Calgary Girl, 9, Mauled by Dog; Bylaw Asks: "Should Fines Increase?"

[Sliver]

So a grade 4 girl was mauled by a dog in Calgary last month.

Before she knew it, she saw an American Staffordshire terrier mix lunging at her from a few metres away, even though it was attached to a "stretch leash" and accompanied by its owner.

Bonita said the dog gnawed on her limb like it was some kind of chew toy or doggy treat, refusing to let go even as she kicked the animal in the face. Eventually, the owner pinned the dog and freed Bonita's leg.

The individual faces charges over a serious dog bite, which comes with a $750 to $1,500 fine, and not having sufficient control of a dog, a $100 penalty.

On the heals of this attack, Bill Bruce, Director of Animal and Bylaw Services, is asking Calgarians for feedback on increasing the fine for an animal attack from the current maximum of $1,500 to a new maximum of $10,000.

In two years the number of dog bites in Calgary has increased from 58 bites to 127 in 2011.

“One of the shocking trends to us is out of the 127 bites, (for) 75 the owner was there,” Bruce said. “We’re saying, there is no way your dog should be biting someone if you’re there. You should have control. That’s what begs the question, Are the consequences dire enough?"

Personally, I think increasing the fine is a step in the right direction. I assume owners of dogs that attack may also be on the hook for restitution if sued, but I'd like some sort of mandatory restitution to be a component of the fine. Maybe keep the $1,500 fine to the city as is and $8,500 goes to the injured. I'm sure there are legal realities that preclude an arrangement like this, but it would be nice.

With 127 reported dog attacks in the city in 2011, maybe we need to start looking at dogs as dangerous weapons and treat their owners in the same way we treat people who wield knives or brandish guns.

[You Need a Thneed]

Doesn't go far enough. Dogs should be banned completely.

[TurnedTheCorner]

The fines are fine as they are.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm cool with the $10,000 fine, and I'd be cool with it if it was $100,000. Take care of your pets, plain and simple. They are a responsibility and while most pet owners take it seriously, there are clearly many who do not. And of course the only way to get people's attention isn't the tap them on the shoulder, but rather to hit them over the head with a sledgehammer. A $10,000 fine should do quite well in that regard.

[scotty2hotty]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Doesn't go far enough. Dogs should be banned completely.

So should you.

[Bill Bumface]

If we're going to start stiffening the penalties for weak animal on human violence then we should also look at the pathetically weak penalties for animal cruelty while we're at it.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

If we're going to start stiffening the penalties for weak animal on human violence then we should also look at the pathetically weak penalties for animal cruelty while we're at it.

Agreed but those are two separate debates no?

[Hemi-Cuda]

how is a 5 year old girl in grade 4? i would change the thread title to "Child prodigy mauled by dog"

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

how is a 5 year old girl in grade 4? i would change the thread title to "Child prodigy mauled by dog"

Haha oops, my mistake. I've corrected the title...thanks.

[Table 5]

I'm all for a stiffening up files/rules on animal violence (on animals and by them), but something tells me that's not going to do that much in terms of actual prevention.

Maybe it's time to require certain breeds to have to wear a muzzle anytime they are out in public.

[Hemi-Cuda]

oh and as for the girl, sounds like she has a good head on her shoulders

Despite what has happened, she said she remains a pet lover.

"I just wish he was trained properly. I wish he was loved. I wish there was someone to pet him, love him."

in many cases like this the kid is traumatized and has a fear of dogs for life. good to see not only is that not the case for her, she's putting the blame where it belongs

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

oh and as for the girl, sounds like she has a good head on her shoulders

in many cases like this the kid is traumatized and has a fear of dogs for life. good to see not only is that not the case for her, she's putting the blame where it belongs

That's a good attitude for sure. Hopefully it sticks. I'd imagine at this point she's parroting what her parents have told her about the attack as they don't want her to be frightened of dogs in our pro-dog society; however, only time will tell if she can actually go through life without an increased fear of dogs. My money is on this being a problem for her into the future.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I don't see how financially destroying a dog owner after an attack is going to solve anything.

It seems like anytime society needs a solution to a problem, some kind of financial penalty is all they can come up with.

They should have to pay the fee to put the dog down at the vet though....

[Misterpants]

An increase in fines is a good start but in my opinion more has to be done to change behaviour. These people should be banned from owning dogs completely. Now I understand that the logistics involved in implementing and monitoring this would be a huge commitment, but a straight monetary penalty will never be enough of a deterrence. It seems to me, most of the owners of these poorly trained and maintained animals aren't usually the type to actually pay the restitution/fines.

[driveway]

If the fines are going to increase, then the funds generated from those fines need to be re-invested into subsidizing and increasing the efficacy of animal-owner education programs, perhaps most effectively into a certification program for trainers.

[troutman]

That dog should be put down.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I don't see how financially destroying a dog owner after an attack is going to solve anything.

Do you have a better suggestion of deturring attacks? It's easy to denounce any resolution without suggestion of better means. IMO there is no better deterrent than the risk of becoming financially handicapped for being an irresponsible owner.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I don't see how financially destroying a dog owner after an attack is going to solve anything.

It seems like anytime society needs a solution to a problem, some kind of financial penalty is all they can come up with.

They should have to pay the fee to put the dog down at the vet though....

If $10K will financially destroy you, you shouldn't own a dog as they can be expensive to properly care for (food, vet, training, kenneling, etc.) even when they aren't maiming people.

Maybe we need to make liability insurance mandatory in the same way it is for vehicles.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

An increase in fines is a good start but in my opinion more has to be done to change behaviour. These people should be banned from owning dogs completely. Now I understand that the logistics involved in implementing and monitoring this would be a huge commitment, but a straight monetary penalty will never be enough of a deterrence. It seems to me, most of the owners of these poorly trained and maintained animals aren't usually the type to actually pay the restitution/fines.

I'm on board with this. Obviously this isn't something that should be put in as a blanket sentence, but on a case by case basis, I think it would make a lot of sense to ban some people from owning dogs.

A lot of people jump to the "Some breeds should be outlawed, or muzzled" argument, but that's fixing the wrong problem.
The problem isn't that some breeds are bad, it's that some owners are bad.
If I get drunk and drive my Ferrari does that mean Ferrari's should be banned? No, it means, I shouldn't be allowed to drive for a while.
Same should go for dog owners. If you show you can't properly train/control your dog, then you shouldn't be allowed to own one.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Do you have a better suggestion of deturring attacks? It's easy to denounce any resolution without suggestion of better means. IMO there is no better deterrent than the risk of becoming financially handicapped for being an irresponsible owner.

The large fine doesn't prevent dog attacks, but it raises awareness to dog owners that their dogs need to be properly trained and controlled. Perhaps it would deter some owners from adopting more aggressive breeds.