# Lennox



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

Has anyone been following the case of Lennox? Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More Because the dog looked like he might be part pit bull he was taken from his family. Absolutly no history of aggression. They have kept Lennox for 2 years as appeals have been made. The family lost their fight and Lennox is scheduled to be pts. Some people have offered to take Lennox in and get him out of that country, including Cesar Milan as well as another famous dog trainer, but the country would have none of it. (I believe this is in Ireland, but I'm not sure) The family had asked to say good bye to their dog after they lost all the appeals, again a no, as well as being told no to having his body/ashes. Please say a prayer for Lennox and his family.


----------



## robfromga (May 10, 2012)

Savages.

We're from the government and we're here to help. Our GSD could be next, or Doberman or any breed we think is bad. What a total crock of crap. How can anyone be so cold and cruel? The human race is slinking backwards again. 

My God smile on you Lennox, you and all the other dogs killed for nothing. May you find solitude and peace. I pray for you to be strong and your end to be quick. May God watch over you. And the wrath of God those that have done you wrong.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

What possible purpose can it serve to deny his ashes to his family? That's just cruel.


----------



## PatchonGSD (Jun 27, 2012)

paulag1955 said:


> What possible purpose can it serve to deny his ashes to his family? That's just cruel.


Beyond cruel.....I cant believe they lost all the appeals....I really thought the family would prevail with all the international attention and support


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

The link doesn't take me anywhere, so I don't know anything other than what you said... but denying someone the right to say good bye is nothing more than control gone amuk. Cruel. Wish I could see the story? Anyone have a good link?


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

I have seen it all over fb. Apparently Victoria Stillwell has offered to take him, CM, another trainer in NJ...it is ridiculous. There is thought that he was probably euthanized or got sick and died awhile back or was just not taken care of and is in poor health and that is why the family has been denied the opportunity to say good bye or to be given his body. From what I understand there haven't even been any recent pictures of him recently. 

Whole thing is just horrible and cruel. Just continues to degrade what little faith I had in the human race as a whole.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

Wow, I've missed all of this, never saw it on my fb. To have all those trainers ready to stand up and take the dog and to be denied? I don't understand that.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

This was pasted on to the GSDC page. I guess it is going to happen tomorrow 7a UK time. Which is probably about now. RIP Lennox. 



> *"At 7 am tomorrow morning, U.K. time, Lennox will be murdered. Our hearts break, not only for his family's loss, but for the loss of so many who fought for his life and against BSL, in general. It is too much to face right now, seeing so many of our friends and colleagues in the fight for nonhuman animals, break down in tears. We will continue to fight and we will not let Lennox leave this world as a silenced voice. We will not forget this and it will never be forgiven. Tonight, we are asking for one more push to save Lennox. We know everyone is exhausted, and we know everyone is breaking in tears, we all are..and so we ask, one last time, for one hard push, to save Lennox from execution. We ask everyone to Twitter, status, go on every social site you have and shout out for Lennox to live. We ask for one last stand for Lennox. In Unity." ~Save Lennox*






Human beings suck so much sometimes.


----------



## tank101 (Mar 30, 2012)

I just read on FB around 3 a.m.( now 3:50) that in a few minutes he was to be PTS. 


*Victoria Stilwell just tweeted, "Just heard from the family that Lennox is due to be put down at 7am, in a few moments time. Shame on @belfastcc" 
*



R.I.P Lennox. This makes me wonder though. How many other dogs have been taken away like that? Even here in the states?


----------



## jetscarbie (Feb 29, 2008)

So sad! Personally, I think the coucil had him put down awhile ago, which would explain why they dug their heels in. I've read some articles where the workers were getting their tires slashed and threathing mail in their mailboxes with gas on them.




> HOPES of saving a beloved pet came to a tragic end this morning as Lennox was put to sleep despite worldwide outrage at his treatment.
> Animal lovers on both sides of the Atlantic have been left heartbroken by the tragic story of Lennox, who was taken from his loving family two years ago, despite professionals saying that he does not pose a risk.
> 
> This morning Belfast City Council confirmed in a statement that Lennox had been "humanely" destroyed.
> ...


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I think that this is the future of BSL that none of its supporters will admit. Poorly worded legislation and a vague description are all that stand between our dogs and death. I've seen so many proposals that actually say "..or any dog resembling...." Honestly? 
I have people who are still convinced that Singe is a coyote and you think that the public knows how to tell a pit bull from a bulldog??


----------



## Beau (Feb 12, 2012)

Horrible story.....

Here's more info, including a picture of the dog...

Lennox the dog is executed Belfast City Council has confirmed | Irish News and Politics spanning the US, Ireland and the World | IrishCentral


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

BBC News - Pit bull-type dog Lennox put down, council confirms
My husband just texted me he was put down last night so sad, BSL is more dangerous than people realize, it will not stop with pits.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

Something is telling me they put him down ages ago and didn't want to admit it after seeing the world's reaction. They never provided pictures of him or let the family see him. Something just isn't right here.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

Either put him down or died from neglect. If you look at the still from the video they released he was in pretty poor shape. Stillwell pointed that out back then that he had hair loss, sores on his body, and possibly even a neck and foot injury. If you combine all of that with the nasty kennel he was living in, he very well could have died from something else awhile back. 

That would explain the lack of recent pictures, why they won't give the family the bodies and if he has long been disposed of then there are no ashes left to give he family now, so they can't even do that.


----------



## mssandslinger (Sep 21, 2010)

im so disgusted with the whole thing


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

I'll be the bad guy-- because I haven't had enough time to do any real research on this issue.



Pitbulls and "pitbull type dogs" are illegal in Belfast due to BSL.
This lady decided to attempt to own one, got caught, and the dog was confiscated.
The vets on staff determined the dog was "unpredictable" and therefore ineligible for release into the "exemption program."
I'm all for pitbull advocacy, and 100% against BSL-- however, the "facts" (as best as being reported from the BBC) do not bode well for the owner. In all countries there are laws, and consequences for breaking the laws.

Are there any legit sources that prove this dog _isn't_ (wasn't) a menace to public safety?

*[EDIT]-* why was the dog confiscated in the first place? Did Animal Control just happen to be driving by the front yard, slam on the brakes, jump out with their dog catcher poles, and scream, "That's a pittie! It's coming with us!" Or was there a real reason (perhaps unreported even) that the dog gained the attention of the authorities in the first place?

*[EDIT x2]-* I had also read (can't find the link) that they did DNA testing to try to prove Lennox wasn't a bully breed, but that the courts rejected it as evidence. Having a _very_ strong pitbull advocacy group here in Indy, I know quite well that such groups LOVE to apply DNA testing as evidence in the face of BSL. But we all know and have seen plenty of reports of the inconsistency and poor results of testing. I personally think that pushing the DNA issue is a non-argument. I think the courts did the right thing in this case regarding the disallowance of the DNA results as evidence.

(BTW- I love my local pittie advocacy group. Wonderful people who do great work!)


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

wildo said:


> I'll be the bad guy-- because I haven't had enough time to do any real research on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Italians Demand Clemency For Lennox | North Country Gazette

He was a bulldog mix, not a pitbull. He never bit anyone. And even if he was an illegally owned pitbull, why on earth would they choose to kill him instead of letting another country take care of him? Several people stepped up and offered to pay all fees associated with getting him overseas and they refused.


----------



## Bridget (Apr 5, 2004)

So sad.


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

wildo said:


> I'll be the bad guy-- because I haven't had enough time to do any real research on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really need to read the whole story

To summarize, the dog was 5 years old, microchipped and DNA registered as a Labrador/American bull dog mix. There were NO complaints, AC just showed up, sat and chatted and even smoked with the family. Finally one guy takes a measuring tape and measures his height and nose and declares he falls under the parameters and he's taken away in their truck

After TWO YEARS of legal battles and hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions and even Cesar Millan who is famous for both dealing with "pit bulls" and the like and rehabbing dangerous dogs offered to take the dog to the US. 

As for the "dangerous dog" the dog warden was caught on several photos playing and hugging him then in court declares he's dangerous. How does that make sense?

The whole thing stinks so badly there's no way to stomach it


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

ladyfreckles said:


> And even if he was an illegally owned pitbull, why on earth would they choose to kill him instead of letting another country take care of him? Several people stepped up and offered to pay all fees associated with getting him overseas and they refused.


I'll have to read your link at a later time. However- regarding this stuff in your quote-

LOTS of people request to pay for military working dogs, for medical aid, for transport home, for all kinds of stuff- yet in most cases, the military doesn't allow it according to their policies. It matters not that people are willing to pay for all that stuff- there are still policies in place and _massive_ bureaucracy surrounding those policies. I can't imagine it is any different in Belfast. If they don't like it- they need to vote on new policies...


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Shade- do you have references for those things you mentioned? I'd like to read them in order to refine my opinion.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

Wow. I knew he had offers in the US. I didn't realize other countries as well had stepped up to take him. The whole thing is sad and tragic and disgusting.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

This article certainly paints a different picture...
Lennox, death row Belfast dog attracts worldwide attention | Irish News and Politics spanning the US, Ireland and the World | IrishCentral



> The story of how Lennox ended up on death row started back on May 19, 2010, when Belfast City Council dog wardens called at the Barnes home for a routine check regarding an expired license. Senior dog warden Alexandra Lightfoot noted that the pitbull was acting aggressively and claimed that the dog was "bounding on all fours" and hit her in the face with his muzzled jaw, sending Lightfoot crashing to the ground. The dog was taken to council kennels.​




​


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

wildo said:


> Shade- do you have references for those things you mentioned? I'd like to read them in order to refine my opinion.


Sure, here are a few just from google

Save Lennox Campaign Fails, 7-Year-Old Dog Put to Sleep After Massive Online Outcry


The official US site

http://savelennox.com/

The official campaign facebook page

www.facebook.com/The*Lennox*Campaign

Twitter

twitter.com/*SaveLennox*

*Others*

The Millan Foundation Joins Fight to Save Lennox | Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan

The Save Lennox Petition

Northern Ireland's First Minister Peter Robinson steps in to save Lennox the dog - Telegraph


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

wildo said:


> Shade- do you have references for those things you mentioned? I'd like to read them in order to refine my opinion.



Thousands try to save Lennox the dog | HLNtv.com


Lennox, Belfast Dog, To Be Put To Sleep For Resembling Pit Bull

Animal Planet star swoops in to save Lennox the dog

Can international campaign save Lennox the dog? - Channel 4 News


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

All of those links are just advocacy groups. Where are the references for:



Shade said:


> and DNA registered as a Labrador/American bull dog mix.


This site states that he was "a cross between an American Bulldog, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and a Labrador." Why did you omit the Staffordshire Bull Terrier from your list? That would in fact make him for all intents and purposes a "pitbull" as most people define the term.



Shade said:


> There were NO complaints, AC just showed up, sat and chatted and even smoked with the family. Finally one guy takes a measuring tape and measures his height and nose and declares he falls under the parameters and he's taken away in their truck


Again- is there evidence for this? This site is claiming that he was muzzled and jumping on the dog warden to the point of knocking her over. Doesn't really sound like a nice time for a chat and smoke.



Shade said:


> After TWO YEARS of legal battles and hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions and even Cesar Millan who is famous for both dealing with "pit bulls" and the like and rehabbing dangerous dogs offered to take the dog to the US.


As I mentioned earlier- if the government doesn't have a policy in place allowing them to release the dog to an outside party (JUST like Military Working Dogs) then it's not going to happen- regardless of how famous the person is.



Shade said:


> As for the "dangerous dog" the dog warden was caught on several photos playing and hugging him then in court declares he's dangerous.


I haven't been able to locate this photo. Do you have a reference?

____________
There's always two sides of a story. In the case of one of the most advocated breed types of all kinds- bully breeds- and the fight against BSL, there's no question this was going to get heated. But certainly this dog was not just sitting there minding his own business when all of a sudden he's swooped up into doggie jail... I find that pretty far fetched.


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

Thanks Debbie, I'm at work so I'm limited at the moment

I live in Ontario where there's already a breed ban on them, so I understand what it's like to live in a area where there's a BSL. In my opinion it *does not work* There are too many clauses and poor wording even in our section to allow it to be used properly. I've seen in the dog park several "pit bull types" running around offleash and unmuzzled, why are those owners even opening themselves us to the legal battle, it baffles me. One phone call and they'd be up to their ears in trouble

If you are going to own a "dangerous" breed (even a GSD is banned in certain parts of the world) I understand you need to research and be careful. My sister and brother in law are looking at getting a Dogo and it's a banned breed in many areas, I told them it's just not worth the legal hassle

The fact that there were SO many other options and they resorted to euthanasia is just sickening. All they had to do to save face was allow Lennox to leave the country but they refused. Why didn't they choose any other option? Only a small handful of people know the truth. Was he actually already dead before today? By their own LAW (which got them into this whole mess in the first place) they were not allowed to euthanize him until today. Why did they not let the family have one last visit, just to say goodbye? Was he in such poor health that it would have caused even bigger issues? Why would they not even release the body to them? Why do they need to cremate and release "some ashes" to the family 

These are the questions that need to be answered before the issue can be placed to rest, poor Lennox deserves justice for his mistreatment and his family deserve answers. I hope one day they get them


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

wildo said:


> All of those links are just advocacy groups. Where are the references for:
> 
> 
> This site states that he was "a cross between an American Bulldog, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and a Labrador." Why did you omit the Staffordshire Bull Terrier from your list? That would in fact make him for all intents and purposes a "pitbull" as most people define the term.


There are more sites stating he was simply a Labrador/American Bulldog mix, yes some add in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier but it's not consistant so I'm going with the majority. I'm no expert and I haven't seen the actual results so I'm basing my comment on what has been reported. If I'm wrong, then it's not just me that's being misled



wildo said:


> Again- is there evidence for this? This site is claiming that he was muzzled and jumping on the dog warden to the point of knocking her over. Doesn't really sound like a nice time for a chat and smoke.


The story is laid out in great detail on the main website



wildo said:


> As I mentioned earlier- if the government doesn't have a policy in place allowing them to release the dog to an outside party (JUST like Military Working Dogs) then it's not going to happen- regardless of how famous the person is.


It's not how famous the person is that matters, Cesar Millan is famous because of what he does. Victoria Stillwell even had the owners consent to take him in if the courts allowed it. 




wildo said:


> I haven't been able to locate this photo. Do you have a reference?














wildo said:


> ____________
> There's always two sides of a story. In the case of one of the most advocated breed types of all kinds- bully breeds- and the fight against BSL, there's no question this was going to get heated. But certainly this dog was not just sitting there minding his own business when all of a sudden he's swooped up into doggie jail... I find that pretty far fetched.


I totally agree, the story just makes you shake your head and say "it just can't be true. How in the world can SO many things go wrong?" 

That's the problem, there's way too many sides of the story and not enough evidence. *Where is the proof* There seems to be way too much evidence on Lennox's side that defends him

See these two sites of people that have assessed him in person:

Statement On Lennox By Sarah Fisher |

Victoria Stilwell ?Shocked? At Lennox Health Condition |


Two more sites

http://digitaljournal.com/article/327124

Fraud On The Court Requires Freedom Of Lennox | North Country Gazette


The biggest thing regarding his temperment: Think about it, this dog has been locked up for two years, who knows what kind of treatment, nice or otherwise this poor dog has been through. If he had temperment issues at the end, I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Here's a very interesting perspective: Save Lennox - Pet Forums Community

To be totally clear, I'm saddened for this dog. In spite of the fact that we are not likely to get any _concrete_ evidence either way on this case, the dog was the one to suffer the consequences. And that's a very sad thing. But if the owners are hiding or lying about key pieces to the puzzle, such as expired licenses, multiple visits from the warden, aggressive behavior, etc- then I have very little sympathy for them. And _that_ alone bothers me that so many advocacy groups jump on the bandwagon. I think a simple google search yields enough info to at least _question_ the legitimacy of the owner's story. Truth is- I will not likely ever know who is lying in this case. It's just sad for the dog...

ETA- thanks Shade for all that info!


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

Willy, I completely agree that not everything is clear and there could have been issues on both sides which were never and may never be fully disclosed.

To be honest, for Lennox's sake I'm glad it's over. Even if he was rehomed to the US the damage that poor dog went through in those two years, both physically and emotionally would have been a huge hurdle to overcome. At least now he's at peace and his family can breath easier knowing that he's not suffering anymore


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

100% agree Shanna!


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

In the end, all that matters is that he was killed because of WHAT he was, not WHO he was. It was the BREED not the DEED that they killed. 

People can argue back and forth about whether or not he was dangerous but like they say in my line of work- if it isn't documented, it didn't happen and there is NO documentation that he ever did anything to deserve the title of "dangerous".

Heck, even a dog "jumping" on you doesn't make them dangerous, out of control, yes but not dangerous. Many, many dogs do that so they can lick you silly.


----------



## LoveEcho (Mar 4, 2011)

Willy-- the call on the expired license was for a different address... they stopped at the WRONG address to make that call, and it happened to be Lennox's. Also, on several released photos of his licenses, he's listed as a bulldog or a bulldog/lab mix.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

I am saddened that once again a dog has had to pay for human actions. It seems to me that the local council dug in their heels and wouldn't budge. I can see their side of it, if they made an allowance for one dog they would be expected to do it for any dog. But the good PR would have been useful, too, if they had allowed him to leave.

It wasn't the dog's fault. I lay the blame for his death at the feet of the owners who brought him into an environment they knew didn't allow him. DNA test showing he was a Lab/Am. Bull Dog? A DNA test would have shown he was a dog and that was about it. If the owners truly thought he didn't fit the BSL, why didn't they get him cleared before bringing him into their home?

Sad ending for the dog. The owners should be ashamed of themselves.
Sheilah


----------



## PatchonGSD (Jun 27, 2012)

Outrage over Lennox: Dog put to sleep for looking like a pit bull in Northern Ireland | The Lookout - Yahoo! News


----------



## LoveEcho (Mar 4, 2011)

sit said:


> I am saddened that once again a dog has had to pay for human actions. It seems to me that the local council dug in their heels and wouldn't budge. I can see their side of it, if they made an allowance for one dog they would be expected to do it for any dog. But the good PR would have been useful, too, if they had allowed him to leave.
> 
> It wasn't the dog's fault. I lay the blame for his death at the feet of the owners who brought him into an environment they knew didn't allow him. DNA test showing he was a Lab/Am. Bull Dog? A DNA test would have shown he was a dog and that was about it. If the owners truly thought he didn't fit the BSL, why didn't they get him cleared before bringing him into their home?
> 
> ...


I think they did have him "cleared'... he'd been registered and licensed with them for several years prior without issue.

Edit: I definitely agree that details about the dog's behavior are sketchy... I'm curious what made them say he was unpredictable and violent when several behavioral experts said the opposite? Such a sad story... nobody will ever know who was right. I do find it hard to believe the dog could live in a populated area for years with nary a complaint if he was so unpredictably aggressive.


----------



## jetscarbie (Feb 29, 2008)

If you go to the savelennox.com web site...it does show detail court transcripts, pictures of Lennox in horrible conditions at the shelter...it shows videos were he is missing his hair and is very skinny. The officials told a lot of untruths in court testimony. The videos posted prove they lied. The one officers said she was scared to death of the dog....yet the video shows her sitting by the dog while he is licking her face and giving her his paw in a handshake.

There were tons of reports this morning talking about people calling the place to get a comment......and the people answering the phone were making animal sounds then laughing then hanging up. 

Not saying there isn't more to the story....


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

Why should the owners be ashamed of themselves? They had this dog 5 years and there was never a peep about him. 

I seriously believe that BCC had decided they were going to follow their archaic law, kill Lennox and make sure everyone in Belfast knew what happens if you get a "pit bull". They don't want them there. Period. Once they took him the die was cast and they were going to be right, come Hades or high water.

If they had any real evidence that this dog was aggressive or dangerous they would have released it to the media and held press conferences. The video they did release (they only release snippets of) backfired in their face. Lennox was in deplorable condition and actual dog behaviorists picked it apart to show he was NOT aggressive. Stillwell being one of them. The so called "expert" they had even later admitted he was NOT an expert on dog behavior.


----------



## GatorDog (Aug 17, 2011)

I'm sorry, but I can't place any blame with the owners. If I had my dog and BSL said that he had to be euthanized because of his breed, you'd better bet that I'd try my best to make sure nobody ever found out about him. And if a strange person had to determine the temperament of Aiden, they'd also probably call him 'unpredictable' or 'aggressive' because he's nervy. I'm sure they could say the same about many people's dogs from this very forum.

If nothing is done to stop BSL, they'll be coming for our dogs next.


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

wildo said:


> Here's a very interesting perspective: Save Lennox - Pet Forums Community
> 
> To be totally clear, I'm saddened for this dog. In spite of the fact that we are not likely to get any _concrete_ evidence either way on this case
> 
> ...


I am very saddened for Lennox and the family. 

Bottom line I think, is that this really could happen to any of us. Perhaps in Lennox's passing he will save countless other dogs? This could be a wake up call for all of us to pay attention/ to make some of these changes in policies/laws that make no sense. 

How in the heck do you tell your child that your government took your beloved dog and killed it??!! OMG!

I believe there is more to the story than is being told. Why was the family denied, after being told otherwise, to say good bye to their beloved dog? Did the BCC feel Lennox was dangerous and that they were responsible should the family be hurt? So, then, why were they denied the chance to have the body? The ashes? I do believe that Lennox passed some time ago, it's the only way I can make any sense out of this.

RIP Lennox, run free......


----------



## LARHAGE (Jul 24, 2006)

wildo said:


> This article certainly paints a different picture...
> Lennox, death row Belfast dog attracts worldwide attention | Irish News and Politics spanning the US, Ireland and the World | IrishCentral
> 
> 
> ...


 
So because he barked and bounced and accidentally hit her on the head makes him aggressive and a dangerous dog?


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

LARHAGE said:


> So because he barked and bounced and accidentally hit her on the head makes him aggressive and a dangerous dog?


Did I say that? Pretty sure I said nothing of the sort.


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

wildo said:


> Did I say that? Pretty sure I said nothing of the sort.


No, I think the BCC said that........


----------



## x0emiroxy0x (Nov 29, 2010)

It sucks for the dog, but if you break the law you have to pay the consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences are not fair to the animal. The people at fault in this story are the owners.

This has nothing to do with the breed of dog....if labs were banned and they had a lab, they broke the law and must pay the consequences.

I understand why they didn't release the dog to another country...because if they did it would set a precedent .... *It is ok to not follow the law, your dog will just go to another family when you're caught*.

The dog did not deserve this, but the dog warden is not to blame...just a person doing their job. Those pictures prove nothing. A dog can be licking your face one moment and bite your nose off the next. I have had a super sweet dog playing with me become aggressive due to unknown reasons quite a few times at the dog park or other dog friendly places.

this story obviously has two sides.

Why does the law/police always get blamed/hated on for *enforcing the law*, their job description???


----------



## x0emiroxy0x (Nov 29, 2010)

Also, this story has nothing to do with BSL.....YES, it was BSL to ban the breed of dog in the first place....

but the dog being euthanized was not because of its breed...it was because the law was broken. 

You can't pick and choose which laws you wish to follow. If these people wanted this dog so bad, they should have moved somewhere else.

If Houston banned german shepherds, guess who the first person would be to switch schools and put in their two weeks at work, without another job for sure in a new city? Me. Because I love my dog and would not risk it being euthanized by owning it in a banned city.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

I agree with you x0emiroxy0x in most of the things you said. Pretty sensible posts. However, it appears that is was not illegal to own a pit bull type dog. It was illegal to own one without going through all the crazy processes like spay/neuter, insurance, registration/license, microchip, etc. And that's what gets me. 

Even the obviously biased savelennox.com (or whatever the main site is) mentions that they had the license and all that jazz. So- if the dog is properly licensed and everything- why did the BCC take him? In my opinion, the answer is that the owners are not being completely accurate in their side of the story about the license being current. Honestly- if the dog's license was expired, it completely explains why the BCC was there in the first place...

So yes, I do (personally) believe the fault is the owners.


----------



## x0emiroxy0x (Nov 29, 2010)

Well then i take back my post about BSL...if it isn't illegal to own a pitbull then there is no BSL taking place. Owners should have kept up with the license.

Obviously the dog warden didn't drive by this random house and say "hey there is a dog with a license and all its shots, I should just take it away"

Look at the martin trayvon case....half the crap is made up by the news to stir up trouble. Over two months later you find out the truth


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

x0emiroxy0x said:


> Well then i take back my post about BSL...if it isn't illegal to own a pitbull then there is no BSL taking place.


Well... yeah, there is still BSL. The breed specific legislation states that if the dog meets a certain "type" (looks like a pit bull) then the legislation is applicable to that dog. That is BSL, and that is the kind of thing we should fight. However, if one chooses to own a dog that "fits the bill" so to speak, then one better be sure to keep up on the requirements for owning that dog. If one slips those requirements, there can and likely will be consequences.

As others have said, we will not likely know the whole truth. I think you just has to take in as much as possible and formulate your own opinion.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

AC was supposedly at the wrong house to begin with and that was how everything started. 

Police show up at the wrong house it happens. I STILL say if they had a legitimate reason for taking Lennox, any reason, they would have been singing it from the rooftops. There has been too much publicity, too much controversy for 2 years, not too. People would have backed off if they had been able to at least do that much. 

They did try once. Once. With snippets of a video. They didn't even show the whole video. Why not? What they did show backfired in their face. After that they shut up and never said a word publicly. They just dug their heels in and decided they were going to be right and that was that.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

even if the license was expired, what does that say? Lennox wasn't euthanized because his license was expired. They said that he was a "pit-bull type" dog. But when he was licensed, his owners put down what he was - a bulldog mix. Now, to some people does that make him a "pitbull type"? I guess that depends on how the term is defined. Do they mean dogs that have a pitbull terrier in their ancestry? Or some other breed that was used in dog fighting? Or do they mean any dog that someone might think looks kind of similar to a pitbull-type dog?


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

No one blames the dog warden. The city counsel, yes. They handled the entire case in a cold, heartless manner. They told the family they could be with Lennox when they euthinized him, then said no. They refuse to let the family have the remains or even the ashes of their pet. What purpose could that possibly serve? The child was promised by the mother that if they lose the battle the girl would at least have a chance to say goodbye, take pictures, be with her beloved pet at the end, because that is what the the BCC told her, then they say no.

I don't believe the family did anything illegal. At this point the only info you will be able to get on the internet will be totally one sided, either side. And the stories don't match up.

I think many people agree that BSL is wrong. I think Northern Ireland does have BSL's, and when they use a measuring device to determine if the dog is the 'type' that makes it all the more difficult for families that adopt that cute little mixed breed puppy.

I do think this case has everything to do with bringing attention to BSL so people may take action to change laws and policies that they do not agree with. The interest in this case has much to do with how much government should control in our lives. I do think there will be many people who will now get involved and try to change things they do not agree with that would not have thought of doing so had this case not gained so much media coverage. I have seen many posts on fb of people determined to make a difference due to the media coverage of Lennox's case.


----------



## x0emiroxy0x (Nov 29, 2010)

As the girlfriend of a police officer, I must respond to the assumption that "if they had any reason they would have said it already"

Why should the police release anything to the media when they already "won" if you want to use that term? They have nothing to prove....they don't care what the public thinks or says. If they had "no right" to do this, these protests would not have been so futile.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

x0emiroxy0x said:


> Also, this story has nothing to do with BSL.....YES, it was BSL to ban the breed of dog in the first place....
> 
> but the dog being euthanized was not because of its breed...it was because the law was broken.
> 
> ...


While that's a nice sentiment, they didn't break the law and not all laws are good things that should be followed. You can't just pack up and move every time your town passes a law you don't agree with. On top of this, I'm willing to wager every single person on this forum has unknowingly broken a law at some point. I know I have, because there are a lot of really stupid laws that make no sense and they're not taught to you so you never know about them. For example, there is an actual law about walking your pig in the rain on a Sunday. 

Apply this sentiment of "just follow the rules or else it's your own fault!" to Germany in WWII and things start to get really complicated. 

While I wouldn't go as far as getting a dog when I know the breed is illegal, the family didn't do that. If my town announced a breed ban I'd be protesting the heck out of it while having my dog stay at a friend's house just out of town. I wouldn't just curl my tail in between my legs and move. These stupid laws need to be called out for what they really are.


----------



## GatorDog (Aug 17, 2011)

x0emiroxy0x said:


> Also, this story has nothing to do with BSL.....YES, it was BSL to ban the breed of dog in the first place....
> 
> but the dog being euthanized was not because of its breed...it was because the law was broken.
> 
> ...


I hope you actually plan on following through with this when it happens. 

Unfortunately, some people out there don't have the luxury to pack up all their things and relocate their entire family because of a ridiculous law. The people still need to be able to afford to survive and support the dog and their family. The fact that they were placed in that situation alone is ridiculous. I'd love to say that I'd up and leave if they took my dog too, but unfortunately I don't think its a feasible option for many people.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

It was my understanding that this was not sprung on them. Belfast's BSL has existed for some time. I am trying to find out for how long, but not coming up with much. In all the Lennox articles, they say that he was neutered and registered for 5 years prior to this incident (which was two years in the making, and the dog was PTS at 7 years old). So they were not "thrown" into anything. The laws seem to have been in place prior to them getting the dog.


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

ladyfreckles said:


> For example, there is an actual law about walking your pig in the rain on a Sunday.
> 
> In my town it is illegal to drive a car in a bathrobe Now I just happened to come across this law by accident and said 'oh shoot! LOL
> 
> ...


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

x0emiroxy0x said:


> As the girlfriend of a police officer, I must respond to the assumption that "if they had any reason they would have said it already"
> 
> Why should the police release anything to the media when they already "won" if you want to use that term? They have nothing to prove....they don't care what the public thinks or says. If they had "no right" to do this, these protests would not have been so futile.


First, talking about here, not Belfast but the police and the govt answer to US, the taxpayers. They should ALWAYS be explaining their actions to us. We are their employers. That line of thinking that you are advocating is how police states and dictatorships happen. 

Second, we are talking about Belfast and I don't know exactly how their govt is set up. In the end though they have suffered VERY bad publicity across the globe. That is always bad for democratically elected officials, esp at the local level. 



GatorDog said:


> I hope you actually plan on following through with this when it happens.
> 
> Unfortunately, some people out there don't have the luxury to pack up all their things and relocate their entire family because of a ridiculous law. The people still need to be able to afford to survive and support the dog and their family. The fact that they were placed in that situation alone is ridiculous. I'd love to say that I'd up and leave if they took my dog too, but unfortunately I don't think its a feasible option for many people.


Very true. It is easy to be idealistic and say you will just pack up but the realities of that are much different. Even as marketable as my job is and I have NO doubt I could get another job, just picking up and moving to another city is not as easy as it sounds.



wildo said:


> It was my understanding that this was not sprung on them. Belfast's BSL has existed for some time. I am trying to find out for how long, but not coming up with much. In all the Lennox articles, they say that he was neutered and registered for 5 years prior to this incident (which was two years in the making, and the dog was PTS at 7 years old). So they were not "thrown" into anything. The laws seem to have been in place prior to them getting the dog.



I think I read somewhere that it has been in place since the mid 90s


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

I think the saddest part is that the dog had to suffer for two years while all this political garbage went down.


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

x0emiroxy0x said:


> Why should the police release anything to the media when they already "won" if you want to use that term? They have nothing to prove....they don't care what the public thinks or says. .


 
Because this case gained world wide attention and they now look like....well don't think I can use that word on the forum.....but they don't look good to the world, this has been on national television in the US and in many other countries, these counsel members are not looking too good to the public, wouldn't they want to make a statement about their side of the story if they had one? Their story is Lennox was viscous, determined by a K9 police officer who admits to no behavioral training, while two professional behaviorists gave the counsel signed statements that Lennox was not a dangerous dog. Why did they not choose to believe two professional dog behaviorists or at least hire a professional dog behaviorist of thier choosing, rather than use someone, while familar with dogs, was in no means an expert at determining the termperament of a dog.


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

Syaoransbear said:


> I think the saddest part is that the dog had to suffer for two years while all this political garbage went down.


Agreed!! And suffer apparently he did. From accounts of the behaiorists that met with Lennox and pictures that were obtained, it seems Lennox was not well cared for while in the care of the BCC. There was mention of neck and leg injuries that were not there when they picked him up, sores on his body......Another reason for the outrage that this case has caused throughout the world.


----------



## jetscarbie (Feb 29, 2008)

I think the big issue most people have is the dog's body and the attitude of the people with power that's involved. There are many things that are not explained.

For one...the dog has not been seen by anybody for awhile. Not since they released that video of him when he looked terrible. So did the dog die while in their care? Why not at least let the family come say goodbye.?If he was dangerous, put him in a crate and let the family talk to him through the crate...or a kennel.

The family wants the dog's body back? Maybe it's illegal to bury a dog's body there. Fine, I understand that.....but at least give the girl back the dog's collar that she wants. What's so freaking hard about that?

To be very honest....the dog warden and his staff has not shown one ounce of sympathy for this whole situation during the whole 2 years!! Actually, they act kind of smug about everything. The council sounds very smug also. The more other people have gotten involved...the worse they sound. It's almost like they take pleasure at having all the "power" here.

There are multiple statements made by the dog warden and his workers that completely contradict each other. I think under normal circumstances......this dog could have been saved, but once it made national news and lots of other people got involved.....IMO....I think the BcC dug their heels in and refused.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

Things dog who was destroyed by a government just because they could. 

It makes me sick, and angry, but I think the article is good. Run free Lennox. You were wanted and loved. May your suffering not be in vain and be wake up call to us all



What we must do for Lennox


----------



## mebully21 (Nov 18, 2011)

there is a video that was leaked of the temperment test done, Lennox passed it with flying colors... the belfast people involved are covering up a huge lie... just because a dog is registered as another breed in BSL states/countries they dont care- if it looks like a pit its a pit..... period... no dna test, or any other type of test or testimony from anyone saying the dog is NOT a pit bull type dog wont matter..... if you live in a place that has BSL against pit bull type dogs DONT get a dog that can be accused of being a pitbull type dog.. Denver killed over 200 pit bull type dogs when they enforced their 25 year old BSL ban...... miami dade kills any dog that looks like a pit bull type dog.. certain places in the UK ban pit bull type dogs... australia bans pit bulls, the list goes on and on....


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

I saw that video, the lady in the video is the dog warden, who was being kissed by Lennox in the video, is the same that said he was dangerous and would not ever go near him. Many people think Lennox passed away a while ago. People are trying to get an investigation of the BCC in the matter. I also read that one building of the BCC was evacuated due to a bomb scare............

In case anyone is interested they are asking for signatures for a petition to end BSL called Lennox Law. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/817/837/410/lennox-law/



Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More


----------



## krystyne73 (Oct 13, 2010)

Yes I had been following the ordeal. It made me cry when I heard that he was PTS. All I could think about was how that poor dog felt his family abandoned him. His life was ended with emptiness and that is the saddest thing ever.


----------



## mebully21 (Nov 18, 2011)

Pit Bull Legal News posted this - interesting stuff

First warning: This is going to be a long one. Grab a drink and settle back-we have some talking to do.

From the beginning of my involvement with the Lennox case (which dates back almost a year to when Victoria Stilwell brought me in) I have stayed as neutral and professional as possible. I have resisted criticising the BCC and their evaluator, as we were trying to get me to Northern Ireland and and access to Lennox to give a fair, objective, and behaviorally sound evaluation. Sarah Fisher had done a great job, but I brought extensive "Pit Bull" experience coupled with unparalleled experience with "killer dogs" (dogs that have taken human lives). So I kept my opinion considered and low key, hoping that I doulc have come in as an "outside" expert, supplemented Victoria and Sarah's efforts, and gotten the BCC to listen. Now that Lennox is dead and the case is over, I no longer have to hold my tongue.

Let's look at the "qualifications" of the only evaluation that the BCC or Court accepted. The BCC "evaluator" is, admittedly, a former police Constable. So am I, except that instead of being a Constable, the equivalent here in the US to a base Patrolman, I retired as a Lieutenant and Watch Commander, the UK equivalent of a full Inspector with the Metropolitan Police. I am also a certified Behavior Consultant (he has no such training), have been certified as a Professional Dog Trainer, and am trained and certified as a behavior evaluator by several organizations-and he is not. I have further, over the years, worked with, trained, and evaluated what are probably over a thousand Pit Bulls and other breeds prohibited in the UK, certainly more than the BCC evaluator.

In fact, their evaluator, who's evaluation history seems to be summed up by "knows a Pit Bull when he is paid to find one" isn't even a dog show judge. Wouldn't a conformation expert such as a show judge been a better choice if we were only going to see if a dog physically met a breed standard?

Sarah Fisher, a bona-fide behaviorist, issued her opinion as to Lennox' safe demeanor, but her opinion was spurned. One suspects that the BCC had issues with the opinion of a "mere woman" despite her clear wualifications.

So another outside evaluator, with credentials, was brought in by the Barnes family, this time a man. David Ryans conducted a second evaluation, and was also rejected by the BCC. Rumor had it at the time that they did not consider Ryans experienced enough with prohibited breeds.

All that said, I have looked carefully at the video of Mr. Ryans, and would like to walk you all through what I see.

The video I am referring to is posted online here: http://lennoxsandielightfoot.blogspot.co....nd-belfast.html The times given refer to the times listed on the running video.

The test starts with Lennox on leash, held by a female Animal Control person, with both the Animal Control person and David Ryan (presumably a stranger to Lennox), a behaviorist, seated in chairs. Lennox is being petted by the female. Lennox is seated and seems to be relaxed.

As Mr. Ryan is placing a notebook into a bag at his side, Lennox approaches under Mr. Ryan's leg to see what he is doing. He shows no fear or reticence towards Ryan, just mild interest in the bag. Ryan places his open hand directly on Lennox snout to pet him and guide him back from under Ryan's legs. 

Lennox returns to the seated female and seeks her attention (about 32 seconds in). Mr. Ryan then proffers a treat repeatedly to Lennox, extending it and then removing it from Lennox' reach.Lennox is focused on the treat, but allows Ryan to take the treat back repeatedly with no sign of possession aggression or reluctance. Lennox never snaps, lunges, or does anything other than wait for Ryan to surrender the treat. Lennox does, for a moment, try to get up and approach Ryan and the treat, but immediately returns to a sit when asked. Lennox' responses are positive and he readily seeks appropriate, positive contact with Ryan. Lennox does briefly try to get in Ryan's lap, but responds immediately when asked to get off. Ryan appears to "pop" Lennox on the snout several times with an open hand (about 1:27) to elicit a response. Lennox briefly and calmly retreats, but continues to try and make positive contact with Ryan with no defensive or aggressive display.

Ryan then stands up. Lennox continues to make appropriate positive contact, and shows no negative response to Ryan despite his looming stance over Lennox. Lennox watches as Ryan turns away and reaches for more treats. Lennox makes no attempt to go after Ryan while his back is turned.

Lennox then allows Ryan to approach frontally and back him up, almost to the wall, with Ryan maintaining a tall, directly frontal stance. Lennox sits attentively. Ryan then challenges Lennox with a direct, frontal stare. Lennox responds peacefully, turning his head, and remains calm, retreating briefly and returning to the handler, then partially turning away to defuse the challenge of Ryan. At no time did Lennox show even the most remote aggressive response to this stranger, Mr. Ryan.

Now, please compare my notes here to an evaluation I conducted regarding a frankly aggressive animal we will call "JoJo" (not his name). Remember-these following notes are an aggressive dog, NOT Lennox!

"JoJo did not allow me to make direct contact. JoJo is very suspicious of others. When he was out XXX was holding him. JoJo was tense and alert. JoJo reacted violently to sustained eye contact, in full lunge and attack mode, teeth bared and barking/growling strongly. Once JoJo reacted to me he kept a very wary eye on me and did not relax. WARNING: JOJO HAS DISPLAYED HUMAN FOCUS AGGRESSION. JOJO MAY BE A THREAT TO HUMANS. JOJO IS A HIGH LIABILITY DOG. Humane containment and management is the best strategy for him."

Does this look a little different from the objective appraisal of Lennox? I certainly think so."JoJo" was clearly an aggressive dog, and reading my assessment of Lennox, or watching the video, shows the reality of Lennox' interaction with Mr. Ryan-completely non-aggressive.

For those wanting to see the evaluation of another dog accused of aggression that turned out NOT to be an aggressive dog, please watch the following: 




You will see that this evaluation is far more extensive, and is conducted with this "killer" dog unrestrained. Helo's evaluation included substantial direct contact between me and the dog, and let me see far more of Helo's true behavior. Mr. Ryan was operating under the constraints imposed by the BCC. I will bet that the BCC evaluator never interacted freely with Lennox. I also suspect that the BCC evaluator never grabbed Lennox by the face, never met his gaze eye-to-eye, never tried to take a food bowl away-in fact, I would guess that their evaluator's whole opinion was derived from a closely limited situation like they imposed on Mr. Ryan. That is not a fair or appropriate evaluation.

The evaluation for that dog, Helo, is summarized here:


"I first observed Helo in his kennel. He came to the front of the kennel as I passed and was alert and quiet. I then proceeded to the fenced play area at the facility and had Helo brought out to me to interact and greet off leash. Helo greeted me readily and appropriately, sniffing and alert. He approached head up, with no show of shyness or aggression. He readily sought contact but was also interested in checking out the immediate area.

Helo readily allowed me to pet him, and then allowed ready manipulation of his head, ears, mouth, and tail. He allowed me to manipulate his rear feet, but was sensitive to handling of his front legs, consistent with the expected behavior of an animal that has recently received a leg injury. His right front leg still showed visible swelling. I grasped Helo by the sides of his face and, at close range, met his gaze directly. Helo broke eye contact first and did not growl, stiffen his posture, or show any typical signs of stress or aggression. Helo repeatedly allowed me to grab his collar, stand over him, and examine his bite and teeth for measurements. I conducted a “squeeze test” wherein the tester grabs handfuls of fur and skin and gently squeezes to determine the tested dog’s reactions. Helo did turn his head towards my hand as I proceeded down his body, but did not open his mouth, snap, nip, or muzzle-punch in reaction. His body posture remained neutral during this test.

I offered Helo high-value treats (Pupperoni) and he took them readily. Helo allowed me to proffer the treats and then remove them from his bite with no resistance or attempt to guard or protect the treats. I also gave Helo a bowl of food (he had not received his morning feeding yet) and he allowed me to present and remove the food repeatedly. Helo allowed me to manipulate his face while eating, and only gave a minimal grumble when I physically placed my hand into the kibble he was eating while he ate.

Helo is fairly well behaved, sitting on command fairly often (approximately 70%) and has a lesser response to being called (about 30%).

Helo exhibited no sensitivity to loud noises or strange objects."

Note that my written evaluations of Lennox, "JoJo", and Helo never use language such as "the most dangerous dog I have ever seen" or any of the other nonsense that the BCC's evaluator has used. Such emotional language has no place in a behavioral assessment. My evaluations never mention the dogs' appearance, as physical appearance has absolutely no bearing on behavior. In fact, "JoJo" wasn't even a breed banned in the UK. Neither was Helo.

Lennox certainly got short shrift in this incident. The evaluator that the Court relied upon is clearly unqualified to assess temperament and behavior. He doesn't even have the credentials to assess adherence to a breed standard.

And frankly, if their evaluator thinks that Lennox was the "most dangerous dog" he had ever seen-please come meet some off the guys I have handled and evaluated after they have killed humans. I have seen more dangerous Cocker Spaniels. Please, if you are to be considered a professional, try not to embarrass yourself with such twaddle.


I am so sorry Lennox. We tried to get you a fair shot. I just hope your death serves to be the seed for change, and that your sacrifice motivates others to fight unfair laws based in ignorance and hate.
Posted by James W. Crosby CBCC-KA at 1:11 PM 








​


----------



## mebully21 (Nov 18, 2011)

i have a feelng lennox was euthanized prior to the BCC saying he was, which makes sense why they wouldnt let the family say goodbye to him


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

Thanks for posting that. The whole thing is just so sad. I think something happened to Lennox, either he passed from illness, was euthanized earlier...... That would explain some things the BCC has done. I have recently started to wonder, however, if they are just being plain mean, nasty and evil to this family. Perhaps to make an example for anyone who tries to fight them? Maybe we will never know. It appears that the group of 200,000+ people who signed the petition to save Lennox are continueing their fight to end BSL in all countries.


----------



## mebully21 (Nov 18, 2011)

hmmmmmmm......

Star of 'It's Me or the Dog' says Council members threatened her

As more details emerge in the case of Lennox, the Labrador/Bulldog euthanized last Wednesday by Belfast City Council (BCC), Victoria Stilwell, star of "It's Me or the Dog," claims she has been both threatened and sued by members of BCC. Stilwell made the astonishing claims today on her Facebook page in an open letter to the public. The post, in which she commented that she now wished to answer what she had so far been reticent on, said, "yes, the BCC's 'expert' did try to sue me for speaking out against him and questioning his credentials, and yes he did expect money from me to settle the dispute." The latest allegations are another blow for Northern Ireland's Belfast City Council, who had hoped that after euthanizing Lennox for being a "pit-bull type" dog, the entire affair would quietly go away. Not so. After BCC announced that it had carried out the destruction order on the dog, Stilwell spoke out against their heartless handling of the case and demanded answers. For more than two years, the Barnes family who owned Lennox, pursued all legal avenues to bring their dog home after he was seized by the BCC in May 2010. But by mid-June, a final court ruling upheld the decision of two lower courts who ordered Lennox to be destroyed under the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA). Lennox was destroyed on July 11, despite a massive campaign to free the dog and re-home him in the USA. The ultimate blow for the Barnes family came when BCC denied access to his body, and his collar, which the Barnes' daughter Brooke, had wanted for a keepsake. The BCC's expert who had testified against Lennox, was Peter Tallack, a former police dog handler. Stilwell said that in his quest to sue her, "he was not successful because all I did was speak the truth." But, Stilwell added, "these are the kind of people that the family, myself and all those who have supported Lennox, have been up against." Stilwell also refused to condone "the threats and intimidation being done to anyone on either side" and appealed for them to stop. "You are not helping matters," Stilwell said, but added that people needed to be aware "that those of us who have supported Lennox and the family themselves have also received threats, some from the very people that BCC employ." Stilwell's astonishing claims followed on the heels of a report by James W. Crosby, CBCC-KA, a retired Police Lieutenant (Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, Jacksonville, FL), former Animal Control Division Manager and professional dog trainer. One of Crosby's roles is assessing canines that are "killer dogs." Dogs who have actually killed people. So far Crosby said, he had remained silent on the issue, but "Now that Lennox is dead and the case is over, I no longer have to hold my tongue," he added. Crosby then proceeded to rip into the qualifications of BCC's expert witness: Let's look at the "qualifications" of the only evaluation that the BCC or Court accepted. The BCC "evaluator" is, admittedly, a former police Constable. So am I, except that instead of being a Constable, the equivalent here in the US to a base Patrolman, I retired as a Lieutenant and Watch Commander, the UK equivalent of a full Inspector with the Metropolitan Police. I am also a certified Behavior Consultant (he has no such training), have been certified as a Professional Dog Trainer, and am trained and certified as a behavior evaluator by several organizations-and he is not. I have further, over the years, worked with, trained, and evaluated what are probably over a thousand Pit Bulls and other breeds prohibited in the UK, certainly more than the BCC evaluator.​ When Lennox was assessed by Tallack, he was deemed a pit bull type based on measurements taken with a tape measure. But said Crosby, "their evaluator, who's evaluation history seems to be summed up by "knows a Pit Bull when he is paid to find one" isn't even a dog show judge," Crosby said. "Surely a "conformation expert such as a show judge" he added, would "have been a better choice if we were going to see if a dog physically met a breed standard?" Crosby then studies and breaks down the video of Lennox's assessment by independent dog behaviorist David Ryans. On the left is Ms. Lightfoot, the dog warden who testified in court that Lennox was so aggressive, she was scared to be around him. Yet she is shown sitting down, holding Lennox, and petting him, a year after he was seized. After viewing the video, another dog behaviorist commented on Crosby's article: I'm not sure I have ever seen someone scared of a dog start an assessment sitting down. I know I certainly start ALL of mine standing, and I especially won't sit if I know the dog had shown aggression in the past. I'll only sit in a chair if I've had a lot of positive feedback from the dog. If they were so scared of him, why didn't they show a little self preservation?​ After analyzing Lennox's assessment himself, Crosby also concludes: The evaluator that the Court relied upon is clearly unqualified to assess temperament and behavior. He doesn't even have the credentials to assess adherence to a breed standard. And frankly, if their evaluator thinks that Lennox was the "most dangerous dog" he had ever seen-please come meet some of the guys I have handled and evaluated after they have killed humans. I have seen more dangerous Cocker Spaniels. Please, if you are to be considered a professional, try not to embarrass yourself with such twaddle.​ Stilwell said that Crosby's report was "a window into how it should be done," and explained that when she received a "copy of the BCC's 'expert's' report," it was only "supposed to be an evaluation of Lennox's measurements to determine whether Lennox was of pitbull type (which is laughable in itself.)" The last paragraph of the report Stilwell reveals, "states that even though this expert knows that he has only been brought in to measure Lennox he still offers his opinion of Lennox's behavior, which he questions. That's it - one paragraph." The Animal Planet star, who had offered to take Lennox to the USA and pay all of the expenses incurred, also said that she has copies of the behavioral evaluation reports from both David Ryan and Sarah Fisher, two expert dog behaviorists. Both contain, Stilwell said, "pages and pages of detailed, intelligent, unbiased and thorough investigations of Lennox's behavior." But "the BCC" she added, "stand by their 'expert' and so did the courts, discrediting the evidence of two qualified behavioral experts. Is that justice? Is that fair?" the star said. Stilwell's criticism follows on the heels of Northern Ireland's First Minister Peter Robinson, who yesterday used Twitter to condemn the decision to put Lennox to sleep writes the _Irish Times_. "Destroying a dog that had no history of aggression is folly and shames society," the DUP leader said. Robinson had strongly urged Belfast City Council to seriously consider the re-homing option. "Why exercise the order" he said, "if there's an alternative?"


----------



## Tank_N_Moose (Jul 23, 2011)

I've noticed a fair amount of people that say "Well they knew the law and that's that!". How could they have known? They know their dog is an American Bulldog/Lab mix. Even if it had Staffy in it it would have been a legal breed. In the UK Staffies are legal. What gets me is the fact Lennox's brother lived near by. From the same exact litter. They checked that dog and they said he wasn't a pit bull. How can one dog be a pit bull but his brother from the same litter not be? Also. The whole being able to measure a dog just to see if it is a pit bull thing is completely whack. How long 'till you have a really big idiot out there measuring a pure bred lab and saying "Yep. the measurements match. This is clearly a pit bull!". I guess since that's the law and pit bulls are illegal they should have known and not gotten the dog! Not so much.

On top of that the prosecution's side went back an forth with lies under oath and that was left alone. Then their "Expert" wasn't even a behaviorist. He was a dog handler cop. If that makes him an expert I should just jump in an F15 'cause being in the Air Force automatically makes me a pilot. Then their "Expert" decided to spout off with "Oh well Mrs. Barnes is disabled she shouldn't have a dog anyway!" And finally "Stop questioning me! The Gallery is looking at me!". They then turned onto the defenses experts and said to the woman "Well you're from here so you have no experience with pit bulls so what do you know?" In that case what does Peter Tallack know? He is from the same place and sure didn't handle any pit bulls for his job.

This case is full of holes. And in the end dispite the fact it was obvious the BCC was wrong they just kept up with being the biggest jerks possible by denying the chance to say goodbye, then the body, then his collar. My old lab died seven years ago and I still have his collar. That is an important thing to some people. They failed on every level.


----------



## mebully21 (Nov 18, 2011)

they wouldnt let the owners say goodbye or get the collar because i bet you they euthanized Lennox a looong time ago and was covering their butts...


----------



## LARHAGE (Jul 24, 2006)

This whole case reeked of ineptness, the poor dogs life was in the hands of biased morons, and in the end poor Lennox was failed by ignorance, stubborness, and stupidity.


----------



## x0emiroxy0x (Nov 29, 2010)

Ladyfreckles,

A law banning pitbulls or saying that you must license your dog that was written in the past 30 years is NOTHING like a law written 100 years ago about not tying your horse outside of a bar or walking a pig on the street.

The mentality of not following "ridiculous" laws is ridiculous itself. What if someone thinks the law that you must obtain a license to carry concealed is "ridiculous"....in your way of thinking they should just go ahead and get the gun. So when they get a ticket/go to jail for breaking the law it is not their fault?

I would consider changing your mentality on not following rules you find ridiculous....or else your dog could be euthanized/you could gets fines/you can go to jail.

If you think laws are ridiculous then run for a government position so that you can change them or help draft them. Not liking a law is no excuse to not follow it.

Perhaps this city was overrun with strays that were biting people or people who were not owning up to being the owners of dogs that bit and that is why they created a law about having a license. This is not ridiculous in any way.

Everyone has different opinions...that is why we vote and why we have laws. If you want to live somewhere were laws are not enforced, the middle east is a good choice. There is a law against hurting other people, but when women have acid thrown on their face by suitors they turned away, the law is not upheld and these men do not get in any trouble. This is what happens when laws are made but do not have to be followed and are not enforced. A harsh example, but a good example nonetheless.

So you think that law is ridiculous...how can you condemn a dog fighter that breaks the law? Regardless of how much "worse" you think dog fighting is, they may think it is *ridiculous* to have a law against it, because to them dogs are not worth anything.

If we were all able to pick and choose which laws to follow, this would be a terrible place to live.


----------



## TrickyShepherd (Aug 15, 2011)

x0emiroxy0x said:


> Ladyfreckles,
> 
> A law banning pitbulls or saying that you must license your dog that was written in the past 30 years is NOTHING like a law written 100 years ago about not tying your horse outside of a bar or walking a pig on the street.
> 
> ...



Although I agree with following the laws and that they are there for a reason (I'm not even going to touch on the subject of BSL laws here though, I'd rather agree to disagree there). However, That law being followed or not has nothing to do with this story.... Lennox was not a pit bull. He was an American Bulldog/Lab cross from what his papers say. That's not illegal to own there. It's under the "dangerous dog" list, so yes, he would need to be muzzled in public, always on a leash, licensed, insured, and tagged (which he was). He was not "illegal" though. He was born there and had a fresh license every year clearly stating what he was. It wasn't until he was 5 years old that they decided he was not legal. If I owned a white shepherd and huskies were illegal here.... how would that be right if my dog was taken away because it's color/face/body "was of type" (and even worse... to an untrained eye)? They measured the dogs head.... I can't even count the number of dogs that have heads that would measure to a pit bulls "standard" that are NOT pit bulls by any means! No one in this case had any experience in this, just someone with a description (that was a stolen copyright) on some paper.

There are a lot of mixed up information thanks to the media.... however, his papers are clear. The temperament test was leaked, the dog was clearly not dangerous. There were people willing to take the dog outside of country where they were legal. They did not do this because anyone "broke the law" or owned an illegal dog breed.... they did this because they could. They could go and measure a dog and claim it something it's not, they could take the dog away, fine the family, and kill the dog, they could lie in court to cover their own rear ends.... they could... and they did. It's not a matter of "criminal" and "enforcer" it's about abusing power, and then lying to cover up their ignorance, followed by extremely cruel actions. That poor dog suffered for 2 years (or who knows.. maybe he died earlier for neglect). I don't care what color, shape, size, or type something is... that is cruel.

If that happened here... you better bet I will be doing the same thing this owner did. You can't pick and choose how your laws work and when they do... it's either black or white. Not in between, not "well.... it could be". That's exactly what this was. I, myself, feel so much heartache for this family... I couldn't imagine what I would do if I was in their shoes with my GSDs.


----------



## Tank_N_Moose (Jul 23, 2011)

x0emiroxy0x said:


> Ladyfreckles,
> 
> A law banning pitbulls or saying that you must license your dog that was written in the past 30 years is NOTHING like a law written 100 years ago about not tying your horse outside of a bar or walking a pig on the street.
> 
> ...


How many times does it need to be said that it isn't about "Picking and choosing which laws to follow"? She didn't pick and choose anything. She got a dog knowing it was legal. His own brother from the same litter was declared legal. She did what she was supposed to do every single year. The dog was registered and taken care of properly. She didn't do anyting illegal. The only thing this dog is guilty of is his measurements coming out to a certian number which any dog's could. What more do you think she should have done, measured his head every year and once he was fully grown and the measurements came out to the right numbers had him put down?

Also this law didn't come because of a bunch of stray pit bulls running around chomping on people. It came from an attack just like Denvers did. And instead of looking into it and saying "Hmm. To prevent this the people responsible for the dog need to be prosecuted" they said "Well if there's no more pit bulls there's no more problem!". That's not even working out. Bite numbers are increasing. Now they're looking at rotties and GSD's. Eventually the only thing they're going to allow is Corgis. Seeing as how this crap is happening in Denver, was going on in the whole state of Ohio, now in Maryland, and over in Miami, this crap could very well happen anywhere where you are. And if it does what is your plan? Can you afford to just pick up and roll out? Or are you going to pick and choose which law to follow until you are able to do better?


----------

