Sign if you can

I presume it has dragged on as the owners are fighting it? As in if they agreed to PTS it would be 'resolved'. As I said elsewhere, it is truly awful and the moral of the story is make sure your dog is secure, especially if it may chase people it meets when it isn't.
 
To play devil’s advocate, we are only seeing one side to this story.

Why, if the dog was only being ‘playful’, did the neighbour feel the need to phone the police? Where was the owner while the dog was being ‘playful’? Criticising the police officer for saying they’re an animal lover but advising the dog is dangerous is ridiculous. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, just that there’s usually more to these stories than first appear.
 
I signed the petition because it does not appear that the dog inflicted injury and the information given was that the dog did not bite. I would be unhappy about a dog losing its life without sufficient reason.

The fact that a dental expert was involved does seem to indicate that the dog's teeth may have made contact.

There is a dog bite scale which can be used to assess the severity. If the dog was only level 1 or 2 does Pablo really need to lose his life?

"Levels 1 and 2 comprise well over 99% of dog incidents. The dog is certainly not dangerous and more likely to be fearful, rambunctious, or out of control. Wonderful prognosis. Quickly resolve the problem with basic training (control) "

https://apdt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ian-dunbar-dog-bite-scale.pdf
Clodagh made an excellent point about keeping dogs secure.

I would be interested to know if the dog had escaped before and like deb would like to know the whereabouts of the owner at the time of the incident.

Perhaps prosecution of the owner for having an out of control dog would be more appropriate than condemning the dog to death.
 
Last edited:
FWIW I think the dog should be pts. It will take a lot of work to get it socialised now and I will make the sweeping judgement that the owners won’t bother.
It should have been kept in decent kennels in the meantime, but as if the police lose the case I expect they have to pay the bill they aim to keep costs down.
Any sort of bite to a stranger should result in pts, imo, as pts the owner is sadly not an option
 
Clodagh said:
FWIW I think the dog should be pts. It will take a lot of work to get it socialised now and I will make the sweeping judgement that the owners won’t bother.
It should have been kept in decent kennels in the meantime, but as if the police lose the case I expect they have to pay the bill they aim to keep costs down.
Any sort of bite to a stranger should result in pts, imo, as pts the owner is sadly not an option
Click to expand...


I agree with you Clodagh and think that this wouldn't have happened if the owners had done the responsible thing and made sure that the dog couldn't escape but afaik, the dog didn't bite any-one, although it apparently chased a neighbour.
 
Taken from the information provided on the petition.

Fact - Pablo did not bite anyone! He managed to roam out of his home onto a neighbour’s property & then proceeded to chase a neighbour.
Two leading canine experts advised the court that Pablo displayed no aggression but behaved as a dog would who was simply curious & playful.
The police officer stated in court that he is a dog lover.
The officer then stated that the “world would be a safer place if Pablo was destroyed”.

The Policeman in question may love dogs but know f. all about dog behaviour.

I would take the word of a canine expert - probably a legal expert witness such as David Ryan who assesses the danger posed to the public from allegedly dangerous dogs.

The dental expert obviously found nothing to worry him.

We don't know what happened.

Perhaps the playful dog mouthed the neighbour and this was interpreted as a bite.

How did neighbour and policeman react to a large playful dog as this will have influenced his level of excitement?
 
Last edited:
You can't trust a petition written by someone desperate to keep a dog alive as being fact. Magistrates/District Judges aren't heartless beasts who have pet dogs killed for the hell of it. The canine experts are paid by the owner and they weren't there at the time. They are interpreting behaviour described to them by the owners who know the dog and don't want it put down. Clearly the neighbour was scared and supports the death of the dog or they would be quoted as being against it.

Sorry MrsM, I would want to hear the evidence the Magistrates or District Judge heard before I would sign this petition.

A dog who chases people doesn't have to bite to be at risk of causing serious harm, especially one as big as an Akita.
.
 
ycbm. I am sure you will correct me if you know that I am wrong but I don't believe a legal expert witness would go by hearsay, especially if the dog's life was at risk. The dog would be seen and assessed.

I am not saying that David Ryan was consulted or was in any way involved but here is his website to show you the calibre and integrity of the expert witnesses involved in these cases.

https://www.dog-secrets.co.uk/dog-expert-witness-services/
 
Last edited:
An expert witness can only act on what they are told, unless someone had a camera running at the time of the incident. They can also assess the dog in kennels, but that isn't particularly relevant to the incident on the day under completely different conditions. The judgement given in court by those two expert witnesses of the behaviour at the incident is indeed based on someone else's description of it, unless they were there at the time, which is very unlikely.

I know their calibre, I've heard them in Court. Please don't forget that their client is the dog's owner, they are paid by them not the Court. They are being paid in an attempt to get the dog a reprieve, not to give the Court an unbiased view, and other expert opinions often differ.
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
An expert witness can only act on what they are told, unless someone had a camera running at the time of the incident. They can also assess the dog in kennels, but that isn't particularly relevant to the incident on the day under completely different conditions. The judgement given in court by those two expert witnesses of the behaviour at the incident is indeed based on someone else's description of it, unless they were there at the time, which is very unlikely.

I know their calibre, I've heard them in Court. Please don't forget that their client is the dog's owner, they are paid by them not the Court. They are being paid in an attempt to get the dog a reprieve, not to give the Court an unbiased view, and other expert opinions often differ.
Click to expand...


I am curious. Whose description of the incident would the experts base their assessment on?

Do the experts interpret the behaviour and make a judgement from a description given by the people at the scene?
 
Last edited:
skinnydipper said:
I am curious. Whose description of the incident would they base their assessment on?
Click to expand...


The witness statements, then heavily overlaid by person who is paying them to represent their dog. Their job is to minimise every negative and maximise every positive as far as they reasonably can. A similar expert witness for the prosecution, if they were to call one, would do the opposite. The Magistrates/District Judge have to err on the side of protecting the public.

Don't forget, also, that the dog can't be considered in isolation by the Magistrates or District Judge, they have to consider the owners the dog will be returned to and their capability and willingness to train and contain it. The attitude of the owners in Court and evidence of their behaviour around the time of the incident can have a big impact on that.

.
 
Thank you for taking the time to explain.

This to me is key:

ycbm said:
they have to consider the owners the dog will be returned to and their capability and willingness to train and contain it. The attitude of the owners in Court and evidence of their behaviour around the time of the incident can have a big impact on that.
Click to expand...

I will probably get the terminology wrong but is there ever a "judgement" made where the dog's life can be saved on the condition it is not returned to the original owner?
 
Last edited:
what bothers me about these cases is the fact that a dog is kept in isolation and probably without much human contact. he wont understand why this has happened and even if he is an even tempered friendly dog being in isolation for 6 months could make any dog very scared and could then be aggressive simply because of his treatment.look what can happen to a normal friendly dog when it gets lost and then goes so feral even the owners cant get through to them and they have to resort to trapping them. after hearing of some of these cases, if anything like this happened with one of my dogs i would take it to my own vet immediately and have it PTS rather than them be in kennels while i fought for them....
 
Having witnessed a GSD (that had escaped it owners property) approach two teenagers who turned on the heels and ran (with me shouting don’t run!) with the dog in pursuit, I can understand why the petition has been created. The dog in question didn’t attack/bite anybody neither did the escaped GSD - who was a lovely bitch - I put her in the back of my motor, brought her home and called the dog warden.
ETA. Some dogs have a look and stare that unnerves some people - Rotties, Akita’s, GSds etc. Whenever I have happened upon a stray dog, I’m very stern with them and tell them to sit. Turning on your heels and legging it, is a very foolish thing to do imo.
 
Last edited:
Blazingsaddles said:
Having witnessed a GSD (that had escaped it owners property) approach two teenagers who turned on the heels and ran (with me shouting don’t run!) with the dog in pursuit, I can understand why the petition has been created. The dog in question didn’t attack/bite anybody neither did the escaped GSD - who was a lovely bitch - I put her in the back of my motor, brought her home and called the dog warden.

Turning on your heels and legging it, is a very foolish thing to do imo.
Click to expand...

Like you, I think attitude is very important. No shouting or shrieking, running or any other behaviour likely to arouse the dog further.

It doesn't sound as if the dog was aggressive. Boisterous and excited perhaps.
 
Skinny dipper, is it likely anyone would want to take on a dog deemed vicious or dangerous by a court? Well the sort of person you would want it to go to.
 
I will probably get the terminology wrong but is there ever a "judgement" made where the dog's life can be saved on the condition it is not returned to the original owner?
Click to expand...

I think this is technically a possibility. If, for example, 'The Akita Rehoming Centre' (imaginary) stepped forward with an expert view that they could rehome the dog safely and a promise to have it PTS if that proved impossible, then I think a Court could probably do that. The trouble is that, in my experience, it's not usually the dog's first offence that lands it in court with a destruction order request. The Policeman in the only case I've been on said in court 'every dog is allowed one bite'. And who would risk taking it on?



Blazingsaddles said:
Turning on your heels and legging it, is a very foolish thing to do imo.
Click to expand...

skinnydipper said:
Like you, I think attitude is very important. No shouting or shrieking, running or any other behaviour likely to arouse the dog further.

It doesn't sound as if the dog was aggressive. Boisterous and excited perhaps.
Click to expand...


BS, SD, non dog owners aren't required to know how to act in the presence of an out of control dog. Many people are very afraid of dogs. Some Moslems will not allow a dog anywhere near them or their property.

.
 
Clodagh said:
Skinny dipper, is it likely anyone would want to take on a dog deemed vicious or dangerous by a court? Well the sort of person you would want it to go to.
Click to expand...

No, probably not.

I just feel very sorry for the dog who I feel is a victim of circumstance. (and owners of doubtful competence)
 
Last edited:
A wider point as I know nothing about the case, but been burned by this sort of thing before.
Theres usually a back story, usually the owner at fault, either poor management/failure to contain, poor breed choice/lack of appropriate accommodation or stimulation/exercise/training and/or complete inability to admit the dog is of poor character, and poor attitude or use of language towards those in authority by the humans.
There have usually already been red flags/warning incidents.
Sorry that the dog has to suffer, but I've seen so many people not recognise that a dog that lives with them and is sitting right in front of them, is stressed/uncomfortable/sketchy/one step away from biting someone/something, it's unreal.
For those who do recognise their dogs aren't social butterflies or that no one actually really appreciates strange, large dogs running up to them, there are leads, muzzles, appropriate interactions, fencing of a suitable height and padlocks.
Again, a copy of the court transcripts would help.
 
BS, SD, non dog owners aren't required to know how to act in the presence of an out of control dog. Many people are very afraid of dogs. Some Moslems will not allow a dog anywhere near them or their property.

.[/QUOTE]

It’s called common sense. Don’t bring race/religion into my experience. The teenagers were two white males who coaxed the dog over & then ran. Bloody idiots.
 
It is only common sense to a dog owner.

I find many dog owners curiously blind to the fact the other people shouldn't need to know how to manage their dog.

The religious aspect is relevant. I didnt mention race.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top