“This post contains affiliate links, and I will be compensated if you make a purchase after clicking on my links.”
When Molly, a tiny 3-pound chihuahua allegedly nipped the ankle of a Windsor, Ontario postal worker, the city designated the pocket-sized pooch as a “dangerous dog.”
Because of her “dangerous dog” label, Molly must now wear a muzzle when she’s outside of her home – when her owner, Mitzie Scott, is able to find one small enough to fit her tiny snout. In addition, the Scott family must purchase a $1 million insurance policy against future “attacks” by the dog, and must prominently display a sign in their yard warning visitors that a vicious dog resides on their property.
Scott told CBC News, “It just seems so severe to me. We love the dog and we can’t get rid of the dog, but also that’s a very expensive monthly expense.”
Mitzie’s husband, Jason Scott, was outside doing yardwork when the so-called attack occurred. Molly apparently snuck out of the yard and nipped a postal worker walking by the home. Scott says he didn’t see anything and only heard his tiny dog barking.
The couple appealed the city’s decision because they have never been shown any bite or scratch marks, photos, or even a medical report since the event took place. However, their appeal was rejected by the city’s licensing commission.
Councilman Ron Jones of the Windsor licensing commission told reporters, “Nowhere in the bylaw does it indicate that a dog has to be 50 pounds to be designated as a dangerous dog.”
As for the Scotts, they believe a warning for the tiny dog’s first offense would have been sufficient.
“I don’t want to sound like I’m not taking responsibility because it’s my fault, she slipped out,” Mitzie said. “She’s three pounds, sometimes accidents happen. I just thought the consequences were just so extreme.”
What’s your opinion? Should the size of the dog, or the potential damage he could do be considered in labeling a dog as vicious? Are the Scott’s being excessively punished (the tiny muzzle, the yard sign, and the million dollar insurance policy) for little Molly’s offense? Or, did this case play out exactly as it should? Weigh in below!