In your editorial (Six hours is too long for city to respond to a dog attack), you allude that the Rainbow District Animal Control (RDAC, which was still under contract with the city to provide animal control at that time) ought to have done more in July when the first attack on Tonka took place.
At the time, it was and continues to be the responsibility of the victims to request in writing to the city for a vicious dog order to be issued. The procedure, established by the city, was that the city bylaw office (who issues these orders) would receive the request and prepare the order.
It is my understanding that when the incident was reported to RDAC, there were no apparent injuries, and it was not until a week after the event that a puncture injury was noticed that developed into an infection.
When the incident was reported, RDAC did what they were empowered to do and issued tickets for permitting the dogs to be loose and for attacking Tonka. Rainbow District Animal Control did not set the fines at only $100; this was again the city who sets the fines and the city who failed to increase those fines despite the RDAC recommending for years they be increased to provide for a stronger deterrent.
Rainbow District Animal Control has been maligned in social media by half-truths and misinformation. With so many voices (on both sides of the issues) shouting for attention on a polarizing issue such as Animal Control, it is important that fourth estate maintain a sense of balance and report (and editorialize) the facts of the events in our community.
Alan Prusila
Founding member, Sudbury Animal Coalition