Assessment of Dangerous Dogs varies across province (Canada)

[Rene Allegrini]

A step "in the right direction?" I wonder. . .

Dangerous dog assessment varies across province

Joe Couture, Leader-Post
Published: Wednesday, July 18, 2007

When it comes to laws pertaining to potentially dangerous canines across the province, it's a real dog's breakfast of legislation.

Municipalities can set their own rules, which can range from bans on dogs of certain breeds to bans on dogs of certain heights.

Moose Jaw has a rather unique set of rules in its dangerous dog bylaw, under which the first case is proceeding. The law, introduced in 2006, differs from others in that veterinarians provide input.

For example, if a complaint is made about a dog running against a fence in an aggressive manner, a bylaw enforcement officer will investigate. If the animal is thought to be potentially dangerous, it will then be subject to further investigation.

Two vets will examine it based on criteria developed by the Saskatoon SPCA to determine whether the animal has any behavioural problems, and what specifically those might be.

The same process is used if a dog actually bites someone. While like everywhere else, the owner will face charges and potential fines, the fate of the dog isn't decided at the same time as that of the owner, as it is elsewhere.

Instead, vets will examine the dog and the judge will make a decision based on that information.

"The judge is being asked to declare a dog dangerous, and then impose a number of conditions up to and including having the dog put down," said city solicitor Steven Schiefner. "One of the concerns the judges were expressing was, 'It's so hard to do that because we only really have the information about the one incident.'"

The new case-by-case approach allows judges to make better decisions, and potentially avoid putting down animals that might be otherwise OK.

In the case currently before the courts, in which postal worker Andra Arnyek was bitten by a dog on her route, the evaluation has shown the dog is OK, other than its territorial aggression, Schiefner said. While the owner was fined $400 after pleading guilty to a charge under the bylaw, the fate of that dog hasn't been decided. A date hasn't yet been set for its hearing.

"I'm not sure that one size fits all," Schiefner said. "I'm not sure just because there's been one incident, the simple answer is that a dog be put down."

Still, the new method of evaluation isn't perfect, Schiefner said.
"You can't see a dog for an hour and then know what its future is going to hold," he said. "There's no guarantees. But the thinking is, at least it'll be better information for the people involved."

Arnyek feels that too much time has elapsed since she was bitten on the arm and back by the 55-pound Afghan cross on April 24 -- an attack that required 14 stitches to repair, and from which she still hasn't fully recovered.
"To me, it seems like a long, outdrawn process," she said. "In Calgary, about a month ago a letter carrier was attacked and the city took that dog away immediately. It was immediately assessed. Not a month later. Not six weeks later."

"I wonder deep down, if that dog had been named Rottweiler or pit bull that it would have been taken a little more seriously. Or if I was a child, would something more have been done a lot more quickly?"

Schiefner's opinion is that it was more important to ensure everything was done right the first time through.

"I certainly understand her frustration, as well, but to both sides, my feeling is, I have no doubt we'll get better at this as we go through it," he said.

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpo...0-d0bf7d7e5d15