There was 2 pit bulls who got out of their pen over in Cow Bay yesterday. Like any dog who's lived next door to a chicken coop housing 40 chickens - they broke into that coop and killed them all. When Animal Control and the police came they acted aggressively and one of them was shot and put down - the other one escaped into the woods - and today was found and relinquished to Animal Control and has since been put down.
I am not condoning dogs acting aggressively - towards anything - whether it's chickens, humans, or other dogs - but a dog is a dog and if it sees something tasty and it's been tied up his whole life and his owner has treated him a certain way - then that dog is going to act a certain way. It's not the dogs fault - it's the OWNER'S fault. And the laws should deal with things that way. Deal with the OWNER - not the DOG - do not ban a certain breed of DOG because something like this has happened.
Anyway - so there have 2 articles in the Chronicle Herald - and both of those articles had a line that REALLY bothered me - enough that I had to write a letter this afternoon - as I seem to have a preponderance to do.... and here is my letter:
Scare Mongering about Pitbulls?
In your articles about the Pit bulls who escaped from their outdoor
enclosure in Cow Bay (August 14 and 15, 2007) - there was a line that
I found very troubling that your reporter chose to include in his
""It's nobody's fault, it's just things happen, right? It
could have been worse," said Mr. Beazley, holding a toddler in his
What is the reporter trying to say with this line? What could have
been worse? Is the fact that the home owner was holding a toddler
implying that the pit bulls might have killed the toddler instead of
the chickens? Was the toddler in the chicken coop at the time that
the pit bulls were attacking the chickens? That to me is the only way
the toddler could have been harmed. Anything else would be absolutely
To have that line in there is complete and absolute rubbish and is
pure fear mongering on the part of the reporter. I am appalled that
the Chronicle Herald's Editors allowed that line to make it to press.
Appalled and very disappointed.
Just because a dog kills a chicken in no way means that they're going
to then go and kill a toddler - unless that toddler is covered in
chicken feathers and clucks. That toddler sounds pretty tasty to me
too! Who wouldn't want something like that barbecued with a nice side
Since I sent that letter in I've received an email from a friend of mine who goes to the beach in Cow Bay almost every day and he's quite sure he knows those dogs and the chickens too - here's what he said:
"I'm pretty sure I know those dogs as ones who walk often at rainbow Have.One is a Staffie and is smallish.The other is the pit and is a bit of a handful.The chickens I know of too because you often see a few of them on the lawns of the nearby homes ,pecking at bugs on the lawns.very sad.The Staff was especially sweet.The pit was sullen and very reserved and was the leader."
So it's not only the chicken owner who was the victim - it sounds like the chickens, and the dogs were losers too. It turned out bad for everyone. All because the dogs' owners wouldn't stop the poor dogs from running at large. So sad for everyone.
Especially since this is now a blow for pit bulls - I can only hope that someone in the public eye will say something about legislation and that our local legislation is aimed at punishing owners and not dogs - and we are very lucky and blessed to have that kind of legislation locally and that's why we don't need to even contemplate banning breeds - because it's unnecessary - we already HAVE appropriate legislation in place. We can only hope someone level headed enough will get in front of a camera.