Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[yaktak]

Agreed...as I said the owner may be a jacka$$, does not require strong arm methods on the part of RDCO such as has been recorded in not a few cases. Yes, they could impound the dog and fine the owner up the ying yang...

In this case if they had done that, Mr. Smith would still be in court, he is not wrong in his mind, he would fight the fines. How is that done. In court!

Please answer the same question I posted for SSQ. In all your infinite dog wisdom, what is the option when dealing with people like Dave Smith, who after numerous warnings choose to do nothing.

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[Fancy]

then why can't we accept that Mr Smith can change especially under this new and wonderful approach which RDCO is going to use

Because he didn't when given the opportunity. The onus was on the owner to start with to control the animal.

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[Fancy]

The owner hasn't been able to follow the rules after multiple warnings.

[Fancy]

Bylaws are complaint driven and the dog was obviously not looked after or it would never have been picked up, never would have been in someone else's yard, never would have been off leash in public, never would have been able to jump up on anyone, never chased a cat out of his yard etc. etc.

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[LordEd]

Well then the district can't change either? People are stuck in their behavior forever? A "dangerous" dog is dangerous forever and cannot be retrained?

Not according to Calgary. They require a tattoo and/or chip that permanently identifies the dog as vicious.

[Fancy]

So what would be the remedy for that? Turn up in court and use the system you have.

As I said before, I would imagine they will now as adjournments weren't approved.

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[juz516]

Please answer the same question I posted for SSQ. In all your infinite dog wisdom, what is the option when dealing with people like Dave Smith, who after numerous warnings choose to do nothing

When did I ever give the impression I thought I had "infinite dog wisdom"??? I do not profess to know it all....I just disagree (my own opinion) with the "dangerous dog" thing IF all the things that have been quoted, the things I have read and what others have posted with respect to "kill the dog and it is over" crap. I believe all the bravado by RDCO, the neighbors and such, was to get back at Mr. Smith....and anyhow, I thought that's what forums were for....opinions.
So here is mine: I don't much like the method of threatening if the owner doesn't agree to voluntarily give a pet up for disposal. I don't much agree with the methods used with Mary and her 4 little dogs, even if she was doing something "against the law" in having 4 dogs instead of 2 and not licencing. What they did was completely out of line...IMO If you do agree with the methods, then I feel sorry for you as a human being.
As for Mr Smith....I have said he may be a jacka$$ and obviously is/has been difficult to deal with...but killing his dog will not change who the man is, for crissake. Obviously he doesn't get along with his neighbors....but that is a whole other thing...and the fact that the RDCO "officer" (and I use the term very lightly IMO, of course) did that is just plain not called for. It was a way for him to get his way as it has worked, I am sure, on numerous occasions.
You have to admit that there is an awful lot of dog fear out there....no matter what....brought on by the fear mongering through the media and the fact that people have zero tolerance with pretty much everything any more. I am in no way saying anyone's dog should be allowed to run and I, having two dogs of my own (and previously 4), not in any way a "dog trainer" or "dog behaviorist" or any such thing....for my dogs' protection have a very large fenced area on an acreage. But pretty much any dog on earth would chase a cat just for the fun of it. THEY ARE DOGS.

[juz516]

Not according to Calgary. They require a tattoo and/or chip that permanently identifies the dog as vicious.

They require that with EVERY licence sold, not simply vicious dogs...and IMO Diesel's "dangerous dog" thing is a farce...only MY opinion

[Fancy]

Knowing that (chasing cats), you take extra care to contain your animal then. If a dog is an ongoing problem then that dog should be put up for adoption to someone that can look after it. It's not up to anyone else to control someone else's animal.

[juz516]

If you read the Calgary bylaws re animals.....cats are also licenced....and have rules. So, then if a cat is out and a dog is out...the dog is a sissy and gets chased by the cat.....then what...the cat gets a "vicious" tag and confiscated? I know it is a far fetched scenario, but it has happened...by my cat to the neighbor's german shepherd lolol

[Fancy]

Rules should apply to both equally. Once a dog is allowed to chase another animal, there's nothing to say it won't chase a deer and then the dog could be put down. Chasing someone's pet in its own yard is wrong.