Pitbull Type Dog “No Danger to Public”
Another case heard in a Liverpool court (Feb 26, 2008) has resulted in a much-loved family pet being allowed the chance of life after being deemed of no risk to the public. Fifty was seized after her owner called the police regarding a stolen mobile phone. Police attended the address only to seize Fifty as being “pit bull type” under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
The court heard that scarring and a damaged canine tooth where visible on fifty and his owner was asked to explain these injuries. Owner Marcelle Stranach stated that prior to being seized Fifty had no scarring save for a few scratches gained by the family cat. Ms Stranach produced a picture which she had brought along to show her dog alongside another dog, which also backed up this claim. The judge accepted that fifty had been in kennels for a whole month prior to being examined by a breed identification expert and that as no mention of any scarring had been made by the arresting officers at the time disregarded this evidence. It has been previously reported of other dogs being returned home with scaring or other physically problems as a result of the kennel environment.
The court heard that Fifty had never been subject to a complaint and had never been allowed to stray. When walked Fifty’s owner had previously kept him on lead and muzzled meaning he would easily accept living with the restrictions of a “pit bull type”. Marcelle went on to explain that Fifty lived with a cat and a Yorkshire terrier at their home which had a secure garden that he could not stray from.
After considering the evidence a delighted owner was told Fifty would be ordered to be entered onto the register of exempted dogs and would soon be returned home. The restrictions mean Fifty must be :
Neutered
Chipped
Tattooed
Kept on lead and muzzled at all times in a public place
His owner must also obtain third party liability insurance for him and register him with the index within a set period. Failure to follow the restrictions could result in Fifty being destroyed.
Melanie Rushmore of the Bull breed advisory service represented Marcelle in court. Ms Rushmore says “ Fifty has never given any reason to suggest he is a dangerous dog and we welcome the judge’s acceptance of this fact”. No court or kennelling costs were awarded adding to an already expensive bill for Merseyside police.
During the hearing Marcelle was asked why she had brought a pit bull type and answered that she had brought an Irish Stafford from the Liverpool Echo newspaper and had no idea he could be deemed to be “pit bull type”. Interestingly the Liverpool Echo have been running a campaign since July 2006 that they claim is “a fightback against yobs blighting our communities with dangerous dogs.” Yet it wasn’t until November of the same year that the Echo stopped taking the adverts themselves.
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
- IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS ARE THE REAL DANGER TO THE PUBLIC
- Owner’s Delight as Dog is Dogue not Pit (but DDA is Still Sh*t)
- Is Former Home Secretary Biggest Threat To Public Safety In Dangerous Dogs Debate?
- ‘Pit Bull’ Seized on Isle of Man Set to Die
- In Today’s Good Dog News…It’s Time for Coco – Another DDA Dog is Back Home
Loading ...
I`m glad to read of any win,no matter what country but perhaps it might make more sense to presume innocence(Don`t seize the dog) and prove guilt(based on behaviour) rather than the other way around.
Reply
Let’s see. Owner calls police on a personal matter. Police enter home AND then deside to take dog away from owner. Owner has to attend court to get his dog back. Dog is deemed NOT Dangerous. STILL the owner has to muzzle, neuter, spay, AND is forced to purchase an insurance police for his Pet Dog. Does anyone ELSE find this INSANE? Does anyone else thing this is Government Sponsered Discrimination and THEY are taking away people’s rights? STOP THIS INSANITY.
Reply
Last paragraph quote from the Liverpool Echo states:
“a fightback against yobs blighting our communities with dangerous dogs.”
Liverpool Echo really has it wrong here…why not just call it a zero tolerance against yobs…after all there is no such thing as a dangerous dog – when you are referring to particular breeds- unless it was made dangerous by the yobs in the first place.
I suggest a total zero tolerance against street crime and yobbish behaviour across the UK, there’s far too many of these idiots walking around and the police are clearly doing nothing.
Arrest some of these idiots – watch the crime rate go down and dog bite statistics as well.
No such thing as a dangerous breed…BSL does not work.
No reason to ban/euthanize the Pit Bull, but every reason to euthanize this culture of uneducated scum that think they can do anything without any consequence.
Reply
I’m currently having the same trouble as Marcelle having my “pitbull type” taken from me. He was taken October 2007 by St. Helens Dog Warden and redeemed “Pitbull type” with my only knowledge through his papers as an Irish Blue Staffordshire Bull Terrior. Gerrard needs pet insurance as a matter of urgency for us to receive him back to his home. Could anybody please help or contact Marcelle for information on this matter.
Kind Regards,
Colleen.
Reply
Hi Colleen, Ive sent you an email with my contact number. Hope to speak to you soon.
Reply
my pitbull type was seized 21july 2007 and returned home on the 17 april2008 in the most diabolical state she is now dying of chronic kidney failure and i do beleive this was caused by her care and treatment she never received while away fom me.Theres so much i have to say about the condition of my lovely dog my heart is broken i intend to prosecute the police
Reply
Sandra, I’ve heard about your case, to receive a dog back in that state is just unacceptable, thinking of you and your dog tonight…
Reply