contains numerous provisions including those related to dogs causing danger, nuisance, etc. Unlike the legislation currently in force in the United Kingdom, there is no list of prescribed species of dog. The Dogs Act 1990 also contains provisions regarding dog licences, etc., and is enforced both by this Department, through the services of its contracted Dog Warden, and the Isle of Man Police. To date, the Act has been considered to be adequate by both agencies for dealing with problems associated with dogs, dangerous or otherwise.

 

John Shimmin, Minister for Local Government and the Environment said,

 

“Unlike the UK we do not need to prove by the use of DNA tests that the control of a specific dog falls within the parameters of our legislation. We have recognised for many years now that all dogs have the potential to be dangerous and we have the means to deal with them”.

 

Now if we are to believe the part in bold, there is no need for interference from DAFF on any issues relating to dogs. I believe there was also a statement this year saying that the proposed new act would focus on deed not breed. I would be willing to lay a large bet that we end up with a list of banned dogs in the new legislation in light of recent events.

 

 

interesting to note that you haven't responded to my specific question in a previous post. you are NOW refering to the part in the dogs act that refers to dangerous dogs rather than 'the dangerous dogs act', ok, but lets not be clouding the issue with a dangerous dogs act that isn't there for us with a dogs act that is ther for us but THAT HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THIS CASE!!!

now daffs involvement with the 'dog' in question is quite correct as they come under THEIR legislation as being a banned animal that is not to be imported. i can see how you would like a dog to be a dog so ONLY the dogs act should be used, but thats not the case. as a severe exageration it would be like calling a lion a cat, technically a cat, but not as far as domestic animals are concerned. as has been pointed out, the departments were not aware of the others laws, now they are and action has been taken. there are probably still a few more straws out there of no relevence to clutch at, so keep looking.

 

and how can daff be interfering when it has been in THIER legislation for over 15 years??

[Sebrof]

I suppose that at least we'll find out one way or another.

1/ It is or isn't a pitbull

2/ It does or doesn't have behavioural problems

3/ It's legal or isn't legal

 

Then what?

 

Simple.

 

If it IS a Pitbull, it's dead meat. Obviously nobody in Ireland wants it.

 

 

S

 

 

not so, a pitbull rescue centre/sanctuary in ireland has offered to take it. so it doesn't need to die, it just needs its passport stamped.

lol Sebrof, you really know how to be subtle

 

It's called getting to the point. Something this thread needs.

 

And if there is a place in Ireland ready to take it, why isn't it there? I do hope that the government is going to charge this silly woman for all expenditure incurred over the illegal importation of a dangerous wild animal.

 

And for the bunny-huggers, there are three sorts of animal:

 

Domesticated animals (fit to be in the home - domesticated comes from the Latin word, "domus", meaning home).

 

Industrial/farm animals, which can be dangerous (bovine bulls), but are useful, so legal under certain conditions.

 

Wild animals.

 

The Pit Bull clearly does not fall into the first two categories, so it must be in the third.

 

S

[Shill]

in your opinion.

[Static]

in your opinion.

 

So what's yours then? What category of animal would you put a Pit Bull type dog into? Me? I'd say dangerous.....

 

The only thing I can find on this topic from you is "In my view if the dog turns out to be illegal on the Isle of Man it should be re-homed somewhere where it is legal. Whether the owner likes it or not. The dog should not be put down without evidence to suggest it is dangerous to small children. It's not the dogs fault it is allegedly a breed of dog that is illegal in the IOM. "

 

I agree that the dog should be rehomed somewhere it is legal. As to whether this particular dog is dangerous - irrelevent as it is illegal. just ship it back to Ireland where it alledgely came from in the first place.

 

(I state this it is illegal because the current owner, Sara, has stated in a number of different places that is is an APTB and they are illegal to import here so it should not be here as it was obviously imported originally).

[immortalpuppet]

You are missing a trick, Surfer champ.

[Skeddan]

interesting to note that you haven't responded to my specific question in a previous post. you are NOW refering to the part in the dogs act that refers to dangerous dogs rather than 'the dangerous dogs act', ok, but lets not be clouding the issue with a dangerous dogs act that isn't there for us with a dogs act that is ther for us but THAT HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THIS CASE!!!

WTF - I think you are right about this - that The Dogs Act 1990 isn't being used in this case (as I suggested might be the case in previous post).

 

For reasons given in earlier post (#103) I think it likely only actual Pitbull Terriers and Japanese Tosa's are banned from import. The Schedule to the Act does not refer to "Pitbull Terrier Type" and does not appear to cover dogs which have Pitbull Terrier characteristics but which are not actually a Pitbull Terrier:

 

This kind includes the wild dog, wolf, jackal, coyote, fennec and fox, except that the domestic dog (with the exception of the Pit Bull Terrier and the Japanese Tosa (Tosa) ) is specifically excluded

 

While you are probably right that IoM's The Dogs Act 1990 has not been used in this case, it would all be a darn sight simpler if it had been. Then there would be no issue over breed, bringing over breed experts etc. If Champ proves not to be banned under the Import Act, then perhaps someone will make a complaint about the dog being dangerous under the provisions of The Dogs Act 1990. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.