A rural Prince George woman has been able to overcome the lack of a dangerous dog bylaw in the Fraser-Fort George Regional District and rein in the owners of a dangerous dog.
It took plenty of work to gather the evidence necessary to take the case to court and it occurred only after the dog had killed her Shih Tzu, but the woman, who lives east of the city and asked that her name not be printed, was able to realize a measure of justice for her loss.
"My neighbours found out through the courts that it is possible for others to seek justice and even financial responsibility for the acts caused by their dangerous dog, even if you live outside city limits," she said.
It all began four or five years ago when the neighbour moved into the unfenced property next door, replete with three large dogs that ran like a pack and killed cats for fun on other people's property.
On one occasion, her then 14-year-old daughter saw the three rip a cat apart in her yard. The owners finally got rid of the three dogs "only to replace them with one very vicious pit bull."
The dog was allowed to roam wherever it wanted to and did not back down, even if someone tried to scare it away with a broom or shovel.
"This dog would go on to circle my daughter's vehicle so she would have to wait in her car until the dog went away or they [the owners] called it home," the woman said.
Her two Shih Tzus, Peanut and Snoopy, used the cat door to go out and do their business. But one day, the pit bull attacked Snoopy, grabbing his back end, leaving large fang holes in both rear thighs and across his lower spine.
"Luckily, we were home and ran onto our deck, startling the pit bull, and he dropped Snoopy before the death shake that was certain to happen," she said.
Snoopy would no longer venture off the home's deck but in the end, that didn't matter. One day in July 2013, while the woman was out of town and her oldest daughter was taking a shower, Snoopy went outside and was attacked and killed by the pit bull.
When her daughter came, she saw the put bull leaving the yard but had not yet seen Snoopy. A few minutes later, the youngest daughter drove into the yard and found Snoopy's lifeless body.
By that time, the woman was already at her wits end - the pit bull had also previously attacked Peanut and was suspected of killing two of their other pets.
She had talked to the regional district who told her that because there is no dangerous dog bylaw in place, it was a police matter. In turn, RCMP said there was not much they could do unless she had actual photographs of the pit bull attacking her dog although they did talk to the neighbour to no avail.
Following Snoopy's death, an RCMP officer paid a visit and once again expressed his sympathy but said he could do little without evidence.
He suggested they get an autopsy performed on Snoopy and have samples of DNA extracted from the blood and saliva found on him and the family acted on his advice. Snoopy was put in a freezer overnight and the next day taken to the Murdoch Veterinary Clinic where the work was performed.
"My kids were determined to make sure we had the evidence we would later need," the woman said.
By then, the pit bull had become a neighbourhood terror. Other neighbours claimed it was responsible for several other attacks and the deaths of local pets.
Within five weeks of Snoopy's death, the pit bull's owners adopted two more pit bulls and a Great Dane. Peanut, meanwhile, refused to go outside, instead curling herself up into a ball inside the home.
The woman thought about fencing her yard but the expense was high and it would not solve what had become a problem for the entire neighbourhood. Instead, she purchased three wildlife cameras that take photos and video whenever something passes by their sensors. They produced some telling evidence and even a photo of one of the owners trespassing onto her property while she was away.
The pit bull's owners - who had maintained their dog was not the problem - were also convinced to provide DNA samples from the dog.
Murdoch then sent the samples from the dog and from Snoopy to a lab in California and they came back as a match. Indeed, the odds that the sample came from an unrelated dog were one in 15 quadrillion and the likelihood that it was a full sibling was just one in 24 million.
The DNA and the photos were enough to convince Crown counsel to press charges, In December 2013, after almost five months of gathering evidence, the court awarded a destruction order for the dog.
"Unfortunately, we were a week late as they had just had the dog shot because it finally harmed one of their own dogs," the woman said.
It didn't stop there.
In February, she successfully sued them in civil court for the cost of the veterinary services, Snoopy's burial, the cameras, getting the DNA samples tested and the gates she had installed on her deck to keep the dogs out.
The neighbours, meanwhile, acted on advice that it would be in their best interest to build a fence to contain their three remaining dogs. Since then, there has been no trouble and Crown counsel subsequently dropped the criminal charges the neighbours were facing.
"Although I have mixed feeling about Crown counsel's decision, the neighbours have so far continued to contain their dogs to their own property and have not bothered me since," the woman said.
But she would like to see a dangerous dog bylaw in the regional district and maintains action would have been taken much more quickly if one had been put in place. In 2000, an effort to get one established in electoral area D (Tabor Lake-Stone Creek) was dropped due to extensive opposition during public hearings on the issue.
The woman added she does not hold a grudge against pit bulls and believes they can be a good dog when properly trained and cared for.
She is welcoming people seeking advice on dealing with similar trouble to e-mail her at [email protected]. They can also share their stories and provide comments, both good and bad, at the same address.
