Two more dead dogs in Toronto—is there a Canikiller on the loose?
The section of High Park known as Dog Hill has been cordoned off by police after two dogs died and a number of others fell ill from ingesting what appears to be liquid antifreeze. The incident comes four years after a series of dog poisonings in Withrow Park caused by pesticide-laced wieners. That crime was never solved, and the whole thing now has a certain Unabomber-esque intrigue to it. Toronto may have a Canikiller on its hands, striking without warning, then lying in wait for years before mounting another sneak attack. And if so, here is an appeal to the perpetrator: please feel free to forward your wacked-out, manifesto-ish screed of complaints and demands to the Toronto Life offices. City State will publish it in full, not because your cause is righteous—it’s heinous—but because we’re all curious.
Ever since the Withrow poisonings, Toronto’s dogs-versus-people debate has been a heated one. The Dog Hill poisonings have now made it one of the defining civic issues of our time. Toronto is a city for people, but is it a city for dogs? Does our embrace of diversity extend to four-legged creatures? Tensions constantly run high. Earlier this spring I witnessed a scene at Withrow’s dog run, which is located in a tiny valley flanked by two steep hills. A few kids on mountain bikes were having fun weaving through the trees, zipping down into the dog pit and climbing back up the other side. The dogs were distracted by the action and their owners were clearly upset. Eventually the cyclists were silently but sternly shooed away by the dog people’s sense of entitlement, but since Withrow’s off-leash area isn’t fenced in, my sympathies were with the cyclists. Imagine: off-leash children harassing dogs! I am one of those people whose love of dogs has been tempered by parenthood. After a couple of frightening encounters between unleashed, panting slobberers and my infant son, I favour enforcement of leash laws, mandatory obedience training and fenced-in dog runs.
Obviously I don’t favour dog poisoning. Nevertheless, the Dog Hill incident threatens to push the issue into the realm of the absurd. The story in the Toronto Star said the cops were considering an increased presence at Dog Hill. Police protection for pets? Here’s hoping they can track down the Canikiller fast, because between the shootings, the stabbings and the handing out of infractions to rogue TTC drivers, the cops have lots of more urgent priorities to deal with.
• 2 dogs die from poisoning [Toronto Star]
What is absurd about increased police presence at Dog Hill in order to protect pets? Dogs and their owners are entitled to the same protection as everyone else when it comes to criminal acts and I find it difficult to understand how anyone could think otherwise. It’s obvious that Phillip is not a dog lover and that’s his right. I am an avid dog lover as well as a parent and don’t find any contradiction in this. Children who love animals and are taught to care for them grow up to be kind and generous people. Animal cruelty goes hand in hand with child abuse, domestic violence and other forms of abuse in our society so catching this freak would quite possibly help prevent other forms of violence in future. It’s a sad state of affairs when one chooses to harm an innocent animal who is only playing in an off leash area and eating and drinking as dogs do. My sympathies go out to all dog owners who have sick animals. I have visited High Park many times with my dog but it’s now off limits for us. Too bad because it was a wonderful place frequented by great people and great pets to socialize with.
It’s absurd because humans in Moss Park or Regent Park are entitled to the same protection as the humans in High Park, but they don’t get it, and on top of that the police are now spending their time protecting the dogs kept by the humans in High Park.
It’s absurd.
I agree with John. It’s absurd because “rate payers” get preferential treatment when it comes to public safety. Meaning that if you are homeless, you are worth less than a taxpayer’s dog.
As long as humans believe that they control the universe, have the right to do so and that their very being entitles them to preferential treatment, we will continue on the downward path that we now find ourselves on. If we can ever understand that all animals [humans included] deserve consideration and protection there just might be hope for our planet. Doesn’t look too promising from my perspective.
Give me a break.
Go to St. Mike’s emergency ward and tell all the sick people waiting for a doctor that they’re all greedy for diverting valuable resources that could be better spent making parks safe for your dog.
No need for personal attacks John. I don’t live in or near Toronto so no one is making parks safe for my dog. The sad situation in our emergency wards has nothing to do with making parks safe for dogs or people. Perhaps you need to understand who funds what and how it all works before making such comments. A better idea would be for people to refrain from going to the emergency unless it truly is an emergency. The doctors we do have are overworked and would be far better able to take care of the ill if the system wasn’t abused. But then again a system where everything is free is so easy to abuse! I take care of my dog because I know when he is sick I will be paying the bills. And I do so gladly no matter what the cost.
I call that responsible.