fredag den 11. oktober 2013

Discussion about the breed banning in Denmark October the 2nd 2013

Written by Theresa Kjær
Tranlated by Annesofie Bach Rasmussen

The picture is taken by: Kenned Richardt

Today there was a discussion about the specific-breed ban in Denmark and I was present to represent my Facebook site Musledog must stay in Denmark:

There were many presentations from veterinarians, animal ethical council, the Danish Kennel Club, Karen Hækkerup etc. following questions from the politicians we (the members of the audience) were allowed to ask questions.

Briefly told the experts agreed that the ban is not the way forward however the problem is at the other end of the line, it is the owner.
Nothing suggested that the breeds that are banned are more aggressive than others and this was underlined.

Despite this, Karen Hækkerup chose persistently to maintain the breed ban supported by: Vibeke Knudsen from Danish Kennel Club. It may be said that Vibeke does not have any real education in the dog world, she is only their marketing correspondent and hereby I mean that she is not to be considered as an expert.

Unfortunately we did not see much of Karen Hækkerup.
As she was not present to the first three presentations, she was only present shortly speaking about her own position towards the ban, that by the way was not supported by any facts or experts.

She briefly answered some question and here by left.
So to say she did not stay to the experts statements.

One of the statements that rouse my attention was that they all kept saying that there were none existing statistics concerning bites, reports etc. in Denmark.

And this is incorrect.

Both Fair Dog and Danish Terrier Clubs BIGcommittee have maid several in-depth studies and Fair Dog does also work with cases where people have been struck with the breed ban prior to race or by savage act.
 therefore wonder why they are not present in the committee as they have expert knowledge that they use daily unlike others.

Conclusion Karen Hækkerup chose not to listen to expert knowledge and this is only a reiteration from when the law was approved.
Yet again populism is more important then FACTS.
Here is the hearing (in Danish)

onsdag den 25. september 2013

Legislative, executive and judicial powers

Translation by : Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen
Written by: Theresa Kjaer

In Denmark we have a 3 part consensus in legislation.

That is:

the legislature

the executive

the judiciary

Each takes care of his part of the legislation

The legislature put forward an idea for a new law, for consultation. It must be approved at 3 hearings, to go be approved as part of the legislation.

The executive power is the police, who are responsible for maintaining law

The judiciary, the judges who are responsible for imposing a penalty onto the person who has broken the law.

That's how it should be, BUT in Denmark, police have decided to be both the executive and the judiciary power. Simultaneously, all rights to appeal have been removed as pertaining to The Law on Canines.
Thus, a dog owner cannot appeal if their dog is sentenced to death.

If the owner takes the case to court and the dog is later acquitted, it will be too late as the dog will have already been euthanized.
The result is that we, as dog owners, are without rights. That is unheard of in Denmark, since we are a democratic country.

My question: How can politicians go along with it?
To date, I have not received an answer.

It begs the question:

Are you not innocent until proven guilty?

Unfortunately, in Denmark, you are appearantly guilty until proven innocent, with regards to The Law on Canines.
Here, it is up to the OWNERS to prove the dog is lawful if it was born or has changed ownership after March 17, 2010.

Innocent until proven guilty is no longer a part of this legislation ......
This goes completely against what we learn!

tirsdag den 12. marts 2013

Death penalty: The drawing to a close for the dog Fido.

Translation by
Robert Jenkins

                              Photo by Louise Bluhme Sørensen

The dog's owner, Louise Sorensen, Sdr. Hygum, had Fido-case assessment of the National Police, after an expert and judge from the Danish Kennel Club last month ruled that there should be a gram fighting dog in the Fido.

But the decision of the National Police is clear: Fido must be killed. Poul Karstensen from the law firm Hjerrild & Bisgaard wonder:

- National Police requires a clear proof that Fido is not crossed with an illegal race. It can only be a DNA test to ascertain with certainty, and we do not know indentiteten on the dog's mother and father.

- We have the ability to bring the case to court, but it does not prevent the killing. It's tough, and it may not have been the legislators believe that the dog be killed while being tested to get picked evidence, says Poul Karstensen.

According to the lawyer gets the owner Louise Sorensen now the opportunity to say goodbye to the dog, then killing will take place.

torsdag den 14. februar 2013

Mail send to politicians.....

Written by Theresa Kjær
Translated by Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

Mail sent to the following politicians:
Mette Gjerskov
Karina Lorentzen
Dennis Flydtkjær
Michael Aastrup Jensen
Morten Bødskov

This was added to the email

I am writing you this mail, in the hopes that you will read it and take it seriously. Prior
to your successful election, you promised to look into reassessing the Law on Canines. 2
years have passed since that promise was made.

In 2010, the government passed a ban on 13 breeds of canines, as well as an obligatory
registration of puppies at 8 weeks of age. The registration part of this law is fine, but the
breed ban has now cost more than 1400 dogs their lives.

I must emphasize that the law was NOT made because of bite, but because of symbolic politics
and hysteria in the media. Studies support this fact.

Dogs that may LOOK like the ones on the banned breed list are also euthanized, not to mention
the ones caught up in the law for other reasons altogether. Bite incidents where the dog has
returned a bite in self-defense or bitten because they were startled, are problematic. The
biting dog is quite often sentenced to be euthanized, despite extenuating circumstances, and
particularly if it could be categorized into one of the more muscular breeds.

The Law on Canines urgently needs to be reassessed.

Remove the breed ban:
The 13 breeds on the list are not the ones that do the most damage, according to a study made
by Fairdog (link at the bottom of the page).
A lot of owners are left without legal certainty if the police decide that the dog is (or is a
mix of) one of the banned breeds. These dogs are euthanized without a case being tried by the
IF the owner gets the case as far as the courts, it is in most cases AFTER the dog has already
been euthanized.

I, myself, have been stopped by the police numerous times, and listened to claims that my dog
is of the Amstaff breed. Look at the attached picture and judge for yourself…which brings me
to my next point; defining a breed from a picture is nearly impossible in most cases. Breed
experts need to have the dog in front of them, to make any kind of realistic evaluation of
breed. The police do not have the expertise to evaluate breeds, which again has led to
unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.

To top it all off, the burden of proving the breed is reversed, which is almost impossible for
the owners of mixed breed dogs. Again, healthy dogs are euthanized based on guesswork.

In cases of biting, a professional canine behavioral analyst, or the like, should be
consulted. A bite is not always just a bite, and extenuating circumstances may be present,
such as self-defense or a case of being startled. If the owner of the bitten dog does not
make sure to have the wound cleaned, even the smallest breakage of skin can cause a serious

The time is now, for you to live up to your pre-election promises. Symbolic politics have
NEVER worked, and never will. Just look at the law that was passed on carrying knives…if you
can change that, then the Law on Canines shouldn’t be too hard to reassess.

So, to summarize:

1. Remove the breed ban.
2. Return legal certainty to owners.
3. The parts on biting need to be more clearly defined.
4. Experts need to be consulted to assess the dogs, not lawyers or police.

I hope that you will take this into consideration. The link to the studies:

Yours truly,
Maria-Theresa Kjær Larsen( info to my blogreaders: this is my full name)
Advocate for canine rights

tirsdag den 12. februar 2013

Thoughts on The state of the Law on Canines at this moment in time.

for more info visit

Well, it hasn’t been changed, but there has been brought a lot of attention to it, especially

since a police officer stole “Thor”, the German Sheppard, who was set to be euthanized as per

the section on vicious dogs/vicious attacks.

In short, “Thor” was attacked and bitten by a small dog, which made him bite in return. The

owner, Jette, paid a fine and assumed that the story would end there. It did not, however.

The day after the dogs had their disagreement, the small dog had been taken to the vet with an

infection in the wound. Based on that visit to the vet, a charge was made against “Thor” as

having made a vicious attack on the smaller dog and he was scheduled to be euthanized. The

eve before the judgment was to be carried out a police officer stole “Thor” from the kennel he

was placed at, and “Thor” has since been M.I.A.

Ever since, there has been a lot of attention on the Danish Law on Canines, which in itself is

good…the Danish people, however, are split into 2 groups on the question of whether or not the

police officer acted correctly in this situation.

I understand the thoughts and feelings behind his actions, but I don’t believe that breaking

the law is correct, REGARDLESS OF REASONING. Vigilantism is not a grey area in my world and

one of the many reasons for that is that I often meet people in debates who brag that they are

breeding banned breeds, calling it civil disobedience (vigilantism). I am very adamant when

it comes to following the law, despite the heartbreaking consequences.

The Law on Canines should absolutely be revised, but the consequence of people taking the law

into their own hands, may very well be that dialogue with politicians is not taken seriously.

It is my deepest wish that we find another solution to the current Law on Canines, especially

on the parts concerning breed banning. If that is ever to become a professional and factual

debate with the authorities, however, we need to keep our heads clear and follow the law.

That being said, I don’t understand why the politicians have not paused judgments in the

current cases that have been made, based on the parts of the law that need reassessing. Many

of the innocent dogs awaiting euthanasia could be saved if some other alternative was made

while the reassessment process is going on.

Remember…it is not only banned breeds at risk with the current law, but all breeds.

Written by 
Theresa Kjaer

Translated by 
Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

tirsdag den 5. februar 2013

Know Thy Breed

Written by Charlotte Andersson
Translated by Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

Today, just as any other day, we have had quite a few cases come in, concerning the Law on Canines. One of those cases, however, is a case where the police claim the dog is a mixed breed containing one of the banned breeds.

When I looked at the pictures attached to the case, I initially thought that the police had sent me the wrong pictures. This was not the case and I spent a long time studying the pictures of the dog, which obviously is a mixed breed containing a sledding breed (Malamute is my guess). 
I wonder which breed the police think it is mixed with, since the case file contains no such information. The file only states that they presume the dog is mixed with one of the banned breeds, and have therefore seized the animal. This is, in my opinion, a weak basis for such an action.

I will post pictures as soon as I have permission to do so. The owner of this dog had no reason to believe that it would be scrutinized in a breed case.

This dog is NOT the dog in question. This is a beautyful model owned by Ditte & Lotte Meinertsen

mandag den 28. januar 2013

Can we even have dogs in Denmark??

Written by Charlotte Andersson
Translated by Birgitte Hansen

Jette’s case(the owner of the German Shepherd  Thor) is grotesque and shows once again that public security among Danish dog owners is non existing.
That dogs in between occasionally have a dispute is a known fact and most often this causes no major damages. Damage as seen in this case would earlier have been taken care of amicably and within the mutual insurance companies.

Thor. Private photo

Not alone do we see a flaw in our public security, but also a diminished tolerance towards other people and their dogs. The first to report gains revenge. The dogs have turned into a pressure tool to hit at each other, especially towards people one dislike.

The dogs in Denmark are now a day’s humanized, not alone among the police’s attorneys but also among dog owners. Many believe that their dogs should get along with any other dog, and if they can’t manage that, they should either be re homed or euthanized. Remember humans all love each other (irony present..)
Dogs are no longer allowed to react and an increasing amount of myths are rising, concerning natural dog behavior. 

In cases where the police state the reason for euthanasia, we have often seen statements like “we have not seen natural dog behavior, since big dogs can not be afraid of small dogs”!
The point in the case with Jette and Thor is that even the most elementary law and order within the dog law has been totally neglected.

This is indeed worrying and a huge flaw in our public security.
Can we even have dogs in Denmark? If so what do we expect from them?
Can they live up to our expectations?

fredag den 25. januar 2013

BSL - Vigilante Police in Holstebro

Written by Charlotte Andersson
Translated by Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

visit our fanpage on facebook 
I would like to make a personal appeal and bring a warning to owners of certain types of dogs,
who live in Holstebro, or who reside in the area of Holstebro police district – move to
another district as soon as possible!

Unfortunately, there is an officer in that district, who has not read the notes in the Law on
Canines, which clearly state that: “As stated above, the Ministry of Justice, emphasizes that
enforcement of the ban must be done in such a manner that there is no form of persecution of
dog owners”. Alternately, he may have a personal agenda in his battle to rid the district of
these dogs.

Sadly, we have had numerous cases from Holstebro. I, and others, are without a doubt in our
conviction that this is a case of persecution and harassment on the part of this particular
officer. In addition, the “evaluations/assessments” made by this officer, are ludicrous (i.e.
– the canine has a long and slender muzzle therefore it must be of the Amstaff breed). Owners
and proprietaries have time and again been backed into a corner, and have been made to sign a
document produced by the officer, which “allows” the officer to seize the dog and bring it
directly to a vet for euthanasia. There is NO legal basis in Denmark, for the use of such a
document, nor basis for compelling people to sign it.

Furthermore, in most of the cases I see, where this officer is involved, he will act as judge
and jury – making up his own rules and paragraphs which are not a part of the Law on Canines,
nor of any other law, for that matter.

We have, as afore mentioned, had a lot of cases involving this officer and/or district, and
the officer has admitted to us and the veterinarians that he, single-handedly, is responsible
for the deaths of 40 dogs, by euthanasia. I am not sure if he is aiming for a personal
record, or if there is some other reasoning behind the persecution that is so obviously going
on. However, on the background of the actions being taken in this district, I would sincerely
warn all dog-owners with dogs bigger than 15 cm in height and with a certain appearance, to
quickly move out of the district.

The notes also read:

“Police processing any case under the Law on Canines, must adhere to the proportionality
principle of Administrative Law, which prohibits actions more invasive than deemed immediately

onsdag den 23. januar 2013

The story of Bogart, a victim of the law

It is not only the 13 banned breed who dies in vain
even when innocent, they pay the price
read the store of Bogart and the injustice

The story was written by the Fair Dog ambassador Kira Eggers
Here is her fanpage on FB
Translation by Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

Here’s the story of Bogart, a Lhasa Apso, owned by Steen (aged 79) and his wife. Bogart lived
only 5 years and 2 months, before being euthanized by a vet. Read the story here, and see for
yourself how badly a case can turn out, when dogs and owners wind up in the long and tortuous
grip of the Law on Canines. Police overlooked an important detail in their quest for justice.

How long did you own Bogart?

Two years and 10 months. Bogart was close to 2 years of age, when we got him.
What happened, that fateful day?

It was April, last year (2011), and I was taking Bogart for his walk. At one point we stopped
up, waiting on a truck that was backing up. I made sure that Bogart stood close to me, his
leash measuring only about 50cm (1.5 ft.) from my hand to his collar. Suddenly a lady taps my
shoulder from behind, and as I turn, she tells me that Bogart bit her. She shows me the
bleeding bite mark on her leg, and I ask her if there is anything I can do to help her. She
declines my offer, and after a short conversation, she leaves. I had never seen the woman
On April 15th, 2011, the lady filed a report with the police. I was contacted by the police
on April 27th, where I was charged and brought in for questioning at the local police station.
I was not informed, at any point, that I might need witnesses or that I was able to appeal
the case.
The police did behavioral testing on Bogart, May 5th, 2011. I found the testing very unfair,
as it was done in a stressful environment. Bogart was tested in an unfamiliar setting, bound
to the fencing in the kennel, surrounded by strange smells and barking dogs. Taking those
aspects into consideration, I believe that the testing gives an incorrect picture of how
Bogart would react in a more familiar setting. Notification of the decision to euthanize came
on August 3rd, and I was told to bring him to a kennel forthwith. Bogart had been deemed a
vicious and dangerous dog in the 4 months that had passed since he bit the lady. If he were
that dangerous, how is it that he was not held back at the kennel from day 1?
Bogart was placed with the animal welfare kennels in Rødovre, by order of the police. I was
informed that Bogart would be euthanized at the soonest possible date, as charges were that of
a savage attack, a violation of the Law on Canines. Bogart was, therefore, euthanized on
August 10th. There is no possibility of opposing or appealing the Law on Canines, regardless
of whether or not the law has been broken.

What happened next?

On October 14th, 2011, the police sent me a fine and a bill for unspecified expenditures in
the amount of 7.210,74 DKK. I requested a deferral on payment and a specified bill of
expenditures. Someone outside the system told me that it is possible to appeal the fine, so I
did. I received a summons to appear in court in January, 2012.
Since I did not have a lawyer, I was recommended the Chairwoman of Fairdog, Charlotte. She
has been an invaluable help in arguing my case in court.
Do you think the lady would have reported the incident to the police, had she known the outcome?
If she had known the terrible consequences that such a report would cause, I don’t think she
would have. Furthermore, to my knowledge, Bogart has never bitten anyone before, and from my
point of view, a normal dog does not bite without motivation.
During the hearing, Charlotte asked the aggrieved if she used blood thinning medications, as
dog bites are rarely stitched due to the danger of infection. The answer was yes. The reason
she was stitched, was in order to stop the bleeding, as the medications had made her blood
thin and unable to coagulate. She had not experienced a savage bite attack (see definition at

What upset you most about this case?

I am most upset that a loving and social dog, Bogart, had to be euthanized. I urge ALL dog
owners to join to association Fairdog, and to actively work to abolish this horrible Law on
Canines. It has been the cause of many sleepless nights for me and my family, as well as
enormous amounts of psychological strain and the general degradation of our health. Apart
from that, it has cost us a lot of money.

Case to conclusion

The court in Glostrup acquitted Steen, and said that it was to be expected (natural behavior)
that a dog would bite if pushed or stepped on. They also concluded that Steen could have done
nothing to prevent a bite, since the lady had overlooked Bogart and gotten too close.
Bogart did bite. This was not an attack, but a bite, and yet the police have assessed it as a
vicious bite attack, due to the stitches that the injured party received. The reasons behind
the stitches, or the bite, were never called into question. The police did not investigate
why a doctor chose to stitch the wound, nor did the injured party offer the information that
she used blood thinning medications. Not until Charlotte from Fairdog raised the question,
did anyone consider that blood thinning medications played a role in this case.
Definition of a vicious bite attack, according to the law:
If the animal or person requires medical assistance (most cases do, due to insurance claims,
police reports, tetanus vaccines, injury or other). Vicious bite is defined by injuries
requiring stitches. Children are usually stitched in bite related injuries, while adults are
usually not stitched due to the danger of infection. A vicious bite attack is not defined by
a single bite, as this is defined as a warning. Dogs that bite viciously, bite more than

fredag den 11. januar 2013

The story of Anton by Charlotte Laursen,owner


Translated by Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

Wednesday evening:
Carsten was out for his usual evening walk with ”Anton”. At one point he came home, covered
in blood. At first, I though he may have fallen off his bicycle, but that was not the case.
He had a large gash and a bite wounds in one of his fingers. We rinsed the blood off and
wrapped the finger in paper towels, as Carsten prepared for a trip to the emergency room in
Glostrup. While doing so, Casten told me shortly that our dog had been in a fight with
another dog, but he didn’t have time to go into detail. My oldest son had been startled and
was pretty shook up, so he wanted to go to the hospital with his dad, in case there was
anything he could do to help.
Carsten and our son had just gotten into the car, when “J” came into the drive on his bicycle.
The car door had not yet been closed, and “J” grabbed onto it while speaking to Carsten
through the opening. I couldn’t hear what they were saying, but I could see by his face, that
“J” was angry. As he spotted me in the kitchen window, “J” let go of the door and came into
the house to me, where he preceded to act in a threatening manner towards me and Anton. Anton
lay quietly on his pillow by the door, just watching us.
We had company that evening, and I asked our guest to remain in the kitchen because “J” was
very aggressive and yelling oudly. He repeatedly yelled that we had a vicious dog, that we
had to pay for damages, and that he would bring the bill up to the house. He asked if we were
insured, and I told him that, yes, we had the statutory insurance. My answer was not enough
to satisfy him, because he then told me he wanted cash when he brought the bill. This was a
little incomprehensible to me and I answered that I knew nothing of what was going on. I
promised him that I would send Carsten by to talk about it, once he had returned from the
hospital. “J” left, but was very angry.
Let it be known, that he does not know my dog, who is neither vicious nor aggressive…
After about an hour, “B” comes by to tell me that it was necessary for them to leave their dog
with the vet. It needed to have its’ ear stitched and the bill would be 8000 DKK, which she
expected us to pay. At no point did she ask how Carsten and his finger were doing, nor did
she ask if Anton was unscathed. She wanted me to tell Carsten to come to their house
immediately after he came home, but I told her that he would only come by that evening if it
were not too late, and if he were not in too much pain. Could he not come by that night, he
would come by the following day instead. “B” remarked that we should treat them politely,
which once again left me baffled. At no point had I spoken harshly or rudely – quite to the
contrary, in fact. I didn’t want to say too much, or the wrong thing, since I had not been a
witness to what had happened. What I HAD noticed, was that Anton had some bite marks on his
leg. The bites didn’t seem too serious, and I would treat them myself, rather than bring him
to the vet.
The next day, Carsten went to the house of “J” and “B”, but after speaking with “B”, they
reached no agreement.
They don’t accept that they are partly at fault. We don’t disclaim responsibility. Yes, our
dog bit their dog – but only after their dog came sprinting out of their house on a dark
night, and attacking our dog.

This is not the first time their dog has left their property and come out onto the street!
We know, and they know, that our dogs don’t get along. We have been lucky those earlier times
that their dog has come out onto the street, either through their hedge or through the door.
They cannot call the dog back, but have to physically retieve it.
A few days after this incident, their dog was once again past the boundaries of their
poroperty. They had no fence, and they still don’t! Our dog never crossed their property
line, but was attacked on the street.

We are a family who find this situation incomprehensible, and we feel that our sense of
justice has been violated. The fact that Carsten was bit in the finger by their dog has been
completely overlooked. Our children are very affected by this case and coming home to an
empty house every day. Some days they can’t manage to go to school because of headaches or
tummy-aches, and we spend hours consoling them. We all miss Anton very much!
Police district Vestegnen mention in a letter, that our dog attacked the other dog without
provocation or motivation. That is just not true! Our dog felt threated as it was attacked
from behind. I think anybody, person or dog, would have reacted in the same manner Anton did.
If I come walking down a dark lane and someone comes quickly at me from behind, snorting and
panting, I would defend myself.

We live in a small town and I have heard from several people that it was just a matter of time
before a case like this arose, since it is not the first time that their dog has come onto
public property unattended – either through the house or the hedge. Unfortunately, those same
people will not bear witness, as they know the family and do not wish to get caught in the
middle of this case.
I would be very saddened and disheartened if another family has to live through this
experience, but unfortunately I am convinced that history will repeat itself if they do not
fence their yard, since they have no control over the dog otherwise.

If a German Sheppard bites a Pomeranian to death, the deed may go unpunished. Why is it then,
that Anton is condemned to death for defending himself against a dog known vicious?

onsdag den 9. januar 2013

The case about Chronic


Translated by Heidi Burks

Chronic has been sentenced for euthanasia.

Not because he bit someone, but because he ran out of his yard twice, and he did not wear a muzzle!!

This should at the most give you a fine NOT euthanasia.

The case is being appealed

Here by the way is an answer from Nordsjællands Police regarding a question I had, related to a different case

It's the case, that if you own a illegal breed or a mix of these breeds - »§ 1 a - born before March 17, 2010 the dog when in public, must wear a leash and a secured muzzle. Breaking this general injunction - see § 3, part 4 and 5 - will be fined at DKK 3000,-
At this point in time there is no precedent for multiple infractions of this injunction.

As most of you in our dog community are aware of, another dog has been taken, even though it didn't do anything other, than to run outside the fence to great another dog.
There has been 2 situations, respectively in October and Novermber 2011.
Both times the gate had not been secured good enough, but the fence is legal, because it's 2m high.
Both times he ran out to greet the same dog.

Then what happens, is that the owner of the other dog contacts the police, and claims that Chronic has bitten her dog.
Neither of the times have the owners of Chronic noticed any bites, the dog seems normal and comes happily up to great the owners of Chronic, and likewise there has been no notice from the insurance company, where you would normally send the bill do to bites.
I would assume, that even with a small bite you would go to the vet, to get medication against any infections etc.
Both times by the way, it's the same story: that it ran out of the gate and unprovoked bit her dog.

The first time on the side, and the second time in the head, but the problem is that there are no damages, and no mention of mauling and it's only mauling that would cause the dog to be euthanized.

If it's only about some nicks, then a vast majority of the dogs where I live would have to be euthanized, because folks don't have control of them, and no it's not the banned breeds, it's labradors, shepherds, danish swedish terrier etc., but I don't hate them for that reason, and I know for sure that the police don't do anything about it in my area.

Regardless, the police choose to react, sending a notice where it stated the injunction to wear a muzzle and leash, due to the incident, but at no time did they write that they would come and take the dog. It states in the law already, that since he is an american staffordshire terrier, he must wear a muzzle and a leash being walked, but it IS an accident that he runs out of the yard, and he is not the only dog in Denmark who has done that.
Same thing happened with a labrador in 2011
Unfortunately this labrador killed the other dog.
Outcome leash law

Furthermore the police have NOT contacted the owners about wanting to pick Chronic up.
They just showed up and picked him up, and the owners weren't even home, when they picked him up.
This means, that she did not even have the possibility to prove her dogs innocence regarding the bite.
That's why we have the law of coercive measures.

Chronic is of no danger to himself or others, and therefore does not belong under the category, where they can just seize him.

IN ADDITION, I find it DEEPLY disturbing, that the police creates a case without evidence, and decide to pick him up.
Are you know to be judged in Denmark without proof??
Is the police to be outside the law and make stuff up?

Througout time I have read about many dogs, who got out by accident, and they where not picked up by the police, on the contrary they where returned if they where found....
That it happens so many months after, should make people wonder.

It makes me wonder!

From Fair Dog a big thank you

Fair Dog Denmark would like to send our thanks and gratitude to everyone who has supported us and the dogs in Denmark, and specially in the case of Pako and Thor.
As most you already know, Thor is still alive and will be kept alive until the court in Odense has made a new expert opinion about Thor.
At this moment we don't know when that will happen, and if Thor will be allowed to live after the new examination. We hope he will and we will fight for him till justice prevails.
We would also like to state and emphasise, that the case about Thor is ONLY about the Danish dog act § 1a and b, NOT about Bite.
We are aware that the press and some others has written about an bite incident, but Thor's case is solely about his breed and that the police thinks he is a forbidden breed.
As soon as we know any further we will inform all of you at our facebook site 
and on the sites of all of our cooperating groups and
The cooperating groups and organisations are:
Andrea Kdolsky
Dogs Guard
Stop Killing Dogs
Initiativ mod diskrimination af hund e.V.
Muskelhundeskal forblive i Danmark
Menschen Tiere Werte
Protest imod hundeloven
Hundeloven en ommer
Charlotte Andersson
Chairman of Fair Dog Denmark

Berigtigelse - Sagen om hunden Thor
Foreningen Fair Dog vil for god ordens skyld gerne understrege, at sagen om hunden Thor udelukkende omhandler hundelovens § 1 a og b ( forbudt hunderace ).
Vi finder det yderst uheldigt at der florere så mange urigtige oplysninger omkring Thor's sag.
Sagen omhandler IKKE en bid episode/bid dvs. en overtrædelse af hundelovens § 6 stk 2 eller 5.
Vi har fuld forståelse for at Mariann Højsgaard gerne vil fortælle sin historie til TV 2 Nyhederne,
TV 2 Fyn og Fyens Stiftidende, og vi finder det beklagelig at hun føler at hun har oplevet en ubehagelig episode.
Men vi vil gerne understrege at sagen om Thor, på ingen måde omhandler en episode med hendes hund og Thor.
Sagen omhandler alene hunderace spørgsmålet, og derfor finder vi det rigtig ærgerligt at der sker en sammenblanding – Thor står ALENE til aflivning på grund af hundelovens § 1a og b.
Rigspolitiets afgørelse;
Charlotte Andersson
Formand for Foreningen Fair Dog

The owner got to see his dog who is condemned to death

Translation by Heidi Burks and Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen
The owner of Thor was Monday allowed a visit with his condemned dog – the first visit in more
than 3 months.
Police district Fyn had stated that Thor would be euthanized Monday at 2:00 pm. According to
the police, the dog contains American Staffordshire terrier, which is a banned breed in

Thor was confiscated September 23rd, 2012, after a fight with a dachshund.
After the decision was made, to postpone the euthanasia, the owner, Leslie Jørgensen, was
allowed to see Thor.

Under big media attention, Leslie Jørgensen was led into the yard at Kennel Lykkegården in
Middelfart. Soon after, Thor was released into the yard to meet his owner.
After 3 months of separation, Thor seemingly found it a little difficult to recognize his
owner. After a few minutes, however, Leslie Jørgensen received a loving reception from his

Leslie Jørgensen states that: “He is just a sweet and loving dog, and I find it completely
unreasonable that he should be euthanized, based on a belief that he contains a banned breed”.
According to the Law on Canines, it is up to the owner to prove that his dog does not contain
any of the 13 banned breeds.

“We have had independent experts on this case, to evaluate the breed mix, and they don’t
believe that Thor contains any banned breeds. I can’t do more than that. Regardless, the
police can still euthanize my dog, because I don’t know his pedigree”, says Leslie Jørgensen.
Leslie has support from the association Fair Dog, who are fighting the Breed Selective
Legislation contained within the Law on Canines.

“Now we hope the court in Odense will have an independent expert evaluate Thor, so that we may
partially or fully determine whether Thor contains any of the banned breeds”, says Xenia
Zingenberg, attorney for Fair Dog.
Thor will stay at Kennel Lykkegården until such time that the courts reach a decision whether
to euthanize him.

Ejer hilste på dødsdømt hund

Hunden Thors ejer fik mandag lov at hilse på sin dødsdømte hund for første gang i over tre måneder.
Fyns Politi havde ellers bebudet, at Thor skulle aflives mandag klokken 14, da politiet mener, at hunden er en Amstaff-blanding, som figurerer på listen over ulovlige hunderacer.
Hunden blev beslaglagt 23. september efter et slagsmål med en gravhund.
Efter beslutningen om at udskyde aflivningen fik ejeren Leslie Jørgensen i stedet lov at hilse på Thor.
Under stor pressebevågenhed blev Leslie Jørgensen lukket ind på dyreinternattet Lykkegården i Middelfart, hvor Thor efter et stykke tid kom ud til sin ejer i gården.


Efter tre måneders adskillelse kunne Thor dog ikke umiddelbart kende sin ejer, men efter lidt tid fik Leslie Jørgensen en kærlig modtagelse af sin hund.
- Han er bare en sød og kærlig hund, og jeg synes det er helt urimligt, at han skal aflives fordi politiet tror han er en en ulovlig race, siger Leslie Jørgensen.
I følge hundeloven er det op til ejeren at bevise, at hunden ikke er en af de 14 ulovlige racer.
- Vi har haft uvildige eksperter på, og de mener ikke at Thor er en ulovlig race. Mere kan jeg ikke gøre, og så kan politiet bare aflive min hund blot fordi jeg ikke har en stamtavle, siger Leslie Jørgensen.
Leslie Jørgensen har fået opbakning fra foreningen Fair Dog, der kæmper mod hundeloven.
- Nu håber vi at Odense ret vil holde syn og skøn over Thor, så vi kan få fastslået racen helt eller delvist, og få klarlagt om den har nogle af de ulovlige racer i sig, siger jurist Xenia Zingenberg fra Fair Dog.
Thor skal blive på Lykkegården indtil retten i Odense har taget stilling til om hunden skal aflives.

note fra blogejer: det er 13 racer ikke 14 der er forbudte

mandag den 7. januar 2013

Politician Dennis Flydtkjær takes a stand

private note: his termination has been postponed. this is an article just before the decision to postpone it.

translation by Dorte Møller Jakobsen

the dog Thor must after a long time with disagreement , between his owner and the police has now come to an end. The police has today this afternoon at 14,00.desided to put Thor down. Thor came on 23 last September in a fight with the dachshund Mudi. Both dogs escaped unharmed from the fight, but the police took it as an attack from Thor's side, the dog was placed in custody for later to be put down. The police believes that Thor, was a mix dog with the genes of Amstaff mix - and therefore figures in the list of illegal dog breeds.

The dog's owner, Leslie Jorgensen, claiming that his dog is not a Amstaff mix. According to him, the dog is a mix of an Olde English Bulldog and a Mastiff Mallorca - and all three independent experts agree with him.

Society Fair Dog decided to send a request in to the Court in Odense to get court order to have an independent expert to examine whether Thor belong to the list or not. But the association has not yet heard from the court, and the police are not going to wait for answers. They still want to put the dog down as planned.

Animal welfare Rapport: It is a very unfortunate case

The Story of Thor has awaked many people - among Danish People's Party animal welfare spokesman Mr. Dennis Flydtkjær:

- I think it's a really unfortunate case when one chooses to say that a dog to be killed simply because it's the wrong race - and this despite the fact that three dogs experts unanimously say that this is not one of the dogs appearing on the list of illegal racing.

- If there is to be no legal certainty for dog owners, then this matter has to stop, so the dog will not be put down before the case has had final decision on what kind of dog actually he is, Mr. D. Fyldtkjær says to

'Alarm bells should ring at the police'

Despite the fact that the current dog law indicates that the burden of proof lies with the dog owner if the police suspect that a dog belongs to the list of illegal racing, Mr. Flydtkjær think that the police need to wake up.

- When there are three independent dog expert who said that this dog does not belong to the list, so I think that there should ring some alarm bells with the police. At the same time there are running a court case, and the dog owner might win, then it's too late if he wins, as is the dog could already be put down.

Danish People's Party animal welfare politician believes that there are a number of challenges on the dogs act - and especially one of them he does not like at all:

- There are clearly a number of challenges by the dog ​​law, and therefore I would also urge the government to get it evaluated already now . One thing that does not work in the dog law is precisely that the law give no certainty for dog owners. It is worrying that you can not challenge his case in court before the police step in and kill the dog.

The Minister of Justice must get into action

He believes that minister of Justice Morten Bødskov (S) must be in on this case and its proceedings

- The Minister of Justice must send a message to the police that it is simply not ok to kill a dog while the case still going on. The Minister of Justice must, as the heads of the police inform the police that enough is enough , and the party stops now.

Dogs Act, which came into force in 2010, should be revised in the course of 2013

Hunden Thor skal efter længere tids tovtrækkeri mellem ejeren og politiet aflives i dag senest klokken 14.

Thor kom den 23. september sidste år op at slås med gravhunden Mudi. Begge hunde slap uskadt fra slåskampen, men da politiet opfattede det som et angreb fra Thors side, blev hunden sat i forvaring med henblik på senere aflivning. Politiet mener nemlig, at Thor, som er en blandingshund, er en Amstaff-blanding - og derfor figurer på listen over ulovlige hunderacer.

Hundens ejer, Leslie Jørgensen, hævder at hans hund aldeles ikke er en Amstaff-blanding. Ifølge ham er hunden en blanding af en Olde English Bulldog og en Mallorca Mastiff - og hele tre uvildige eksperter giver ham ret.

Foreningen Fair Dog har for at redde Thor valgt at sende en anmodning ind til Retten i Odense for at få rettens ord for, at endnu en uvildig ekspert kan undersøge om Thor hører til på listen eller ej. Men foreningen har endnu ikke hørt fra retten, og politiet har ikke tænkt sig at vente på svar.

Dyrevelfærdsordfører: Det er en meget uheldig sag

Historien om Thor har fået mange op af stolen - her i blandt Dansk Folkepartis dyrevelfærdsordfører Dennis Flydtkjær:

- Jeg synes, at det er en rigtig uheldig sag, når man vælger at sige, at en hund skal aflives alene fordi, det er en forkert race - og det på trods af at tre hundesagkyndige enstemmigt siger, at det her ikke er en af de hunde, der figurerer på listen over de ulovlige racer.

- Hvis der skal være noget retssikkerhed for hundeejere, så skal denne her sag stoppes, så hunden ikke bliver aflivet, inden der er kommet en endelig afgørelse på, hvilken slags hunderace der faktisk er tale om, siger han til

'Alarmklokkerne burde ringe hos politiet'

På trods af at den nuværende hundelov angiver at bevisbyrden ligger hos hundeejeren, hvis politiet har en formodning om, at en hund hører til på listen over ulovlige racer, så mener Flydtkjær, at politiet skal vågne op.

- Når der er tre uafhængige hundesagkyndige, der har sagt, at denne hund ikke hører til på listen, så synes jeg, at der burde ringe nogle alarmklokker hos politiet. Når der samtidig kører en sag, og hundeejeren måske vinder, så er det jo for sent, for så er hunden jo aflivet.

Dansk Folkepartis dyrevelfærdsordfører mener, at der er en række udfordringer ved hundeloven - og specielt én af dem går ham på:

- Der er helt klart en række udfordringer ved hundeloven, og derfor vil jeg også opfordre regeringen til at få den evalueret allerede nu. En ting der ikke fungerer i hundeloven er jo netop denne her retssikkerhed for hundeejerne. Det er betænkeligt at man ikke kan få prøvet sin sag i retten, inden politiet skrider ind og afliver hunden.

Justitsministeren må banke i bordet

Han mener, at Justitsminister Morten Bødskov (S) må på banen i sagen:

- Justitsministeren må sende en besked til politiet om, at det simpelthen ikke er ok at aflive en hund, mens sagen endnu ikke er afgjort. Justitsministeren må som den øverst ansvarlige for politiet banke i bordet og sige, at nu stopper festen altså.

Hundeloven, som trådte i kraft i 2010, skal revideres i løbet af 2013.

For the sake of Thor

Translation by Jette Navntoft

The Danish dog Thor is supposed to be put to sleep today and that has caused a tremendios attention both among the danes but also abroad
The german princess and animal lover Maja von Hochenzollern has written a personal letter to the Danish Police force, begging them to save his life
She writes:
"please don´t start the new year by killing an innocent dog....his life is in your hands...
People from Denmark, Germany,Austria and all over the World has asked me to join this touch my Heart deeply and I ´m begging you to save him
The Danish Union, Fair Dog is also fighting to save Thor`s life and they are extremly pleased that the german princess has joined the cause. The more attention this case gets the better says Charlotte Fabis the chairman of the union

In september last year Thor and a smaller dog had a fight...Instead of looking into what happend the police decieded that Thor is the wrong breed and should be put to sleep
They believe that some of the breeds in him should be the American staffordshire Terrier...a breed thas has been banned in Dk since july the 1st 2010. The owner claims the breeds are O E B and bull mastiff....three Experts in dog breeds has confirmed that

Thor was supposed to be put to sleep today at 2 pm, but due to all the attention this has caused ,the act is delayed...This is no longer "just about Thor" but also about the law and legal rights...the police is going to reconsider what`s goin to happen to him


Mandag d. 7. jan. 2013 kl. 11:12 af Anne Schøning Christensen, ansc@tv2.dkfor TV 2 Nyhederne
Maja von Hohenzollerne
At den danske hund Thor risikerer at blive aflivet har i den grad fået opmærksom blandt danskerne.

Også i udlandet har sagen skabt debat, og nu melder den tyske prinsesse og dyreven Maja von Hohenzollern sig på banen.
I et brev beder hun det danske politi om at lade hunden leve.
- Jeg appellerer til Dem om at redde Thors liv. Lad Thor leve og begynd ikke det nye år med drabet på et uskyldigt dyr. Hans liv er i jeres hænder, skriver prinsessen i brevet.
- Mange mennesker fra Danmark, Tyskland, Østrig og andre lande bad mig om hjælp i Thors sag. Personligt er jeg også dybt rørt over denne hunds skæbne. Jeg beder jer derfor indtrængende om at lade Thor leve, skriver hun videre.
For foreningen Fair Dog, der er gået i ind i Thors sag, betyder den tyske prinsesses appel til politiet meget.
- Det er ekstremt vigtigt. Jo mere opmærksomhed sagen kan få, jo bedre er det, siger formand Charlotte Andersson til
Politiet tøver med aflivning
Thor kom den 23. september sidste år op at slås med gravhunden Mudi. Politiet opfattede det som et angreb fra Thors side, og hunden blev sat i forvaring med henblik på senere aflivning.
Politiet mener nemlig, at Thor er en Amstaff-blanding, og derfor figurerer på listen over ulovlige hunderacer.
Hundens ejer, Leslie Jørgensen, hævder at hans hund ikke er en Amstaff-blanding. Ifølge ham er hunden en blanding af en Olde English Bulldog og en Mallorca Mastiff. Det har hele tre uvildige eksperter givet ham ret i.
Det blev i første omgang meldt ud, at Thor skulle aflives i dag (mandag, red.) klokken 14.
Men politiassistent ved Fyns Politi, Niels Bo Søndergaard, siger til, at det ikke er sikkert.
"Det er lidt en prøvesag det her. Der er både nogle praktiske, men også juridiske ting, der skal vurderes igen, lyder det fra politiassistenten.
Hvornår og om aflivningen i det hele taget kommer til at finde sted, kan Niels Bo Søndergaard endnu ikke sige.