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

DamagedTrax

fatmammycat wrote: »

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.

my reply was directly quoting what stevoman said about judging a dog by breed and breed history. not a direct comment on lennox's case. i should have stated that (also edited it to add 'temperment' to assesment criteria)

with lennox who knows the real story. if it was down to me he would be judged on temperment alone.

fatmammycat

DamagedTrax wrote: »

my reply was directly quoting what stevoman said about judging a dog by breed and breed history. not a direct comment on lennox's case. i should have stated that (also edited it to add 'temperment' to assesment criteria)

with lennox who knows the real story. if it was down to me he would be judged on temperment alone.

I don't think he had a great temperament though, dogs are social creatures, they do better with people, not shut out in yards. I"d judge him on what he had done, and he hadn't done a thing.

DamagedTrax

fatmammycat wrote: »

I don't think he had a great temperament though, dogs are social creatures, they do better with people, not shut out in yards. I"d judge him on what he had done, and he hadn't done a thing.

well if he was a little edgy then a temperment test could have allowed for him to be tattoo'd and to live under the muzzle/leash law. unfortunatly n.ireland is even further behind the rest of the UK in that they dont allow a temperment assesment whereas the UK do and some dogs get released.

i wouldnt agree with letting him home to the family with no restrictions on him. especially after two years of what boils down to abuse and isolation (and by abuse i mean that he was in horrible living conditions for a dog that was previously with a family. im not alleging he was actually abused)

ISDW

DamagedTrax wrote: »

that shouldnt happen either. the council have to follow the law. yes there seems to have been abuse of the situation on their side but putting peoples safety at risk is wrong.

I did report that post, but I guess there are no mods on line, or its not against the rules.

I think its absolutely disgusting, too much of this has happened with this case, petrol though letter boxes, vehicles being damaged, death threats. Who is the person, the judge who made the final decision, the vet who put the dog to sleep? Who is this person who's life is now going to be made hell?

BillyMitchel

Sad story and the poor dog paid the ultimate price. It's wrong that the person from BCC should be blamed, she's doing a job and didn't write the laws. I think somewhere in this thread that someone said it took a month for the dog to trust her. That sounds like a dog with serious temperment issues and no matter what the breed shouldn't be around kids or the public.

As regarding the breed, I'm really not sure and I've been around bull breeds 15 odd years. Can't really rely on pictures so can't say really. I asked my dad who had labs for about 30+ years what he thought of the pup picture and he said it looked like a lab but then said he'd no glasses on but at the same time looked exactly like one of my pit bull pups. Horrible situation to be in.

It's over now we all know DDA/BSL is wrong and needs to be changed drastically. Maybe this will open a new debate. Don't understand why as soon as the owners got a sniff of the dog was under suspicion that they didn't send him to a rescue down south but then if he was that badly behaved could a rescue here of been able handle him?

The conditions he seemed to be kept in from the BCC looked horrible and inhumane too.

Poor dog. RIP little fella

Cherry Blossom

Mod Warning:

Public incitement or wilful promotion of hatred, threatening statements against the safety of any person or advocating of hate crimes will not be tolerated in any shape or form on this site regardless of how subtly you decide to go about it. Anyone who chooses to ignore this warning will find themselves permanently banned.

dodderangler

Its such a shame that these dogs have this reputation and it's not their fault but our fault as humans
These dogs need to be treated right and by the right people and these situations will be avoided

Graces7

stevoman wrote: »

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

This is at the heart of this issue and others. The victim here is the dog.

By all means stand up to bad laws; something I bear the scars from doing often in the past. But make sure before doing so that all possible blameless casualties are safe. Lennox was made a pawn in many ways.

And be ready to take the punishment for breaking the law yourself.

stevoman

stevoman wrote: »

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.

This is true, but the dog did not bite anybody and alternative options were given yet they had him put down due to his breed.

Gael23

ISDW wrote: »

I did report that post, but I guess there are no mods on line, or its not against the rules.

I think its absolutely disgusting, too much of this has happened with this case, petrol though letter boxes, vehicles being damaged, death threats. Who is the person, the judge who made the final decision, the vet who put the dog to sleep? Who is this person who's life is now going to be made hell?

It is highly likely that some peoples lives will become a misery out of this. Chances are that people locally know exactly who the staff are at the BCC animal pound, although im not sure if this would have been none by a vet?

ziggy23

Really really saddened by this whole story. Poor Lennox did not deserve this:(:(

The Sweeper

It's all coming out in the wash now. Victoria Stilwell says the BCC behavioural expert tried to sue her for bagging his assessment and wanted a cash settlement to stop his legal action. (as per her Facebook today)

ISDW

The Sweeper wrote: »

It's all coming out in the wash now. Victoria Stilwell says the BCC behavioural expert tried to sue her for bagging his assessment and wanted a cash settlement to stop his legal action. (as per her Facebook today)

Sorry, but I've lost all respect for Victoria Stilwell over this whole case. Why did she wait until there could be no further legal appeals to offer to help? She knows the law, so she knew, under the law there was nothing else that could be done, and yet she wades in. In my opinion, the media attention is the major issue for her in all of this. The post she put up yesterday about her having to phone the family to tell them - no, she didn't have to phone them at all, she chose to, and then make it public that she had, whipping up more hysteria.

When it gets to the level of threats, intimidation and terrorism that it has, it is time for everyone to stop. For someone to receive a shot gun cartridge in the post purely because their opinion is different to the save lennox campaign is horrendous. BSL is wrong, but all that is happening now is that people who don't know dogs, and don't understand them are seeing that bull breed owners and supporters are thugs and terrorists - and yes I do use the word terrorists, bomb threats to office buildings are terrorism. This is damaging the anti-BSL cause and bull breeds more than it is helping it.

ISDW

ISDW wrote: »

When it gets to the level of threats, intimidation and terrorism that it has, it is time for everyone to stop. For someone to receive a shot gun cartridge in the post purely because their opinion is different to the save lennox campaign is horrendous.

This is the result of poor handling by the BCC. This always happens when people are passionate about a certain subject. Its up to the people controlling the situation to make sure something like this doesnt happen.

Bad Panda

ISDW wrote: »

When it gets to the level of threats, intimidation and terrorism that it has, it is time for everyone to stop. For someone to receive a shot gun cartridge in the post purely because their opinion is different to the save lennox campaign is horrendous. BSL is wrong, but all that is happening now is that people who don't know dogs, and don't understand them are seeing that bull breed owners and supporters are thugs and terrorists - and yes I do use the word terrorists, bomb threats to office buildings are terrorism. This is damaging the anti-BSL cause and bull breeds more than it is helping it.

While this kind of behaviour is wrong, I can understand people's frustration, especially after they were presented with many different possible outcomes that didn't end in Lennox being put down - fundamentally, law or not, the dog really didn't have to die.

If it was my dog I'd do anything...take from that what you will.

ISDW

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the result of poor handling by the BCC. This always happens when people are passionate about a certain subject. Its up to the people controlling the situation to make sure something like this doesnt happen.

BCC didn't make the law, that was the UK government. I don't understand your point about poor handling, a dog was seized legally, whether that law is right or not, a council must act within the law.

Bad Panda wrote: »

While this kind of behaviour is wrong, I can understand people's frustration, especially after they were presented with many different possible outcomes that didn't end in Lennox being put down - fundamentally, law or not, the dog really didn't have to die.

If it was my dog I'd do anything...take from that what you will.

And I'm sure that would include buying a dog licence so that the warden doesn't call to your home to start the whole ball rolling.

I can understand people's frustration as well - people who have read the court transcripts and so have seen both sides put forward, and the frustration that the majority of people in the campaign aren't willing to listen to anything other than what they want to hear. Under the law, no, there were no other possible outcomes, he was judged to be a danger by more than one 'expert', employed by both BCC and the defence. Under the law, there was no way that any judge could find other than the ways they did. Change the law most definitely, but while its there, it has to be followed, no matter how much people don't want it to be.

I saw those photos and videos of the warden and the behaviour expert, and I saw a dog that I wouldn't deem vicious or a danger, so I was on the family's side, and thought a travesty was taking place. Until I then looked at all the evidence, and not just snippets, and my understanding of the case changed.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, just a shame that so many form it on half the story.

ISDW

ISDW wrote: »

BCC didn't make the law, that was the UK government. I don't understand your point about poor handling, a dog was seized legally, whether that law is right or not, a council must act within the law.

When you have a case that has the potential of being a high profile case or a case that has the potential for stirring the passions of the public, granted they might not have known. P But protect the witnesses / people involved through either a spokes person or a pr company. I know some of this was done through interviews and so on.

On another note, the BBC's claims that Lennox was dangerous and unpredictable during his tests, was this filmed ??

ISDW

Deleted User wrote: »

When you have a case that has the potential of being a high profile case or a case that has the potential for stirring the passions of the public, granted they might not have known. P But protect the witnesses / people involved through either a spokes person or a pr company. I know some of this was done through interviews and so on.

On another note, the BBC's claims that Lennox was dangerous and unpredictable during his tests, was this filmed ??

The family's behaviourist also said it in court though. I don't know if it was all filmed.

But on your first point - and it is nice to be able to discuss this rationally without the hatred and rhetoric that is on FB etc - all vets in Northern Ireland were bombarded with phone calls and emails earlier this week, there was a campaign to find the vet that was going to put him to sleep. For a day, a lot of, if not all NI vets were unable to work properly, real clients couldn't get through to the surgeries. Theres no way that you can legislate for that, and put provisions in place. Also, I'm not sure how you can prevent bomb threats at the council offices? Even with security in place, bag searches etc, if a viable threat is received, they have to clear the building.

It has really opened my eyes to how easy it is to stir a mob up though - and depending on individual's geographical and political knowledge, how far that goes. Boycotting Belfast, Northern Ireland or Ireland, as I say, depending on the knowledge that people have.

mystika121

Is there anything practical that people from outside Northern Ireland / UK can do to have this legislation amended? Or is it only up to the people within this jurisdiction to lobby their MP's for change?

Facebook campaigns, online petitions etc don't seem to carry weight. As so many people feel so strongly about this issue it seems that now is a good time to campaign for change before a similiar situation arises.

ISDW

ISDW wrote: »

When it gets to the level of threats, intimidation and terrorism that it has, it is time for everyone to stop. For someone to receive a shot gun cartridge in the post purely because their opinion is different to the save lennox campaign is horrendous. BSL is wrong, but all that is happening now is that people who don't know dogs, and don't understand them are seeing that bull breed owners and supporters are thugs and terrorists - and yes I do use the word terrorists, bomb threats to office buildings are terrorism. This is damaging the anti-BSL cause and bull breeds more than it is helping it.

Thats animal people for you. They are like Animal Fundamentalists, the lengths some of them go to for "their cause" which they think is right.

Whispered

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats animal people for you. .

........He says in an animal forum

Most "animal people", certainly those who have read ALL the relevant material, are disgusted by what is going on. It's not "animal people" who are sending threats etc, it's thugs.

ISDW

Did anyone see The One Show on BBC1 last night (Monday) they had a segment on 'Dangerous dogs'. It was frightening and so sad, and it should be put up on all the anti BSL and DDA sites going, as it is the normality of it all that is so scarey. 3 dogs were seized, 2 of them while out for a walk with their owners. Imagine that, you're just walking your dog and a dog warden approaches you with police officers and takes your dog away because they believe it is of type. After assessment, all 3 dogs were deemed to be of type. One of the dogs was muzzled and on a lead while being walked, the owner had complied with everything, but the dog wasn't registered, they're not sure whats going to happen to that one. Another big lab cross, lovely dog, super friendly, the owner is going through the courts to get the dog back, but will have to comply with muzzle, neutering, etc etc etc. The 3rd one again appeared friendly, no aggression, but has been killed already. I guess that poor dog had owners who who really didn't give a toss.

Whispered

Whispered wrote: »

........He says in an animal forum

Most "animal people", certainly those who have read ALL the relevant material, are disgusted by what is going on. It's not "animal people" who are sending threats etc, it's thugs.

Oh im not talking about the "animal people" who sit in their cushy home on their pc discussing how Cezar Milan's theory's are flawed whilst trawling through done deal looking for a dog that looks slightly unhappy.

You have heard of animal activists, these are the hardcore "animal people" who will camp in a field to stop building encroaching on frogs breeding grounds. Who go out on the sea to stop Japanese Whalers. Who break into slaughter houses and film animals being treated bad.

Whispered

It's nothing new that some people use any type of campaign to vent their aggression. It doesn't matter if it's an animal campaign, anti/pro abortion, anti war etc. There is always an element who goes too far. This is not reflective of the sentiments held by animal people or anti abortion/war/budget/whatever people. It's still just thuggery.

The anti BSL "movement" (for want of a better word) is now associated with threats, terrorism, intimidation and aggression. Your post reflects that. People have been working behind the scenes with victims of BSL for years. They have been doing so quietly and doing what they can within the confines of the law.

It's great that BSL and the problem with it is getting more attention. In my opinion the attention should be on the hundreds of dogs currently awaiting the same fate as Lennox. Lennox is gone, I really hope his legacy is one of change and progression, not intimidation and anger.

ziggy23

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh im not talking about the "animal people" who sit in their cushy home on their pc discussing how Cezar Milan's theory's are flawed whilst trawling through done deal looking for a dog that looks slightly unhappy.

You have heard of animal activists, these are the hardcore "animal people" who will camp in a field to stop building encroaching on frogs breeding grounds. Who go out on the sea to stop Japanese Whalers. Who break into slaughter houses and film animals being treated bad.

:rolleyes: It's called standing up for what they believe in and I say fair play to them.

A_Sober_Paddy

Isn't deeming one bread dangerous the same as deeming a person based on the colour of their skin as being dangerous?

Any dog has the potential to be dangerous, just as with any person...

A_Sober_Paddy

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Isn't deeming one bread dangerous the same as deeming a person based on the colour of their skin as being dangerous?

Any dog has the potential to be dangerous, just as with any person...

Well any dog can be trained to fight, but its the amount of damage that the dog can do. Bull breeds can do alot of damage.

A_Sober_Paddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Well any dog can be trained to fight, but its the amount of damage that the dog can do. Bull breeds can do alot of damage.

Well south sea Islanders have a higher bone density therefore can have more muscle so therefore can do more damage in a fight...does that make them more dangerous?

mistress_gi

As a bull breed owner I have to say I can see both sides.
I would never allow my dog to be aggressive with any humans or dogs, but I also know that my rescue tents to bully people and dogs that are scared of him and I warn people of this. I maintain control at all times and I keep training, socializing etc. I think it is appalling that the owners told the warden what they did (if indeed the story is true) but I also know that bull breeds are very sensitive and it is easy to turn a good dog into a bad dog really quickly. Personally I believe that bad owners should be punished and dogs should be given another change first through rehabilitation rather than being out down straight away! But hey that is just my opinion.

fatmammycat

As much as I'd like to see a dog being rehomed, I don't think the BCC has any choice with Lennox when he failed behaviour tests. If he had bitten someone they were liable. Poor old thing was doomed the moment he was seized.