Lennox the dog, sable martyr of Ulster


Lennox is dead. The black “pit bull type” canine became an internet sensation over the past few weeks as authorities in Belfast prepared to execute him under the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1992, which outlaws such animals. Lennox was euthanized early Wednesday despite worldwide appeals from celebrities, including Americans who offered to find a new home for him in the U.S. The family was not allowed to visit the dog before his death, or to be present for it; they learned first from a radio interviewer that the council order had been carried out. They haven’t been given their pet’s body, either; they have instead been told by city council that his ashes will be mailed to them.

The council has handled the whole affair about as poorly as it could have, from a public-relations standpoint. The mistrust that body has accumulated will be lasting, and one supposes that any institution of government in Northern Ireland starts with two strikes against it. But it would be hard to argue that Lennox wasn’t given at least a slim chance. Born long after the laws against pit bulls were passed, Lennox was the subject of three legal appeals, including one entertained by the Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland, the UK exclave’s highest. More than two full years lapsed between the seizure of the dog and his death.

In the end, the family was snagged in a Catch-22; the city council would probably have preferred to resolve matters by letting the dog be re-homed, especially since angry cynophiles have been churning out everything from e-mail spam to gasoline-soaked threat letters, but the letter of the law provides only for the destruction of dogs once they are found dangerous. There are no provisions for putting them on a boat in the dead of night and letting them slip quietly off into exile under less dog-o-cidal regimes.

The longstanding questions about the subjectivity and humanity of legislation banning particular breeds of dog are being renewed by Lennox’s case. He was adjudged to be a pit bull after a brief physical inspection with a tape measure. A DNA test apparently indicated that Lennox is a mix of American bulldog and Labrador retriever, but the standard under the law is physical conformation, not genetics, and doggie-DNA testing may still contain quite a large component of bushwa anyway. Lennox’s owner, Caroline Barnes, had complied scrupulously with all of the city’s licensing and health laws respecting the dog—except, of course, for the one making his existence inherently illegal. There have never been any complaints from neighbours about Lennox, and there is no evidence he has ever succeeded in nipping anyone.

Most news items about poor Lennox, however, naturally left out a few details that are present in the Court of Appeal’s judgment. (Is the recognition of complicated truths bad for the web stats, do you suppose?) When dog wardens returned to the Barnes residence after seeing Lennox and wondering why an illegal pit bull was living there, they “spoke to a male on the premises who refused to permit the examination of the dog and told them that if they attempted to measure the dog it would ‘rip their head off’.” Indeed, Lennox seems to have done his best; he lunged at one of the wardens who originally measured him, and at a dog handler brought in to assess his demeanour, and even at one of the family’s own trial witnesses. Barnes herself told the court “that the dog had changed since an incident where she and her child were threatened by a group of youths” and “that the dog did not deal well with strangers who forced themselves upon him.”

Around the world this week, thousands of dogs will be turned over to shelters or put down immediately because of difficult or intractable personalities. This one, at least, will be mourned.


Lennox the dog, sable martyr of Ulster

  1. As someone who has worked with aggressive dogs for going on 10 years now, most (if not all) dogs AND PEOPLE do not enjoy having a stranger force themselves upon them. If you do your research you will find a video from BCC CTV which documents his behavioural assessment, in which he is sitting there enjoying a pat. A good article, but try doing thorough research before making statements like this about his behaviour. You sound like one of the pig-headed chauvinistic employees of Belfast City Council.

    • If I have this straight, then, evidence that he doesn’t lunge at strangers literally EVERY time counts as evidence that he’s a well-adjusted dog? It is difficult to assign any value to video of Lennox NOT attacking people. That’d be like video of Willie Pickton not murdering women, wouldn’t it?

      • Hi Colby, Many dogs are not well adjusted it however does not mean they are dangerous the dog NEVER had any complaints the owners cared for the family dog well, the dog was not allowed to roam, most dogs react out of fear , his life to his owners and the child who loved him had not in 5 years had any problems with this dog.he had been well cared for and loved, protective of his family as you are or would be of yours. Loyalty is a reason people love dogs so much.
        In a pen away from all he has known since he was a puppy he was afraid if someone stole you and treated you miserably you would be afraid too.

        • I don’t think you read through the document from the court of appeal or you would have noted that the owner stated that the dog lunged not only at adult strangers but also at CHILDREN it didn’t know. This dog may not have been dangerous to the child who owned it, but it was to children who visited the child. That is unacceptable.

          • The applicant stated in evidence that she did not know the dog was a Pit Bull Terrier until she was told by the dog wardens. She conceded that the dog had changed since an incident where she and her child were threatened by a group of youths. She said the dog gave no problems in the house. She admitted that the dog did not deal well with strangers who forced themselves upon him. The dog had been neutered and micro chipped and was covered by third party insurance. She also gave evidence that she was willing to muzzle the dog and at present the dog was muzzled “to warn people”. It never said that it lunged at any children. Small children and strange dogs don’t mix, its irresponsible ownership to allow strange small children to approach unless they have been coached, even then not the best idea. You are reading what you want into this, the dog was never examine by a true behaviorist. Other options were refused. Now, Belfast is synonymous with shame and people like you look for evidence to justify falsehoods and assuage their own silly fears.

          • Well said!

          • Oh yes Kim you and Richie are quite a pair. Just do the world a favor and NEVER have any human babies.

          • I think that the BCC handled this situation poorly, beginning with the choice of “experts” used to establish aggressive behaviour. Later decisions to deny the family visitation before Lennox was euthanized and to withhold keepsakes such as his collar only exacerbated the public relations problems. If Lennox was truly a dangerous dog, relocating him to a sanctuary where he wouldn’t have uncontrolled access to the public would have been a good alternative to euthanization. Honestly, I don’t think that there was enough evidence showing he was dangerous…I don’t trust the experts that were consulted (based on their credentials). In response to Healthcare insider…I don’t think that personally attacking other posters is helpful. I can see your point, but I also agree with other posters who stated that it’s up to parents to teach children how to act around animals. I also think it’s important to educate parents, particularly if they aren’t familiar with dogs. I adopted a dog who hadn’t been properly socialized with children, and when children did approach her, she became anxious. On walks, I would ask children politely to please not come up to her…and on several occasions, their accompanying parents bluntly said that if my dog was “vicious”, she shouldn’t be in public (I’m not going to comment on the “viciousness” of my pooch; suffice to say that she was a huge goof). Education is key…and I think that this whole Lennox incident will bring attention to this fact.

          • I don’t mean to attack other posters but my point is that it is hard to “educate” a human child that does not yet speak the human language. Therefore, when you and your dog are out for a walk and a toddler toddles up to your dog, you cannot educate this child. It comes down to who is more important and deserves more freedom and safety in our society? Your anxious dog or an innocent human toddler? I vote the innocent human toddler.

          • I don’t think that we’re going to agree on this issue, but in my opinion, in that particular situation, I think it’s the responsibility of the parent to ensure that the child doesn’t toddle up to a strange animal, whether it be a dog, cat, or horse. I don’t think it’s a question of weighing who’s more important; it’s respecting the rights of other people (animal-owning and non-animal-owning) as well as ourselves. For instance, I don’t let my dog approach people who are obviously uncomfortable around animals. My two-cents’ worth…

          • I quote: “the applicant admitted the dog had difficulty with strangers and children not known to him”.
            Richie, you are SOOO TYPICAL of all these ridiculous people who want to put little children on a leash so that aggressive dogs can just be themselves. You are right small children do not mix with dogs who aren’t friendly but it isn’t the kids who need to change; it’s the dogs.

    • Wait a minute. This owner let her dog licence lapse in September and the “pig-headed chavinistic employees of Belfast….” showed up in May to see if she still had a dog. Had she renewed the licence like a responsible dog owner, they never would have even shown up on her door-step. Then in the front of the appeal courts judge, the owner admitted that her dog was aggressive toward children it considered strangers. So now it isn’t just “strangers who force themselves upon the dog” but new friends of her child. Maybe you should read through the documents and do your research before giving Colby a slap down. Considering the number of babies who have been killed by huskies in Canada in the last few years and the people who have wanted to adopt these dogs after the fact, I think it behoves us all to examine our priorities with regard to the safety of human children vs. the rights of aggressive dogs.

      • You are looking through the magnifying glass in reverse. Considering all actions of the BCC, alot of what was said cannot be considered credible. And letting a license expire is not justification for all this family has endured. You ever had a parking ticket? Let your cars registration expire? Where does it say that the dog had problems with her child’s new friends? It doesn’t. She said the dog had been ‘different’ after she and her child were threatened by a group of youths. Go look up the definition of ‘confirmation bias’. You don’t know if they would have come round to check either way, blaming this family is stupid. Don’t be stupid, don’t spread lies. Perhaps a reading comprehension course or two?

        • Have I ever let my car registration lapse? No. Have I ever had a parking ticket I didn’t pay for 8 months? No. I have two dogs. Have I let my dog’s licences expire for 8 months? No. Have I EVER let the licence expire on any pet I own? No. Have I ever owned a pet that lunged at anyone? NO.
          This owner said her dog was aggressive toward children it didn’t know. Full stop. It doesn’t matter if the dog’s behavior changed after she and her child were threatened by a group of youths. The fact is the dog shows tendencies of aggression toward children who were not part of that group of youths. Yes, I would surmise when her child brings home a ‘new friend’ the dog is wary and showing aggression toward the “strange child”. I don’t think that assumption results from a reading comprehension problem on my part but rather a strong tendency toward common sense. I believe you do not want to connect the dots because it means that this dog was damaged and that it put kids at risk. I am not spreading lies. Read the appeal court papers, the mother admited the dog shows aggression toward children who are strangers…end of story.

      • The truth is, regardless of the dog’s tendencies, Lennox never hurt anyone. He may have feared children and strangers, but his family kept him under control. I grew up with a dog, not an American Pit Bull Terrier or (like Lennox) an American Bulldog mix, who occasionally snapped at me (starting when I was about five; he had been very gentle and protective of me when I was a baby) if I was too pushy with him. My mother told all children who came to visit not to touch the dog; and they didn’t. No problems and no complaints; the dog eventually died of old age. I suppose you would have preferred that he be euthanized. Every dog on Earth has the capacity to hurt a child, and even small dogs can kill infants (and have). But seizing a dog who had not so much as nipped anyone and condemning it to death because of what it might do; regardless of the evaluations of two experts in canine behavior stating that the dog was not aggressive, is wrong.

        • Pat, there are millions of dogs out there who have NEVER snapped at a child. Why would your mother keep a dog that snapped at you when you were only five years old? It is fine and good to explain to children old enough to understand that they cannnot approach the family dog but what about children a year old. Do they understand that? Do you actually thiink it is appropriate to have an animal in your home that little children cannot approach because this animal will snap at them. The truth of the matter is that often children aren’t even approaching these dogs but just running around being children and the dogs start snapping at them. My point is that it isn’t right that children should have to curtail their natural inclination to just be kids so that a dog won’t snap at them and possibly bite them.
          As for your claim that small dogs have killed infants….ripped their throats have they? Love to hear about ONE incident of that. The point is I wouldn’t keep a small dog that snapped at or bit a child. Put human children first!

      • Healthcare Insider are you a BCC plant?? IF and WHEN you can produce the COURT documents to support your ridiculous accusations, then MAYBE you will get a hearing. WHERE do you get OFF saying this shit? Let us assume just for a moment, that you were right about the licence lapse, which I do believe IS true, but WHEN was the last time you EVER heard of a Council representative knocking on your door to ask if your dog had passed over?? To see if you still had the dog, sold it, gave it away or whatever?? WHEN?? PLEEEEZZE!! Give me a BREAK! They send reminder letters MAYBE. My council does NOT, nor ever HAS visited me to see if I still have my dogs. WHEN will you BELIEVE that Lightfoot went to the WRONG address?? A dog license date of renewal does not usually sit highly on our memories or daily priorities, unless of course you are a plant, or a social networking TROLL! I DO believe we have met before, ou were using a different “name” if you can all it that then!!

  2. Doggone

  3. Could nog have said it any better than the person typing behind the smiley face :)

  4. typical of the idiocy surrounding this case. The dog was not even an ‘illegal pit bull’, it was a Labrador American bulldog mix

    • Which is specifically mentioned in the piece you are angrily contradicting. Are you actually a dog? You read like one.

      • I’m not sure he specifically means you.

      • “[6] Mr Peter Tallaght, an expert dog handler, retained by the Council examined the dog. He confirmed that the dog was a Pit Bull Terrier.” Seems you are the one with the reading problem Cody.

        • If you are going to defend this “expert” dog HANDLER then at least spell the POS name right..it is PETER TALLOCK!!! He has no more qualifications to assess ANY dog, not even police dogs with behaviour isses than I do!!! NONE!!

  5. This helpless creature was torn from all he ever knew, was secluded, from the looks of it sick, tortured, not well fed and my guess is these bad people murdered him long before they said they did. WHY on earth would they not let his family see him, why not at very least supply him with a person who could care for his needs that were not met, Many questions that go un answered but having seen photos of where he was forced to live, how he was forced to live and the condition of him I feel they should be sued for animal cruelty at least and be tossed out of office for in humane treatment.

    • Please read the appeals court decision.

      • Too bad you won’t get far using fact against emotion. Nice effort, though.

      • It seems to be a bit of both really. The photographic and video evidence is hard to deny. I know that I,personally, would never put my head near a dogs mouth that had a tendency to bite. Nor would I put my neck at that level. However there are photos of at least one of the dog wardens doing just such to pose with him. Which makes me question the validity of their testimony.

        As to his viciousness, he had previously not bitten anyone and was being offered a home in a dog sanctuary in the US where he wouldn’t be in contact with the general public. So I cannot see where his behavioral problems would truly be an issue.

        Speaking to behavioral problems, any animal who is caged like that for an extended amount of time will develop issues. It may not be aggression, but there will undoubtedly be behavioral issues.

        Speaking to the BCC experts qualifications, from what I read the person providing “expert” witness testimony did not meet the legal qualifications to testify as an “expert.” Added to that, he has experience with police animals. Police animals, much like all specialized working animals, must have very specific temperaments. More explanation here: http://networkedblogs.com/zNR4K please note this was NOT written by me.

        Why would they deny the family a last visit?
        Why would they deny the family the remains?
        Why would they deny the family the dog collar?

        The last two leave me, personally, with the most questions and the most suspicion. If they were concerned with Lennox’ viciousness surely after he has passed he is no longer at risk of biting others? Therefore, as he is no longer a threat, shouldn’t his family be able to see him again? And as to the collar, surely the collar poses no risk to anyone?

        So yes, there’s court documents about muzzles and such. Yes she should have kept her pet licensed, technically since it’s measurement based she should not have had the dog. (Side note here though: if you get the dog as a puppy, and he grows to fit those measurements unexpectedly.. what are you to do then? )

  6. Poor old Colby. You have obviously never had the privilege of having a dog as “your best friend.” If it was true that BCC had been receiving threats for the past two years as they now claim – unlikely that their First Minister, who would have been privy to such information – would have supported the Barnes family in their quest to rehome Lennox.

    • Yes, “poor Colby”. It seems all his best friends were humans.

  7. I too work with dogs with behavioural problems. From what I’ve seen and from all accounts, Lennox was a normal dog, not an aggressive dog. *All* dogs can be deemed dangerous, but any defensive or aggressive displays from Lennox were predictable, and when a dog’s behaviour is predictable, it’s manageable. The family certainly appeared to have a hold on this. As others have mentioned before me, any dog forced to live under the conditions that Lennox was sentenced to for 2 years (my god… YEARS!) will undoubtedly display abnormal behaviours that can be traced back to fear, frustration, pain, discomfort, and lack of positive social interaction. There is no justifying the BCC’s handling of this case. They were wrong on all counts.

  8. The BCC are the dangerous ones, not Lennox! Their legislation is weak and allows for much subjectivity and little objectivity. Their shameful antics, any that of any law or enforcers who seize the opportunity to attack the innocent, must be exposed and changed for the betterment of life, not its destruction. The problems with some dogs only exists by the hand holding its leash.

  9. Wait a minute!

    The reports from the BCC’S minions, those damned dog wardens, about Lennox’ behavior have been discredited. Even IF they were true, given the way the bastards treated Lennox (HAVE YOU EVEN BOTHERED TO LOOK AT THE PICTURES OF HIS DUNGEON OR THE LAST ONES WHERE MOST OF HIS HAIR WAS GONE AND HE WAS OBVIOUSLY SICK?) and the rough way they handled him, it would be a small wonder why he would react with anger. NO dogs like people in uniform: it’s a fact. They seem to sense that people in uniform mean them no good and nothing but harm, and that was certainly the case of those who measured him.

    A dog who reacts badly after being harmed by others, like kids, is not infrequent. MANY dogs don’t like strangers. LENNOX NEVER WENT OUT WITHOUT A MUZZLE—– that took care of the problem EXCEPT in the case of idiots like unwanted dog wardens. Again, what the wardens wanted that day would make ANY dog want to attack.

    Are you also suggesting that a dog who simply LOOKS a particular way should be killed? LOOK AT HIS PICTURES!!!!! He doesn’t even look like a pitbull: HE LOOKS LIKE A BLACK LAB!!! I notice there are no pictures of him, which allows you to repeat the lie that he looked like what they claimed, when he clearly didn’t.

    For ANYONE to make excuses for those murderers on the BCC is inexcusable. Judging from your comments made to some of the commenters, it should surprise no one that you would support that gang of murderers.

    • Yep, police dogs sure hate people in uniform. And those military dogs? Can’t stop attacking soldiers.

    • Yes! We had a border collie who only barked and growled at the milkman…I think you are onto something with this dog and uniform business. Perhaps that milkman was up to no good….afterall sometimes he did delivered choclate milk and buttermilk. Of course, as you pointed out our dog was raised in a family of 9 human children. Maybe that contact with sooo many human children was “harmful”.
      It is really a shame that Lennox’s owner didn’t keep Lennox’s licence renewed because then those mean wardens would never have come to the house and Lennox would not have had to attack them. Also, then the judge would never have asked the owner if Lennox was aggressive toward children he didn’t know. Really once the owner told the judge that Lennox was lunging at children he didn’t know, Lennox’s fate was sealed…..that sent him to the doggy death chamber. A dog might get away with attacking mean dog wardens wearing uniforms but no responsible judge is going to take a chance on it biting a kid’s face. The moral of this story: Don’t let your dog’s licence lapse.

      • The linence never lapsed, get you facts straight, they even had his licence up to date for the two years he was caged.

        • Your, bugger these bloody forums, can’t edit posts.

  10. I suppose this is a wasted effort since you are obviously not a journalist in any sense of the word. But, aside from the encounter with the “male at the house” which sounds made up (BCC being a trusted source?). This dog was never allowed to be examined by a real behaviorist, was a therapy dog to a disabled girl, and had never shown aggression toward anyone. Dogs know instinctively if you mean them harm or approach them with agression or even anxiety. If Mr. Tallack was afraid or worried, the dog could bark in response, especially if on his own turf. This is not being dangerous, its called BEING A DOG. If, after being taken from his family and confined, traumatized he showed signs of stress/aggression –THAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH ANY DOG, INCLUDING MINE. The way you characterize this whole matter means this should be an editorial/commentary, which I suppose it is. Everything the BCC did in this matter showed they are heartless, spineless and cruel. Everything. Defense of them in any fashion is wreckless. If Peter Tallack was a true dog expert (he is not, by even the most liberal definition) called him a Pit Bull Terrier, he is as stupid of a man regarding dogs as can be. He obviously is.

  11. They have some of these same terribly ignorant laws in Canada. I would not have any issue with these laws except they ARE BASED IN MYTH. Stupid myth. They myths about APBT are everywhere, and laws like this appear to affirm them. Education is the key against ignorance. Innocent dogs are being killed over lies, myths, false beliefs. That is why so many of us are angry, passionate and continue to work to bring attention to this issue. Perpetuating these lies is adding to the problem. It serves nothing except to insure the destruction of more innocent dogs. Dogs have been part of the human family for at least 14,000 years, perhaps even further back. We should protect them, its our obligation once we brought them in. Thats what we are doing, we are not ‘dog nuts’. Just passionate in our fight against lies and death.

  12. Strange how the dog handler, Alexandra Lightfoot, who said in court that it was the most dangerous dog she’d encountered didn’t mind Lennox licking her face. (The photos are all over the net).

    I’m from N Ireland, have worked in its civil service, and was able to see first hand how corrupt it was becoming. Based on my experiences and what I’ve read about this case I wouldn’t trust anything from the Belfast City Council, including the “gasoline-soaked letters”. Given the role of Sinn Fein at the BCC and its connections to certain elements within “our wee country” I think it more likely any serious (ie not online insults) threats to BCC employees were staged.

    Then there is the curious case of the province’s leading newspaper, the Belfast Telegraph, issuing a public apology to the BCC for merely running an opinion piece in measured disagreement with the BCC then scrubbing it from their online cache. Since then almost everything they’ve written has read like a BCC press statement. Intimidation? I wouldn’t rule out anything in the new N Ireland where disagreeing with certain authorities can gain you the attention of rather unsavoury people, most of whom used to be in jail.

  13. Firstly your name should be Tosh not Cosh and secondly you obviously haven’t seen the first video to leak out? Which has just given me a brilliant idea – instead of raising money for the reasons I have read, what about a big fat reward to the person who spills their guts !!!! That would work! Come on Belfast City Council – how much for the truth?

  14. Good God Colby what were you thinking? Did you truly not appreciate the ridiculousness of people out there when it comes to our four-legged friends? Were you not aware of how many people tried to adopt that Alaskian dog after it killed the newborn human baby in southern Alberta? Some of these people would prefer to see a world where human children wear collars and leashes and undergo training until they are judged fit to be around their precious dogs.

    • Wow, this trollololol sure put a lot of effort into his trollolololing here didn’t he? Bored now.

  15. It’s likely the dog has been dead for a while. (They refused to provide any independent verification in recent months and AFAIK the local press never bothered asking for any). What’s most important here is the way NI is being governed and specifically the lack of accountability. The two dominant parties now have the same interests – they love the status quo – and they don’t even compete with one another as is the case in other democracies as they have completely different voters (zero crossover). Their interests appear to be shared by the public service, judiciary, press, and I suppose the business community. The dominant players in NI society are all watching each others’ backs.

    BTW the Court of Appeal’s decision claims Lennox was a pit bull – he wasn’t. It downgrades Sarah Fisher’s expertise but plays up that of their retired police dog handler. In reality he has no expertise in dog behaviour other than stating that if a dog reacts defensively to being hit and poked in the eye then it is a threat to society!

  16. I think it was a disgusting act that the Belfast council judged this dog by its looks alone, and worst not to allow the family to visit the dog or be with it on its day of destruction.
    The Council obviously had things to hide if they wouldnt allow anyone to see the conditions of the dog or its place of stay. I hope everyone who reads this story writes to the Goverment of Northen Ireland telling them how disgraceful they are and we shall not visit the Country until the laws of the Dangerous dog act are reviewed and changed.
    My heart goes out to Lennox and his family and i am so sorry for your loss and suffering. He is free now and you will see him again. He will not blame you now he knows the truth. Be strong. Lets just hope this never happens again to another poor dog and there family, anyone would think we lived in china the way they treat there dogs. You people of the Belfast council our disgusting and heartless people and i truly hope you get what you all deserve for playing a part in this horrible role and putting poor Lennox and everyone who followed his story through so much anguish. SHAME ON YOU ALL. If you think God will forgive you for such cruelty and injustice and allow people like you into Heaven i very much doubt it. D.K.S

  17. @colbycosh:disqus : There are provisions, or in this case.. exceptions. Which is what Victoria Stilwell was doing over there talking to the BCC. They had the ability to make an exception and send him with Ms. Stilwell if they thought the dog wouldn’t be a danger to society. Ms. Stilwell was going to place him in a canine sanctuary with no outside contact to the general public. Ms Stilwell is also clearly familiar with behavioral issues in canines and, most would say, more than able to handle herself. So why was that not a “safe” solution?

    • *Exemptions
      Please forgive me, it’s a bit late. Or early. Whatever.

  18. “but the letter of the law provides only for the destruction of dogs once they are found dangerous.” That statement isn’t correct & Belfast City Council have chosen not to divulge to the press that the Court in fact told them that they could put in an application to change the order to one of Lennox being put to sleep to one where he could have been taken by Victoria Stilwell to the USA where a sanctuary had been found where he wouldn’t have come into contact with the public. A similar case in the USA allowed a Husky who had allegedly killed a 3 day old child to live his days in such a place.

    • Would not a “similar case in the USA” be notably DIFFERENT in the sense that laws that pertain to the United States does not change the “letter of the law” in Northern Ireland?

  19. Any pitbull owner knows you take them from home ya they are Gona be aggressive he was locked away. You never do that it causes behavioral issues. Strangers forced upon any dog could go bad. It’s such a shame these dogs suffer enough because of human error. I’m from Canada and will be Sharing this with as many people.

  20. I don’t believe this dog was a danger and the family were treated disgustingly. Something went terribly wrong and cover-ups are obvious. No they did not have to kill the dog. Yes they did have choices. My God people open your eyes. This dog had been neglected and abused while in the wardens care. Nothing else explains the reason for the family not being given his body or allowed to visit, except maybe just blatant spite and the cruel character of those involved. This was not acceptable. Cover-up cover-up cover-up!

Sign in to comment.