Viser opslag med etiketten dogs. Vis alle opslag
Viser opslag med etiketten dogs. Vis alle opslag

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
necessary.”



fredag den 11. januar 2013

The story of Anton by Charlotte Laursen,owner

Anton

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.

Note:
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


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!





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