Email
Print
Letter to Editor
ShareEDITORIAL: No rehabilitation
Published: September 02, 2008 4:00 PMUpdated: September 02, 2008 4:35 PM
A pack of pit bulls rip into innocent passers-by, not on one occasion but several, causing injury and emotional trauma.
They are eventually seized from their owner, locked up and targeted for euthanasia.
For most people, this was a reasonable and appropriate course of action for authorities to take.
However, an application by the City of Surrey and the BCSPCA has been stalled by one or more dog advocates, who have funded a lawyer to appeal for an evaluation of the pit bulls to see if they can be “rehabilitated.”
The extent to which some folks will go to defend a batch of dangerous dogs is quite remarkable – if not over the top, and misguided.
Yes, at least one of the beasts is considered a pup. And yes, apparently one of the captured dogs has given birth to a litter. And yes, we agree that the owner of the dogs should be held responsible for his pets’ behaviour. In fact, he does face charges in relation to the attacks.
But when all of the hand-wringing and emotionally charged arguments are offered, the fact remains that pit bulls are highly unpredictable, and ultra-violent in attack mode. What assurances are there that these animals will not exhibit vicious behaviour in the future, even if “rehabilitated” and given new homes? What happens if they attack someone again in the future?
This city already has a problem with pit bulls. Does it really need more, especially ones that have exhibited highly aggressive tendencies?
There are hundreds of dogs languishing in animal shelters across this province. Many more still roam the streets as strays – sick, starving and diseased.
How many of those creatures would have benefitted from the investment that is being placed in legally defending a batch of beasts that are behind bars for good reason?
Surely there are more helpless, innocent dogs that deserve support over these animals.
And not least of all, the legal counsel for the Crown, the City of Surrey, the provincial court judge and personnel, and the SPCA staff, could all be spending their time on more important matters.
This case should be expedited to its originally intended conclusion.
