This past Saturday several people were attacked by a "red nosed pit bull" out on the Prospect Road - and Animal Control seized the dog - after police pulled their gun on both the dog - and the dog's owner - on the dog because the police officer was afraid of what the dog was going to do next, and on the dog's owner because he picked up a hammer and was very agitated and was being very uncooperative with police and Animal Control.
The newspaper article said about the dog's owner - "They were more or less yelling for us to get off their property. It appeared that they were going to try to hammer the door of the HRM bylaw truck."
What is REALLY interesting about the newspaper article is the last part.
The Manager of Animal Control, Andrea MacDonald is interviewed, and she talks about the dog being seized, earlier in the article it was said - "The police will work together with animal services staff to determine what charges, if any, should be laid in the matter"
And then at the end, it says -
"Andrea MacDonald of animal services said the dog is in a kennel at the SPCA in Burnside. She said the dog is not a purebred and they refer to it as a red-nosed pit bull, which is how the owners registered the animal.
She said their investigation is still underway, so she didn’t know what will happen to the dog.
"We don’t have the authority to determine whether it gets euthanized or not," she said. "A judge will have to decide.""
Do you see there what I see? Do you see -
"We don’t have the authority to determine whether it gets euthanized or not," she said. "A judge will have to decide."
So when did that become official? When did Regional Council pass that change to Bylaw A300? What is the new wording of A300? How did we miss that at Regional Council?
Did some press release come out that we missed? Or were they just waiting for a high profile dog attack to happen so that they could release the news like that?
I wrote a letter tonight to my Municipal Councillor to see if I could find out any answers to my questions - so we'll see if we can get any movement happening.
My letter to my Councillor, Steve Adams -
There was a dog attack out on the Prospect Road and there was an article in today's Chronicle Herald - I've attached the article for you - and in the last sentence of the article Andrea MacDonald says -
"We don’t have the authority to determine whether it gets euthanized or not," she said. "A judge will have to decide."
When did A300 get offficially changed so that animal control officers don't have authority anymore to authorize euthaniziations and it's now on the say-so of a judge only?
I'm sure you know about the whole "Brindi" thing and how her court case quashed the part of section 8 of A300 that allowed animal control officers to authorize euthanizations of dogs based on simply a "reason to believe" that a dog was aggressive - and that the bylaw was sent to some municipal department to revised.
After that time myself and several other people have met with the Mayor and he was completely unwilling to talk about that section of the bylaw - but he did receive a written copy of what we thought were good changes to what the bylaw should have - and now by the sounds of this article - certain changes have been effected to the bylaw - and no announcements have been made - no press releases have been done - no consultation with the public has been made - it hasn't been approved by Regional Council as far as I can tell - unless it was done behind closed doors - because I keep a pretty close eye on Regional Council meetings.
So have official changes been made to A300? And if so - when? And what are they? And why is the City and Animal Control continuing to be so secretive about everything they do? It is just so disingenuous to work this way - they will never get any support from the public or any buy-in from them if they continue to operate this way. It is just so disappointing to find out about the changes to A300 from a throw-away comment in an article about a dog attack.
If you could give me any direction Steve, it would be much appreciated! A lot of people would like to know!
Here is the newspaper article -
Road rage suspect is a pit bull
'Big dog' hauled away by cops after cyclists attacked
By DAN ARSENAULT Crime Reporter
A Halifax Mountie pulled his gun on a man Saturday while trying to seize a pit bull that allegedly attacked three bicyclists in Prospect.
Officers were called to the area of 2396 Prospect Rd. at about 11 a.m. when a woman was allegedly knocked off her bike by Mercedes — a young, adult, mixed-breed female. The dog then punctured her foot with a bite.
John Bobbitt, who lives near the scene on Prospect Road, saw some cars stopping on the road that morning and went to take a look.
"They were helping a lady out of the gutter," he said Monday.
The woman was in his neighbour’s ditch and the dog owner was pulling the light-coloured animal away by the collar, he said.
"It was a big dog," he said.
As for the woman, "I think she was more scared than anything else," he said. "That’s to be understood."
She was taken to hospital for treatment.
Mr. Bobbitt said the neighbours moved in within the last year.
The police had not yet arrived at the scene when a second reported attack took place. A husband and wife were biking past when the dog charged and bit the back tire of one of the bicycles, according to RCMP.
When the RCMP and Halifax Regional Municipality Animal Control Services arrived on the scene, they allegedly saw the dog charge at another cyclist, trying to bite at his leg and back tire.
Animal services got control of the dog and put it in one of their vehicles to be taken away.
RCMP spokesman Cpl. Joe Taplin said an officer, who had removed his gun out of fear of the dog and re-holstered it later, took his weapon out again when an agitated man at the house picked up a hammer.
"The homeowners weren’t very co-operative with police or HRM animal services," he said. "They were more or less yelling for us to get off their property. It appeared that they were going to try to hammer the door of the HRM bylaw truck."
Cpl. Taplin said an officer talked the man out of taking action and the man wouldn’t be facing charges.
Asked how the dog got loose after the first incident, he said, "That’ll all be part of the investigation."
The police will work together with animal services staff to determine what charges, if any, should be laid in the matter, he said.
Mr. Bobbitt said he didn’t know of the dog misbehaving previously. Ed Holt, another neighbour, said he’s never seen the neighbour’s dog or any others running loose in the area.
"I hear him barking once in awhile, but I’ve never seen him," he said.
Andrea MacDonald of animal services said the dog is in a kennel at the SPCA in Burnside. She said the dog is not a purebred and they refer to it as a red-nosed pit bull, which is how the owners registered the animal.
She said their investigation is still underway, so she didn’t know what will happen to the dog.
"We don’t have the authority to determine whether it gets euthanized or not," she said. "A judge will have to decide."
another tragic case of stupid people.
ReplyDeleteanother classice example of stupid/irresponsible dog ownership.
another dark mark on a mixbreed being falsely and generically labeled "Pitbull"
Here's a recent story where the "pit bull" did get shot: http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1138265.html
ReplyDeleteThat has got to be one of the most useless, fear mongering, prejudiced articles I think I've ever read.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see you have blogged about this latest scrape with animal control. I did not see the option to comment on the article in the Herald website and wanted to say something in defense of the dog... and even for the owners, though it sounds like their behavior was a bit extreme.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I hope everyone reading the article and all persons evaluating the dog realize that some dogs are just mesmerized by bike tires,the glint of light on the spokes, the movement of the pedals, the clicking. I have seen this from the ground and as a bicyclist. That this dog bolted past people to chase bikes shows the attraction was to the bike and not the person. So perhaps A-300 should include a provision: "attacks BIKES without provocation."
Quoting from the article: "When the RCMP and Halifax Regional Municipality Animal Control Services arrived on the scene, they allegedly saw the dog charge at another cyclist, trying to bite at his leg and back tire." Bullcrap! The dog was NOT trying to bite the cyclist's leg... he was chasing the bike. Such reckless reporting is what starts things off on a bad note that is often very hard to retract.
Many years ago, three of my dogs were in the front courtyard of my townhouse community when a woman rode by on a bicycle. Dotsy took off running after her. Brie and Isak just followed barking -- they were about 6 months old; Dotsy was about 6 years old and weighed 12 pounds. Dotsy ran in front of the woman's bike at one point and the woman sweared to miss her. But Isak was barking at the tires on that side and the woman, in effect, rode into his barking mouth. He broke skin, but hardly more than a scratch.
I paid for her medical bills and followed up with her, but she reported the incident and Isak was seized. It lasted just a few weeks, but it was one screwy deal after another on the part of the authorities. They kept changing their minds about what needed to be done, though euthanasia was never on the list. As I said, this was many years ago... and it occurred in Texas. As a last minute step, Isak had to be tattooed as a dangerous dog -- at six months of age!
He was chasing a bike, chasing the clicking and the motion of the wheels and the pedals... not the woman. It was obvious as you watched the whole thing unfold. I think the pit mix in your area was doing the same.
In this case, to the uninformed person, we have a dog that appears to be attacking at random AND who looks "kinda like a pit bull." The story will easily get blown out of proportion.
Please take the time to review this bit-by-bit and realize this is just an ordinary dog chasing a bicycle. Fine the owners for a dog running loose and send the dog home. Neighbors have already said the dog has posed no problem previously.
AND SEND BRINDI HOME, TOO!!! That case has been and remains an incredible example of a miscarriage of justice and abuse of power by Halifax authorities where a bunch of buffoons seem to be making up the rules as they go along. Brindi could easily be freed -- and should have been freed in January, if not July, 2008 -- with a phone call, but everyone who could make a difference chooses to look the other way. No balls to stand up for what is right.
No dog should be with an irresponsible owner. If they truely want the dog back, then become a responsible owner. Get training, make sure the yard is done so no escapes can happen. Get proper help for the dog to work on the issues at hand. If a dog deemed dangerous is to be allowed back with the owner who has shown to not follow any laws, then another " incident" happens, who will be at fault with the citizens. I would not want to be near a place with a deemed dangerous dog and that dog in the hands of an irresponsible owner. I would say, until any owner of an animal seized can show they are being responsible by doing what needs to be, they should NOT get the dog.
ReplyDelete