tybrax

None yet just waiting for the news to come through. tybrax

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/sunrise/31...us-dogs/?page=1 Can notorious dog breeds like pit bulls live safely with children? Debate has been reignited after the second savage attack in Victoria this week. Yesterday a woman was bitten while rescuing her cat from two dogs. And on Sunday a toddler was mauled by a pit bull. The RSPCA says pit bulls can live with children if they are trained, supervised and from a reputable breeder. Their policy is outlined on their website, however in general they say dogs should not be declared dangerous on the basis of breed, but on the basis of behaviour. There are five breeds on the federal government's list of dogs that can no longer be imported. The ones that are already here must be desexed. Argentinean fighting dogs Japanese fighting dogs Brazillian fighting dogs American Pit Bulls Presa Canarios (pictured) Kidsafe Victoria says the latest statistics for Victoria are from 2007 for dog attack victims. They show there were 1,628 hospital cases, 482 admissions and one death, which was a child. Should dangerous dogs be allowed around children, and should dangerous dogs that attack people be destroyed? Have your say below... tybrax

.

.

.

.

.

.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...349-661,00.html Vicious dog at large in west. Submit comment Mark Buttler and Padraic Murphy August 24, 2009 12:00am .A DOG suspected of a vicious mauling is missing after attacks left children with facial injuries in Melbourne's western suburbs. Authorities became aware of one of the attacks only when a police officer on a separate duty noticed a child with nasty bite wounds at the Western Hospital in Sunshine, where she was attending with her parents. The two-year-old girl had been mauled at about 10.30am by a black dog, which was described as a pit bull, inside a house at Antonie Ave, Delahey. Her parents drove her to the hospital, where surgery was to be performed on a serious injury to her cheek. Police later spoke to the dog's owner, a 24-year-old man from Delahey, at a house in the nearby suburb of Burnside Heights. He told the officers that the dog, which he removed from the house in which the attack happened, had escaped and he had been unable to find it since. Victoria Police said the matter remained under investigation. The second attack victim was a five-year-old girl who was taken to the Royal Children's Hospital after being mauled in a West Sunshine street. Witnesses -- who had never seen the dog before -- said the girl was set upon as she walked along Killeen St with family members at about 12.30pm. "She was just going for a stroll with her mother," one witness said. "I don't know where the dog came from, I've never seen it before. "I know the girl was pretty badly bitten though, she got taken straight to hospital." Police later said the animal, which was described as a rottweiler, had run from a house in nearby McElroy St before pouncing on the defenceless youngster. The dog has been returned to its owner while police work with local council officials as part of their investigation. tybrax

l am so sorry to here Molly is ill, thinking of you. tybrax

You have done your best, thats all you can do lets hope he gets that second chance. Hopefully they will contact you and let you know. tybrax

Dirtbag tybrax

It might sound like a Bull Arab, but who know's??

http://cbs4denver.com/pets/Pit.Bull.Ban.2.1113608.html Council Woman Proposes Bringing Pit Bulls Back An expensive legal battle over Denver's pit bull ban may lead to a change in the law. A Denver City Council member has issued a proposal to bring the breed back. Councilwoman Carla Madison says her proposal focuses on responsible ownership, rather than a particular breed of dog. The mayor's office is considering the plan and says safety is its top priority. "It would still be illegal to have a pit bull in Denver unless you go through these basically hoops," Madison said. Pit bull owners would have to pay $50 for a permit, get temperament testing and own liability insurance of $100,000. There would also be a home inspection and mandatory obedience and ownership responsibility classes. Owners must be at least 21 years old. It would also possibly require muzzling in public. Lingering lawsuits since 2007 against the city may go away if the pit bull ban is reworked. Legal fees are mounting. Karen Breslin is the attorney suing the city. "Lifting a ban is absolutely a step in the right direction," Breslin said. "It could make it go away, absolutely, but I'd have to see the ordinance first. I'd have to know what the proposal was." Councilman Michael Hancock is not interested in changing the ordinance. He was attacked by a pit bull when he was 9 years old. "I was bit by a pit bull and it took several men and a water hose and a 2-by-4 to get the pit bull off my ankle," Hancock said. The issue is still in the very early stages of discussion and nothing has been formally written or proposed yet. The pit bull ban in Denver was passed 20 years ago. Madison says she's hearing from people all over the country on the issue. A "dangerous dog ordinance" is also being considered. Owners of dogs that display aggression, regardless of breed, would be required to take classes. tybrax

MSP relaunches bid to make law on dangerous dogs 'punish owners' « Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryPublished Date: 17 March 2009 By David Maddox ANIMAL campaigners hope that a new law on dangerous dogs will be in place in Scotland by next year. The Nationalist MSP Christine Grahame yesterday relaunched a bill to replace the "flawed" Dangerous Dogs Act. The bill, which is backed by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA), aims to end the ban on some breeds and i ADVERTISEMENTnstead concentrate on dogs' behaviour. Ms Grahame said: "This is being looked on very favourably by the Scottish Government, so hopefully it can be in place within a year. The important thing is that it punishes irresponsible owners." The SSPCA's Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn added that the current act, put through parliament by former Conservative home secretary Kenneth Baker in 48 hours was "flawed". "The problem is that it bans breeds, when in fact there is no such thing as a totally safe dog; it is how they are looked after and reared," he said. "What we want is for bad owners to be punished, not dogs." He added that confusion over dangerous breeds had led to hundreds of Staffordshire bull terriers to be dumped at SSPCA centres. "Out of the 80 dogs we have in Glasgow at the moment about half are Staffordshires," he said. "It is because people think they are illegal when they are not." Ms Grahame is taking on the task after the bill's previous sponsor, Alex Neil, was promoted to a ministerial post. http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/MSP-rela...make.5077832.jp

So true........

How can you say you're against BSL, when In actual fact you are pro BSL The reason I say you're pro Is that you're willing to have the Fila on the BSL list, purely based on what you've Googled, You just can't say I'm against It, but glad the Fila's are on the list! Totally agree with Rottnbullies comments. tybrax

l am so sorry Chewy sending heaps of R.I.P. Elliot. tybrax

Chewy so sorry to hear this for you and Elliot. tybrax

PRESS RELEASE Thursday 23rd July 2009 London Takes Part in Worldwide Candle Lit Vigil for Death Row Dog: Dog lovers are travelling from across the UK to gather outside the Northern Ireland Office, Millbank, in central London to show unified global support for a pet dog condemned to death by a Magistrates Court in Northern Ireland. The Candle Lit Vigil is being held for one hour between 9 and 10pm on Thursday 23rd July and coincides with other vigil events being held on the same day in Dublin, New York and Seattle alongside an enormous worldwide candle lit vigil where thousands of people are due to take part in their own homes and work places in recognition of the plight and suffering of a dog named ‘Bruce’ who has captured the hearts and minds of people across the world. Bruce was a young pet dog living happily with his family in Northern Ireland when on September 19th 2007 he was seized as an alleged “pit bull type” and taken to secluded kennels whilst his owner was taken to court for owning a banned type of dog contrary to the Dangerous Dogs Act (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Owner Shannon Brown, aged 20years, supporters and neighbours have created petitions, and videos asking for help to save pet dog Bruce who has never put a paw wrong and his case has now been championed by masses of people everywhere who have reacted in horror to the news he has to die and are demanding he be spared the death penalty. Thousands Stand Up To Defend Bruce the Dog: Politicians and officials have been inundated with letters, emails and phone calls from concerned members of the public calling for the release of death row dog Bruce. Meanwhile complex legal proceedings are ongoing as the news breaks this week that the law which has condemned Bruce and countless others like him, appears to have been Amended a staggering eight years ago, seemingly unnoticed by officials and adding utter confusion to the whole sorry situation. The life of Bruce hangs by a thread but as his persistent battle to survive continues more and more people are screaming for his release. Politicians have been asked to change the legislation, veterinary groups have been deluged with letters from dog owners pleading that every veterinary surgeon refuses to administer the fatal injection, even Her Majesty the Queen has been requested to intervene and grant a Royal Pardon and the protests keep flooding in as the news spreads across the Internet. As the legal wheels turn slowly, the campaign to ‘Save Bruce’ intensifies and eyes from around the world are now attentively watching Northern Ireland. Bruce remains isolated from his family on canine death row awaiting his fate, unaware of the world wide support he has. For Further Information – Please Contact: DDA Watch - Email: [email protected] / Tel: 0844 844 2900 Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue - Email: [email protected]

I just found this article. A bit of a development, I hope it helps Bruce. I posted the story.....lol tybrax

News Release: DDA Confusion in Northern Ireland: Monday 20th July 2009 Anti-BSL campaigners involved with the ‘Saving Bruce’ campaign are questioning how an Amendment removing the mandatory destruction for dogs found guilty of being a ‘pit bull type’ in Northern Ireland has been in force for EIGHT YEARS despite widespread belief to the contrary. DDA Watch, Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue and the Bull Breed Advisory Service contacted UK Barrister Pamela Rose and worked together for days [the reasons for this are set out below] researching the legal situation for dogs found to be ‘pit bull type’ by the courts in Northern Ireland. It was known that an Amendment cited as the Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 was in existence but it is unclear and still a mystery why it appears no one had picked up on the details of all sections and is a situation which will no doubt have repercussions. On Friday. 17th July 2009, written confirmation was received from the Animal Identification, Legislation and Welfare Branch at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) who confirmed that all sections of the Amendment came into operation on the expiration of two months from the date of Royal Assent which was 29th January 2001, on the same day, Barrister Pamela Rose also received confirmation from the Statute Law Database. However confusion over the potential existence of an exemption scheme seems to be spread as far as MLP’s within the Northern Ireland Assembly who were responsible for bringing in the Amendment in 2001. As an example: In 2007 Trevor Lunn, Alliance MLP, called for review of the legislation believing that mandatory destruction remained the sole option for courts. http://angie.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2007-11-20.5.1 When asked in September of 2008 if, as minister for Northern Irelands Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Gildernew would shift emphasis from destruction of dogs to penalties for owners in future legislation Ms Gildernew replied stating: “The control of dogs, including dangerous dogs, is regulated under the Dogs (NI) Order 1983, as amended by the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991. The Order designates certain types of dogs of which it is an offence to be in possession, such as the pit bull terrier. Local Councils are responsible for enforcing this legislation and may seize any dog that appears to be of a banned type. Such dogs are destroyed unless their owner can prove that they are not of a banned type." http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/qanda/2007man...2008/080926.htm However the Amendment does not demand destruction. In January 2007, six years after the Amendment came into force, Ballymena council held the first “pit bull Amnesty” in Northern Ireland lasting for four weeks and resulting in the death of 15 dogs. Antrim’s Borough dog warden commented on the proposed amnesty and was quoted by “Our Dogs” newspaper http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2006/Decembe...206/outrage.htm as stating: “The first thing you need to be aware of is that the amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act, which allows pit bull “type” dogs to be registered and rehomed, does not apply in northern Ireland." The Guardian newspaper article on the (then) proposed amnesty stated in 2006: "Northern Ireland's dangerous dogs order is slightly different from the law in England: the regulations are enforced by council dog wardens rather than the police and magistrates do not have any discretion to stop a pit bull being put down." The North Down Council web site refers to the legislation stating: “The law bans the ownership, breeding, sale and exchange, and advertising for sale of specified types of fighting dogs.” Yet again there is no mention of any Amendment, which enables a court to make an order under the exemption scheme as an alternative to destruction. To further confuse the DARD website does not state the potential for dogs to escape destruction nor do any of the Northern Ireland council websites checked by the campaigners over the last few days. It is because of this that a response and confirmation was sought from ‘OPSI’ and from DARD. Questions must be asked as to whether Northern Ireland council dog wardens, charged with enforcing "dangerous dogs legislation" and Northern Ireland Ministers and MLPs who create the legislation that governs their country are aware of the removal of mandatory destruction and why no steps appear to have been taken to correct the incorrect view that an amendment was not in existence? Background Information on Northern Ireland Dangerous Dogs Laws: The Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 was amended by the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order in 1991; this was the NI equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 which was introduced in Great Britain. Both pieces of legislation contained breed specific elements and prohibited the ownership of four types of dog mainly the ‘type of dog known as a pit bull terrier’ unless exempted within a specified time frame after which all dogs of the designated type which had not been fully exempted were ordered destroyed by the courts. Under the DDA of 1991 owners were given a short space of time to register their dogs, the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991 laid out the ‘rules’ under which a dog could be exempted and thus allowed to live out the remainder of its life providing that the terms of exemption were adhered to. In Northern Ireland at the same time, a statutory rule was passed; the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order (Northern Ireland) 1991 (SR No. 466), it too laid out the procedure under which owners could exempt their dogs within a set time frame. Both pieces of legislation were draconian is than any dog found to be of pit bull type and not fully exempted by the deadline dates given was ordered by the court to be destroyed-there was no discretion available when sentencing leading to the destruction of many family pets. In 1997 GB passed the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act and discretion when sentencing was given to the court, this enabled dogs found to be of a prohibited type to be ordered registered onto the Index of Exempted Dogs if the court was satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. The 1997 Dangerous Dogs Amendment was not extended to Northern Ireland. The campaigners researched back through the Northern Ireland Assembly minutes to 1999 and then dissected all sections of the NI Amendment legislation of 2001 according to the information available. Barrister Pamela Rose confirmed that after studying the Amendment Act, together with the minutes of the NI Assembly and the annotated statute from the OPSI website, that discretionary powers were indeed available-meaning that the mandatory death sentence for prohibited dogs had been removed. It was thought possible that not all section of the Amendment has been passed at the same time. According to the NI Assembly the Amendment Bill has received its first reading on the 5th June 2000 and progressed through another six stages before being given Royal Assent on the 29th January 2001. To be sure, all stages were researched to detect if any sections hadn’t been enacted and the statutory status of each piece was rigorously checked. In GB the Amendment of 1997 refers to the ‘Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991’ which can be accessed online and lays out the procedure for exemption (registration onto the Index of Exempted Dogs). The NI Amendment of 2001 refers to a similar scheme defined in Statutory Rule 466. Quote: “(2) Where an order is made under sub-paragraph (a) of Article 25C(3), Part III of the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order (Northern Ireland) 1991 (SR No. 466) shall have effect as if—“ Statutory Rule 466 is thought to be an important piece in the jigsaw as it is expected to describe the legal process by which owners must follow to save the life of their dog when an order is made by the court as an alternative to destruction. Campaigners have painstakingly searched for the elusive document but the actual statutory rule could not be found online, which was rather strange and extremely frustrating. There were several references to it, and so it had to exist. Research was not helped by the fact that the Northern Ireland assembly suspended for four years between 2002 and 2007 and power reverted to the Northern Ireland Office, the NI Assembly was reinstated in May 2007. Statutory Rules NI dating back to 1991 can be found online, but the SR 466 1991 is not listed. It is has taken time to locate it and it’s hoped to shed further light on who is responsible for running the exemption scheme helping to clarify a most complex and puzzling situation which directly affects the life and death of innocent pet dogs like Bruce in Northern Ireland. For Further Information – Please Contact: DDA Watch – www.dangerousdogsact.co.uk Email: [email protected] / Tel: 0844 844 2900 Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue - www.endangereddogs.com Bull Breed Advisory Service – www.bullbreedadvisoryservice.com

l am so sorry for your loss tybrax

De Frey V Logan Council Read the 22 point checklist truth............. Self proclaimed experts that taught themselves of the internet. parts of the transcripts. http://victimsofbsl.com/ tybrax