View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-12-2007, 12:17 PM
sallyanne
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tyler's Story (Sad)

Quote:
Originally Posted by colacooler View Post
Disgraceful, I think times have changed since 1991/1993 but still a shocking story none the less.

Especially the end, leaving the poor thing at teh doorstep.
Unfortunatly they haven't changed at all,we saw this first hand with the fiasco that took place on merseyside.Dogs that were family pets died in kennels that were supposed be under the care of the Police.Dogs have been returned home in some dreadful conditions (see the post Cut & Bleeding)
Tylers story is not an isolated case there are many more.

Unfortunatly this is what BSL is,It's cruel,it targets the wrong end of the lead and does nothing to get to the root of the problem,irresponsible ownership.

Below Is Crossposted.
Home Office 1991 – “Cross-breeds of the pit bull terrier with other dogs are not specifically controlled by s.1 of the act.”
Home Office 1992 – “Under the Act any dog which has the characteristics of the type known as a pit bull terrier is regarded as being of that type, irrespective of parentage.”
Home Office 1992 – “In this country the pit bull terrier is generally regarded as being a cross between a bull breed of dog and larger dogs like the mastiff. It may also, however, be obtained by breeding or cross-breeding pit bull terriers themselves.”
Home Office 1992 – “Whether section 1 of the Act applies to any particular cross will depend on whether the resulting dog is of the type known as the pit bull terrier – that is to say, whether it has the physical and behavioural characteristics of the pit bull terrier.”
Home Office 1994 – “Under the Act any dog which has characteristics of the type known as the pit bull terrier is regarded as being of that type, irrespective of its parentage.”
Queen’s Bench Divisional Court 1993 – the landmark case of Brock & Dunne set a precedent which has far reaching consequences. The court debated what was meant by type and decided ‘type’ has a broader meaning than ‘breed’. Their Lordships, Justice Glidewell and Justice Cresswell stated: “That a dog of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier is an animal approximately amounting to, near to, having a substantial number of characteristics of the Pit Bull Terrier”. Meaning that the law could cover dogs that were not pit bull terriers, but had substantial characteristics of one.
The court also ruled that the relevant breed standard for assessing whether a dog is or is not of the type should be that of the ADBA. Since part of that breed standard concerned the dog’s behaviour, the court ruled that evidence of a dog’s behavioural characteristics was relevant, but not conclusive.

DEFRA Present Day - Information on what constitutes a prohibited type is given in a leaflet available from Defra. Here the advice is that the law applies not only to ‘pure’ Pit Bull Terriers (even thought it’s not recognised as a breed by the Government) but also to any dog of the type known as the PBT. The overall general description is that of a muscular smooth-haired dog, with a square profile and average height of 45-55cm.
So now the goal posts have widened to include any cross breed of dog, “irrespective of parentage”. The offspring of two perfectly legal breeds could produce an illegal dog. Type has a broader meaning than breed. But, the Index has closed and with it any hope of legalising many pet dogs condemned as an illegal ‘type’.
Reply With Quote