Regulations kill animals. Communities working towards No Kill are trying to reduce regulations that get in the way of saving dogs and cats. Communities like San Antonio, that don’t “get” No Kill, pass more regulations.
Recently San Antonio Animal Care Services (ACS) “streamlined” the “Dangerous Dog” regulations to allow Animal Care Services to make the dangerous dog determination, rather than have it be decided in court.
If ACS picks up a dog because ACS thinks he is a dangerous dog, how likely is it that ACS will then rule its own staff was in error and that the dog is not dangerous?
If you have a dangerous dog, you must have $100,000 in liability insurance, special fencing for your yard and use a muzzle if the dog is outside. The economic consequences usually result in the family immediately signing the dog over to be killed. Paying hundreds of dollars in boarding fees while appealing the determination is an impossible expense for many – making appeal unlikely and further “streamlining” the process. There are allegations that many dogs have already died due to this revision in the code.
You might say that San Antonio Animal Care Services has made it easier to catch fish by not caring if they catch dolphins in their nets too . . .
For one family who fought to keep their dog, this new law has been a disaster.
A yellow lab intervened when a little girl was attacked by two dogs. The lab, named Marley, was a playmate for this neighbor girl and saved her from the attack. (There is no question the attacking dogs were dangerous dogs and they were killed.)
Traumatized, the girl either said, or was understood to say, (or perhaps never said) that she had been bitten by Marley. Of course if you get close to dogs who are fighting each other, you may be bitten. In any event, Marley was protecting this girl and did save her from more serious injury. (The girl now says she was not bitten by Marley, and in a televised interview seemed eager to play with her furry friend again.)
The difference between Marley and the other dogs is they attacked her and he defended her. If common sense ruled in San Antonio, Marley would have been celebrated as a hero. Instead he was declared to be dangerous and that was upheld by a judge.
You might argue that the same ruling could have initially been made by a judge – as the court would have made the dangerous dog determination before the regulations were changed – but there is a big difference between the court being asked to decide if a dog is dangerous and the court being asked to decide if a city agency incorrectly found a dog to be dangerous.
Marley’s family is appealing the judge's ruling. Already this has been an economic disaster for them. Would a family spend so much money and time to protect an aggressive dog? Would they forfeit some of the little they have – the father works at day labor - to protect a dog who bit a child? Common sense says otherwise.
You can help by signing the petition and by joining and sharing the FaceBook page. Both are asking that Marley be freed from this ruinous label that will prevent him from ever going outside again without a muzzle. And until Marley is ruled to not be dangerous, he will not be out of danger. He will always be an insurance policy payment away from death.
Without public support beyond the city limits, it is doubtful San Antonio will be shamed into looking at this ruling with clear eyes.
Never to touch the grass with his nose again – what kind of reward is that for a dog who came to the defense of a child?
Funds are being raised by a chip-in to help with the burdensome costs causing the family to go without utilities and to pay for Marley's veterinary care.
How many more Marleys will there be before the San Antonio City Council repeals this bad law?
Comments