Skip to content

CVRD fines owner of ‘vicious’ dog $1,000 for not muzzling, containing animal

A owner of a Husky cross that’s been deemed “vicious” by the Cowichan Valley Regional District appeared in court recently on two incidents that occurred in Shawnigan Lake over the past year, according to a media release from the region on Wednesday.
web1_web1_170616-CCI-M-cvrd-building-logo

A owner of a Husky cross that’s been deemed “vicious” by the Cowichan Valley Regional District appeared in court recently on two incidents that occurred in Shawnigan Lake over the past year, according to a media release from the region on Wednesday.

Both incidents, one on August 16, 2016 and the other on March 1, 2017, involved the same dog that was not muzzled.

The owner appealed the incident from last year but plead guilty to the second offence.

Robert Blackmore, manager of Inspections & Enforcement said there had been several incidents involving the same dog and it was deemed “vicious” in 2013.

“It should be muzzled and should also be contained on the property,” he said. “The dog got off the property and attacked another dog that was being walked on a leash.”

CVRD bylaw staff appeared in court on May 1 and were successful in prosecuting both offences which each carry a $500 fine.

“She (the owner) is going to address the fencing issue and the containment issue to ensure the dog cannot get off the property and she’s signed compliance letters that she will adhere to the muzzling regulation,” Blackmore said.

While the history of the attacks aren’t minor they don’t meet the CVRD’s standard for when a dog might be put down.

“Euthanasia is an option but it’s normally reserved for the more severe cases like a fatality attack or near fatality,” he said.

Recognizing the limits of current regulations, the CVRD is currently reviewing its dog regulation bylaw and looking at increasing regulation around controlling dogs.

“Public safety is a top priority in relation to vicious dogs within the CVRD,” said Chair Jon Lefebure. “This owner persistently failed to adhere to the restrictions placed upon her and her dog, which led to the issuing of municipal tickets and appropriate court action. We hope there will be no further incidents with this owner and dog.”





Secondary Title