Pit bull had attacked before

Brodie Thomas
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

A Port aux Basques man says a pit bull-like dog that killed a small lap dog earlier this month attacked his son last year.

This photo shows what happened to Cameron Dicks after a pit bull-like dog attacked him from behind one year ago.

Dean Dicks said his son; Cameron was walking with a friend in Mouse Island on July 9, 2011 when the dog attacked him from behind. The boy was nine years old at the time of the attack.

“It ripped his shirt and left a mark on his back,” said Mr. Dicks. “He didn’t even know it was coming at him.”

The dog was tethered to a long leash, which allowed it access to public property at the time, according to an agreed statement of facts from the court case.

Mr. Dicks said the dog latched on and wouldn’t let go at first. Once freed, Cameron and his friend ran to the friend’s house, and a parent took the boy to hospital.

Cameron had the cut cleaned up and was put on antibiotics for ten days.

The Dicks family reported the matter to police. The owner was summoned to court and pled guilty to the charge. The owner received a $50 fine.

“My biggest thing is the attack on the little dog shouldn’t have happened,” aid Mr. Dicks. “If the town had stricter bylaws and if the courts had stiffer sentences this wouldn’t have happened.”

Mr. Dicks said the court process involved taking his family to the police station several times to give statements.

Constable April Janes of the Port aux Basques RCMP said the owner has put down the dog, although not by court order.

Constable Janes was unaware of the attack on Cameron.

She said under the new Animal Health and Protection Act; an offence such as this no longer requires a court appearance. The dog owner will receive a $50 fine. Fines escalate for each offence under the new law, which came into effect after the last offence.

Const. Janes said the new bill does give police more power to lay charges against animal owners for various offences that did not exist under old laws.

The law does give a judge the power to order a nuisance animal destroyed, in certain circumstances.

Geographic location: Mouse Island

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • rodger
    August 28, 2012 - 21:28

    Wow, second attack for that same pit bull. I commented under the last article that i would treat these dogs venturing onto my property the same as any wild dangerous animal, ex, wolf, coyote, bear. This goes to show that this animal was a dangerous animal and should have been destroyed. Shame on the court and shame on the pit bull owner. And a $50.00 fine, that's a joke. You have to wonder.......WHY do idiots insist on owing such dangerous animals?

  • JB
    August 28, 2012 - 00:32

    I find it difficult to grasp that there is a fine of $50 when a vicious animal like that attacks a child or a toy yorkie. Who decided that is a fair recourse? Certainly not the victims. How can a dangerous animal simply be released? That dog should not have been given a second chance to attack. I'm not getting into the whole "should all pit-bull type breeds be banned" debate - but in this case, that individual dog should not have been given a second chance to attack.