Mail send to politicians.....

Written by Theresa Kjær

Translated by Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

Fanbookpage http://www.facebook.com/BSL.Denmark

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
courts.
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.

Biting:
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
infection.

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:
http://dyresnak.blogspot.dk/2012/11/fakta-over-fiktion.html

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

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

for more info visit

http://www.facebook.com/BSL.Denmark

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

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

BSL - Vigilante Police in Holstebro

Written by Charlotte Andersson
Translated by Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

visit our fanpage on facebook 

http://www.facebook.com/BSL.Denmark

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
necessary.”

The case about Chronic

UPDATE FEBRUARY 24, 2012

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!

source http://dyresnak.blogspot.dk/2012/02/sagen-om-chronoc.html

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 https://www.facebook.com/Foreningen.Fairdog 

and on the sites of all of our cooperating groups and
organisations.
The cooperating groups and organisations are:
Andrea Kdolsky
Dogs Guard
WAHRO
Stop Killing Dogs
Initiativ mod diskrimination af hund e.V.
DOGnews
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