- BC Games
City has no empathy for two Rottweilers taken from owners
I am outraged after learning that City of Richmond staff are planning to kill a pair of Rottweilers, beloved pet dogs of a local family, because the dogs escaped from their yard and one nipped the back of a construction worker’s leg. The bite wasn’t hard enough to be felt, didn’t tear the man’s pants or break his skin.
The dog did not viciously attack Mr. Wang, and the construction site supervisor said both dogs are “very nice.” I suspect the dogs were extremely excited about running free and the one dog may have believed the running man was playing a chase game.
What has happened to the City of Richmond’s supposed caring stance toward local pet animals and their owners? I doubt our city councillors are even aware of this situation, and they have been put in the position of appearing hypocritical.
The city hired a no-kill animal society to operate its shelter, then enacted bylaws against the sale of puppies and rabbits in pet stores, but their staff apparently have no empathy whatsoever toward our pets and their owners. The dogs’ family have not been allowed to see their pets since October, and will no doubt be expected to pay for their incarceration at the animal shelter. The man who was nipped has stated publicly that he does not want the dogs killed, so why the hard-line stance by the City? Who benefits by the killing of dogs that are not truly vicious?
I don’t want my hard-earned tax dollars to pay the salaries of people with a zero-tolerance, punishing approach toward the animals of this city and their families.
The people who own the dogs have behaved very responsibly since the incident, yet have been forced to hire a lawyer to take the city to court in order to protect their pets. Do our tax dollars now have to pay for the city to go to court against that family? I doubt many Richmond residents would support that.
City council and upper management need to take a good, hard look at who they are hiring to enforce Richmond’s bylaws and the decisions they make. I would like to see this entire matter dropped immediately, the dogs returned to their family and the family reimbursed the costs they have unfairly incurred. This whole business is cruel and unnecessary.
Much thanks to the Richmond Review for bringing this to our attention.