Letters to the Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR | Secure dangerous dogs

To the editor:

I love dogs and I have two wonderful dogs; which is the point of this letter, because we all think our dogs are wonderful (just like our kids). I read your article (Aug. 25, “Langley City Council takes a bite out of dog danger”) about “dangerous dogs” and I think that Langley did respond to some issues regarding potential harm from dogs. You mentioned fees for the dog owners and the specifics about what would occur to the dog after a person has been bitten. The operative word here is “after.” Seems to me that we have solid rules after another person is terrorized/injured by a dog. Wouldn’t it be more proactive if all of us dog owners took responsibility to mind our dogs from not attacking? I thought it was ironic that dog owners whom have been told they have a “dangerous dog” would have to “secure” a surety bond. Wouldn’t it be a lot more functional and proactive to have our dogs “secured” by a fence? Then, perhaps we wouldn’t have another “dangerous dog” incident.



We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

Read the Oct 22
Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Browse the archives.

Friends to Follow

View All Updates