The following two news stories illustrate the mess which is the dangerous dogs legislation.
First, in Victoria two dogs are declared dangerous and euthanased for nothing more then being Pit Bulls:
Nathan Laffan and Samantha Graham, both 20, are devastated by the loss of their dogs, Bear and Kooda, which, they say, were wrongly identified as american pitbull terriers, a restricted breed under the law.
They are also furious with Moira Shire, which they accuse of unexpectedly changing the date their dogs were to be put down, giving the couple little more than an hour to get to a vet in Shepparton who performed the procedure.’
No one is arguing that these dog have hurt anyone or did anything wrong. They were killed simply for looking like Pit Bulls.
Then there is the story of a dog sent free after allegedly biting a boy:
‘A judge has sided with a dog owner who argued her small bichon frise shouldn’t be labeled as “dangerous” under a new state law, which opened the door for canines other than pit bulls to be deemed dangerous for inflicting even minor injuries to people.
Authorities had told Shannon Mills that her 2-year-old dog, Hershey, would be labeled dangerous and that she would be required to pay extra insurance after a 12-year-old boy reported the dog bit him on his ankle on May 26 while he was walking on a sidewalk near Pataskala, in central Ohio.’
I don’t claim to be the judge in these cases to pronounce anyone innocent or guilty. But when a dog is euthanased simply for the way he looks while another is let go after causing an injury, you wonder if the law-makers have gone mad.