Comments on: Snuffles Has Been Described as ‘Friendly and Comical’ - Shame He’s Going to be Killed

By: C Jackson

C Jackson — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:48:31 +0000

Depends on where you live Lauren.
If you are in the UK the Pit Bull Terrier remains by law a prohibited dog and both the police and your local authority have a responsibility in that respect; but it depends on where you live in the country as to whether either would follow up, especially on an anonymous complaint. You could try CRIMESTOPPERS (0800555111) which maintains anonimity but would pass on your concerns to the police in your area.
You have correctly identified the kind of stupid and irresponsible behaviour:
“encourages this dog to go for limbs while play and fusses it after it jumps up all over you”
which people with any kind of dog do not appear to realise sets up the potential for what they will later call “tragic accidents” - with little dogs they can get away with it with the larger dogs soemone else will usually suffer.
You are being a good friend Lauren and seem capable of delivering sensible advice to your friends - get them to join a reputable dog club, get them to do something positive with their dog and if they still don’t listen to you perhaps it’s time to review your friendship.
I wish you the very best of luck.

By: Lauren Jones

Lauren Jones — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:03:05 +0000

my friend’s family have a pit bull dog and a couple of times now it has tried to snap at my hands, I know that my friends mum somtimes encourages this dog to go for limbs while play and fusses it after it jumps up all over you although she does’nt intentially it to make her dog aggressive. I dont think she realises how potentially dangerous her dog could be and I’m so worried because the dog will be around children a lot during summer,

is there any way to report a potentially dangerous dog anonymously? I dont want my best friend and her family to hate me but at the same time I would hate one of the small children to get ingured or worse Help!

By: C Jackson

C Jackson — Fri, 02 May 2008 12:39:44 +0000

All depends on who people see as their representatives and what those representatives then do behind those closed doors.

By: Alison Green

Alison Green — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:30:29 +0000

As with any proposal it needs looking at in great depth. To add more breeds or types would be a huge mistake however to at least remove mandatory destruction would be a step forward.

By this little information at least being made public more people should become aware and are then able to contact their own representitives with their views on it rather than it all being done behind closed doors.

By: C Jackson

C Jackson — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:55:26 +0000

While I would support any call to repeal DDA s1 and reform the way dangerous dogs are dealt with I find this ‘call’ from Mr Dewvine and Ballymena Council very confusing.
‘Deed not breed’ is all very well but if it is not in any way preventative, simply responding to potentialy serious incidents, it doesn’t actually move our ability to ‘deal with’ danger caused by owners and their dogs forward at all.
It would appear that the basis for this is that those concerened with delivering the law have come up against a dog (Snuffles) which they like. There must be some awfuly bad dogs in NI if this is the first time it has happened to them and I am certainly thankful for the reforms provided under 4B (which removed mandatory destruction from cases in which I have been involved).

But what EXACTLY are they proposing?

“What we feel should be in place are other control measures to deal with these dogs as outlined below.
“It is recommended that dogs be divided into categories for the purpose of this legislation and each category be dealt with differently as per the attached schedule. This would allow individuals to keep previously dangerous dogs under certain circumstances, and include other dogs in the legislation.”

What is a ‘previsously dangerous dog? What other dogs are proposed to be included in ‘the legisaltion’?

Most unfortunately the article doiesn’t carry the proposals for this dog ‘categorisation’ but what is written suggests to me that big dogs which could damage humans, wnatever their breed, would be covered as ‘potential’ dangers - unless perhaps the dog warden fell in love with them as well - or should all perfectly innocent big dogs be subjected to muzzling, holding on a lead etc.
Vague proposals, proposals like these and those suggested by the Kennel Club and others to Alex Neil MSP are potentially even more dangerous than the Act which exists.
Approaches which have been considered for much longer appear not to be attractive - perhaps because they are not proposed by soemone reacting emotionally to a single case.
I’m sure it won’t be long before soembody suggests that any revision be called Snuffles Law.