Tyler’s Story: Tyler the friendly crossbreed was seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act, he left home in perfect condition but was broken in solitary confirement. A volunteer on a canine helpline received a telephone call from Debbie shortly after her dog Tyler was seized under Section One of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA), for being of the ‘type’; a home visit to the owner was arranged to offer support: “It was an upsetting home visit, we just sat and listened to Debbie as she poured it all out. I remember staring at the large bloody clumps of her hair on the mantelpiece, pulled out in the struggle on the morning her dog ‘Tyler was seized under the DDA.” Following the introduction of the DDA and a summer of intense negative news coverage for dogs, three year old crossbred dog ‘Tyler’ was forcibly removed from his home at 7.30am on December 20th 1991 amidst scenes of great distress. Debbie answered her door dressed in her nightgown, there were at least 5 arresting officers, two wore protective clothing and carried catchpoles. Tyler was dragged from the bed where he had been sleeping upstairs with a 6 year old child, his neck bleeding as the catch poles tightened in the struggle. It was reported that his owner began to scream and tried to obstruct the arrest of her dog by not letting him be taken away, her arm was put into a ‘hammer lock’ and she was forcible led away down the street in her nightgown and arrested, her dog was driven away in the back of a van. Like all dogs seized under section one of the Act, Tyler was held in kennels at a secret location awaiting his fate, during this time he was terribly treated. Owner contact was denied. The case eventually came before the Magistrates Court and the owner was found guilty (not helped by the fact that under this law the burden of proof is reversed). The Judge sentenced the crossbred dog to death for being a ‘pit bull type’ acting under the new Home Office guidelines that condemn any dog for the way it looks. Tyler had never harmed anyone or anything, he had done no wrong. The case later went before the Crown Court on Appeal; Tyler was kept alive but still held in secret kennels. Acting for the defence Dr. Mugford showed a video of his behavioural assessment to the Court, Tyler was introduced and mixed with other dogs, a sheep, an imitation cat, a dog known to be dog aggressive, confronted by strangers etc, throughout he remained calm and docile and at no time showed any signs of being ‘dangerous’. Mike Homan and Vic Pounds both Staffordshire Bull Terrier experts also gave detailed and exhaustive evidence for the defence. It was revealed during the lengthy hearing that Tyler had sustained several injuries whilst held in solitary confinement at a secret location. The injuries received were listed by Dr. Mugford, these included untreated lacerations from the catchpole used to remove him from his family home, two holes inside his mouth, a deep puncture wound to his shoulder and flesh missing from a hind leg with other small flesh wounds and pressure sores. Tyler was described as visibly malnourished and bloated, being tender around his abdomen. Tyler: Brutalised Vic Pounds examined Tyler and gave his evidence in Court. He stated that Tyler had wounds on his right shoulder which had been treated and on his left pasterns there was a round and fairly deep wound about one inch in diameter which he thought had been inflicted fairly recently, the wounds looked sore and was still open. He said “I have never seen a dog in worse condition”. In his opinion Tyler had been brutalised and was in no fit condition to be thoroughly examined. Tyler, once full of life, has given up, he can take no more. Despite all the evidence, the Judges found his owner guilty of owning an unregistered ‘pit bull type’ and ordered Tyler to be put to death in seven days. Owner Debbie fell back in her seat with the shock of the verdict, overcome by the outcome she began to cry and beg the court to spare her dog, as the Judge left the room. Supporters present at the hearing described the atmosphere; “many people in the room were devastated when the judge said Tyler had to die – men and women alike had tears in their eyes, even some of the observers not connected with the case. To hear a woman begging and pleading for her dogs life, completely broken with grief, calling out to anyone who could hear, is the most distressing thing I have witnessed in this situation” said one observer. Debbie went home that day to her young son who was waiting with Tyler’s Christmas present, still wrapped up, certain of his friends return. Tyler had endured 14 months in confinement before he lost his life on 9th March 1993. Shortly afterwards, his owner received a heavy black plastic bin liner delivered to her doorstep, it was cold and dripping with fluid, when she looked inside she found the dead lifeless body of her beloved Tyler. This is how breed specific legislation works in the real world, Targetting the innocent dog.
How awful, and how insensitve our justice system can be. I hope all those whose lives were wrongly taken are fit and healthy at the bridge waiting for their beloved families. Becky
Oh my, what a terrible story, that poor woman and Tyler, I can't understand why they behave in such a way, it's so unecessary, even if the dog was to be taken, they coudl still treat it with respect. Its so awful to see his spirit broken in those pictures and to think he never saw his beloved owners again could break my heart
Those pictures really get to me, how could anyone be so cruel? Poor Tyler, I'm lost for words. To imagine how he and the family must have been feeling...its heartbreaking.
That breaks my heart! Such cruelty towards a defenseless dog, and his defenseless owner. I'm literally in tears. So tragic.
I am shocked I thought that at least the poor dog and its owner would of been treated sympathetically and kindly. Very upsetting but necessary for us to realise what goes on. Poor Tyler and Debbie and her young Son so sad.
OMG that is awful,the poor dog should of been treated with dignity,and to suffer in kennels for all that time,the system needs to be sorted:-(
That is disgusting - should these people not be prosecuted for cruelty as I thought they were obliged to provide a standard of care by law.
Why were Tylers captors not prosecuted for cruelty? How that poor boy suffered. His poor owner no wonder she was distraught.
I am speechless, how could this happen in a country of so called animal lovers? what can we do to stop this? Run free sweet boy:smt049
That is so sad that poor dog and the lady how could they do that well i just dont know what to say that has really upset me poor Tyler and the lady who owend him.
It's dreadful but unfortunatly this is what BSL is,this is why we need the law changing,Tyler's story is not an isolated case - there are many more. It's cruel,it targets the wrong end of the lead and does nothing to get to the root of the problem,irresponsible ownership. Below Is Crossposted. Home Office 1991 – “Cross-breeds of the pit bull terrier with other dogs are not specifically controlled by s.1 of the act.” Home Office 1992 – “Under the Act any dog which has the characteristics of the type known as a pit bull terrier is regarded as being of that type, irrespective of parentage.” Home Office 1992 – “In this country the pit bull terrier is generally regarded as being a cross between a bull breed of dog and larger dogs like the mastiff. It may also, however, be obtained by breeding or cross-breeding pit bull terriers themselves.” Home Office 1992 – “Whether section 1 of the Act applies to any particular cross will depend on whether the resulting dog is of the type known as the pit bull terrier – that is to say, whether it has the physical and behavioural characteristics of the pit bull terrier.” Home Office 1994 – “Under the Act any dog which has characteristics of the type known as the pit bull terrier is regarded as being of that type, irrespective of its parentage.” Queen’s Bench Divisional Court 1993 – the landmark case of Brock & Dunne set a precedent which has far reaching consequences. The court debated what was meant by type and decided ‘type’ has a broader meaning than ‘breed’. Their Lordships, Justice Glidewell and Justice Cresswell stated: “That a dog of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier is an animal approximately amounting to, near to, having a substantial number of characteristics of the Pit Bull Terrier”. Meaning that the law could cover dogs that were not pit bull terriers, but had substantial characteristics of one. The court also ruled that the relevant breed standard for assessing whether a dog is or is not of the type should be that of the ADBA. Since part of that breed standard concerned the dog’s behaviour, the court ruled that evidence of a dog’s behavioural characteristics was relevant, but not conclusive. DEFRA Present Day - Information on what constitutes a prohibited type is given in a leaflet available from Defra. Here the advice is that the law applies not only to ‘pure’ Pit Bull Terriers (even thought it’s not recognised as a breed by the Government) but also to any dog of the type known as the PBT. The overall general description is that of a muscular smooth-haired dog, with a square profile and average height of 45-55cm. So now the goal posts have widened to include any cross breed of dog, “irrespective of parentage”. The offspring of two perfectly legal breeds could produce an illegal dog. Type has a broader meaning than breed. But, the Index has closed and with it any hope of legalising many pet dogs condemned as an illegal ‘type’.
Thast hasn't changed at all, it has always been the case and that has always been the problem with the DDA. A decision has to be made based on appearances rather than of the dogs behaviour and the ability of the owner to control it. Becky
