 Barked: Tue Oct 23, '12 4:14pm PST |
 | |  | | Thanks for your input, Baylee I appreciate it as you are from the city in question. As I said, there were some unanswered questions in this story. My interest was in some of the comments, which suggested that since the dog was 3 pounds, designating it a dangerous dog was ridiculous. If the dog did indeed violate the bylaw, then it should be declared dangerous, no matter what size it was. I agree that the BSL should be overturned. Here in NB we have no BSL and as you may be aware, some of the "Pitbulls" of Ontario were sent here. I was proud of our province for rejecting BSL in favor of dangerous dog laws. |  |  | |  |
|
| my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
23
This is my city. This has been all over the news. While I do think that breed or size should not make a difference, I think it's ridiculous to give the label of dangerous dog on a first non serious bite. It does not say if this dog has a history of biting, aggression, or even being out of the owner physical control ( out of fenced area or off leash). I think if there is a history then yes the label. We do have a breed ban here as well, which went into effect about 7 years ago. I really think what we need is to oust the breed ban and make the owners accountable for bad behaviour if the dog is repeatedly bites or is at large, unless the first incident is serious and unprovoked. So if this is a first offence I feel this dog and owners should be given a second chance to change and fix the problem.
