Dog laws need to be tougher, not more lenient
I just read the article about changing the laws regarding aggressive dogs. This change would allow aggressive dogs to apply for relief from this designation.
My dog was attacked by my neighbour’s dogs, three at once, in March of this year. My dog was ripped apart in front of myself, my mother, sister, my friend and multiple neighbours! I thought my dog was dead! People ran from every direction to help me fight for my dog’s life.
My dog thankfully did survive though his demeanour has changed; but despite weekly phone calls from myself and neighbours to the City, bylaw officers and Coastal Animal Services nothing has been done about the dogs who attacked without warning!
My neighbour has five dogs, under the current bylaw he can only have three and to this day he still has all five.
Why would [we] ever want to remove a dangerous or aggressive designation from a dog who has attacked?
Then when they attack again it would be considered a first rather than second attack, and how many attacks need to happen before something is done in the first place?
My dog had hundreds of stitches and was in surgery for four hours. My neighbour never apologized or showed any concern and his dogs are happily awaiting their next victim with seemingly the approval of the City of Duncan and Coastal Animal Services as neither appears to want to follow up on this person or his dogs.
This is not the first dog he has owned that has attacked and the three who have now attacked as a pack will attack again. The laws need to be tougher not more lenient.
Shirley Partridge
Duncan
