[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[Lonan3]

Anyway, as long as it's safely penned in it should be okay for now.

[Sebrof]

Anyway, as long as it's safely penned in it should be okay for now.

 

Stick some broken glass along the top rail and you'll soon sort that problem.

 

S

[Skeddan]

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?

I'd think it might be covered by The Dogs Act 1990:

 

Any person may make a complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction that a dog —

b) causes a nuisance or annoyance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood in which it is kept; or

d) has caused injury, or has given just cause for alarm or annoyance, to any person in a highway or other place to which the public has access;

 

The court might then perhaps decide to order that the dog be kept under proper control - perhaps it could order it to be muzzled in public (maybe with exception of when under control of certain designated responsible adults). Alternatively the court could order that the dog be removed from the neighbourhood.

 

If there is an issue of feeling threatened and intimidated, isn't that a nuisance and annoyance? Given the wording of the act you probably need more than one inhabitant of the neighbourhood to lodge the complaint. Perhaps as yet cannot yet show 'just cause for alarm' - which would be needed for the dog to be seized and destroyed. Maybe there has been just cause for alarm? If not, isn't suitable 'proper control' the right course anyway? What would you see as proportionate - the kind of reasonable proper control that would stop this annoyance? If you propose something which is fair and reasonable in these circumstances, then I imagine the court would be sympathetic.

 

Perhaps the issue is one of not making use of the legislation in the right way. I think you are quite right that there is nothing the police can do. The procedure is that a complaint has to be made to 'a court of summary jurisdiction' - not the police.

 

I can understand that most people would assume that a complaint to the police should be enough, so if the police can't do anything, then it might be assumed nothing can be done. In one respect that is not knowing the legislation, in another it is an issue of 'process' and normal expectations. I think you could argue that it would be good for the Act to be amended so that a complaint made to the police must be referred to a court of summary jurisdiction.

 

IMO don't try to fix something unless it's broke. "How do we solve that problem". Try using the existing legislation. If that proves ineffective because of how its drafted, and this cannot solve an issue of dogs being used in intimidating manner, then it's something that might need solving by some change to the law. Meanwhile the way to solve such problems is probably better awareness of how to go about bringing a complaint in such cases.

 

I can see issues and arguments arising with cross breeds.

What I suggested has nothing to do with cross breeds - all dogs would be screened on arrival - any dog which is considered dangerous could be held in custody while an application is made to the court that the dog is dangerous. Any dog, regardless of its breed would be covered.

[Scottish Terrier]

Problem with screening on arrival is a dog may come off the boat, feeling a bit sick and stressed from a rough crossing and may not be in the best frame of mind for screening.

 

If on the other hand, you had 7 days to bring them in, that may work.

[jimbms]

Problem with screening on arrival is a dog may come off the boat, feeling a bit sick and stressed from a rough crossing and may not be in the best frame of mind for screening.

 

If on the other hand, you had 7 days to bring them in, that may work.

But wouldn't 7 days make it weak

[Scottish Terrier]

Problem with screening on arrival is a dog may come off the boat, feeling a bit sick and stressed from a rough crossing and may not be in the best frame of mind for screening.

 

If on the other hand, you had 7 days to bring them in, that may work.

But wouldn't 7 days make it weak

 

Very Good!

[Lee54]

Show a dog love and you will receive it back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZsBTIdgSuQ...feature=related

[Foxtrotlima]

Show a dog love and you will receive it back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZsBTIdgSuQ...feature=related

 

I think it might help if you pop a NWS or NMS with that YouTube link. I didn't make it to 10 seconds, and not a lot turns my stomach nowadays.

[Skeddan]

Problem with screening on arrival is a dog may come off the boat, feeling a bit sick and stressed from a rough crossing and may not be in the best frame of mind for screening.

 

If on the other hand, you had 7 days to bring them in, that may work.

I don't quite get the idea of 7 days to bring them in - is it waiting for smooth crossing? Still someone might arrive after a rough crossing. You could also envisage a dog being sedated for screening.

 

If anything I'd think the screening would be looking out for types of dogs that might be dangerous (size, type of bite, characteristics of its type of breed and cross rather than behaviour as such). Such a dog would then be taken into custody as a matter of course, detained (48hrs? 28 days?) and its behaviour evaluated, and application made to the court if needed.

 

In the case of a resident, they'd probably already have had the dog cleared. So it would be a visitor - maybe the dog just kept until they leave, or until satisfied that it is not dangerous. If it's a new arrival (like Champ) then probably like Champ it would have evaluation before any final decision is made - that takes time. The crossing wouldn't really come into it.

 

One potential issue would be that it might mean interpreting 'dangerous' fairly broadly; a small Pitbull cross puppy would be 'dangerous' - in the sense that having it in IoM presents a danger - though not an immediate danger.

 

It doesn't deal with a big staffy cross or Alsatian that is not dangerous as such, but which can be made to be intimidating in the wrong hands. (or could be trained after arrival). That would have to be picked up under the Dogs Act as already noted. And just because cleared in this screening doesn't mean that they are immune from being caught out as dangerous dog by a complaint at a later time. If such dogs started becoming a menace, then of course they might start being considered 'dangerous'.

 

Now you start to have the possibility of a type of 'owner licensing' i.e. the court making an order about 'proper control', such as being in the care of a responsible person. If they were becoming a problem Alsatians might start to be considered dangerous and effectively become restricted for import. The dog will be subject to a Dogs Act notice - you have to satisfy court that you are responsible and will have dog under proper control. (failure to do so resulting in fines etc. as already provided).

[Bananaman]

In the case of a resident, they'd probably already have had the dog cleared. So it would be a visitor - maybe the dog just kept until they leave, or until satisfied that it is not dangerous. If it's a new arrival (like Champ) then probably like Champ it would have evaluation before any final decision is made - that takes time. The crossing wouldn't really come into it.

 

So why not have a passport scheme then?

 

We, dogs, cats, hamsters, etc. don't need a passport to travel from the UK to the IOM and vice-versa. Every other animal does though.

 

I'm always amazed at how many people travel all over the world with their pets with the relativly new passport system. I'm also amazed at how many times they get refused permission to travel to a lot of countries as they are deemed as 'Pitbull or Tosa Type' dogs.

 

The Australians being one of the strictest.

[col12342001]

All these people that harp on about 'deed not breed' are just talking rubbish, most pedigree dogs were originally bred for a reason and the instinct is always going to be there even if it's lying dormant. To say that it's all down to the owners is absolute rubbish, eg my border collie would chase sheep if I let him (and has done without my permission, not wanting to cause harm to them but still the farmer could shoot him and get away with it, wonder if the same would be allowed if a dog was in mid human attack), my labrador retrieves and my pointer points, I did not teach any of my dogs these things they just do them anyway! As for all the people on facebook going on about how beautiful and sweet he is, looks can be very deceiving, has anyone seen the Japanese Tosa (also banned)? They are in my opinion a stunning breed but still dangerous so no I wouldn't buy one for my family home! The dogs owner also states on the facebook page that she did a lot of research before deciding to take the dog on, if she did so much research how on earth did she not realise they were a banned breed?!?!

[Skeddan]

So why not have a passport scheme then?

Hmmm - I did think of mentioning that. The UK is going to take on the PETS (the Pet Travel Scheme) (to do with EU Regulation on movement of pet animals). This involves pet passports. (I think the original idea came from the Monster Raving Loony Party).

 

So, yes, how IoM fits in with pet passports is something to consider.

 

Free movement of pets between UK and IoM (CTA). Well what about Pitbulls and Tosas? So why not have dogs coming over from UK having pet passports just the same as they would need for travel elsewhere? (and being subject to screening and getting entry visa in their passport).

[Lee54]

My 6 month old Yorkshire Terrier killed an adult Rottweiler on Douglas beach last year, should he be put down

[manshimajin]

Is the 'Champ' story being driven by what might be called the 'Maddy McCan Syndrome'? The McCanns were 100% right to try and do everything under the sun to get their daughter back and used evey bit of PR they could think of to do it.

 

However since then we seem to be getting more and more into situations where people with problems start Facebook campaigns, get posters in as many places as possible, have balloons made up, put petitions around, seek out the popular media, start fundraising etc etc...and criticise anyone and everyone who disagreees with them as being anti-social. In simple terms the dog's owner does not like the law in the IOM so is trying to force her own view of what it should be onto everyone else by PR assault and spin - despite the her inconsistency over the facts. She seems to think that making as much noise as possible and being as critical as possible of the authorities is the responsible way to behave. Maybe it will turn out that way?

 

In the end though if she is not forced to rehome the pitbull terrier off Island it means that anyone else who wants to keep one here will be able to use the 'Champ Defense' to have the right to keep it (ie it's cute and hasn't hurt anyone yet despite the fact it is labelled as a dangerous dog).

 

PS: I saw a comment elsewhere that she has now had an offer to rehome it. Does anyone know anything about this?

[comeover]

PS: I saw a comment elsewhere that she has now had an offer to rehome it. Does anyone know anything about this?

 

I don''t think there has been an offer - but if it's in Ireland they'll have to get a move on the boats stop soon!!!