Welcome to PetForums

Join thousands of other pet owners and pet lovers on the UK's most popular and friendly pet community and discussion forum.

Sign Up

Tyler's Story (Sad)

Discussion in 'Dog Chat' started by sallyanne, Dec 3, 2007.

  1. sallyanne

    sallyanne Guest

    Tyler’s Story:
    Tyler the friendly crossbreed was seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act, he left home in perfect condition but was broken in solitary confirement.

    A volunteer on a canine helpline received a telephone call from Debbie shortly after her dog Tyler was seized under Section One of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA), for being of the ‘type’; a home visit to the owner was arranged to offer support: “It was an upsetting home visit, we just sat and listened to Debbie as she poured it all out. I remember staring at the large bloody clumps of her hair on the mantelpiece, pulled out in the struggle on the morning her dog ‘Tyler was seized under the DDA.”

    Following the introduction of the DDA and a summer of intense negative news coverage for dogs, three year old crossbred dog ‘Tyler’ was forcibly removed from his home at 7.30am on December 20th 1991 amidst scenes of great distress.

    Debbie answered her door dressed in her nightgown, there were at least 5 arresting officers, two wore protective clothing and carried catchpoles. Tyler was dragged from the bed where he had been sleeping upstairs with a 6 year old child, his neck bleeding as the catch poles tightened in the struggle. It was reported that his owner began to scream and tried to obstruct the arrest of her dog by not letting him be taken away, her arm was put into a ‘hammer lock’ and she was forcible led away down the street in her nightgown and arrested, her dog was driven away in the back of a van.

    Like all dogs seized under section one of the Act, Tyler was held in kennels at a secret location awaiting his fate, during this time he was terribly treated. Owner contact was denied.

    The case eventually came before the Magistrates Court and the owner was found guilty (not helped by the fact that under this law the burden of proof is reversed).
    The Judge sentenced the crossbred dog to death for being a ‘pit bull type’ acting under the new Home Office guidelines that condemn any dog for the way it looks.

    Tyler had never harmed anyone or anything, he had done no wrong.

    The case later went before the Crown Court on Appeal; Tyler was kept alive but still held in secret kennels.

    Acting for the defence Dr. Mugford showed a video of his behavioural assessment to the Court, Tyler was introduced and mixed with other dogs, a sheep, an imitation cat, a dog known to be dog aggressive, confronted by strangers etc, throughout he remained calm and docile and at no time showed any signs of being ‘dangerous’.

    Mike Homan and Vic Pounds both Staffordshire Bull Terrier experts also gave detailed and exhaustive evidence for the defence.

    It was revealed during the lengthy hearing that Tyler had sustained several injuries whilst held in solitary confinement at a secret location.
    The injuries received were listed by Dr. Mugford, these included untreated lacerations from the catchpole used to remove him from his family home, two holes inside his mouth, a deep puncture wound to his shoulder and flesh missing from a hind leg with other small flesh wounds and pressure sores. Tyler was described as visibly malnourished and bloated, being tender around his abdomen.


    Vic Pounds examined Tyler and gave his evidence in Court. He stated that Tyler had wounds on his right shoulder which had been treated and on his left pasterns there was a round and fairly deep wound about one inch in diameter which he thought had been inflicted fairly recently, the wounds looked sore and was still open. He said “I have never seen a dog in worse condition”.
    In his opinion Tyler had been brutalised and was in no fit condition to be thoroughly examined.

    Tyler, once full of life, has given up, he can take no more.

    Despite all the evidence, the Judges found his owner guilty of owning an unregistered ‘pit bull type’ and ordered Tyler to be put to death in seven days.
    Owner Debbie fell back in her seat with the shock of the verdict, overcome by the outcome she began to cry and beg the court to spare her dog, as the Judge left the room.

    Supporters present at the hearing described the atmosphere; “many people in the room were devastated when the judge said Tyler had to die – men and women alike had tears in their eyes, even some of the observers not connected with the case. To hear a woman begging and pleading for her dogs life, completely broken with grief, calling out to anyone who could hear, is the most distressing thing I have witnessed in this situation” said one observer.
    Debbie went home that day to her young son who was waiting with Tyler’s Christmas present, still wrapped up, certain of his friends return.

    Tyler had endured 14 months in confinement before he lost his life on 9th March 1993.

    Shortly afterwards, his owner received a heavy black plastic bin liner delivered to her doorstep, it was cold and dripping with fluid, when she looked inside she found the dead lifeless body of her beloved Tyler.

    This is how breed specific legislation works in the real world,

    Targetting the innocent dog.
  2. colacooler

    colacooler PetForums Junior

    Nov 19, 2007
    Likes Received:
    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.
  3. Debbie

    Debbie PetForums VIP

    Nov 10, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Such a sad story - lets hope things have changed since then.
  4. That is Cruelty to Animal......I just cannot beleive something like that going on.....Right now somewhere.
  5. sallyanne

    sallyanne Guest

    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’.
  6. 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’.
    THAT IS RIDICULOUS.....<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
  7. PatioDogDoors

    PatioDogDoors PetForums Member

    Nov 27, 2007
    Likes Received:
    so sad. why is that happening
  8. sallyanne

    sallyanne Guest

    It is happening because of a law passed in 1991 in a knee jerk reaction to a spate of dog attacks on children.

    The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a piece of UK legislation that was introduced in response to various incidents of serious injury or death resulting from attacks by aggressive and uncontrolled dogs, particularly on children. These incidents received heavy tabloid attention, causing widespread public concern over the keeping of dangerous dogs and a resulting legislative response.

    Have dog bites and dog attacks actually decreased since the introduction of the DDA?
    No,they are never likely to either because the real the issue isn't about breed it's about irresponsible owners.
    Until we address that problem we are fighting a losing battle and at the end of the day it's the breeds like the pitbulls that suffer from bad press and hyped up media reports,not the idiotic irresponsible owner.
  9. plumo72

    plumo72 PetForums VIP

    Nov 2, 2007
    Likes Received:
    omg what a horrible story. The poor dog and family :(
  10. They've could impose some kind of test on any suspected dog before taking it away from child's bed..............
  11. glynisw

    glynisw PetForums Newbie

    Jul 19, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I have just read Tylers sorry story and feel so bad for the owners. My dog too was taken by police last year and returned in a terrible state, underweight, suffering from roundworm and parasites, cuts to his muzzle and head etc.
    I have started a group on faceook called Cruelty To dogs In Police Care and have over 574 people on it. This is to show that these dogs are not looked after properly as stated by the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
    I have made an offical complaint about my pets treatment (or lack of it in this case) to the Police Complaints Commision

    If any members have had their pets seized then please join and get your friends to also, as something must be done about this abuse.

    To Tylers owners, my heart goes out to you for this poor animal..my pet too would have died if we hadnt have got him back sooner. nearly 4 months in total.. Please contact me if you would be so kind.

    I will be adding pics of Kodee on return from the police and now...but pics are on facebook....

    Also would all pet owners join..

    Petition to: open up the index of exempted dogs to owner led registration.

    Also a good site if your dog is seizd is this one, please read what the have to say...

    Endangered Dogs Defence and Rescue - Helping dogs in need

    Many Thanks

    Glynis and Kodee
    #11 glynisw, Jul 19, 2008
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2008
  12. sskmick

    sskmick PetForums VIP

    Feb 4, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Sorry Sallyanne I couldn't read your first post. I get the drift though. How can we stop this type of cruelty, in that seized dogs should be in place of safety and good quality care.

    Human prisoners aren't treated like that any more because of human rights where are the animal rights (I am not meaning the activists). I mean basic care that the RSPCA should endeavour to enforce.

    I also think the legislation needs changing/amending whatever, that unless a dog is reported and found to be aggressive towards people it shouldn't not be seized no matter what breed or breed type it is.

    I can take you round my estate and point out dogs that would be deemed dangerous under the Breed Specific Legislation, however these dogs are just crossbreeds and loveable family pets. There are other dogs that don't come under this legislatiion that I wouldn't even allow you to post a letter at their residence. Where is the logic in the legislation.

    What the public and the politicians fail to realise is that no matter what breed of dog it can be trained either to be socialable or anti-social.

    Lets think about the dogs that have attacked in recent years, now think about the circumstances leading to those attacks: -

    . Known undesireable temprament/behaviour of dog (trained and encouraged by owner)
    . Known undersireable temprament/behaviour of dog (due to lack of basic training and/or neglect)
    . Unknown temprament/behaviour of dog (recently rehomed from unknown source)
    . Unsupervised children with dogs.
    . Lack of control of dogs (dogs off the leash in public places).

    The list is endless although it all points to irresponsible ownership, absolutely nothing to do with the breed.

    Even if a normally docile family pet dog (Pit Bull Type) attacks because of a medical condition that doesn't prove it was an attack waiting to happen because of the breed, as some would have us believe.

    Problem is how do you educate people.

  13. spellweaver

    spellweaver Guest

    Unfortunately Sally-anne is right. If anything, it is getting worse. Just a few days ago in Nottingham a man was walking his dog - a dogue de bordeaux cross - and the dog was seized by police because it was a pit-bull type. This dog was not aggressive, had never threatened or injured anyone, and there had been no complaints to the police about it. The police just saw it being walked and seized it. "Fury" - who exist to help people fight this sort of thing - are helping him with his case.
  14. sallyanne

    sallyanne Guest

    Very good post Sue,
    The problem is not just educating owners it's also trying to educate those numpty policitions in government who refuse to listen to reason,until this happens and BSL/DDA is scraped dogs will continue to suffer and breeds will still be targeted as been "Dangerous" when this is not fact or indeed true.

    I honestly don't know what the answer is,or how to stop this neglect and cruelty to dogs,it's very very sad.

    Innocent family pets are murdered,for the way they look,it's outrageous :mad::mad:
  15. Nicci

    Nicci Guest

    Thing is you can't no matter how many of us bleat on, people still don't listen and ultimately it's the dogs that suffer for it :(
  16. sskmick

    sskmick PetForums VIP

    Feb 4, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I understand what you are saying Sallyanne I did mean both joe public and politicians and you are right too Nicci.

    I managed to get through the first post and I'm off for a coffee break.

  17. clueless

    clueless Banned

    May 26, 2008
    Likes Received:
    What a terrible and sad story. It must be awful for these owners to go through this and of course the poor dogs:(
  18. bee112

    bee112 PetForums VIP

    Apr 12, 2008
    Likes Received:
    This subject infuriates me..

    How can politicians/police etc that clearly know nothing about dogs, just decide a dog looks like a pitbull, so therefore must be a danger to society so therefore it must be taken away from its family, live in solitary confinement and then be killed?!

    Seriously it's rediculous and barbaric:mad:
  19. Fade to Grey

    Fade to Grey PetForums VIP

    Nov 10, 2007
    Likes Received:
    damn that blooming horrible. i had tears in my eyes just reading it :(
  20. sskmick

    sskmick PetForums VIP

    Feb 4, 2008
    Likes Received:
    This story has haunted the life out of me.

    What are the owners rights in a situation where a policeman decides it looks like a dangerous breed or breed type.

    Can a dog be seized today when the owner takes their dog for a walk. Would an owner know that a warrant is being sought.

    Is it part of the legislation that the dog is returned to you after the verdict dead or alive or was that another blunder.

    I only became aware of the DDA 3 years ago in the vets surgery waiting for Duke's first vaccination and BSL when I joined this forum. I didn't realise dogs were seized on a whim and to add insult to injury the dogs are not even given basic care.

    I really feel I want to know where these torturous kennels are to name and shame the managers and staff.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice