Someone gets savagely mauled by a dog.

As you’d expect, most people are concerned first about the victim’s well-being, and secondly, that the authorities have taken care of the canine responsible.

What continually confounds me, however, are the folks who rush to the defence of the beast.

It’s not the dog’s fault, they say. The poor thing was confused. It’s out of character. It’s never happened before. It was probably provoked. It was upset over having its favourite blanket washed. It was traumatized at birth. It’s probably an abused animal. It can be rehabilitated. It’s all about irresponsible ownership. Don’t punish the creature, punish its owners.

If it was my child ripped up by a dog – whether it be my own, a friend’s, or a stranger’s – that mutt needs to be dead. As soon as possible.

Incredibly, in last week’s case of three-year-old Austin, who needed 100 stitches in his face after being attacked by his aunt’s mastiff, authorities initially waffled, saying Chilliwack’s bylaws prevented them from seizing the dog, or destroying it, because the attacked occurred in a private home.

From the perspective of potential victims, I don’t get the difference. What’s to say that animal won’t do it to another visitor?

In any event, several days later, officials were saying they do indeed have the right to identify a dangerous dog, and seize it, or apply restrictions upon its owners.

The dog is now somewhere in Washington State, undergoing an “assessment,” according to city staff.

It would seem someone didn’t understand the law, or just plain screwed up.

That dog ought to have been seized immediately, and in the absence of irrefutable extenuating circumstances, it should have then been humanely put down.

It’s what the owners should have done on their own accord.

Instead, the dog is spirited across the border...?

Meanwhile, little Austin is dealing with painful wounds, and what may well be even more painful physical and emotional scarring for years, if not for life.

But back to the myopic defenders of these psycho canines, and the constant refrain of responsible ownership.

That’s all well and good, but what about when the owner isn’t a shining example of canine care and control? Sadly enough, there are plenty of people who own dogs – animals of all types, actually – who shouldn’t be in charge of a stuffed bunny, let alone a live creature.

And then there are the types who want their animals to be vicious – for intimidation, protection, or just as part of some stupid, tough-guy image.

You can pass enough responsible ownership legislation to gag a great Dane, and it still won’t mean a hill of kibbles to the above-mentioned folks.

Unfortunately, they are also often the type of people who own the pitbull-type breeds, making an extremely dangerous combination – owners who don’t give a damn, with dogs that are genetic time bombs.

Ah yes, the canine crusaders will say, but that’s not the fault of the dogs. No, it isn’t. But it makes a good argument for controlling access to dangerous dog species, such as Ontario has done.

Well, all dogs are potentially aggressive, will come the predictable response.

Sure. But when Skippy the dachshund has a fit, it’ll result in a torn pantleg and a few punctures, at worst. When a pitbull, or in last week’s case, a mastiff, goes on a rampage, it’s a trip to the hospital for sure, and if the victim is a child, quite possibly the morgue.

To me, that’s the end of the discussion.

And when a savage attack has occurred, even when ‘responsible owners’ are involved, the debate should be equally as brief.

Or do we offer up another kid to see if the dog will do it again?