I live in Armstrong and everyone in my neighbourhood recently received a letter from someone who is concerned about the aggressive behaviour of three pitbulls from a resident.
Apparently they bark, snarl and jump at the fence when he is in his own yard and, as the fence is only four feet high, he’s worried that one day they may jump the fence and physically attack him.
There is a city bylaw that limits the number of dogs in each household to two, and even though enforcing it would not completely eliminate the problem, it would reduce the threat level by a third. However, the city, for some unknown reason, refused to enforce this particular bylaw.
Which begs the question, why would a bylaw be on the books that isn’t going to be enforced?
But that’s a separate issue. The greater issue that needs to be addressed is what can be done so that this man can begin to enjoy his yard again without fear of these three dogs?
I did a bit of research into the subject and found one solution proposed elsewhere. The city could pass a bylaw requiring aggressive dogs be kept in a secure pen within the confines of their own yard.
Or, another idea is to require the owner of an aggressive dog pay for a higher, more secure fence around their yard.
Either one of these two ideas would enable the one neighbour to keep her pets, while allowing the other to enjoy the use of his own property free from fear of these aggressive dogs. However, such a bylaw would only work if the city enforces it.
I don’t know why the city chose not to try to help this resident solve his problem but, given the history of unprovoked pitbull attacks in Canada, I can understand his concern when three of them are barking, growling and snarling at him every time he goes out in his yard.
As I was able to find a potential solution after only five minutes of research on the Internet.
I have to wonder why nobody at the city was able to come up with something similar.
Helen Jackson
Armstrong
