Centre Wellington councillors have upheld a “potentially dangerous dog” designation issued for a canine near Belwood.
The May 29 decision followed a two-hour appeal prior to Centre Wellington’s regular council session.
The gist of the matter was not actually how dangerous the dog is, but the possible negative impact the animal could have on neighbours.
Claire (Welsh) Warren was at council to appeal of the designation of her dog Zeus (a dog licence for the animal was not purchased until the date of appeal).
Restrictions under the “potentially dangerous” designation are to keep the animal on the owner’s property. This would confine the dog to the home, or within an enclosed pen with secure top, sides and bottom to prevent escape.
If the dog is on a leash on or off the property, it must have adult supervision.
Animal protection officer Tovah Veats, who works for the Guelph Humane Society and is under contract with the township for animal control/protection services, described Warren’s dog as an American bulldog crossbreed.
Warren however, contended Zeus is a seven-month-old Boston terrier.
Veats said there have been incidents dating back to early April in which witnesses state the dog came from the owner’s property on Wellington Road 16 to the nearby residence of Adam Golletz and acted aggressively towards Golletz’s dog and domestic ducks.
In a second incident, Zeus was again reported as acting aggressively towards the ducks.
Veats stated that under Centre Wellington’s dog control bylaw, a dog can be labelled potentially dangerous if it chases any person or domestic animal anywhere other than on the owner’s property.
Based on witness statements, Veats said there is a pattern of allowing the dog to run at large. Veats also provided an affidavit from the Wellington County OPP documenting two incidents in April when Zeus was found on the Golletz’s property.
Warren wanted to know who examined her dog to determine both breed and personality.
Veats added the designation issued was not “dangerous” but “potentially” dangerous – “which are not the same thing.” She explained that under the township bylaw a potentially dangerous dog does not actually have to come in contact with another animal, only to act aggressively.
Warren asked if Veats had personally seen her dog acting that way.
Veats said her response was based on witness statements and police reports.
Veats said restrictions were needed because “Warren appears unwilling or unable to keep the dog on her property.”
Councillor Fred Morris asked if this would potentially ban the dog from the leash-free dog park in Fergus.
Veats said the dog would be allowed in the park – just not leash-free. She stressed this does not stop interactions with other dogs, only that it be leashed off the owner’s property.
Though there are no physical fences between the properties in question, one family located between Warren and Golletz, installed invisible fencing to keep their pet on their own property.
Veats explained an invisible fence only deters that owner’s dog from leaving – it doesn’t deter other dogs from coming onto the property.
As long as a dog is contained to the owner’s property, it doesn’t really matter how, Veats said.
She stated “ultimately the breed of the dog is irrelevant. If it is acting aggressively, it does not matter the size or the breed … it still needs to be controlled.
“Whether it is a chihuahua or a great Dane … there needs to be some responsibility of the dog owner for the animal to be controlled.”
Warren, a local real estate agent, said she has been a local business owner in the area for the past 15 years. She has four children and her property is one of several 10-acre properties on that stretch of road.
“Seven month old Zeus does not have a dangerous bone in his body,” said Warren, adding that prior to owning Zeus, the family had an older rescue dog, Dozer.
“We took him to training … and had him fixed. The day after Dozer was fixed, he was outside and bit the Golletz’s son.”
Warren said a lawsuit is underway as a result of those injuries and, “Because of what happened, Dozer had to be put down.”
The dog was on a leash at the time of the incident and no charges were laid.
The Golletz’s son, nine years old at the time of the incident in July of 2016, was bit on the face, the back of his head and stomach and required 28 stitches.
Warren brought forward vet bills, a copy of the dog licence and photos of Zeus to illustrate her responsibility as owner of her current dog.
Warren said that being a small dog, it was assumed Zeus would remain close to the home. Warren said that a company has been hired to install invisible fence within a few weeks.
She considered witness statements as hearsay, since the animal control officer did not personally see anything.
Veats asked if Warren had personally seen Zeus’ actions on the Golletz property.
Warren said her comments were based on what her family had told her.
“We’ve gone to great lengths to make sure it is trained and that it is not dangerous,” said Warren.
She considered this entire situation based on anger and aggression from a neighbour.
“It had nothing to do with Zeus at all,” said Warren, who noted there are frequent incidents in the country of dogs getting out and ending up on their property.
“We put a leash on them and take them home.”
When Veats asked the age of Warren’s son looking after the dog outside the council chamber, she was told he was 14.
“Then do you know you are currently in violation of the current restrictions, which require the animal to have adult supervision?” Veats asked.
Warren stated, “If this is the case then the dog is going to have to be put down, because if my kids can’t handle the dog … it’s very sad and it’s not the dog’s fault.”
Veats asked why Warren would choose to euthanize the dog rather than re-home it.
Warren responded, “If Zeus is deemed a dangerous dog, who is going to want it?”
Councillor Don Fisher said the dog seems to be trying to escape and seems to want to go to a particular place.
Warren stated “It’s a dog … and it happens.”
Fisher said, “The point is how to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”
Councillor Mary Lloyd had trouble understanding why it took so long – from early April to May 29 – for Warren to buy a dog licence.
“It’s a respect thing and I’m upset that we have a lot of residents who don’t take dog licences as seriously as they should,” said Lloyd.
What came to light as the discussion progressed, is that the behaviour of Zeus appears to exacerbate the impact of the attack by Warren’s previous dog.
In his witness statement, Adam Golletz said, “I want to make this clear, this is not personal. I just want her dog off my property forever – along with any dog (Warren) ever owns.” He showed council members photos of what happened when his son was attacked by Warren’s previous dog.
“He had 28 stitches … and two-and-a-half hours of surgery,” said Golletz, who stressed he had no issue with Warren getting another dog. But he demanded the dog remain on the Warren property – not his.
“That’s all I care about. I want the dog off my property – it is terrorizing my son,” said Golletz. He said the police officers he dealt with referred to this as “re-traumatization” of his son.
Golletz clarified that Zeus was not biting the ducks; the dog was trying to jump on them “… and my son was inside, terrified.
“He is scarred for life because of her … and this is history repeating itself.
“My kids won’t even go outside and play because they are terrified the dog is going to come back again.”
A witness for Warren stated he had done a lot of dog training with different breeds and he described Zeus as “very interesting … because he is a bit of an escape artist.”
He did not believe Warren was negligent, and added the dog is extremely smart – but not dangerous.
Council review
In the end, it became clear that to councillors, the “potential danger” lays in the impact the dog’s escapes could have on the neighbours.
Fisher stated, “In my view any dog that is not under control of an adult person can be potentially dangerous.”
He then pointed to the testimony of a witness for the appellant who described the dog “as an escape artist.”
To Fisher, that indicates extra effort is needed to prevent that.
Councillor Fred Morris said what matters to him the most, “is the effect of the dog on another person.”
Morris said, “In my mind, I can see a child being emotionally scarred when it comes to being around animals – even if the dog is friendly. I think the trauma of the past attack influences the feelings towards the dog they are now being confronted with.”
Morris said it is not fair to allow a child to continue to be exposed to “what in the child’s mind is a potentially dangerous dog.”
Mayor Kelly Linton said the township contracted the Guelph Humane Society to ensure owners look after their pets.
Council upheld the “potentially dangerous dog” designation issued by the Guelph Humane Society.
