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

DitaVonTee

Kinski wrote: »

Longer video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZz2V0aCXmI

Yes, longer clip, deliberately edited to not show what followed after the point that film cut out, why? That video too IS only a 3 minute clip, of what I hear was an HOUR long assessment, how can you truly judge the temperament of a dog from a 3 minute clip? You can't, you certainly can't when evidence is chopped out to suit folks either.

Thing is, everyone thinks they know the FULL facts, we don't, we weren't there but if you actually step away from the case and look at the presented court documents the owner FAILED to comply with the law, yet this is a family that seem to be of the opinion that everyone else should comply with that law, but not themselves *shrugs*

So, lets look at things again, WHO let Lennox down?

Question anything that goes against the grain of what they throw out on their own pages, you'll get blocked and banned from the SL page, that is a fact. So, go on, I dare anyone to ask what they did with the donations they took, to help them with the case, as they sure as hell were not spent fighting his case, the case were funded completely by legal aid, yet these are people that are encouraging others to send questions and hate mail to BCC's freepost addresss, so BCC has to pay for that mail sent to them, tell me, who truly picks up the cost of that? Because it sure isn't them and it sure isn't BCC, it is YOU and myself, the tax payer.

Clever that one, Yeah:idea:

SmartPricePoster

DitaVonTee wrote: »

Whose to say Madeleine only spent '5 minutes' with Lennox? I don't believe I have stated that anywhere. If you'd like to email her though, I am sure she will clarify precisely how long she spent with him.

The 'law abiding citizen' comment was relevant to the Lennox case, by law in NI all dogs should be licensed, Lennox's license had expired by 9 months.

The 5 minutes was clearly conjecture. I don't know the exact time frame, but it was clearly not long enough.

DitaVonTee

SmartPricePoster wrote: »

The 5 minutes was clearly conjecture. I don't know the exact time frame, but it was clearly not long enough.

How long do you reckon is a 'suitable' time frame to get the picture a dog is unpredictable?

I'd trust completely the opinion of a veterinary surgeon who has more qualifications falling out of her ears than the other two people that assessed the dog, wouldn't you?

Lets not forget, she's given other 'expert testimonies' in other hearings regarding dogs like Lennox and not held the same opinion she did with him, those dogs went onto survive and be returned to their owners. So to say she was completely 'biased' or not qualified enough, is simply not true at all.

SmartPricePoster

DitaVonTee wrote: »

How long do you reckon is a 'suitable' time frame to get the picture a dog is unpredictable?

I'd trust completely the opinion of a veterinary surgeon who has more qualifications falling out of her ears than the other two people that assessed the dog, wouldn't you?

Lets not forget, she's given other 'expert testimonies' in other hearings regarding dogs like Lennox and not held the same opinion she did with him, those dogs went onto survive and be returned to their owners. So to say she was completely 'biased' or not qualified enough, is simply not true at all.

I've already explained how no dog is unpredictable if you know the dog. I've already explained that you need to know the dog well. I'm not going to repeat myself. I also asked if a dog I met who did exactly what Lennox did in the clip, should be put down and you gave no answer. That speaks volumes.

Wickedkitten

DitaVonTee wrote: »

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.;)

Ah yes, Madeleine Forsyth

Madeleine Forsyth is the vet, and barrister, who provided expert testimony on Kane’s behalf.

Her preference is for the compulsory chipping of all dogs with the sanction of a destruction order for those who are not.

Ms Forsyth accepts that in some situations healthy dogs must be put down, but maintains that if pit bulls are in the right hands, they can make good pets.

She told the News & Star: “An awful lot of people love them. They are very clever, loyal and are generally well disposed towards people. They can do lots of things and are great characters.”

As well as competing in legal sports, pit bulls are used to guard, detect drugs and provide animal therapy for hospital patients.

According to Ms Forsyth, and other dog experts, the problem does not really lie with the nature of pitbulls but with their strength and what they can do with it.

She explained: “When they are wound up or put in a position where they have to fight they will just get stuck in, they’re incredibly brave and tenacious.

“When they bite they just hang on and wrestle, that’s why they’re dangerous – they can do so much physical damage.

“They wrestle with closed jaws and rip tissue to pieces. They can do a lot of harm very quickly.”

Pitbulls have a reputation for being aggressive towards other animals. Here again, the nature versus nurture debate arises.

Ms Forsyth says this tendency is often not displayed until the dog is ‘set’ to fight and can be resolved with good training, a theory borne out by Kane and the love he has for his furry housemate Frankie.

He lives in happy harmony with the little pug, the pair sleep together and he even lets her swing off his ears.

Madeleine is firm in the belief that the it’s owners who are the real danger when it comes to pit bulls, the kind of people who are attracted to this type of dog because it’s a status symbol or because they want to fight them.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/news-focus/the-canine-mike-tyson-or-loveable-family-pet-1.828584?referrerPath=news/news-focus

Paradigm

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Full siblings only share 50% of their genetic material.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

No. They only share 50% of their genetic material and some genes are recessive, others are dominant. Then there are effects of the sex hormones during puberty.

spike7451 wrote: »

True,the is a litter of pups in the ASSISI & none of them look the same as each other,see the pic below.

Obviously I'm no expert in dog genetics so I'll accept what you say but...

If we assume that what you say is correct then doesn't that mean that owning any type of Bull breed (& possibly other breeds) is a lottery?

If it falls into certain looks/measurement categories then it's a "pit bull type" regardless of whether it is or not & it's up to us to prove it isn't? As I said, the law is an a s s!

DitaVonTee

Wickedkitten wrote: »

Ah yes, Madeleine Forsyth

And your point is? Already posted that much earlier in the thread........

DitaVonTee

SmartPricePoster wrote: »

I've already explained how no dog is unpredictable if you know the dog. I've already explained that you need to know the dog well. I'm not going to repeat myself. I also asked if a dog I met who did exactly what Lennox did in the clip, should be put down and you gave no answer. That speaks volumes.

I don't know the dog and it didn't happen to me, BUT had it happened to me and the dog were assessed by a VET who recommended the dog be put to sleep then I'd completely go along with that and respect that vets opinion.
Does that suffice as an answer?

Fire_Fox

Paradigm wrote: »

Obviously I'm no expert in dog genetics so I'll accept what you say but...

If we assume that what you say is correct then doesn't that mean that owning any type of Bull breed (& possibly other breeds) is a lottery?

If it falls into certain looks/measurement categories then it's a "pit bull type" regardless of whether it is or not & it's up to us to prove it isn't? As I said, the law is an a s s!

A breed dog will often have two parents who look very similar and four grandparents that look very similar and so on. So generally all the offspring look very similar to one another, they won't randomly look like another breed. Obviously there are breeds with different permitted sizes or coat colours, but there are still basic standards as regards appearance. AFAIK nobody on either side is claiming Lennox or his litter mates were pure breed, so one could look exactly like the mother, one exactly like the father and another could clearly look like a cross between the two. It's more likely mongrels will accidentally end up looking like a banned type, particularly so if unscrupulous backyard 'breeders' are deliberately selecting a b1tch and stud so the offspring do *resemble* a pitbull. Another reason to control breeding and dog ownership IMO.

I think we are all in agreement that the legislation is imperfect but, although Lennox was seized and held on his looks and perhaps expired license, he was PTS on the order of a court on the basis of his looks AND behaviour. Obviously it is a major issue if the owners withheld a report that showed the dog to have behavioural problems and/ or if a key witness from the council committed perjury but that is not the fault of the Dangerous Dogs legislation itself, that is a failing of the legal process.

Paradigm

Fire_Fox wrote: »

A breed dog will often have two parents who look very similar and four grandparents that look very similar and so on. So generally all the offspring look very similar to one another, they won't randomly look like another breed. Obviously there are breeds with different permitted sizes or coat colours, but there are still basic standards as regards appearance. AFAIK nobody on either side is claiming Lennox or his litter mates were pure breed, so one could look exactly like the mother, one exactly like the father and another could clearly look like a cross between the two. It's more likely mongrels will accidentally end up looking like a banned type, particularly so if unscrupulous backyard 'breeders' are deliberately selecting a b1tch and stud so the offspring do *resemble* a pitbull. Another reason to control breeding and dog ownership IMO.

I think we are all in agreement that the legislation is imperfect but, although Lennox was seized and held on his looks and perhaps expired license, he was PTS on the order of a court on the basis of his looks AND behaviour. Obviously it is a major issue if the owners withheld a report that showed the dog to have behavioural problems and/ or if a key witness from the council committed perjury but that is not the fault of the Dangerous Dogs legislation itself, that is a failing of the legal process.

All accepted, although I don't want to comment on this particular case...I wasn't there or do I have the full facts.

MY problem is what this case highlights is if, in someones opinion, your dog/my dog/anydog is suspected of being a "pitbull type" it could be seized. Following seizure should it match up to "a few" of the descriptors identifying a PB type then it's up to me/you/whoever to prove otherwise...

There is no definative test to prove pitbull or otherwise, the guidelines from DEFRA are just that, guidelines. The phrase "pit bull type" just about covers all the bases as far as the law is concerned & even then it's down to opinion!

If I don't have a pedigree for my Staffy cross how do I prove it's not of PB type?