what do you think of this? banned dog put down despite doing nothing

[thisisyesterday]

i have to admit i am not a dog lover, but this rankles with me somewhat.

am sure that many of you may remember the case of the little girl that was killed by her uncles dog a few months ago. It happened in my town and there was an update in the paper today here

the dog that killed the little girl was not a dangerous breed. but the uncle did own another dog, which is banned.
this dog is now due to be put down

he's had it for nearly 10 years, it has never done anything and yet it is being killed. I realise it's banned and so by law he can't keep it, it just seems bizarre that there is nowhere for it to go... ?

what do you think?

this bit made me fume!! he said -

"his "life would be over" if he was banned from keeping his beloved pets"

what about that babys poor parents.

By law banned breeds should be destroyed. End

Well for a start he should have been banned from keeping any dog for life, considering his dog killed a child.

It's tough on the dog, but it would be impossible to re-home and the law about dangerous dogs is there for a reason.

It's just a dog, not an endangered species. I'm sure they'll kill it humanely.

oh i know it'll be done humanely etc etc

but this particular dog has never done anything! it has been a family pet for nearly 10 years and is now being put down just for being unfortunate enough to have him as an owner

the breeds are not illegal in europe... i am sure it could have been rehomed somehow?

It is banned for a reason.

If the other dog the man owned killed a child, i think it is perfectly reasonable to expect his other dog to be put down.

Yes the dog has been perfectly well behaved for 10 years, I would assume that the other dog was well behaved as well for x amount on years before it killed a child.

Why rehome it and take a risk.

OP think your empathy is misplaced. Who gives a damn about the dog? I feel sorry for the poor child who was mauled to death and thus will never see adulthood.

I agree with you thisisyesterday. Dogo Argentinos are really nice dogs and good with children when trained properly. It is a shame the dog can't be rehomed.

I don't know what the point is in 'banning' breeds, as the only time the ban is ever enforced is when something bad happens. Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Where I live there has been an explosion in the numbers of banned dogs in the last few years, and many can be seen trotting 'round the streets and parks, often off the lead, and the numbers are increasing, rather than dwindling, so nothing being done about it.

Sadly for the dogs, they are popular with people who don't really give a shit, like this guy, who got a banned dog knowing that this might be its fate, and is now all 'boo hoo'..what a prick.

The dog can't be rehomed can it, as it's a banned breed, therefore technically illegal for anyone to own.

I agree about the 'deed not breed' principle - the dangerous dogs law was very badly thought-out based on largely perception and media hype of 'devil dogs'.

But in this case it has to be the right thing, given the owner - he's hardly got a great record of responsible dog-owning has he. I find it incredible actually that he was allowed to keep a dog at all after what happened to his niece , regardless of whether the dog is a banned breed or not.

no i guess i just wondered if there weren't places that may have taken the dog in outside of the UK

Who would rehome a dog from a different country who had been trained by a man whose other dog killed a child?

am sure there are plenty of people who would. the fact that the other dog (diff breed) killed a child is irrelevant in regards to whether this one should be rehomed or killed surely?

if this had been a spaniel or a labrador it wouldn't be put down simply because the other dog had killed a child would it?

so, it is being put down just because it is banned.
as the breed isn't banned anywhere else then i can't see why it couldn't be rehomed elsewqhere

Well I doubt he trained his dogs to kill children. However it would be far too difficult and expensive to rehome the dog to a different country.

Every country is chock full of unwanted dogs. Why pay for a passport, medical examinations, vaccinations and a flight for some random british dog when their are perfectly nice dogs on your doorstep being put down because there isn't enough money to feed them?

I also doubt that he trains his dogs to kill children but the fact that one of his dogs did kill someone speaks volumes about his skills as a trainer. Taking on a 10 year old dog who is badly trained is big deal.

9000 stray dogs put to sleep in 2009. He clearly can't stay with his owner and he is no more special than other homeless dogs.

I'm sure I saw a programme about dangerous dogs quite recently. If my memory serves me correctly you are able to keep a banned dog providing that you have some kind of licence, and have to adhere to certain rules. This has to be with the original owner, and if they choose to do this, then the dog won't be destroyed. If not then the dog is destroyed.

So if he had that opportunity, then why isn't he taking it!!

I'm going to look it up I think.

I feel for the dog, it's not his fault. It's irresponsible owners, and years of genetically programming these dogs to kill!

Nat the owner is banned from keeping dogs

yeah i guess... it just seems wrong somehow, when it hasn't done anything.
but you're right about how many other dogs are put down every year (tho that's sad too!)

Oh right, didn't read the link.

Just had a look, See below...

Section 3(5)(b) of the 1991 Act enables a court to make an order under the 1871 Act that a dog is in future muzzled, kept on a lead, tethered or is excluded from specified places. This is a flexible provision which can be used to deal with a number of nuisance complaints about dogsincluding circumstances where dogs in one back garden cause fear of risk or injury to neighbours in another.

Sad for the dog, but the law is the law.

ChoChoSan are you sure you are seeing banned dogs trotting round your local park? I've sen an increase in staffies, and they aren't banned dogs. People who don't know the difference between some of these chunky looking breeds do sometimes think they are banned.

there are huge numbers of banned dogs - especially in certain parts of London - i see them all the time. Not staffies but illegal Pit bulls - the police themselves acknowledge that the number is out of control and there's little they can do.

If one has been destroyed that's fine by me. Shame they didn't do the uncle at the same time.

I apsolutely despise the dangerous dogs act, as it leads to situations like this where completely innocent animals are destroyed. Fair enough if the dog has attacked someone then it needs to be put down but otherwise they should be left alone. "dangerous" breeds can be perfectly fine if they are trained properly.

There's a hell of a lot of bull spoken about "banned breeds", especially Pit Bulls. Most people wouldn't know one from a SBT cross, and that includes the Police and rescue workers.

ANY breed of dog can be dangerous, just as any colour/race of human can. And most dogs and humans are perfectly fine - not necessarily one's cup of tea, but not dangerous either.

To kill a dog just because it is of a certain breed is as dispicable as killing a man because he has a penis and MIGHT and COULD therefore rape, or killing a child because they are black/Canadian/Jewish.

This wicked, dispicable decision is a prime example of why the Dangerous Dogs Act is a disgrace and should be repealed.

Further information on how screwed up this legislation is here :DEED NOT BREED

Val (Dog rescuer, owner and fosterer).