Lennox due to be put to sleep **Mod Warning - Post 97**

stevoman

DamagedTrax wrote: »

just like all black people eat chicken and are crack heads.
all french are ignorant
all irish are drunks
all english are yobs

Lol that's a bit outrageous now in all fairness. Your comparing a dogs breed type to racial stereotypes in humans. A completely different species for one.

If we couldn't distinguish types of dogs, especially since humans have been breeding them for so long, it would all be up in the air.

Ridiculous statement.

DamagedTrax

Lol that's a bit outrageous now in all fairness. Your comparing a dogs breed type to racial comparisons in humans. A completely different species for one.

how so? 'type' laws condemn a dog on looks and reputation of the breed. its exactly the same and shows pure ignorance and total lack of understanding of dogs.

If we couldn't distinguish types of dogs, especially since humans have been breeding them for so long, it would all be up in the air.

of course we can distinguish. thats what breeds are, a distinction. you tell me in what world an american bulldog crossed with a labrador magically turns itself into a pitbull?

The Sweeper

stevoman the comment that he looks 'of type' based on a picture of the dog as a puppy is very foolish.

There's an entire breed standard the dog needs to be compared against, and frankly unless you're an all-breeds dog show judge then your opinion on whether or not he looked the part is really just noise.

Stheno

ISDW wrote: »

Finally the poor dog is at peace.

Probably the only positive in the whole affair, it's finally ended the torment for the poor animal.

Big Nasty

He's gone lads - can you stop the bickering?

Dirk Gently wrote: »

well it's confirmed that he's been put down.

http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/news/news.asp?id=3109

RIP Lennox.

Dirk Gently

stevoman wrote: »

Either way he looks the part Imo so I think they got that decision to class him as that type correct.

looks just like my black lab tbh.

lubie76

So sad, he received a death sentence just for being himself!

Zapperzy

If you can't be civil towards each other I'm going to have to start issuing warnings from now on.

There's no need to announce you've reported a post, if you have a problem with a post please report it and don't continue to engage with it.

Please don't respond to this post.

stevoman

Dirk Gently wrote: »

stevoman wrote: »

Either way he looks the part Imo so I think they got that decision to class him as that type correct.

looks just like my black lab tbh.

And yet so like this black pit bull terrier

Melion

Can people just stop responding to stevoman? He is obviously just trying to wind people up

stevoman

The Sweeper wrote: »

stevoman the comment that he looks 'of type' based on a picture of the dog as a puppy is very foolish.

There's an entire breed standard the dog needs to be compared against, and frankly unless you're an all-breeds dog show judge then your opinion on whether or not he looked the part is really just noise.

well firstly its not really noise now is it. I didn't attach a sound file.... :-)

Secondly a breed standard is not a scientific document and may vary from association to association and from country to country, even for the same species and breed. There is no one format for breed standards across all species and breed standards do change and are updated from time to time.

Lol, look where some of the breed standards in crufts got them. I'm glad I'm not a show judge or any of that nonsense.

I judge my working dogs on ability to hunt, drive, and how they do the job they have been bred for centuries for. Not looks. If I want a pretty picture il go buy a postcard! ;-)

ppink

If Victoria Stilwell offered this dog a space and he was not allowed to go then was he actually allowed to go to EGAR at the beginning of all of this 2 yrs ago?

If he was originally allowed to go to EGAR and now not allowed to be rehomed is this because he went from being classified as "type" to a "dangerous dog"?

Zapperzy

Melion wrote: »

Can people just stop responding to stevoman? He is obviously just trying to wind people up

If you have a problem with a post or poster report it.

stevoman

Melion wrote: »

Can people just stop responding to stevoman? He is obviously just trying to wind people up

why would you say that. I'm merely having a debate here, I'm not winding anyone up, being rude or inciting any arguments.

This is my view on the subject and I'm entitled to post it here I think once I do within the rules of the forum.

I understand this is a touchy subject with some folks, but the fact still remains, if people wish to keep a dog that may be deemed as illegal they must be prepared to face the consequences for themselves and the life of the dog.

toadfly

ppink wrote: »

If Victoria Stilwell offered this dog a space and he was not allowed to go then was he actually allowed to go to EGAR at the beginning of all of this 2 yrs ago?

If he was originally allowed to go to EGAR and now not allowed to be rehomed is this because he went from being classified as "type" to a "dangerous dog"?

As far as I know it was never put to the courts requesting him to go to EGAR. If they had done that he had a hell of a better chance of getting there. It was too late after the order was in place to destroy him as only new evidence could change it. He was classed a dangerous dog and they couldnt allow him to be rehomed no matter where at that stage.

SmoMo

R.I.P. Lennox run free little man

another innocent victim made by humans.will it ever stop?

Dirk Gently

stevoman wrote: »

And yet so like this black pit bull terrier

I think thats the point tbh. very little difference in shape. Mine is a friendly loveable lab, but lennox was apparently a threat to society. They look very similar in body and head shape. Why was lennox dangerous and my dog not? A couple of people even asked me if there was a bit of pitbull in her. There could be for all I know, she's a rescue dog not a pure breed. It would be an aggressive owner more so than an agressive dog that people would have to worry about though if anyone suggested putting her down because of how she looks.

DamagedTrax

Melion

stevoman wrote: »

why would you say that. I'm merely having a debate here, I'm not winding anyone up, being rude or inciting any arguments.

This is my view on the subject and I'm entitled to post it here I think once I do within the rules of the forum.

I understand this is a touchy subject with some folks, but the fact still remains, if people wish to keep a dog that may be deemed as illegal they must be prepared to face the consequences for themselves and the life of the dog.

Well surely all golden retrievers should be made illegal. One of them "mauled" you as a child. You're being ridiculous and you know it.

Jimmy Bottlehead

stevoman wrote: »

Either way he looks the part Imo so I think they got that decision to class him as that type correct.

Yeah, because tough looking dogs can't be lovable fools and cute looking dogs can't be nippy little bastards.

Judging a dog based on it's looks is ****ing stupid. I'd hoped people in general were smarter than that, but I don't think that's the case, sadly.

fatmammycat

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Yeah, because tough looking dogs can't be lovable fools and cute looking dogs can't be nippy little bastards.

Judging a dog based on it's looks is ****ing stupid. I'd hoped people in general were smarter than that, but I don't think that's the case, sadly.

That's true, some of the cutest most lovable affable dogs I've ever come across are Staffies, but they have such a mixed reputation. I'm a runner, and I try to avoid collies, westies and JR terriers on leads, that's it. And none of those dog breeds are on the RB list. Neither am I saying all collies, westies or Jrs are vicious self-strangling lunging headcases, but enough are that I now avoid them where possible.

stevoman

Dirk Gently wrote: »

stevoman wrote: »

And yet so like this black pit bull terrier

I think thats the point tbh. very little difference in shape. Mine is a friendly loveable lab, but lennox was apparently a threat to society. They look very similar in body and head shape. Why was lennox dangerous and my dog not? A couple of people even asked me if there was a bit of pitbull in her. There could be for all I know, she's a rescue dog not a pure breed. It would be an aggressive owner more so than an agressive dog that people would have to worry about though if anyone suggested putting her down because of how she looks.

I agree, cross breeding and genetics in dogs is a fascinating subject. I'm fairness though you seem a reasonable person so if a warden was to inspect him the last thing you would say is he'll rip your head off.

I truly believe though if a pitbull or any breed with its history steeped in fighting attacks a person they will inflict more serious damage than some other breeds and this does make them dangerous, especially with the culture of some youths who like to be sent with them, but that's a whole other debate for another day. The Patterdale terrier in the UK is looking to be on the road to the same fate.

stevoman

Melion wrote: »

stevoman wrote: »

why would you say that. I'm merely having a debate here, I'm not winding anyone up, being rude or inciting any arguments.

This is my view on the subject and I'm entitled to post it here I think once I do within the rules of the forum.

I understand this is a touchy subject with some folks, but the fact still remains, if people wish to keep a dog that may be deemed as illegal they must be prepared to face the consequences for themselves and the life of the dog.

Well surely all golden retrievers should be made illegal. One of them "mauled" you as a child. You're being ridiculous and you know it.

no my point is that I was badly attacked as a child. Did you not see in my post that I said if it had of been a pity bull I believe it would have been far worse. Its right back there have a read of it!

All dogs can bite and attack iv made no statement to say otherwise nor am I calling for any breed to be made illegal, like you are for golden retrievers, on the basis of one persons testimony on an Internet forum. I'm merely just stating that the law is the law. I did not make it, nor write it, but I believe it should be obeyed.

stevoman

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

stevoman wrote: »

Either way he looks the part Imo so I think they got that decision to class him as that type correct.

Yeah, because tough looking dogs can't be lovable fools and cute looking dogs can't be nippy little bastards.

Judging a dog based on it's looks is ****ing stupid. I'd hoped people in general were smarter than that, but I don't think that's the case, sadly.

judging a dog by its looks I agree is stupid, judging a dog by its breed, history, individual temperament and living conditions isn't though Imo.

DamagedTrax

stevoman wrote: »

I'm merely just stating that the law is the law. I did not make it, nor write it, but I believe it should be obeyed.

maybe thats why you're encountering a brick wall here. there are good laws and bad laws. i for one believe that people have a duty to stand up to bad laws (especially when it involves our families and pets). to just meekly obey them is an insult to the freedoms we posses.

Jimmy Bottlehead

stevoman wrote: »

no my point is that I was badly attacked as a child. Did you not see in my post that I said if it had of been a pity bull I believe it would have been far worse. Its right back there have a read of it!

All dogs can bite and attack iv made no statement to say otherwise nor am I calling for any breed to be made illegal, like you are for golden retrievers, on the basis of one persons testimony on an Internet forum. I'm merely just stating that the law is the law. I did not make it, nor write it, but I believe it should be obeyed.

So all you're saying is "that's the law, even though it's stupid"?

The way you're coming across is very pro-BSL based on ONE incident that happened to you as a child.
I had a dog chase me as a child - should I be in favour of all dogs to be made illegal based on that?

DamagedTrax

stevoman wrote: »

judging a dog by its breed, history, individual temperament and living conditions isn't though Imo.

breed history doesnt come into it. as i mentioned earlier these dogs were bred for submission to humans. that is a fact, not a nice little cover story. there are plenty of historic accounts of dangerous dogs being culled.

the american pit bull terrier was bred to be 100% safe with humans. they routinely top the american dog temperment tests (followed closely by staffies).

the only criteria in judging a dog should be direct environment. look at the owner and how the dog is treated and then asses its temperment.

breed is 100% not an issue. these dogs have been family dogs for close to 200 years. it is only recently they've become 'dangerous'. thats not a coincidence.

fatmammycat

DamagedTrax wrote: »

history doesnt come into it. as i mentioned earlier these dogs were bred for submission to humans. that is a fact, not a nice little cover story.

the american pit bull terrier was bred to be 100% safe with humans. they routinely top the american dog temperment tests (followed closely by staffies).

the only criteria in judging a dog should be direct environment. look at the owner and how the dog is treated.

breed is 100% not an issue. these dogs have been family dogs for close to 200 years. it is only recently they've become 'dangerous'. thats not a coincidence.

To be fair DT, while I agree with you that breed should not be an issue ever, Lennox was kept in a back yard, unsocialised and not good with people long before the BCC involved themselves in his life.

That doesn't by the way mean he ought to be destroyed either. He had done no harm to anyone.

Gael23

stevoman wrote: »

judging a dog by its looks I agree is stupid, judging a dog by its breed, history, individual temperament and living conditions isn't though Imo.

I dont agree that a dog should be branded agressive just because of its breed. Like Jimmy Bottlehead said in an earlier post, dogs such as Rottweilers can make great pets, provided they are properly trained.

stevoman

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

stevoman wrote: »

no my point is that I was badly attacked as a child. Did you not see in my post that I said if it had of been a pity bull I believe it would have been far worse. Its right back there have a read of it!

All dogs can bite and attack iv made no statement to say otherwise nor am I calling for any breed to be made illegal, like you are for golden retrievers, on the basis of one persons testimony on an Internet forum. I'm merely just stating that the law is the law. I did not make it, nor write it, but I believe it should be obeyed.

So all you're saying is "that's the law, even though it's stupid"?

The way you're coming across is very pro-BSL based on ONE incident that happened to you as a child.
I had a dog chase me as a child - should I be in favour of all dogs to be made illegal based on that?

That one incident as a child happened the jaws of an golden retriever.... A gundog. If that was the case I wouldn't spending every spare minute I have training springer spaniels as a labour of love... Also gundogs.

The point is keep trying to make that owners shouldn't be keeping these dogs as it's against the law and it means that these dogs are being destroyed because of the foolishness of the owners who intended on breaking the law by keeping them.

If people in the UK want a companion and pet, get on that is legal. Simples