Dear editor,
Chum and Champ are a pair, not a pack.
Before the Jack Russell incident, neither Chum nor Champ had been loose for almost two years. At six and seven years old, they are also now rather elderly for dogs of their breed and size.
If one watches any video footage, including the videos done by a dog trainer to assess aggressiveness, it is apparent that neither dog is aggressive, as it was to the trainer who conducted the assessments.
Although most media accounts seem to present it as a given that these two dogs have been declared aggressive and a threat to the community (inferring humans are also at risk) — that label has not been legally bestowed; it is in contention and this is the court decision that has been delayed.
The dogs were taken to court over an "alleged" attack of a small dog. No one saw the attack.
A theory has been put forward that one or both dogs dragged the dog through two fences — his own and Chum and Champ's, which seems rather implausible, doesn't it? Also, a vet gave evidence in court that the small dog's injuries were not consistent with dog bites.
So it is not a given that Chum and Champ are vicious or a danger to anyone.
A reporter said to me way back, "This appears to be more about a conflict between neighbours than about the behaviour of the dogs."
This is not a straightforward case. There is much behind the scenes that is either not revealed or is so distorted as to cause confusion.
In my opinion, the true victims here are Chum and Champ. These dogs have suffered in every sense of the word this past year.
Let us pray that reason and empathy prevail and let these two dogs be taken in together to a home where they will be loved.
Pat Newson,
Comox