Comments on: Questions Unanswered in Kennel Club BSL Controversy

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:27:34 +0000

Cuthbert, i have read your comments and find them to be well informed, panoptic, and balanced, which as in any topic lends credibility. My only fear with regards to your second comment is that one day they will bow to public presure and repeal Sec1. However, the logistical requirements of placing controls on all “dog owners” will be unachievable, and thus the current law, as flawed as it is will be replaced with nothing.
“Good” i hear many of you say. However, i have dealt with many serious dog attacks on people and other animals. Of these i would consider nine to be disfiguring, disabling, or emotionaly damaging to the extent that i would say they are seriously life changing. All of these nine, with one exception, were as a result of an attack by a PBTT dog. This does tend to go against the “deed not breed” ethos, and i trust won’t win me any friends on this forum.

By: Kennel Club: Dog Shows Like “Watching Paint Dry”

Kennel Club: Dog Shows Like “Watching Paint Dry” — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:06:54 +0000

[...] STORIES: Questions Unanswered in Kennel Club BSL Controversy British Dog Breeds to Become ‘Extinct’? Don’t Believe The (Kennel Club) Hype PETA [...]

By: CrazyCanine

CrazyCanine — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:14:50 +0000

Alison

Am I being too cynical in thinking that the Kennel club shot themselves in the foot by trying to damage limit the bad press about their ‘240 course’. The response from the KC Secretary Ms Kisko rather than settling any doubts or setting matters to rest merely inflames the situation even more. If this course had not been opposed and condemmed by ordinary dog owning people, other animal welfare groups would have held their own versions of it. An example is the ridiculous interference by KCDOG, an unelected body interferring in the business of elected bodies such as local councils. Once they started up, other animal welfare/charity groups started to be critical of dog control orders too. The sad thing is however, that with all the ‘copycat’, or should it be ‘copydog’ positioning to all have their say that it is important for dogs to be exercised off leads on welfare grounds, what about the welfare of any animals chased by dogs off the leads, who is concerned about their welfare? Totally agree that the KC is not in anyway elected to represent or control the actions of dog owners be they owned by pedigree or ‘non’-pedigree dog’s. They really do need to make their mind up about their role/position in society, either they stick to being an elitist and exclusive breed directory, they announce that they are branching out into becoming a dog welfare organisation or they also let us know whether they want to be an enforcement arm for the government. If some kind of dog registration comes in that will be heavily backed by various interested parties to require a microchip as the means of ID, who would benefit from this apart from microchip companies? Lets have a think, hmm, who has a data-base that you have to pay to amend details on? If it was a compulsory requirement to keep the details up to date, this is a form of enforcement, would Petlog/Kennel Club carry out any enforcement action though, doubt it, they would say that it is not anything to do with them, this is the same as other groups who get things enacted by government but expect others to carry out the work. Keep a look out for any welfare groups or organisations pushing for compulsory registration of dogs, whoever they will be, you can bet that there will be a hidden agenda! Odds on favourites though, will be the usual ‘animal welfare’ groups with political lobbyist’s who can afford to waste money on MP’s when the money should be spent helping animals of diverse species! Cuthbert Jacksons posts expose the KC for their failings to understand the real position of ‘experts’ in court. To end on a final note of cynicism, was the ‘240′ an attempt to show that the KC is against BSL, but it backfired on them?

By: Cuthbert Jackson

Cuthbert Jackson — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:42:30 +0000

Alison
As I have said in previous posts it is my opinion that the construction of DDA section 1 actually makes it highly unsuitable territory for ‘experts’ as what it requires doesn’t actually fall within any recognised ‘expert’ discipline. A recognised ‘expert’ is only allowed to give expert witness testimony within their own discipline, if they move beyond that they can be challenged in court accordingly e.g. a chartered accountant can give expert testimony on accounts but what he might go on to say about computer programming is not ‘expert’ unless he is also a recognised computer ‘expert’.
The DDA cannot expect ‘expert’ witnesses in the technical sense as it refers to a ‘type’ (not even a breed) and that becomes a matter as much of opinion as of the standards (ADBA conformation) that can be applied as a particular dog may meet and not meet some of those conformation standards and still be ‘type’.
So really ‘expert’ becomes a redundant term and ‘expertise’ (obtained from a variety of sources) is all that can be applied, just like two judges at a Kennel Club show may differ on their opinion of the same dog.
What happens in this situation is that the court by applying an individual witnesses expertise allows them ‘expert’ witness status - which has the significant consequence that they are treated differently to other witnesses in a case, can be present while other evidence is presented etc. I think this court procedure is the way the Kennel Club are looking at it rather than the court giving ‘expert’ status or refusing it.
You only have to look at completed cases to know that courts have accepted both prosecution and defence ‘expert’ identificatons of dogs as PBT or not PBT as ‘right’, with great variation. Not only that but others ‘in dogs’ and the publics understanding too must be taken into account, so, for example, a rescue, even with expertise, may determine for their own reasons that a dog is not Pit Bull Terrier ‘type’ and re-home it as a ‘cross-Staffy’ only for it later to be picked up as ‘type’ by police or local authority when reported by the public, and, the other way round, the police or a local authority may make a decision that a dog is not a PBT ‘type’ and present it for rescue (who are worried that the police or local authority will support that decision should any questions be asked later by the public - especially if the dog does anything) and then a further opinion may decide that it is too risky to proceed with a re-homing and the dog will be destroyed. Both are within my experience.
It is the lack of clarity provided by the law which causes this problem and is the main reason why BSL doesn’t work and, in the case of s1 should be repealled and replaced with effective control managing all dog owners. When the only available evidence becomes less important than the ‘experts’ presenting it something is wrong with the law!

By: Alison Green

Alison Green — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:33:18 +0000

Cuthbert,

The Kennel Club have mentioned that these trainees are not experts unless a court deems them to be such. I do hope a dog without an owner isnt said to be “type” by one of the trainees, destroyed on that statement, only for a court to refuse to accept that trainees evidence as an expert at a later date.

Is this possible I wonder? To my mind it is highly possible. Maybe the Kennel club can answer that question too; if they decide to answer at all.

By: Alison Green

Alison Green — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:19:28 +0000

Crazycanine,

Its quite horrific in my opinion that an organisation heavily involved in the world of dogs and legislation regulating that world see fit to continually ignore the dog owning public!

It has been ten days since the first article went up. The Kennel club replied to that article without answering any questions. The Kennel Club supplied a comment for this article and again, did not answer the questions.

As this article was published I contacted the Kennel Club yet again, including a link to this article and stating they are free to comment. I have had no reply and we can see no comment from them to date on this.

They are an unelected group who have decided and shockingly, are accepted, as speaking for you and I. All without asking our opinions or appearing to actually care about what we think!

I personally beleive its time that changed.

By: Cuthbert Jackson

Cuthbert Jackson — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:04:58 +0000

It strikes me that the ‘experts’ that the Kennel Club are preparing will either be very fortunate, very choosy, or be prepared to mislead the court.
Could they be ‘very fortunate’? Well yes, they could leave to others the decision that a dog in a rescue is a Pit Bull Terrier ‘type’ and therefore never be required to sign the “death warrant” the Kennel Club’s statement appears to suggest its ‘experts’ can avoid. If however they do visit such rescues to provide an opinion they will at some point (if they are honest) make a decision that makes it impossible to do anything other than destroy the dog.
Could they be choosy? Yes they could flit around the country carefully avoiding any case in which they believed the dog to be a Pit Bull Terrier by advising the defence that their opinion agreed with the prosecution’s and that therefore there was no need for them to appear and the case should be faught on other grounds - hence making it appear that the ‘prosecution’ experts alone were responsible for determining the dogs type (and “signing the death warrant”).
(One thing the canine press in particular has failed to pick up on are the number of cases in which the dogs ‘type’ has not been contested by the defence, or its experts, and the prosecution evidence that the dog was not a threat to public safety has been used to put the dog on the exemption register rather than demand its destruction - now that the law no longer demands mandatory destruction the prosecution can, and do, take this route where it is felt appropriate).
Of course until such a time as the law is changed, by repeal of section 1, it will remain an offence in the UK to be in posession of a dog of the Pit Bull Terrier ‘type’. The fact that that law is wrongly conceived makes it a difficult law to enforce; but there is great danger if those who pertain to be ‘experts’ decide that because it is wrongly conceived it can be treated with contempt. If experts mislead courts into thinking that these dogs are not what they are, in the absence of well conceived law with which to deal with them, they will, again, be increasingly used to the detriment of their breed or type because the, well intentioned, behaviour of defending these dogs has the knock on effect of making it easier for those who have evil intent in their ownership to own them (it would appear that they too can get the ‘experts’ on their side).
In the article on ‘Red’ Celine found some consolation in the fact that he could never fall into the wrong hands and that is an important consolation to anyone called upon to provide ‘expert’ evidence which leads to a dogs destruction, or even the extreme management conferred by inclusion on the exemption register. It might have been much better if those with an interest in the ‘type’ had realised more often that by defending their dogs so tenaciously they were also making them more vulnerable to misuse.
Any ‘expert’, Kennel Club trained or otherwise, will potentially become involved in signing the “death warrant” and it is very misleading of the Kennel Club to suggest that their ‘experts’ are in some way purely for the ‘defence’ - if they are they are not experts! If they are ‘experts’ the only ways they have of their expertise leading to every dog ‘getting off’, under the current law, are given here.
So, you fortunate ‘experts’ who choose your own cases and let the prosecution be held responsible for the rest do remember that you too brought us to where we are today and you have greater choice about what you are doing than those called upon to enforce the law.

By: CrazyCanine

CrazyCanine — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:03:38 +0000

Alison

Great article, you have highlighted the fact that when somebody ‘dares’ to be critical of the Kennel Club, they respond with a politician style evasion of the actual question (or in this case 11 questions!) and then claim it is highly offensive to criticise amongst others, the two Trevor’s which you clearly did not? Why will they not answer Alison’s questions? By not answering and being open, they show their elitist attitude and their counter attack is feeble, I wonder how much the ’specific individuals’ who are ‘experts in their own fields’are paid when ‘called upon’? Boo hoo to the establishment types in their ivory towers!

By: Ryan O'Meara

Ryan O'Meara — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:40:42 +0000

Couldn’t agree with you more Joy!

If the world ever needs a visual lesson in the folly of BSL and the huge knock on damage it does to a wider variety of animal welfare issues, look to the UK as an example. Dogs are dying and being wrongly demonised. Dog attacks remain consistently upward in their trend. BSL doesn’t work.

By: Joy Ward

Joy Ward — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:24:58 +0000

Thank you for holding the Kennel Club’s feet to the fire on this issue. Someone needs to speak for those unjustly condemned. Thank you K9 for barking out!

It seems so strange to me when those of us in the States have always looked to the UK for humane leadership to see this insanity. Stateside, we are finally getting the message through that its the dog (or more likely the owner), not the breed. Have you noticed that even former fighting dogs like the Vick dogs are being rehabilitated and rehomed? Surely the country that gave the world Shakespeare, Thomas Moore and Francis Bacon can figure out how to understand Pit Bulls.

Once more, Bravo K9!