Something just seems weird or "off". From what I read, they signed some type of agreement or consent in their old town (Jersey City) where they agreed if they walked them, they'd have them muzzled. Then they moved to a new town (Oakridge). The Oakridge police caught them walking the dog (or dogs) at 5:30am on an empty street unmuzzled. The police cited them and took the dogs and the prosecutor is saying they violated the "consent" form they signed with their old town.
Just doesn't make sense. I guess the most obvious answer is what someone above said, in that the towns have a list of dangerous dogs and Boerboels are on it, however I don't see anywhere that mentions that law in either town. I would have thought someone would have mentioned it.
Also, either the cops are really bored or these people rarely muzzled the dogs. I'm not sure if the cops followed them numerous times and happened to quickly catch them when one of the dogs got out of it's muzzle (sounds like what the owners are saying), or if the cops watched them one morning and the owners weren't using muzzles.
I'm wondering if the dogs attacked someone in the old town which is why they had to be muzzled?
