Keep clear of Norway

[Natalya]

Breed genetic test is not so precise, as personal genetic identification or nearest relatives identification. Veterinary department of Mars Inc. offers DNA breed test for mixed dog owners with 90% accuracy (it is based on gene statistics, collected from 13000 dogs, as they say). But they say in FAQ:
- Can this test be used by regulatory/animal control officials to determine whether breeds are legislated or banned in a particular community? - The WISDOM Panel™ MX is designed and intended to be used solely to identify the genetic history of a mixed-breed dog and no other purpose is authorized or permitted.
But anyway, if judgment is based on presumption of innocence, prosecutor have to give evidences, that suspicious animal belongs to prohibited breed.

[Per Olav]

Originally Posted by Natalya

But anyway, if judgment is based on presumption of innocence, prosecutor have to give evidences, that suspicious animal belongs to prohibited breed.

Nope On the contrary. Like the Norwegian law on drugs the procecuted bear the responsibility of proving earned money come from other sources than distribution of drugs, the owners of assumed banned dogs or mixes thereof are responsible of proving their dogs are not. Theoretically the authoryties may sit with hands and legs crossed waiting for the evidence provided by the procecuted. And again - if there is a slightest doubt of the heritage of a assumed banned dog or mixes thereof its future life may be disputable.
--
PO

[solowolf]

Originally Posted by Per Olav

Nope On the contrary. Like the Norwegian law on drugs the procecuted bear the responsibility of proving earned money come from other sources than distribution of drugs, the owners of assumed banned dogs or mixes thereof are responsible of proving their dogs are not. Theoretically the authoryties may sit with hands and legs crossed waiting for the evidence provided by the procecuted. And again - if there is a slightest doubt of the heritage of a assumed banned dog or mixes thereof its future life may be disputable.
--
PO

Hi Per it is very unfortunate the position of CWS in Norway, but it is not the general public you need to educate on the CWS but the authorities who make the rulings, yes public support will help but after it becomes a long battle they fall to the wayside, i had lots of support in 2001-2003 then it faded away,people lost hope and give up because it was the local government we were taking on, i was left with my wife and 3 good friends to continue our struggle for our CWS, i had to move home many times to protect my dogs from being siezed by authorities, my self and other owners risked going to prison, but we kept on phoneing and writting, in 2004 we had bit of success as we got person from local council out to look at our dogs, we did not tell him what they where, we asked him to go in with every dog, we let him take one for walk and have play about, we then asked him his oppinion and he said they are great, then we told him what they where,,,,,,,he had never heard of them, yet he had the power to remove and destroy all our dogs,,this is typical of local government laws,,, even the top authority DEFRA admitted they had never seen a CWS, when i went onto and got copy of DANGEROUS WILD ANIMAL ACT the CWS and SAARLOOS where listed, when i read all the facts they had on wolfdogs it was 99% about wolfdogs and attacks in USA, it then took over a year to get it across that the CWS was different to the wolfdogs of higher content in USA, in 2006 we got a person from the top department to visit again he seen nothing wrong with our wolfdogs, but kept saying but they are used by the army,, we said so are the GSD,,and many other breeds. IN all everyone who visited had different views in there heads as to what the CWS are and are used for, so we adventually got them all in same frame of mind that they are a wolfdog and that they are domesticated but are not for everyone, just as many other breeds of dogs are not for everyone, it is hard work to draw the ballence and to get the people who count to change there minds and there views on CWS, especially when they have been trained to do a job to remove any animals that they think has wolf content,,,again they are trained,( from photos) as not one single person who visited had every seen a CWS, they had no idea what they where till we told them,,,,, in november 2008 we had a big party the law was changed in u.k. hard work, many phone calls, lots of letters, i even got articles put in dog magazines, i had letters from vets, breeders in Europe, friends who had visited, we just kept up a constant pressure on the authorities, not over the top ,but just a pain in there ass once a week every week, to let them know we where not going away.....it took long time, and i admit many times i felt like just giving up, but when i would go out and see my wolfdogs and have a play, it puts fire back in your heart and makes you more determand to go on. select your team, one writes the letters, one makes the phone calls, one must seek visit from local authority, this can be tricky and we done it on nuteral ground to protect owner and dog, but it paid off, also you have CWS used in advertising, in films, rescue work, dont forget all the dog shows all over the world they can attend and at all levels including world dog show,,, gather every scrap of evidence you can get for you will need it all, and draw a big line between what they bred and own in USA. good luck if we can help contact us.
on a brighter note i tried to up load a pick to the web site but failed... i have trained one of my cws bitchs called IMAN to round up my chickens, photo is on my web site, best regards Paul and Mandy u.k.

[Per Olav]

Hi Paul and thanks for you message.

Here's a brief summary of the background.

Prior to 1990 there were no general law of how to keep dogs in my country. There were a lot of regulations "hidden" inside other laws, like laws for protecting the wild life, livestock, animal welfare, neighboring, park regulations etc etc.

By the mid 1980 several countries implementet laws on dagerous dogs - and Norway followed the general trend by prohibiting "fighting dogs" like the Pitbull and three more "excotic" breeds nobody at that time haven't heard of. Today no one - even the Kennel Club or our Authorities can explain the reason of the Norwegian ban - the couple of dozen Pitbulls residing inside our border made no harm to anyone.

By mid 1990 our lawmakers decided to put all regulations related to dogkeeping in one general law.

By 1990 a kid aged 5 was killed by a Polar dog breed while playing unattende inside the courtyard of his divorced mother's home. The dog was owned by the mothers new friend and the animal had earlier shown aggressiveness against people.

Ten years later a boy of seven was killed and partly eaten by a pack of mutts.

The appointed Minister of Justice invited the fathers of the both killed boys and a third one whose little kid was attacked and badly injured by a dog as the Ministry's advisors when preparing the dog law. At a later stage another one attended the group. This one declared himself as a supporter of our national "federation of wolf haters" and popped up like a Jumping Jack anywhere and everywhere declaring the most reasonable way of preventing dog bites was by banning certain breeds and for sure wolfdogs must be banned due to their inheritance frrom the wolf and its history of a dangerous specie. In particular the csv which he wrote had a bad reputation as "killer dog of Eastern Europe Armies" should be banned. His view was supported by the "group of fathers" refering to attacks made by American wolfdogs.

Several meetings were arranged but none the arguments of the Kennel Klub, experts and others made any influence on the Ministry's decission: banning certain breeds was the best way of making an end to fatal dogbites. To end this story: The Amstaff was banned by the request of the Police due to its close relation to the previously banned Pitbull, and the csv by the request of the Ministry's advisors.

By now a new situation has occured which may make a change if properly handled by the Kennel Klub and our experts. But for time beeing my lips are sealed cause it's a matter of police investigation and most likely a possible case for the psyciatrics
--
po

[Per Olav]

The Supreme Court of Norway has decided to let Majlo free. As some of you know the by Norwegian government banned American Staffordshire Terrier illegally crossed the Norwegian border accompanied by his Swedish owner. Because of this the police requested the dog put to death. After 11 months of secret sheltering the dog is now free and will stay in Poland by a brother of the owners boyfriend. This video show the reunion of the dog and his masters.

The Norwegian Department of Police inform that the law now will be revised. Most likely not in favor of dogs accidentally crossing the border accompanied by owners not familiar to Norwegian laws.
--
po

[Mikael]

Congratulations to Mijlo and fam

Best regards / Mikael

[Rona]

Great news!!! What a relief...

On the other hand, it won't probably be easy for the owners to regain Majlo's confidence in them... so much unnecessary suffering, costs, effeorts!

The Norwegian Department of Police inform that the law now will be revised. Most likely not in favor of dogs accidentally crossing the border accompanied by owners not familiar to Norwegian laws.

Do you mean there'd be no hope for a Majlo or another wolfdog?

[Angelika]

Originally Posted by Natalya

if judgment is based on presumption of innocence

No, Natalya, it´s based on state-determinations.

Again: on the official page of Norway everyone can find a passage about the obligation to introduce his dog while entering Norway. If you follow this obligation nothing happens because they will send you and your dog home.

Does everyone here want to avoid state-determinations?

[Rona]

Well, the problem is different in my opinion - much more philosophical. Namely in some states, some authorities and administrators keep forgeting that law has been created to serve people and protect them and not the other way round. People (policemen, judges etc.) are not robots and should apply legal regulations with the understanding of their deep meaning and purpose that stands behind them. Law without a "humane face" and mercy is a total misunderstanding and a mockery of itslef

[Angelika]

Originally Posted by Rona

Well, the problem is different in my opinion - much more philosophical. Namely in some states, some authorities and administrators keep forgeting that law has been created to serve people and protect them and not the other way round. People (policemen, judges etc.) are not robots and should apply legal regulations with the understanding of their deep meaning and purpose that stands behind them. Law without a "humane face" and mercy is a total misunderstanding and a mockery of itslef

You´re right, Rona, as always But I´m too old to be as idealistic as you are

On the other hand I do not doubt the good intention of this determination/law. Unfortunately it was not carried out well. Or an example should have been stated. Who knows? There are not much background informations.

Anyway: this sad situation could have been avoided by the dog´s owner.

[Mikael]

Originally Posted by Angelika

this sad situation could have been avoided by the dog´s owner.

Yes I agree whit Per Olav and you on this point, but did the owners know ??? I do not think the CsV owners of Imbus knew about the risks of going on a holiday to Norway last summer...

And I do not think the crime is of the proportion of death penalty neither...

Maybe 5000 Euro in penalty fine and deportation from Norway would be a penalty more easy to understand but death for the only one of the family members that is absolutely innocent is not OK

Regards / Mikael

[Rona]

Originally Posted by Angelika

You´re right, Rona, as always But I´m too old to be as idealistic as you are

On the other hand I do not doubt the good intention of this determination/law. Unfortunately it was not carried out well. Or an example should have been stated. Who knows? There are not much background informations.

Anyway: this sad situation could have been avoided by the dog´s owner.

Angelika, for me this is no idealism, but common sense. . If my generation had obeyed law in 100%, my country (and many more) would still be communist now . If my grandparents had obeyed Nazi law, their Jewish friends would have been exterminated , etc. I belive there are principles more important than legal regulations - law can be changed, but it won't return Majlo his life.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm all for following legal regulations, for reporting law breaking, for getting informed about regulations in other countries, etc. (NB just yesterday I persuaded my two female students not to join their male friends on a cycling expedition to Iran - at first they didn't belive me and thought I was joking when I told them they'd for sure end upin jail ) But I'm against executing legal absurds.

Killing any creature "just in case" in a democratic country in the 21c - for me is a legal absurd, just as for all those, who signed the petition. Aren't there any lions and tigers in zoos - things happen - they might escape one day! Not to mention all the muggers and murderers walking free in the streets in serach of victims...

[Angelika]

Hi Rona,

I think at last we reach the same conclusion, albeit on different ways

It has been the fault of our generation to educate the present generation to be so "extremely" self-confident. Seems they are thinking: here I come - nothing can stop me - I don´t care about laws or political conditions in foreign countries ...

It would be better to reflect, to inform themselves, to take important things seriously.

That´s why I´m repeating myself again and again (but I assure you of stopping it now ).

Maybe it has been the aim of Per Olav´s topic too.

Kind regards
Angelika