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

Fire_Fox

Paradigm wrote: »

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 & 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?

A surprisingly large part of the law is about expert opinion and balance of probability, it's imperfect. Do you actually have a staffie cross which would likely meet the criteria or is this an 'in theory' question? There are all sorts of things one could potentially present in court as evidence: genetic tests, sworn testimony from the breeders, expert opinion of a breed specialist, veterinary history for breeder's dogs, puppy vaccination card, telephone records between you and the breeder, microchipping showing transfer of ownership .... if all else fails you can apply to have your dog put on the index of exemptions. Realistically how many people have an 'of type' dog that has no pitbull in him/ her, for which they have no traceable history, that comes to the attention of the authorities?

Person_one

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

cheepskate_2

To have a "pit bull type" all you need is a staffy x with a slightly taller dog. (Or a bulldog x with a smaller leaner dog)

The pup to take the staffy looks/head with the other parents slightly rangier height. This is a Pit Bull "type".

The whole dispute here is weather under duress the dog is aggressive........We don't have at the moment a law that says any dog that is aggressive but not bitten/ or caused alarm has to be destroyed.

All this he is /is not aggressive is irrevelant.

I assume the Ireland law is - Was Lennox a pit type or not, thus any aggression displayed at any time should not come into it.

Paradigm

Fire_Fox wrote: »

A surprisingly large part of the law is about expert opinion and balance of probability, it's imperfect. Do you actually have a staffie cross which would likely meet the criteria or is this an 'in theory' question? There are all sorts of things one could potentially present in court as evidence: genetic tests, sworn testimony from the breeders, expert opinion of a breed specialist, veterinary history for breeder's dogs, puppy vaccination card, telephone records between you and the breeder, microchipping showing transfer of ownership .... if all else fails you can apply to have your dog put on the index of exemptions. Realistically how many people have an 'of type' dog that has no pitbull in him/ her, for which they have no traceable history, that comes to the attention of the authorities?

The above is exactly what I am questioning! The burden of proof is reversed...if my dog were to be impounded suspected of being pitbull type it's then up to me to prove it isn't. Why? What if i don't have the funds? Or the know how?

As "pitbull terrier" isn't a recognised breed in the UK, what is an "of type" dog? How would I refute the opinion of an "expert" given that all he/she has to work with are very wooly DEFRA guidlines based on a breed that officially doesn't exist in the UK?

Fosterdog

I've been sent this link on Facebook, it looks like Hope Rescue have had some "type" dogs that had to be destroyed and they kept it all hidden behind closed doors for a while but are now releasing details of all the innocent dogs destroyed for the way they look

http://hope-rescue.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bsl&action=display&thread=24776

Just looking at the dogs already destroyed you can see how different they all look but are all classed as "type". The scary thing is I've had a dog that looked exactly like one of those dogs, I can't imagine what would have happened if she had been picked on for being "type" (she was american bulldog/staffie/lab/lurcher)

Well done to Hope Rescue for speaking out and showing the truth about what goes on behind the scenes at rescues and pounds all over the country.

Paradigm

Just to add.. taken from here http://www.westsomersetonline.gov.uk/Environment/Environmental-Health/Dog-Warden-Service/Dangerous-Dogs

One of the main problems with this law is that the pit bull terrier is not a recognised breed in the UK. As a result, many owners of cross breeds which resemble a pit bull terrier 'type' have been charged under the Act.

How do you defend a charge that, actually, doesn't exist?

Fosterdog

Paradigm wrote: »

How do you defend a charge that, actually, doesn't exist?

It does exist though, the exact wording is pit bull "type" not just a pit bull/ pit bull terrier. It's any dog that fits a physical description similar to that of pit bulls.

I've seen something before (will search for it tomorrow) that gives the breed description of a pit bull and a breed description of a labrador and all but one line of the descriptions were identical (not an in depth breed description, just a brief outline). That would mean then on a technicality a labrador could be seized as being a pit bull "type" dog as it meets more than one of the criteria.

Fire_Fox

Paradigm wrote: »

The above is exactly what I am questioning! The burden of proof is reversed...if my dog were to be impounded suspected of being pitbull type it's then up to me to prove it isn't. Why? What if i don't have the funds? Or the know how?

As "pitbull terrier" isn't a recognised breed in the UK, what is an "of type" dog? How would I refute the opinion of an "expert" given that all he/she has to work with are very wooly DEFRA guidlines based on a breed that officially doesn't exist in the UK?

As I said
"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 .... Realistically how many people have an 'of type' dog that has no pitbull in him/ her, for which they have no traceable history, that comes to the attention of the authorities?"

You could add to that "and is unable to use Google nor Facebook and don't know anyone who can" but we are getting silly. If your imaginary canine companion was seized you would get the knowledge and the funds the same way Lennox's owners did. They whole point of the legislation is to protect the public, you can't add so many clauses and caveats that no dog ever gets seized or PTS. I'm pro compulsory microchipping, dog licenses and tight controls over breeding/ puppy farming. This would help protect many many more dogs than just the few that are PTS under the dangerous dogs legislation, sad as that is. There are dogs PTS from pounds and rescues everyday that could still have a good quality of life.

walwin

Fosterdog wrote: »

I've been sent this link on Facebook, it looks like Hope Rescue have had some "type" dogs that had to be destroyed and they kept it all hidden behind closed doors for a while but are now releasing details of all the innocent dogs destroyed for the way they look

http://hope-rescue.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bsl&action=display&thread=24776

Just looking at the dogs already destroyed you can see how different they all look but are all classed as "type". The scary thing is I've had a dog that looked exactly like one of those dogs, I can't imagine what would have happened if she had been picked on for being "type" (she was american bulldog/staffie/lab/lurcher)

Well done to Hope Rescue for speaking out and showing the truth about what goes on behind the scenes at rescues and pounds all over the country.

I hope everyone can take the time to read this all the way through. It's absolutely heartbreaking and I'm in tears but if this doesn't prove to everyone that BSL needs to be abolished then nothing will

Dollardog

Yes Walwin, it is heartbreaking and so unnecessary for innocent lives to be lost when they have committed no crime.
Looking at the pictures, Jake and Sam look more like collie crosses to me rather than pit bull types.

It must be heartbreaking for those owners in Liverpool who went to the police on their own for advice, to have their dogs classified, it must make them feel they had betrayed their pets.
It must have been such a hard decision too, to either let the police take the dogs in the hope that they could fight them and win, or have them put down themselves to stop the suffering they would be subject to in kennels having been taken from their family.

Its hard to know what you would do in those circumstances. I think and hope that I could have the courage to have the dog put down myself, when it could have me and its family with it to the end, the problem would be though that you would cut yourself up thinking that perhaps it might have had a chance of coming home, although, like in the case of little Missey, its personality could be so damaged be the internment that they would never settle again.
I have had a bull breed in my life for nearly all of it, over 50 years, but I would be hesitant at taking on a staffy, even though I think they are great little dogs and so wonderful as family dogs, for fear of someone coming along and saying it was 'pit bull type'. I couldn't face losing an innocent dog just because of the way it looks.

The stupid legislation needs changing, there are too many cases of friendly, well trained, well balanced dogs from good, loving families, losing their lives just because they have the wrong measurements. Its ridiculous, even little puppies are being put down who haven't even grown big enough to be classified.