I have no idea if this will work, but it's worth a try...

[wordinista]

I frequent a forum for owners of Australian Shepherds, and lovers of the breed.  It's a really great group of people, and I've learned a lot of helpful things from the board.  Tonight I found a plea that I can't help with, but I'm sending it out there with the hopes that someone might be able to help.

I don't know if anyone on my f-list can do anything, but this story is tearing at my heart.

Comments

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

It's the mother of the girl who's pushing to have the dog put down. And, you know, I totally agree with you on this whole thing, because dangerous and aggressive dogs ARE a problem. And so are stupid people with stupid lawsuits. But there's one very important thing here:

The dog didn't do anything. There was no attack.

It didn't hurt anyone, it wasn't behaving aggressively, nothing. It jumped up and tore a girl's shirt. Okay, fine. Jumping up is bad, yes. Trying to break Darwin of it, because at 40'ish lbs, that's not particularly fun. But it doesn't make for an aggressive or dangerous dog. These people are, essentially, making a false claim, and no one's questioning them. THAT is where I get pissed off. I mean, we could go round and round for days: "IF the dog bites someone else..." But it didn't bite anyone THIS TIME, so it almost feels like a moot point to say, "But what if it happens again?"

Essentially, these neighbors are doing nothing but fucking over their neighbor. The guy's already said he'll move if necessary, depending on whether the by-law is province wide or just city-wide.

I'm not upset with the laws, I'm upset with the people -- primarily the neighbors, but the animal-control folks aren't winning any points either.

I'll paste the dog legislation pointed out by another forum member here:
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/dolaON.html --

Considerations
(6) Except as provided by subsections ( 8 ) and ( 9 ), in exercising its powers to make an order under subsection (3), the court may take into consideration the following circumstances:
1. The dog’s past and present temperament and behaviour.
2. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting or attack.
3. Unusual contributing circumstances tending to justify the dog’s action.
4. The improbability that a similar attack will be repeated.
5. The dog’s physical potential for inflicting harm.
6. Precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future.
7. Any other circumstances that the court considers to be relevant. 2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6; 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (12).

That's what I mean when I say the human element is bothering me -- the laws are right there in black and white, and yet this guy is being told that none of it matters. There was no "attack" and there was no bite. How, then, is the dog dangerous?

[vespurtine.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I agree with you 100% there. I was just trying to say that people shouldn't be slamming the city for this, that's all. I completely agree that the problem is the people who reported it in the first place. It was a pretty shitty thing to do, considering the girl wasn't hurt or in any real risk. Well, shitty, or a little bit batshit overreacting. Or both. Iunno.

They sound like pricks to me, but now that all's said and done, I doubt there's really much that can be done about it. Hopefully the family can find someone to take the puppy, but it might be tough :(