[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[Foxtrotlima]

And Champ has just had his 5 mins of fame on Border News. He is one huge dog!

[Scottish Terrier]

I wasn't really going to write anything, but all I seem to be seeing is one person having a chew of another and a response back that resembles a lot like a yoyo or something else which I'd rather remain quiet about.

I've lost track of where we are now, but whatever is said, it isn't going to change the facts of the case. The dog, 'Champ' (as cute and cuddly looking as pictures make him out to be) has been given a reprieve and located in a pet sanctuary before a decision can be made to validate the breed of dog and therefore judge whether the dog is legal or illegal. If legal, he stays and if illegal, then he either departs to a place who can legally look after him or he is put down (Is that about right so far?)

 

All the rest is different viewpoints and I suppose you could even consider this to be like tennis, the harder the hit, the better the chance of putting the other person on the wrong foot and a skilled shot usually wins the point. (Not too different then in my perspective, but then, who really cares what I say?) (say nothing or else )

 

Scottish Terrier, you're new to me or at least your username is and would just llike to say that I've seen many regulars contributing on the boards and with whom I've feriously debated my point of view against theirs from time to time and I must admit, on looking back at it all now, I have a big smirk about some of the things that were said.

 

Can I therefore politely enquire, (although I think I know) what is your angle on this and what do you hope to achieve?

Please note; It's a straight question from me and I have no axes to grind. (PM me if you want to)

 

I can tell you exactly where I stand, I have nothing to hide.

 

I have no relationship or knowledge of Champ or his owners and have no particular desire to home a Pitbull.

My problem is with the Dogs Act / Dangerous Dogs Act and where it may lead, i.e. Breed Specific Legislation.

 

This is actually a big issue in some coutries, did you know the German Government have campaigned to have Staffordshire Bull Terriers named as a banned breed in the UK.

 

I don't believe the existing acts give the protection they were intended to and in fact dog attacks have risen since the Dangerous Dogs Act was enforced (UK).

 

My point is that irresponsible dog owners actually get off very lightly if there dogs attack another dog or human. I would have much more personal, and criminal, responsibility attached to the dog owner.

 

For more powerful breeds of dog, I would suggest that owners are licenced to keep them.

 

Ultimately, when you make something illegal, the practice usually carries on outside the law, i.e. despite being banned there are a lot of Pitbulls roaming the streets in the UK (unfortunately, mainly owned by people who shouldn't be anywhere near a dog).

 

By keeping ownership within the law, there is at least a chance of controlling a part of the overall population although I do accept that there will always be people for which the law will make no difference.

 

For the record, if I owned Champ, I would take up the offer of re-homing in Ireland as I don't believe they will actually get anywhere with the Manx Government. If the rumours and stories are true, they wouldn't past my test as suitable owners however as I don't know these people personally, I wouldn't judge them from what has been posted so far.

 

Hope thats cleared up any misconceptions about my motives.

[loaf]

Ultimately, when you make something illegal, the practice usually carries on outside the law, i.e. despite being banned there are a lot of Pitbulls roaming the streets in the UK (unfortunately, mainly owned by people who shouldn't be anywhere near a dog).

But the island is a special case, geographically. Some things that are illegal are just not feasible to do on the island. It's like having a purse snatcher on an aeroplane.

 

I guess DAFF had a perfect opportunity to act fast and nip it in the bud. Now the DAFF's threat of destroying the dog (which may have been made purely to expedite its rehoming) has been turned against them in the form of 'hey look everyone, do what we want or the cute dog gets it'

 

I wonder if Champ was some repulsive, ugly creature, how much the public support would differ. An ugly dog would have the same right to live, surely? Obviously the equivalent world support from Repulsive Ugly Dog breeders wouldn't change, but other people are clearly making value and tameness judgements purely on his looks and cuteness. He looks somewhat less placid and more threatening when he's barking his head off in that housing estate bedroom on Youtube. I'd be uncomfortable facing that in the flesh, to be honest.

[Skeddan]

My problem is with the Dogs Act / Dangerous Dogs Act and where it may lead, i.e. Breed Specific Legislation.

 

This is actually a big issue in some coutries, did you know the German Government have campaigned to have Staffordshire Bull Terriers named as a banned breed in the UK.

 

I don't believe the existing acts give the protection they were intended to and in fact dog attacks have risen since the Dangerous Dogs Act was enforced (UK).

In IoM, The Dogs Act 1990 is not 'Breed Specific Legislation'. It's provisions relating to dangerous dogs takes a completely different approach to the UK Dangerous Dogs Act. Read it. There doesn't appear to be any plan to revise it, nor does there seem to be any need to do so. Don't mix this up with the UK's Dangerous Dogs Act and then criticise Manx legislation on basis of arguments that have been directed against the UK's legislation.

[Scottish Terrier]

My problem is with the Dogs Act / Dangerous Dogs Act and where it may lead, i.e. Breed Specific Legislation.

 

This is actually a big issue in some coutries, did you know the German Government have campaigned to have Staffordshire Bull Terriers named as a banned breed in the UK.

 

I don't believe the existing acts give the protection they were intended to and in fact dog attacks have risen since the Dangerous Dogs Act was enforced (UK).

In IoM, The Dogs Act 1990 is not 'Breed Specific Legislation'. It's provisions relating to dangerous dogs takes a completely different approach to the UK Dangerous Dogs Act. Read it. There doesn't appear to be any plan to revise it, nor does there seem to be any need to do so. Don't mix this up with the UK's Dangerous Dogs Act and then criticise Manx legislation on basis of arguments that have been directed against the UK's legislation.

 

The Wildlife Act does cover specific breeds as you well know so we already have limited breed specific legislation over here.

 

Anyway, I have said "where it may lead".

Although there wasn't plans for Breed Specific Legislation, I would guess that this may just creep in.

I understand the existing legislation is currently be revised so we will know soon enough.

[Chinahand]

We are just getting into legal semantics here - Scottish Terrier sees no need for Pitbulls to be banned from the Island.

 

I, for one, have no problem with this.

 

I think trying to create a law which mandates that pitbull owners are responsible owners is totally and utterly impossible. You could never draft it.

 

The result will be, if you don't ban the breed, that irresponsible people get to own a powerful and dangerous animal; and if that happens there is a risk of people especially children getting hurt.

 

Yes irresponsible people can also own rotweillers (and yorkshire terriers!) - I think that is a problem and I would like to make sure dogs are dealt with in a responsible manner. However it is very difficult for the authorities to act proactively - they simply can't enforce laws to make everyone take their dogs to obedience class, have insurance, and a muzzle or whatever.

 

One bite and you are out is too big a risk with pitbulls. As you can't lower the risk of them biting to an acceptable level the only other solution is a ban.

[Scottish Terrier]

We are just getting into legal semantics here - Scottish Terrier sees no need for Pitbulls to be banned from the Island.

 

I, for one, have no problem with this.

 

I think trying to create a law which mandates that pitbull owners are responsible owners is totally and utterly impossible. You could never draft it.

 

The result will be, if you don't ban the breed, that irresponsible people get to own a powerful and dangerous animal; and if that happens there is a risk of people especially children getting hurt.

 

Yes irresponsible people can also own rotweillers (and yorkshire terriers!) - I think that is a problem and I would like to make sure dogs are dealt with in a responsible manner. However it is very difficult for the authorities to act proactively - they simply can't enforce laws to make everyone take their dogs to obedience class, have insurance, and a muzzle or whatever.

 

One bite and you are out is too big a risk with pitbulls. As you can't lower the risk of them biting to an acceptable level the only other solution is a ban.

 

But what you are suggesting is starting us down a slippery slope.....

With a child, a Rottweiller, Staffy, Alsation, etc., is every bit as capable of killing (in the highly unlikely event they ever attack) as a Pitbull.

 

Say in a couple of years time we all of a sudden get a couple of Rottweiller attacks in a short space of time.

What do we do then, ban them as well?

 

If every Pitbull was destroyed tomorrow, we would soon see other dogs take their place as the "weapon" of choice for some.

All we would achieve is movement of the problem to another breed. Don't tell me other breeds are less dangerous if they attack, a Rottweiller will kill a child with ease if conditioned to do so.

 

It is kneejerk solutions like your's which perpetuate problems. Culling a breed will not make the problem go away (Not that there is a significant problem compared to other dangers children and society in general face every day).

 

Answer this question - If we cull Pitbulls and then suddenly seen an increase in Rottweiller attacks because they have suddenly become the fashionable dog for fighting, Chav ownership, Drug dealers or whatever else, would you then advocate banning them as well.

 

I am not picking on Rottweillers in particular, just using them hypothetically.

[Skeddan]

The Wildlife Act does cover specific breeds as you well know so we already have limited breed specific legislation over here.

but you were referring to the Dogs Act. I agree the breed specific banning from import is far from ideal. You could import a Pitbull Tosa cross, but not a Pitbull. IMO better that this is dealt with by The Dogs Act - or to have Pitbull Terrier 'type' dogs banned (unless pre-approved before import).

 

Anyway, I have said "where it may lead".

Although there wasn't plans for Breed Specific Legislation, I would guess that this may just creep in.

You also said "I don't believe the existing acts give the protection they were intended to" - and used the UK Act to criticise the IoM legislation.

 

What reason is there to think the IoM Act will be made breed specific?

 

I understand the existing legislation is currently be revised so we will know soon enough.

 

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”.

you also said:

 

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.

 

If you are campaigning against changes to The Dogs Act 1990, please make it clear - ideally showing when changes might be introduced, what the proposed changes are, and your objections to the proposals actually made. As it is you seem to be attacking legislation which isn't even a draft bill and only exists in your imagination - and trying to use Champ to show how unfairly he is being treated by this (non-existent) system.

 

Does you position really come down to being against breed specific legislation to deal with dangerous dogs, you fear this might happen in IoM, and you want to use this case to raise the issue?

[Chinahand]

... what you are suggesting is starting us down a slippery slope.....

With a child, a Rottweiller, Staffy, Alsation, etc., is every bit as capable of killing (in the highly unlikely event they ever attack) as a Pitbull.

 

Say in a couple of years time we all of a sudden get a couple of Rottweiller attacks in a short space of time.

What do we do then, ban them as well?

 

If every Pitbull was destroyed tomorrow, we would soon see other dogs take their place as the "weapon" of choice for some.

All we would achieve is movement of the problem to another breed. Don't tell me other breeds are less dangerous if they attack, a Rottweiller will kill a child with ease if conditioned to do so.

 

I fully agree the line is arbitary - but I don't not think that it has no bais in reality. There are practical considerations which have an impact.

 

People have pointed out again and again that there are two factors - probability of bite vrs severity of bite.

 

Pitbulls in my mind have a set of characteristics which are unique - From what I understand Rotties are significantly heavier dogs but the pitbull has bigger jaw muscles and bite strength. Rotweillers are less agressive and Rotweillers due to their size are more difficult to keep.

 

This difficulty, the effort to keeping them tends to mean they are owned by more responsible owners. The pitbull is a much easier animal to keep and that combined with its agressive behaviour and strength are why they so often end up in unsuitable homes.

 

I fully admit to the qualifiers here, but the statistics I am seeing tell me that Pitbulls tip the scales in risk - do Rotweillers? - maybe, but at the moment the level of attacks they are involved in has not caused enough concern to say they should be banned.

 

I do not think it is a coincidence that the ban is on breeds specifically bred to fight - rather than guard, or protect herds, which requires the dog to have a greater awareness of its environment.

 

If there were a series of attacks by Rotties I would want their behaviour reviewed, this whole debate is about acceptable risk, but for me, at the moment, their behaviour has not tipped the scales. With Pitbulls and their ilk they have. Staffies etc are, as far as I can see, much much less risk - they are not as powerful and so do less damage and are less prone to attack.

 

Again I do think breed characteristics are important - lots of dogs snap - that hurts like hell and can traumatise a kid, but a pitbull bites, locks and tears. It has been bred to do that and to not stop even when under attack itself.

 

Answer me a question - are you denying these animals have these characteristics? While Rotties or whatever have been bred for a different purpose.

 

Oh and Skeddan, please understand when people talk about dangerous dog laws, they mean any laws which refers to controlling dogs and not the name of a particular piece of legislation. The IOM has laws which specifically ban dogs - these laws have been shown to be problematic, it is likely they will be tightened up!

[Scottish Terrier]

Skeddan

 

I can understand your points and were you are coming from so I will try to clarify.

 

At the moment our Dogs Act isn't breed specific and last year a Government minister (in light of the Ellie Lawrence attack) made a public statement that our Act gave enough protection on the IOM and no further legislation was required. He also made the point that our legislation wasn't breed specific and that all parties, Police, Dog Warden, etc., were happy with this.

 

This turned out not be the whole truth as we have the Wildlife Act which does have some breed specific legislation. As you say, Pitbull Types are mentioned but what if I cross a Japanese Tosa with a Rottweiller, that would be legal and I'm sure dangerous given the wrong training.

 

Therefore being breed specific doesn't actually address the issue of dangerous dogs.

 

I know that there are plans for a new act and although we have been promised it wouldn't be breed specific, my fear in light of these events, is that it will contain some provision.

 

I also know someone in Government who has either seen, or been told about, the proposals and I will check with them later to see exactly what was contained therein. At the time they first saw them, they advised me that I should be concerned as a Staffy owner but I didn't believe that would be an issue. I know our Government is a bit crap but I didn't think they would go that far!!!

[Skeddan]

Oh and Skeddan, please understand when people talk about dangerous dog laws, they mean any laws which refers to controlling dogs and not the name of a particular piece of legislation. The IOM has laws which specifically ban dogs - these laws have been shown to be problematic, it is likely they will be tightened up!

I do. But Scottish Terrier was referring to a particular piece of legislation - The Dogs Act.

 

My problem is with the Dogs Act / Dangerous Dogs Act ... I don't believe the existing acts give the protection

 

Yes the Wild Animals Import Act could do with some changes re dogs. There are problems with being breed specific. e.g. it looks like you could import a mongrel which is a Pitbull-Tosa cross, or Pitbull type dogs. You could import a rotty or Alsatian that's crazy or trained to kill.

 

Maybe the best thing would simply to have all dogs go through a quick screening on import. Any dog that might be considered dangerous could be taken for further examination (as with customs control) and if warranted the officer could then keep the dog in custody and apply to the court to deal with the dog under the existing provisions of the Dogs Act.

 

If you bring in a dog and go through 'nothing to declare' then you get hit with big fine. I can't see it would inconvenience many people. Most would be waved through without hardly pausing. Dogs which regularly travel to and fro would have licence and be cleared already - so would only apply to new imports. Why bother trying to be breed specific?

[Scottish Terrier]

... what you are suggesting is starting us down a slippery slope.....

With a child, a Rottweiller, Staffy, Alsation, etc., is every bit as capable of killing (in the highly unlikely event they ever attack) as a Pitbull.

 

Say in a couple of years time we all of a sudden get a couple of Rottweiller attacks in a short space of time.

What do we do then, ban them as well?

 

If every Pitbull was destroyed tomorrow, we would soon see other dogs take their place as the "weapon" of choice for some.

All we would achieve is movement of the problem to another breed. Don't tell me other breeds are less dangerous if they attack, a Rottweiller will kill a child with ease if conditioned to do so.

 

I fully agree the line is arbitary - but I don't not think that it has no bais in reality. There are practical considerations which have an impact.

 

People have pointed out again and again that there are two factors - probability of bite vrs severity of bite.

 

Pitbulls in my mind have a set of characteristics which are unique - From what I understand Rotties are significantly heavier dogs but the pitbull has bigger jaw muscles and bite strength. Rotweillers are less agressive and Rotweillers due to their size are more difficult to keep.

 

This difficulty, the effort to keeping them tends to mean they are owned by more responsible owners. The pitbull is a much easier animal to keep and that combined with its agressive behaviour and strength are why they so often end up in unsuitable homes.

 

I fully admit to the qualifiers here, but the statistics I am seeing tell me that Pitbulls tip the scales in risk - do Rotweillers? - maybe, but at the moment the level of attacks they are involved in has not caused enough concern to say they should be banned.

 

I do not think it is a coincidence that the ban is on breeds specifically bred to fight - rather than guard, or protect herds, which requires the dog to have a greater awareness of its environment.

 

If there were a series of attacks by Rotties I would want their behaviour reviewed, this whole debate is about acceptable risk, but for me, at the moment, their behaviour has not tipped the scales. With Pitbulls and their ilk they have. Staffies etc are, as far as I can see, much much less risk - they are not as powerful and so do less damage and are less prone to attack.

 

Again I do think breed characteristics are important - lots of dogs snap - that hurts like hell and can traumatise a kid, but a pitbull bites, locks and tears. It has been bred to do that and to not stop even when under attack itself.

 

Answer me a question - are you denying these animals have these characteristics? While Rotties or whatever have been bred for a different purpose.

 

Oh and Skeddan, please understand when people talk about dangerous dog laws, they mean any laws which refers to controlling dogs and not the name of a particular piece of legislation. The IOM has laws which specifically ban dogs - these laws have been shown to be problematic, it is likely they will be tightened up!

 

I can see where you are coming from but I still think the lowest levels of society will find a way to create a new or modify an existing breed. It would not take long to turn a Rottweiller aggressive.

 

With regard to linking it to fighting breeds, Staffy's are a fighting breed, and indeed the genetic parent of the Pitbull, however because they have on the whole been owned by a greater number of responsible owners, the breed has become acceptable.

 

However I can tell from experience, if you were minded to train aggression into a staffy, you will have a very dangerous dog. My male Staff is 21kg and bloody quick. If he went for you, you could stop him but he will do you some serious damage.

 

Fortunately he's as soft as s**t and never gets in the situation to attack other people or dogs anyway.

[Skeddan]

Skeddan

 

I can understand your points and were you are coming from so I will try to clarify.

 

I know that there are plans for a new act and although we have been promised it wouldn't be breed specific, my fear in light of these events, is that it will contain some provision.

 

I also know someone in Government who has either seen, or been told about, the proposals and I will check with them later to see exactly what was contained therein. At the time they first saw them, they advised me that I should be concerned as a Staffy owner but I didn't believe that would be an issue. I know our Government is a bit crap but I didn't think they would go that far!!!

Thanks - and this does clarify. I do take point that there might be changes to import controls which could be crap and badly drafted as knee-jerk reaction. I think existing provisions of The Dogs Act should be left unchanged. I've made suggestion for import control - basically bringing this within broader provisions of The Dogs Act. Would you see that suggestion as a problem?

[Scottish Terrier]

Skeddan

 

I can understand your points and were you are coming from so I will try to clarify.

 

I know that there are plans for a new act and although we have been promised it wouldn't be breed specific, my fear in light of these events, is that it will contain some provision.

 

I also know someone in Government who has either seen, or been told about, the proposals and I will check with them later to see exactly what was contained therein. At the time they first saw them, they advised me that I should be concerned as a Staffy owner but I didn't believe that would be an issue. I know our Government is a bit crap but I didn't think they would go that far!!!

Thanks - and this does clarify. I do take point that there might be changes to import controls which could be crap and badly drafted as knee-jerk reaction. I think existing provisions of The Dogs Act should be left unchanged. I've made suggestion for import control - basically bringing this within broader provisions of The Dogs Act. Would you see that suggestion as a problem?

 

There is a problem with import control to the extent that it would need to be managed by Manx civil servants (You can probably guess I don't have a lot of faith in our Govt.). I can see issues and arguments arising with cross breeds.

 

We also don't know what will be coming over with the fishing boats.

 

Having said that, there will never be a perfect system and if there are to be controls I would rather they prevented dogs getting here rather than having dogs put to sleep on the Island which are already here.

 

In an ideal world the police could just remove a dog from an owner which was unsuitable. Close to where I live, there is a known troublemaker (under 18) who is walking around with what looks like a big staffy, i.e. staffy cross???. The other problem is he lets his mates take the dog out and it has been known for them to be wandering the streets through the night with the dog. Knowing who he is, this dog has a high probability of being "used" at some point.

 

At the moment, there is nothing the police can do, the dog has shown no aggression and he has broke no laws so far. To remove the dog from him today would be illegal so how do we solve that problem?

[comeover]

I'll bet if you asked him what it was he would say "An Irish Staffie". In other words it's more than likely a Pitbull or Pitbull x. Staffies are quite small dogs in comparison. There are plenty of the so-called Irish Staffies on the Island.