York magistrates heard that Julie Ross’s American Akitas, called Sugarpuff and Irene, have injured other dogs, including attacking a Staffordshire bull terrier.
City of York Council welcomed the dog control orders made against the 53-year-old mother and warned all owners they must train and supervise their dogs properly, urging the public to report cases of dogs attacking dogs or people.Most people will shrug and say 'What's the point?' And who could blame them?
It brought the civil court case against Ms Ross, of Whitecross Road, off Haxby Road, York. She did not contest the orders.
For her, Liam Hassan said she behaved responsibly by paying the vets’ bills for the dogs her pets injured.That's pretty shameless.
But this 'victory' won't stop the authorities crowing that they have done something about the menace, of course!
Cllr Sam Lisle, the council's executive member for housing and safer neighbourhoods, said: “Dog ownership comes with a responsibility to properly train and supervise pets at all times. This case shows the dangers a lack of proper control can lead to.”
Ms Ross could be prosecuted and banned from having dogs if she breaks the order.Why was she not already banned? Because, just like drivers who continually flout orders banning them from getting behind the wheel of a car, the 'punishment' in this case is....yes, you guessed it.
Another order she'll flout just like the last ones.
Victoria Waudby, for the council, told magistrates that police conditionally cautioned Ms Ross in April 2016 after her male dog, Sugarpuff, injured another dog.
In March 2017, following another attack by her dog in November 2016, she signed a written undertaking to get behavioural therapy for Sugarpuff and keep him under control, but she didn’t comply with the undertaking, the court heard.
At 10am on August 1, 2017, Sugarpuff and Irene ran out of her property to attack a Staffordshire bull terrier being taken for a walk by its owner, said Mrs Waudby.
Sugarpuff grabbed the terrier’s genitals and Irene had it round the neck and had its ear in its mouth.Why bother with orders that attract no harsher punishment for failing to comply?