Lennox - A dog sentenced to death because of the way he looks

[beloved_ofmars]

Lennox the Labrador Mix, has spent the last two years on death row. It's a secret location in Belfast, his family haven't been allowed to see him. He's lost a lot of his fur, probably due to stress. While the Belfast City Council wait with their blue syringe, his family fight the court's decision that Lennox should be put to death. His crime, looking like a 'Pit Bull Type'. He hasn't bitten anyone or even acted aggressively towards anyone. Breed Specific Legislation has put to death thousands of innocent family pets simply because they don't look right.
Last year a five-month-old puppy was killed by 'authorities' because they thought that he too looked like a 'Pit Bull Type'. The puppy whose name was Fudge, was killed the same day he was taken, without giving his human family a chance to appeal.
Lennox is not actually a Pit Bull, but even if he was, Pit Bulls are great pets. They're one of the friendliest breeds of dog. Most of Michael Vicks Pit Bulls are now working as Therapy Dogs. It seems that Great Britain has the breed all wrong. The panic and hysteria of the early 90s resulted in this nightmare today.
http://www.savelennox.co.uk/

[LPC]

I won't comment on the legislation about pit bulls, but why can't the family get a vet to do a definitive breed identification? Cross-breeds are not forbidden, as far as I know. Or even as a last result (although expensive), they could get a DNA test done and then a court order for the dog's release.

[beloved_ofmars]

Originally Posted by LPC

I won't comment on the legislation about pit bulls, but why can't the family get a vet to do a definitive breed identification? Cross-breeds are not forbidden, as far as I know. Or even as a last result (although expensive), they could get a DNA test done and then a court order for the dog's release.

Unfortunately, the law in the UK seems to be on the look of the dog rather than the breed. Lennox was seized and killed because of how he looked, a DNA test sadly would have made no difference.

Originally Posted by Rin

People should not be allowed to have Pit bulls. IMO a blanket ban is appropriate because only a few people can provide what this breed needs.

As far as Lennox goes, if the owners would love this dog they would have asked a vet to euthanase him long ago. How can someone put this dog through so much stress that he even loses his fur, and then claim they love him? What for? To prove that they are right? Incomprehensible.

No, they tried to save him because they loved him. As for people not being allowed to keep Pit Bulls, some people should not be allowed to keep dogs full stop. Michael Vick for a start, should never have been allowed to have those dogs. Many of the Vick dogs are now working as therapy dogs.
As for poor Lennox, he was killed by the Belfast City Council last month. Victoria Stilwell asked if she could take him, at no costs to the council, and take him to the US. They refused. I think that if Lennox had continued to exist, and gone on to get his Canine good citizenship award, it would have been highly embarrassing to them. The whole reason Lennox was killed was because they wanted to save face.
Rest in peace dear little dog, the fight against BSL will continue.

Poor Lennox.
You're correct, Rin, that that poor dog shouldn't have been left to suffer for two years during the legal proceedings. The photos of the place where they were keeping him are deplorable. And that's the biggest problem I see in this story. That's no place to hold an animal even for a few days. Even if the plan is to end their life at the end of their stay, that is terrible, terrible conditions.

The family just wanted someone they loved back, of course they fought against the system. Is it too much to hope that the opposing party could at least have taken the trouble to treat a living creature kindly while it was in their possession? I guess we don't know everything about how he was kept, but if Lennox was so stressed that he was losing large hanks of fur off his flank, we can reasonably assume the conditions were sub par. When the dog was taken, the people who took him also assumed responsibility for his treatment. There is no good reason why it should ever have gotten to the point that, as you implied, the kindest thing the family could do for him was allow him to be euthanized. Who treats a living thing, with no personal history of violence, that way?

People should not be allowed to have Pit bulls. IMO a blanket ban is appropriate because only a few people can provide what this breed needs.

As far as Lennox goes, if the owners would love this dog they would have asked a vet to euthanase him long ago. How can someone put this dog through so much stress that he even loses his fur, and then claim they love him? What for? To prove that they are right? Incomprehensible.

I will agree that pitbulls are a power-type breed, and because of their jaw strength (result of cross-breeding), their bite is more powerful than a smaller dog's bite. But any dog will be aggressive if he thinks he can get away with it, or if it's scared.

[LPC]

I think the OP was trying to draw attention to the fact that dogs which are NOT pit bulls have been wrongly seized. The OP clearly states that the dog is a Labrador cross (presumably Labrador crossed with pit bull). That is the issue which he wanted us to discuss. Hopefully, the OP will return to clarify!

Originally Posted by LPC

I think the OP was trying to draw attention to the fact that dogs which are NOT pit bulls have been wrongly seized. The OP clearly states that the dog is a Labrador cross (presumably Labrador crossed with pit bull). That is the issue which he wanted us to discuss. Hopefully, the OP will return to clarify!

That was pretty clear. But you know threads rarely ever stay with the OP yeah?

Originally Posted by Sybilline

That was pretty clear. But you know threads rarely ever stay with the OP yeah?

It looks that everybody is sitting on the fence. Where are the people who are concerned about animal welfare?

The authorities may be wrong on this one. So is the owner. The difference is that the authorities are constrained by all kind of laws and regulations. They cannot just confiscate and destroy people's 'possession' without following due process. This may take months, years and may involve the courts. The owner, on the other hand, can put an end to this animal's suffering today without going through any red tape. A simple word would be enough.

[knightofalbion]

Any dog needs to be properly trained and controlled and kept in an appropiate environment, esp. if it's a large, powerful breed, but ultimately if a dog is 'aggressive' you have to look at the owners.
Most aggressive dogs have been trained/incited to be aggressive.