A refresher course on a dog called Trevor (Star, Oct 29).
Oh, the continuing saga of Trevor the dog. Has any animal in the history of this territory ever been as vilified as this one? I think not, and yet this unfortunate animal has quite literally been crucified when the fact of the matter is he could have just been held under the same restrictions as any other dogs deemed dangerous.
There are dogs all over this territory and city much more dangerous than him, and yet no such restrictions. The biggest contributors to this overreaction toward this dog are the press – specifically the hack journalists at the CBC and the Star’s own Justine Davidson. I have never seen any story so completely misrepresented in my life. But now that I have, and it concerns a dog, I will take anything I read or hear from this clan with a grain of salt. Heaven knows the extent they would go if it involved a human.
I guess the thing most disturbing about this entire ordeal is the fact that these people were actually in the courtroom and heard the same evidence as everyone else did, yet have continued to report absolute false garbage to this day. You would think these reporters, disguised as pseudo journalists, worked for the city. Interviews conveniently chopped for radio when going to air, and the facts ignored when going to print. The result: a total brainwashing of the public, who now see this dog as a four-legged Jeffrey Dahmer.
Your lot of supposed unbiased reporters have carried on from day one as if the Humane Society Yukon was the defendant when in fact they are the plaintiff. The rinse-and-repeat style you have continued on is a descendant of this ignorance. Again, you people were in the same courtroom I was, and heard the same evidence.
How is it possible for you to get it so wrong and mislead the public? “Just the facts, Jack,” is apparently not part of you’re vocabulary. So, for the legions of gullible people who believe everything they read in local newspapers or hear on the radio from National Inquirer -type fake journalists, here are the facts for the umpteenth time:
1. The dog in question bit one person. I’ll repeat that for the local reporters of falsehoods. The dog bit one person. Comprende or no?
2. Way back when he was rescued from his tortured existence in someone’s backyard with an ingrown chain around his neck, he never showed any aggressive behaviour to the strange man in uniform who took him.
3. When he was taken to the pound, he never showed any kind of aggression, although one would surely understand if he did, being in a strange place with an ingrown collar.
4. He was then surrendered to the humane society, and at that point, he never showed any sign of being aggressive.
5. Next, he was taken to the vet to have his collar removed from his neck. Once again, he showed no aggression before or after the operation. It has been said that he even licked one of the attendant’s hands.
6. He was then returned to the humane society, and, just like the steps that came before this one, he never showed any signs of being vicious.
7. The problems started when he was illegally obtained by a false adoption by a woman who was getting the dog for her brother, who had no fixed address.
8. The dog then bit the illegal owner’s landlord.
What happened to this dog in such a short period of time to change him?
9. The dog was then taken to the city pound to be killed by the illegal owner, which was in breach of the agreement/contract signed by the sister of this illegal owner.
10. In the end, all the city has tried to do is save face because it was wrong. All it needed to do was use the existing dangerous dog laws and everyone could have gone home.
11. Instead, under the meaningless, overused premise of public safety, the city put so many restrictions on this dog that bit two people that his chances on being adopted are remote, at best.
Are there any other dogs that have bitten one person under the same amount of scrutiny? No.
Then why this dog, and why the glaring double standard? I have been around this dog many times, and he is no Cujo.
Ed. note: Trevor’s case is due back in Yukon Supreme Court on Tuesday