Owner’s Delight as Dog is Dogue not Pit (but DDA is Still Sh*t)
An East Midlands dog owner is celebrating today after being told he can have his dog back.
Jason Singh had his case heard at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court where it was deemed his dog, Zeke, was not a pit bull terrier type.
Mr Singh will be reunited with the dog who was described as ‘delightful’ by the judge in the case.
“Zeke is clearly a delightful, friendly dog and shows no sign of aggression at all,” said Judge Morris Cooper.
Zeke was seized by Ruschliffe Borough Council who claimed he was a prohibited pit bull type dog, which are banned under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. The council said it was ‘disapointed’ at the decision, saying they had never claimed the dog was dangerous but that it was a banned ‘type’ dog.
Zeke was deemed to be a Dogue de Bordeaux cross.
“It has been over a year – and it’s been absolute hell but it’s been worth it and I’ve had a lot of people supporting me,” Mr Singh said.
Mr Singh has been without his dog for over a year, Zeke was seized in June 2007.
—
And within this case is, a very prominent message.
The council were dissapointed as they had never claimed Zeke was dangerous.
I’ll just repeat that.
They had never claimed he was dangerous.
The Dangerous Dogs Act, don’t you just love it?
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
Loading ...
‘The council were dissapointed as they had never claimed Zeke was dangerous.
I’ll just repeat that.
They had never claimed he was dangerous.’
Re the above, the dog was seized on suspicion of it being alleged that the type of dog that it was/is is banned by law (however rubbish that law is)
So the council did not say that it was ‘dangerous’, why is that such an amazing statement to the writer of this article?
A dog could well be of a prohibited (in the UK) breed or type and not be dangerous, an un-prohibited breed of dog (in the UK) could be dangerous, what point are you making?
BSL sucks, but give the council the benefit of the doubt when they are trying to operate within the law of the land. If somebody did have an illegal dog and the council did nothing, then they get slagged off, if they do seize a dog on suspicion that it is a banned breed (which is against the law) they get slagged off? Work to repeal section 1 or adhere to the law of our country until such time as it is changed?
Reply
Personally, I don’t read into any criticism of the council in that article. I see it that the council’s remark absolutely bears out the major criticsm of BSL in a general sense. When the council are accepting of the fact that they had to seize a dog they knew not to be dangerous, that in itself shows that BSL is flawed. A council has had to deploy resource into trying to enforce a law which is failed. That’s not a criticism of the council, it’s a criticism of the law. It’s a succinct illustration of why the government should repeal section 1. If the people the public are paying to keep them safe from dangerous dogs are duty bound to seize non dangerous dogs, that is a damming indictment of the law itself in my view. But certainly no criticism of the council for having to do it.
Reply
Hi Ryan
Point taken, just read it as why did the council seize it if they themselves did not think it was dangerous?
Surely they were acting along the lines that the dog type was on the list?
BSL is naff but surely the latest DEFRA advice leaflet launched by Lord Rooker at the RSPCA conference is also moving via the advice on the leaflet to saying that ’some’ American Bulldogs are related to PBT.
I dont know the two strains of AB, but one of them, possibly the Johnstone strain is claimed to be descended from PBT.
Is this DEFRA’s way of telling us that instead of repealing Section 1, they may be adding another breed to it?
What policeman or dog warden in the street is going to be able to determine against an AB being of one or the other strain/line?
Will it be the intorduction of the DDA all over again?
Reply
To be fair, I don’t see what the council could have done differently. They’ve seized the dog under suspicion of being ‘type’, as they are instructed to. Then in court they’ve heard that the dog is not dangerous, which they never ever claimed he was, and I got the impression that their disappointment was that the dog’s character was questioned, which was never the basis for his seizure. I may be wrong, I am speculating/reading into it. What it does show is that a council obligated by law to take possession of people’s dogs who are not dangerous or behaving threateningly is waste of resource, deeply upsetting to the dog’s owners and a ‘great’ illustration of the flawed logic of BSL.
Reply
Gnasher
I must admit that my reaction was the same as yours. Perhaps we are so used to being blamed ourselves for the failings of s.1 DDA that we are now automatically on the defensive about these types of reports.
Having read Ryan’s take on it that may be so.
However, having also been misquoted and having straight quotes misrepresented in the media in the past myself I’m not surprised by your reaction. Ryan’s comments on Pet Parliament agrees about anti Dog Warden reporting.
Reply
I cannot believe that a DDB was seized as being a dangerous ‘type’. If people have the authority to take someones pet from them for no good reason apart from that it looks like a certain ‘type’ (and I HATE that word)then at least they should have the education or training to know what a ‘type’ looks like. How petty. I imagine it was solely due to the colouring and size of the DDB that it was seized. Its pathetic. People should be trained a little more in how to pinpoint a certain breed. In fact even the RSPCA and wardens in certain areas are getting it wrong, so how can we expect the odd council worker to get it right! (Seizing American Bulldogs!!) Next they will be seizing vislas or chocolate labs. Even though I love the bullbreeds more than any breed I am so glad I do not own one anymore. It is such a sad state of affairs when you are too scared to walk your dog in daylight in the fear of a nobody getting its breed wrong. The DDA sucks.
Reply