Owner breached dangerous dogs laws

A SOUTHAMPTON man was fined for owning two pit bull terrier-type dogs illegally after he bought them without knowing they were dangerous animals.

Attal Mihanpoor, 27, of Wilton Road, told Southampton Magistrates’ Court that he had been told both dogs, Lenny and Ziggy, were Staffordshire bull terriers and, therefore, not under the regulations of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Both dogs were examined by animal specialists after police were called to Chilworth where they were found wandering without a lead.

Mihanpoor was ordered to pay a fine of £175 for each dog, have both pets microchipped and neutered and keep them muzzled and on a lead at all times.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8204...o_muzzle_pets/

Sad...dogs who have done nothing are now forced to wear muzzles and be always on lead. I guess better that than being killed, but it's still entirely unfair.

It upsets me terribly to hear these sorts of things

The fact the dogs were given back to him suggest they arent very dangerous, yet they must be muzzled and on lead. The logic is outstanding.

There is no logic at all. He bought them without knowing they were dangerous??? So what dangerous things have they done. I know, by being born

Poor dogs whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Is there an actual way to prove that the dogs were a banned breed or is it just what a 'specialist' thinks they are?

I bet he knew exactly what hes Dogs where..call me cynical Dogs adapt very well to muzzles. I'm sure the Dogs will cope fine. Do wish these Dogs where giving somewhere to run off lead tho, big powerful Dogs need to run their energy off somehow.

The law so needs to toughen up, on the idiots that keep on breeding these Dogs..its not the Dogs fault but, they are the ones that suffer.

'specialist opinion'

in fact unless you can find a 'specialist' to prove they are not they are deemed as being outlawed.

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. The burden of proff is on the defendant to prove their innocent rather than prosection to prove thier guilt

May I pick your brain, since you know more about it than I do!

Would the specialist make their assessment based only on the dogs at hand or do they go and see the dam and sire etc? I suppose a DNA test wouldn't show what breed the dog is?

Dog at hand.

If the owner had the resources to get the sire and dam involved and prove he was born from them i dont see why they couldnt use it to support their case.

But alot of these cases are xbreedsor rescues where sire or dam would be hard to get.

But the law is based on the physical characteristics of the dog so if the dog fits into these vague guidelines it will usually result in a conviction. Normally getting placed on the list of exemptions is your best hope.