Skeddan Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 as it HAS been fetched in illegally from ireland, how long does it have to have been here for it NOT to able able to be dealt with DAFF?? just to clarify again, this is not about ANOTHER set of cicumstances that could result in that type off dog being here Perhaps when a good faith purchaser buys the dog not knowing that it had been illegally imported? At that point the dog is owned by the new owner who is not an importer. For DAFF to seize the dog from that good faith owner may then be very different from seizing it from the illegal importer. However that will depend on what the Act says. I've not read the Act - so I've no idea under what provision DAFF have seized the dog. WTF I understand your argument about it not legally being here etc. a bit like an 'illegal immigrant'. Even if illegally imported, it all still depends on the wording of the Act. Suppose the Act does nothing more than make it an offence for someone to import a Pitbull, and stipulates anyone doing so may be fined and have the animal taken from them. That would not make the Pitbull 'illegal' in IoM, nor would it make selling the Pitbull in IoM unlawful, nor would it allow DAFF to seize it from anyone except the original importer. If worded along such lines DAFF would not be able to seize it from the new owner. I'd assume the Act allows DAFF to seize it from the new owner - but without knowing what the Act says exactly, this is just an assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 I don't know if John will have the energy to set us all right, but I imagine its a bit like when you buy stolen property - even though the purchaser acted in good faith the exchange cannot be legitimate. Someone steals something - sells it to someone who is totally innocent, who sells it on to someone else who is also totally innocent - that 3rd party does not have legal title. John I realize the act doesn't ban dogs born on the Island, but I think the legislative intent is pretty clear - no pitbull trouble on the Island - imports illegal. I fully understand that a judge might not be able to make this leap - therefore I think that the legislation needs to be tightened to close these loopholes - I would hope Tynwald will agree and act. Bit of a test of faith hey - wonder if they'll be a question about it - I'd want a written answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 WTF you misunderstand our legislation, so does Chinahand and Gladys Thanks for the clarification, John, but I was making no interpretation of the legislation as I haven't even read it. I was just making a general proposition that something can have all the appearance of being suitable, but unless it is legal, it cannot be suitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Where does everyone stand on Cane Toads? A gentleman rang up the Mannin Line today to ask why the Wildlife Park is allowed keep these creatures (who seem to ooze a kind toxic sweat that if you were to lick one you'd die), but Champ (who never harmed anybody other than to lick them to death) is condemned to death. Actually the caller would probably have phrased that last bit slightly differently - CONDEMNED TO DEATH!!!!. The caller went on to point out that although the toads are very much smaller than Champ they are also more poisonous and therefore it was, "ridiculous to make the comparison." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 He was on last week too! I gather Knockaloe are thinking of crossing the Cane Toad with an APB, Champ to be precise (or should we call it Chomp?). That way it can now either lick you to death (likely behaviour from the pro-Chomp camp) or savage you (likely behaviour from the anti-Chomp camp, of which I am one), so either way it has got to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ourtess Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 I hate these fighting dogs. They always attack Tess. I carry illegal pepper spray to squirt them away. Nasty dogs and nasty owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Terrier Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 I hate these fighting dogs. They always attack Tess. I carry illegal pepper spray to squirt them away. Nasty dogs and nasty owners. I think you may require some medication!!! What breeds do you class as fighting dogs? Bearing in mind there isn't a huge population of Pitbulls on this Island, I assume you are referring to Satffy's, Rotties, etc., My experience is that owners of these types of dogs generally have them on leads. It's the owners of smaller or less powerful dogs who usually have their dogs off lead and out of control. I don't know how many times I have been out with one of my Staffy's and have some offlead dog bounding up to us all excited with the owner shouting "don't worry he doesn't bite". My first thought is always I'm not worried, if he does bite, he's going home dead. When will these idiots learn. Your dog may not bite but by jumping about all over a Staffy's owner, there's always a risk that Mr Staffy will taken offence! As for carrying illegal Pepper Spray, your just an idiot. You do know this is classed as a firearm. Hopefully the police firearms unit will get you before a "fighting dog". Then again your posting is so ridiculous there's always a chance you've just been dreaming all along! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 as it HAS been fetched in illegally from ireland, how long does it have to have been here for it NOT to able able to be dealt with DAFF?? just to clarify again, this is not about ANOTHER set of cicumstances that could result in that type off dog being here Perhaps when a good faith purchaser buys the dog not knowing that it had been illegally imported? At that point the dog is owned by the new owner who is not an importer. For DAFF to seize the dog from that good faith owner may then be very different from seizing it from the illegal importer. However that will depend on what the Act says. I've not read the Act - so I've no idea under what provision DAFF have seized the dog. WTF I understand your argument about it not legally being here etc. a bit like an 'illegal immigrant'. Even if illegally imported, it all still depends on the wording of the Act. Suppose the Act does nothing more than make it an offence for someone to import a Pitbull, and stipulates anyone doing so may be fined and have the animal taken from them. That would not make the Pitbull 'illegal' in IoM, nor would it make selling the Pitbull in IoM unlawful, nor would it allow DAFF to seize it from anyone except the original importer. If worded along such lines DAFF would not be able to seize it from the new owner. I'd assume the Act allows DAFF to seize it from the new owner - but without knowing what the Act says exactly, this is just an assumption. but IS sarah the unwitting purchaser?? the unwitted are those getting sucked in by her flexible, to suit the moment 'facts'.. it was advertised by 'dean' on manxnet, at which point the authorities got involved. HE was looking for a home for HIS dog. Sarah ( who doesn't seem to know how long she has had the dog, or how old it was ) is just the face and claimed owner for the purpose of the save champ argument. IF it was HER dog, WHY would dean be advertising it on manxnet?? which brings us back to the part where DEAN allegedly asked about pitbulls being allowed to be here, and when told yes ( incorrectly ) then gets one supposedly 3 months old. so it is a fair bet that HE was involved in its importation. assuming this is correct, then DAFF did indeed remove the dog from the original importer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Where does everyone stand on Cane Toads? A gentleman rang up the Mannin Line today to ask why the Wildlife Park is allowed keep these creatures (who seem to ooze a kind toxic sweat that if you were to lick one you'd die), but Champ (who never harmed anybody other than to lick them to death) is condemned to death. Actually the caller would probably have phrased that last bit slightly differently - CONDEMNED TO DEATH!!!!. The caller went on to point out that although the toads are very much smaller than Champ they are also more poisonous and therefore it was, "ridiculous to make the comparison." Superb. Are these deadly toads exercised on Douglas beach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 If it wasn't for the fact that Champ's supporters have resolutely and consistently told the truth, I might be tempted to think that someone was employing a diversionary tactic.... Errrrmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 but IS sarah the unwitting purchaser?? the unwitted are those getting sucked in by her flexible, to suit the moment 'facts'.. WTF - I agree - and I don't claim she was an unwitting purchaser. Depending on the wording of the Act it may not even matter. I also don't know about the circumstances under which the dog was seized. Maybe the Act is clear and straightforward without any 'loopholes' of this kind or any other, and the seizure was fully in accordance with the Act. I just don't know. I wasn't saying the Act has this particular loophole - just giving a hypothetical example to show that there might be 'loopholes'. Import control legislation isn't the same as as an outright ban (as John Wright noted), and need not necessarily cover this particular case. It's easy to make assumptions based on what one thinks the Act 'should' say - but you have to go by what it actually says - with loopholes and all. To illustrate another way - I'd assume despite the Act restricting the import of Pitbulls, someone could have been prosecuted for stealing Champ, and it would not be a defence to claim that the dog had been illegally imported, so not a theft. Similarly DAFF cannot simply dispossess the owner of her property without some legal right to do this. I can see how the Dog's Act could be used, and gives procedures for seizure, but The Dogs Act hasn't been used in this case. I don't know how the Wild Animals (Restriction on Importation, etc.) Act 1980 deals with this or what exactly it covers. (It's fair to assume this was all properly done, but authorities do sometimes unwittingly exceed their powers). Similarly, just because Pitbull Terriers are Scheduled under the Wild Animals (Restriction on Importation etc.) Act, this doesn't mean DAFF can march in to anyone's home and take away any dog they believe is a pitbull, even if they believe the dog has been unlawfully imported - unless the Act actually empowers them to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ourtess Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 I hate these fighting dogs. They always attack Tess. I carry illegal pepper spray to squirt them away. Nasty dogs and nasty owners. I don't know how many times I have been out with one of my Staffy's and have some offlead dog bounding up to us all excited with the owner shouting "don't worry he doesn't bite". My first thought is always I'm not worried, if he does bite, he's going home dead. When will these idiots learn. Your dog may not bite but by jumping about all over a Staffy's owner, there's always a risk that Mr Staffy will taken offence! That's why I carry the spray. I've used it twice on bull terriers clamped on the back of Tess's neck (in Heysham). The dog owners don't even see what happened. In both cases she was on the lead. If she is loose they can't catch her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 My experience is that owners of these types of dogs generally have them on leads. It's the owners of smaller or less powerful dogs who usually have their dogs off lead and out of control. I don't know how many times I have been out with one of my Staffy's and have some offlead dog bounding up to us all excited with the owner shouting "don't worry he doesn't bite". My first thought is always I'm not worried, if he does bite, he's going home dead. When will these idiots learn. Your dog may not bite but by jumping about all over a Staffy's owner, there's always a risk that Mr Staffy will taken offence! This says all about you that I need to know - fuckwit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Terrier Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 My experience is that owners of these types of dogs generally have them on leads. It's the owners of smaller or less powerful dogs who usually have their dogs off lead and out of control. I don't know how many times I have been out with one of my Staffy's and have some offlead dog bounding up to us all excited with the owner shouting "don't worry he doesn't bite". My first thought is always I'm not worried, if he does bite, he's going home dead. When will these idiots learn. Your dog may not bite but by jumping about all over a Staffy's owner, there's always a risk that Mr Staffy will taken offence! This says all about you that I need to know - fuckwit. At least my words are in the right order when I type a sentence (must be an educated fuckwit). If by fuckwit you mean someone who keeps his dogs under control whilst all around are running wild then I can live with that. Bet you have a poodle or something equally rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 If by fuckwit you mean someone who keeps his dogs under control whilst all around are running wild then I can live with that. Durr no - that's a ridiculous definition of the word fuckwit. Fuckwit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.