Tuesday, April 6, 2010

$500,000 Court Case Ends in Death Sentence for Dog

Tango is a pedigreed American Staffordshire Terrier and a former resident of Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

For six years, his family fought to avoid a death sentence. They spent $500,000 on court cases involving Tango and 57 other dogs (successfully overturning cases of misidentification).

And today, the Supreme Court ruled that the dog is actually an American Pit Bull Terrier and, as such, should be confiscated and killed.

I'm not going to talk about whether an American Staffordshire Terrier is an American Pit Bull Terrier. It's moot.

Queensland prohibits American Pit Bull Terriers along with four other breeds. New South Wales, where Tango currently lives, has labeled APBTs and the four other breeds dangerous/menacing by virtue of their phenotype. They can live there, but they are supposed to be muzzled.

That is the problem. $500,000 in court costs is the problem. More than 50 court cases in which dog owners are fighting for the right to have a nonviolent, friendly, family pet in their home is the problem. Killing nonviolent dogs is the problem. Criminalizing law-abiding citizens and their family pets is the problem. Spending thousands of dollars trying to save nonviolent dogs serves no one. The good tax payers of Queensland helped (and will continue to) pay for these court cases.

Are anti-dog zealots seriously proposing that killing dogs like Tango improves public safety?


Nichole said...

Just read today that 6 people have died in retention ponds in Indianapolis so far this year.

No deaths by pit bulls.

Shouldn't we be focusing our efforts on banning retention ponds?

This is just ridiculous.

Rinalia said...

Unlike other ponds, retention ponds CLEARLY pose a far greater risk to humanity and thus should be banned.