This letter appeared on Ann Arbor News, Letters to the Editor section on March 16, 2000.

Protecting a vicious dog violates human rights

I’m responding to the recent story regarding the fate of the chow dog currenly quarantined at the local humane society. To start, I found the huge picture of owner Seiko Ikuma kissing her dog downright nauseating.

To the unknowing reader this picture suggests that poor little Ato is harmless. Idon’t think the same impression of Ato would have been provided to readers if they could have seen pictures of the injuries Alex Newton sustained as a result of Ato’s attack. The article talks about Alex having 13 stitches. That doesn’t sound so bad, right? Wrong.

Talk to the emergency room doctor in charge of Alex’s care at the hospital. His courtroom testimony addressed the severity of Alex’s injuries. The only blessing to Alex’s attack was that his father was assisting him on the paper route that morning and was able to save his son.

The story quotes the Ikumas’ new lawyer, Donald Perkins, as saying “the district court was completely wrong, both morally and legally, to order this innocent dog to be destroyed.”

How can we call a dog that viciously attacks a boy innocent? Is it not perverse to suggest that this dog is the victim and that Alex is the criminal? Perkins goes on to say, “Michigan law rightfully protects a dog that bites when confronted with a trespasser or when tormented, provoked or acting to defend its family from threat of harm.”

The Ikumas are further quoted as contending that Alex was trespassing and provoked their dog when he placed the paper inside the house. How on earth can a paperboy be trespassing when delivering a paper? Furthermore, Alex did not torment or provoke the dog. He simply was doing his job in delivering a newspaper to the Ikuma home.

I feel that the protection of Ato under the guise of animal rights is a travesty to human rights. Ato is not the innocent victim pictured in your paper who was simply doing his “instinctive” job of protecting his territory. He is a vicious animal that if freed could bite again. Next time his victim might not be so lucky as to have with him a father that is big enough to save him.

Susan M. Valiquett

Pinckney