There are many petitions online at the moment causing confusion to many as to which ones to sign. The two we are supporting are the RSPCA petition to repeal BSL which can be found here and a petition set up by Draconian Dogs Act asking for open keepership for banned breeds and can be found here
Please add your support
Well done to everyone involved in Sky’s case and in getting some much needed clarification on the wording of the Act
A survey commissioned by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home
http://www.bdch.org.uk/files/Dog-bites-whats-breed-got-to-do-with-it.pdf
We all know that we can get into trouble for using a mobile phone when driving, but how many people consider the effect even the presence of a mobile phone can have on other areas of our lives and just what the implications of that could be? Scientific studies have shown that mobile phones affect how our brain functions and its ability to process and react to what is going on around us.
Buster almost lost his life today because the person walking him lost control when they became distracted by their phone. Please don’t use your phone whilst walking your dog. We are increasingly seeing phones being the reason for a lapse in concentration and it really could cost your dog his life. Thankfully for Buster, the court today felt that with conditions in place, Buster could go home with a contingent destruction order in place. He was lucky. It really isn’t worth the risk not only to your dog but to other dog owners and members of the public .
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas…/2017/…/170104103539.htm
With the anniversary of the Dangerous Dogs Act upon us again still one of the most often asked questions of the breed specific part of the act to a bystander or a novice is regarding the concept of ‘type’ being different than breed.
This means that many individual dogs either of breeding unrecognised in the UK, those which more closely match the ADBA working standard than their own show breed standard, or crossbreeds in the UK regardless as to their parentage can fall within the definition of a banned breed type.
This does not mean every dog of that breeding will be type and, indeed, often some puppies from the same litter and mating will be type whilst others are not. However the high court ruling made 24 years ago in Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Dunne. Brock v Director of Public Prosecutions has certainly affected many more people and pet dogs than most people expected would be the case at the time.
Linked below is the original report from that case for anyone interested in how the Dangerous Dogs Act has evolved over the years from what was originally written in 1991 due to cases which have been determined in the high courts.
High court cases set precedents and tweak laws which is why care has to be taken before asking questions of the high court, to be sure to look at the bigger picture as the answers given may not be the ones expected or wanted and may well impact on other dogs adversely in the future.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/law-report-dog-type-not-the-same-as-breed-regina-v-knightsbridge-crown-court-ex-parte-dunne-brock-v-1483339.html
Please be aware of a DNA test being advertised offering an “exemption” DNA test to show that your dog is not a Pit Bull “which can be used in court or with any agency” they also imply that the dogs in the attached photograph have had their test applied saying “Here are a set of images taken of dogs that some may consider a “pit bull” based on physical characteristics. Based on our test, the only dog with significant pit bull terrier is picture #3. This dog according to our test is only 12% pit bull.” The attached image is from a quiz published on the blog site “The truth about Pit Bulls” in April 2011 and the dog they refer to as the Pit Bull (#3) is actually an Alapaha blue blood bulldog. The Pit Bull is actually the red dog at #16 which we guess says it all really
A Skelmersdale dog owner is fighting to keep her family pet dog Roxy, after council officials refuse to let Roxy continue to live in her council property.
On 7th March Roxys Owner, Sophie attended a microchipping event run by Dogs Trust. Whilst there, Sophie was approached by Phillipa Sandall, Dog Control Enforcement Officer for West Lancashire Borough Council. Ms Sandall informed Sophie that she had no doubt Roxy was a pit bull and that she would be contacting the police. Further, she told Sophie that she could not get Roxy microchipped and she should go home to wait for the police there.
Owners of registered dogs, please ensure that you renew your insurance on time. Failure to do so causes you dog to become unexmpt and can lead your dog to be re-seized and you being put back before the court. This will incur costs far in excess of the insurance renewal fee and may well result in the court deciding that your failure to comply indicates that you are not ‘a fit and proper person’ to won an exempted dog and ordering destruction on that basis.
Each force area deals with renewal failures differently and police policies change regularly without notice. Just because, when you have beena few days late in the past you have not had difficulty, or been given a few days in which to renew, or not been visited at all, does not mean that it won’t happen. The ONLY way to ensure you are not in this position is to ensure you do not let your insurance lapse for even a day.
We have been increasingy contacted bu owners in the GREATER MANCHESTER force area whose dogs have been re-seized and who are now faving court action for breach of insurance leading them to be in possession of a non exempt dog; some of these are only days out of date. This appears to reflect a change in how things used to be dealt with in the area so anyone who knows anyone with an exempt dog in this, or indeed any area, please point out the importance of renewing the insurance and informed DEFRA on time. Their dogs lives depend on them complying with the exemption
Below is a statement from good friend and colleague Trevor Cooper who as a result of the case of Battersea dog Francis has been subjected to the most vile and disgusting abuse in the last 24 hours by facebook lawyers who clearly do not understand the law relating to strays.
We are absolutely appalled at the abuse that has been levelled at an organization whose aim was to highlight the flaws in the Dangerous Dogs Act in an effort to change it and which is now being levelled at their legal advisor who also happens to be the leading dog law solicitor in the country (and in our opinion entirely correct)
If you suspect that your dog may be type no amount of posting pictures and inviting opinion on the internet will make things any clearer in fact in all likelihood you will end up more confused than ever (especially when faced with kindly intended but incorrect suggestions that your dog is a Weimaraner cross when you know for a fact your dog has never even seen a weimaraner from across the road let alone been born of one).
A dog cannot be typed definitively from a photograph by anyone, experts included, its not true that the law is simply about the way a dog looks though obviously if the dog does not give the first impression that it resembles a dog of type it isn’t one. The ADBA standard focuses on the ability of a dog to do the job of a fighting dog and any faults it has related to its ability, agility, or stamina will have greater impact on a dogs type that those which are cosmetic only. Photographs can also be deceiving with a dog looking different on practically every one.
It will most likely be suggested if you post online that your dog has been seized, that you set up a support group and start a petition. Petitions are only of use if they are government ones related to the law itself, petitioning for the return of a specific dog to either the police, councils, or to the court are of no use in getting your dog back. The police or council will not release a dog they believe is a banned breed because a petition asks them to.