De Emmer mayor Eric van Oosterhout does not intend to return the dog King, seized last year, to its owner. In doing so, he ignores advice from the Emmer objections committee.
King was walked with two other American Bully’s XL Shiba and Alpha at the Emmerhout shopping center on Tuesday evening, October 17 last year. The owner of the three dogs was sick and that’s why her cousin and foster son did this. Near the tanning salon, the group encountered a man with a white sheepdog. That dog would have been bitten there.
Based on statements, the mayor assumes that King is the dog who is responsible for this, or at least approached the white shepherd aggressively. Van Oosterhout bases his findings on the official reports and reports from the police, supervisors and audio recordings.
Before the incident with the shepherd, King was already labeled dangerous because he had bitten a dachshund to death. He was allowed to stay with his owner in Emmen, but was required to wear a muzzle and stay on a leash when he went out.
‘In the wrong’
If a dog declared dangerous causes another incident or the leash and muzzle regulations are violated, a mayor may have such a dog confiscated. This happened to King. But according to the owner, Van Oosterhout completely missed the point with this decision.
She states that King was on a short leash on the Tuesday evening in question and was indeed wearing a muzzle. She also says that King did not bite. According to the Emmense, the white shepherd was on a long leash and is said to have walked towards her bullies Shiba and Alpha and attacked these dogs first.
To get King back, the owner had already gone to court and in mid-December there was a hearing before the Emmer objections committee. The judge ruled that King could not return for the time being, but the municipal committee ruled differently and believes that the mayor made a mistake by having the dog confiscated.
According to the committee, the mayor did not sufficiently substantiate that King was the dog that caused the incident in the shopping center and that King was not on a short leash and was not wearing a muzzle. Van Oosterhout was advised to return the dog to his owner.
After that statement, King’s owner said she was happy that the events of October 17 had now been “finally looked at honestly” and hoped that King would come back to her soon.
Camera images
Van Oosterhout does not intend to do that, as is evident from the decision he made after the advice. He points out that the shepherd’s owner provided consistent statements three times that fully matched audio recordings. After the objections committee’s decision, this man was heard again and his story again matched what he previously told about the incident.
When King was seized, a supervisor noticed that the muzzle was not kept with the other ‘exhaust equipment’. For that reason, the mayor considers it ‘plausible’ that King was not wearing a muzzle during the incident in the shopping center.
Van Oosterhout was unable to obtain camera images of the incident. He claimed it after the December hearing at the tanning salon, but received no response. According to the owner of the tanning salon, the camera was defective at the time of the alleged biting incident.
New court ruling soon
Van Oosterhout also points out the results of a behavioral test on King, which, according to researchers, shows that he reacts aggressively to other dogs. The risk to others, both adults and children, is estimated to be very high. The researchers even recommended putting the four-legged friend to sleep.
With the decision of the objection committee in hand, the owner started summary proceedings against the municipality of Emmen to get King back quickly. The judge is expected to make a ruling on the matter soon.