Lennox has been destroyed. Thank you to all who tried to help

DitaVonTee

aliasojo wrote: »

As I said earlier, I wondered if pain was caused to the dog's neck. The video isn't clear as to what the assessor did around the neck area. (I'm not suggesting deliberately btw)

It looks to me as if the assessor is reaching over to grab Lennox's lead. There is no direct contact with his body other than to his head which was being praised with treats from the assessor, he simply didn't get close enough, if you slow the short clip down by hitting pause throughout the clip you'll see clearly it was all unwarranted behaviour from the dog which clearly unnerved the assessor and the dog warden attempting to control him.

I simply don't know and won't pretend I know enough about dog behavior to comment further, because I don't.
All I can say is 3 minutes before that clip, Lennox was sitting quite happily being praised with treats - it wasn't warranted behaviour of any kind in my eyes from a dog who were sat quite happily 3 minutes before that taking treats.

Don't get me wrong, we all love our dogs, though had I been the owners, I wouldn't have had 3 different assessments from 3 different people, my dogs life would have ended after the first on the advice of a veterinary surgeon who attempted to assess him the first time, but couldn't due to his unpredictable behaviour.

Lets not forget, Lennox was a 'Yard' dog, this has been admitted by the owners in various court documents, this wasn't a normal everyday happy go lucky family dog, lets look at the facts.

1) The family admitted the dog wasn't good with strangers
2) Upon attempting to seize Lennox, the warden was told by his owners 'He will rip your head off'

So, going by that short clip and the suppression of that clip, what have they confirmed?

They really did him no favours at all, in anyway shape or form.

suited-aces

What am I missing? Didn't the owners admit he was a pitbull type, and a "yard dog" who was "not good with strangers" and would "rip the warden's arm off", and then tried to base their defence on some stupid copyright claim?

As a Belfast ratepayer, thank god someone's looking for those of us who don't like being menaced by dangerous dogs.

Fire_Fox

Person_one wrote: »

They absolutely can be both.

Have you never been both? Excited and happy about something but anxious at the same time? Maybe on your wedding day or when you drove a car for the first time?

Perfectly possible, and I've seen a lot of dogs display those emotions together.

In the examples you give humans would be aware of the upcoming event and predicted happy outcome for weeks or months beforehand, Lennox would not. Apprehension/ excitement yes, clinical anxiety with happiness not usually. According to some this dog did have chronic anxiety and was treated with the amitriptyline. If this dog had been diagnosed with mixed mood he should not have prescribed that anti-depressant because it can trigger hypomania or mania. Is it possible 'happy and wagging' were (partially/ wholly) acts of appeasement or self soothing?

SmartPricePoster

DitaVonTee wrote: »

Erm, the assessor reached over to grab his lead. Which was met with a lunge, then a snap! Imagine that being a small child!
The family admit in several documents 'Lennox didn't deal well with strangers'...........;)

I met a collie the other day who did a similar thing because he doesn't like strangers. I let him sniff my hand but when I went to stroke him, he lunged at me. Shall we put him down too? Or shall we use common sense and realise that the human approached the situation wrong like I did?

SmartPricePoster

DitaVonTee wrote: »

It looks to me as if the assessor is reaching over to grab Lennox's lead. There is no direct contact with his body other than to his head which was being praised with treats from the assessor, he simply didn't get close enough, if you slow the short clip down by hitting pause throughout the clip you'll see clearly it was all unwarranted behaviour from the dog which clearly unnerved the assessor and the dog warden attempting to control him.

I simply don't know and won't pretend I know enough about dog behavior to comment further, because I don't.
All I can say is 3 minutes before that clip, Lennox was sitting quite happily being praised with treats - it wasn't warranted behaviour of any kind in my eyes from a dog who were sat quite happily 3 minutes before that taking treats.

Don't get me wrong, we all love our dogs, though had I been the owners, I wouldn't have had 3 different assessments from 3 different people, my dogs life would have ended after the first on the advice of a veterinary surgeon who attempted to assess him the first time, but couldn't due to his unpredictable behaviour.

Lets not forget, Lennox was a 'Yard' dog, this has been admitted by the owners in various court documents, this wasn't a normal everyday happy go lucky family dog, lets look at the facts.

1) The family admitted the dog wasn't good with strangers
2) Upon attempting to seize Lennox, the warden was told by his owners 'He will rip your head off'

So, going by that short clip and the suppression of that clip, what have they confirmed?

They really did him no favours at all, in anyway shape or form.

Nobody who truly 'loves' their dog would have them PTS to appease the scaremongered masses. If he was truly aggressive, training would've sufficed. No dog is unpredictable if you know the dog's history, warning signs, etc.

DitaVonTee

SmartPricePoster wrote: »

Nobody who truly 'loves' their dog would have them PTS to appease the scaremongered masses. If he was truly aggressive, training would've sufficed. No dog is unpredictable if you know the dog's history, warning signs, etc.

I would put to sleep my dog on the advice of someone who were highly educated enough to realize there were problems from the start.

Madeleine Forsyth, now, lets have a look at her credentials.;)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Areas of Expertise: [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] All aspects of general veterinary practice,
veterinary medicine and surgery
Domestic/companion animals (pets)
Animal behaviour
Dogs and canine behaviour
Farm animals and livestock
Horses and equestrian matters
Horse riding accidents
Horse racing and training
Equine health and safety (in particular,
relating to performance horses,
racehorses, eventers and show jumpers)
Animal health and welfare
Animal protection and rights
Veterinary and wildlife pathology
Animal transport
Veterinary negligence
[/FONT]

krlyr

Taken out of context. The "area of expertise" quote is from what looks to be a bit of a CV for her legal expertise. Someone who's an expert in presenting/defending cases relating to animal behaviour may not necessarily have as much of an indepth knowledge about it as an animal behaviourist, just be better at presenting the information given to them in a court.

DitaVonTee

krlyr wrote: »

Taken out of context. The "area of expertise" quote is from what looks to be a bit of a CV for her legal expertise. Someone who's an expert in presenting/defending cases relating to animal behaviour may not necessarily have as much of an indepth knowledge about it as an animal behaviourist, just be better at presenting the information given to them in a court.

Actually, Ms Forsyth didn't unfortunately get chance to 'present her evidence in court' because the Barnes family chose to suppress her information, FACT:)

krlyr

I didn't say she did. Maybe they just felt that they would be better off presenting the opinions of actual animal behaviourists.
Another area of her legal expertise is animal transport..but would she have the actual skills to round up a herd of cows to transport to market, or could she just present a case defending a farmer's right to transport his herd in a particular way?
I would certainly go with an actual animal behaviourist, who has qualifications in animal behaviour (e.g. David Ryan who has a postgraduate diploma in companion animal behaviour counselling, with distinction) over someone who has not worked as a behaviourist (Ms Forsythe has worked as a vet and an equine consultant but I see no dog behavioural work) who just happens to specialise is animal-related laws. It is not the law that they were really testifying about once they accepted Lennox was "of type", but his actual behaviour.

DitaVonTee

krlyr wrote: »

I didn't say she did. Maybe they just felt that they would be better off presenting the opinions of actual animal behaviourists.
Another area of her legal expertise is animal transport..but would she have the actual skills to round up a herd of cows to transport to market, or could she just present a case defending a farmer's right to transport his herd in a particular way?
I would certainly go with an actual animal behaviourist, who has qualifications in animal behaviour (e.g. David Ryan who has a postgraduate diploma in companion animal behaviour counselling, with distinction) over someone who has not worked as a behaviourist (Ms Forsythe has worked as a vet and an equine consultant but I see no dog behavioural work) who just happens to specialise is animal-related laws. It is not the law that they were really testifying about once they accepted Lennox was "of type", but his actual behaviour.

Lets put that aside though, lets not forget, the family APPOINTED her to seek whatever 'expertise' they believed she had. Then chose to suppress her information.
They can't have it both ways unfortunately, if they wished every member of the general public to support and be behind them all the way, why didn't they release ALL facts of the whole case?