Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[janalta]

I cannot support the idea of doing diesel a favour by killing him.

Your opinion, your right.
My opinion is that it is nothing short of animal cruelty to have a social pack animal like a dog, locked in solitary confinement for almost two years with limited human/animal social contact.

My opinion has nothing to do with the dog's history, whether or not he is dangerous or that he deserves to be put down because of his past....it is based soley on the grounds of a humane quality of life...which this dog is not living and has not lived for two years.
One small injection and he would have just drifted off to sleep peacefully instead of being dragged through hell.

[dogspoiler]

I think we can agree to disagree on this point, However I would support your application to head Corrections Canada.

[motorhomebabe]

So deisel, the dumb animal who cannot speak for himself ,can stay in his cage for infinity ,while all those oh so smart humans argue the fine points. Your right ,he does not deserve to die.He does not deserve to be locked up. So while everyone argues this point there sits the dog .Where does it end happily for Deisel?

[janalta]

I think we can agree to disagree on this point, However I would support your application to head Corrections Canada.

Hardly the same as criminals....but if you really need to know....yes, I think humans should be afforded the same dignity as animals when it comes to euthanasia to put an end to suffering.

[juliatrops]

I haven't changed my mind on anything either. Dave lost his privilege to have Diesel when he disregarded warnings and requests. I drank the Dave koolaid back in July, and since then, I have had a few encounters with him. I am not a fan, that is all I will say. Bully and arrogant, yes, those are the descriptors I would use as well. Carmencat, I can totally relate to where you are coming from when you describe your experience. Maybe he just doesn't know how to talk to people.

I had a meeting about two weeks ago with Paul Macklem at the RDCO. It was interesting, and I felt like he had koolaid ready for me too. But I listened, and weighed.

It was emphasized that the RDCO no longer want to kill Diesel, and that if the decision were to come in their favour, they will have a rescue set up (or already do) and Diesel will have a new home. They can't do anything right now, because Diesel is still legally Dave's property (man I hate that concept of property). I hope RDCO understands that Rescues talk to each other (off the record, and on the record), and I am fairly certain that if Diesel were to be put down after all this money was spent, this publicity, this talk.... there would be hell to pay by the RDCO. Talk about Optics in action...

In the meeting, we went over figures etc, about the animal control department. I felt that he was really trying hard to put them in a positive light. I stated firmly that the RDCO should not be in the business of killing dogs, they should not be accepting them from people who surrender them, for whatever reason: old, injured etc. That is completely wrong, imho.

I was told what the offer was, that Smith submitted, that the RDCO did not respond to - $250K, as well as court fees of $10K (Smith represented himself once again, there was no lawyer - so why did he need 10K of court fees?) Anyway, it was clear to me Smith thought he saw an opportunity to make some money, because perhaps at that time, the RDCO acted inappropriately.... well, to be fair, Smith did as well. I was asked by Paul Macklem, would you have responded to that? I said, well, yes, I would have. I think the RDCO made an error by not responding.

I told him that the RDCO really screwed up, and that both RDCO and Smith are equally to blame. They need to get it together by foregoing the apology bs, and the money bs - that they were both to blame.

Re: the pound, we did talk about that a little bit. The judge in the Aug 2012 decision, available on the RDCO website, said very clearly that the RDCO pound is cruel for long term care of animals. For the number of animals that are in the pound over the 72 hour period over the period of a year (there shouldn't be many, right? if everyone was doing their job?), there should be alternate arrangements in a kennel or somewhere where the animal can be taken care of properly. Considering what they are paying that lawyer for all their cases, I am sure there would be money in the budget for a dog or two. The RDCO has lost a ton of respect and credibility (as mentioned previously by many posters here) wrt taking care of animals in a humane manner, they have a chance to rebuild. They can, but it will take time and effort, and some uncomfortable growth. But git 'er done, boys, git 'er done.

I feel that the RDCO understands, now, how serious the dog (animal) situation is in its jurisdiction. If they didn't take people serious before, they do now. Which is good. When the new licensing comes out, there will be zero tolerance for people who don't get licenses. Great. But I still think that there should be no surrenders for the RDCO to kill animals, regardless if it is "suggested" to the client to surrender, like others have described on this forum, and elsewhere - or if the person just can't afford to take the animal to a vet. I don't have an answer for all of that, but I do know that the RDCO should not be killing animals.

The consultant apparently is working alongside with the current animal control department. My opinion is they should clean house, top to bottom. Get the people in there who know and understand animal behaviour. The officers who do the observing should be people who are trained in animal behaviour and know the difference between aggression and play. From reports, my opinion is that the current ones do not. Those who give out the tickets should be schooled in the bylaws. Seems there is some training that needs to be done there too (taking animals without warrants, no investigations, all that). Lots of work to be done, and it can be done.

Those of you who wish to be part of this, are most welcome to contact him to get involved. They're trying to figure out the dog park situation right now (ie monitoring etc), maybe if you have an idea on how that can be done, give him a call, or send an email.

In the meantime, let's hope the decision for this comes soon, and it is favourable for Diesel.

[dogspoiler]

Your opinion, your right.
My opinion is that it is nothing short of animal cruelty to have a social pack animal like a dog, locked in solitary confinement for almost two years with limited human/animal social contact.

My opinion has nothing to do with the dog's history, whether or not he is dangerous or that he deserves to be put down because of his past....it is based soley on the grounds of a humane quality of life...which this dog is not living and has not lived for two years.
One small injection and he would have just drifted off to sleep peacefully instead of being dragged through hell.[/quote]

Janalta, I just think that it would be better to see diesel sent off to a farm where he could enjoy life.

[janalta]

Janalta, I just think that it would be better to see diesel sent off to a farm where he could enjoy life.

Of course it would be the ideal outcome...but one his 'loving owner' seems hell bent on preventing.
This dog has suffered an inhumane existance for two years now...and euthanasia would have been better for the dog than the fate that he was dealt.

[juliatrops]

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/86 ... 00-000-dog

Taxpayers in the Central Okanagan will have forked over nearly $100,000 by time a Supreme Court judge issues a ruling on Diesel.

Diesel has been locked up in the RDCO pound since March, 2011 after being declared a dangerous dog while his owner, Dave Smith, fights an order to have his dog euthanized.

RDCO Communications Director, Bruce Smith, says legal bills alone will run upwards of $75,000 or more.

"The legal costs for this case up until the end of December, 2012 was $54,000," says Smith

"We don't have a final bill on the appeal, but we are anticipating it will be in the neighbourhood of an additional $20,000."

Besides the legal costs, Smith says the cost to keep Diesel at the pound run about $800 a month.

Over 22 months, that works out to an additional $17,600.

Smith says the Regional District is asking to recover some of those costs should it win the appeal.

"I believe part of our request to Justice Barrow was to try and recover some of the legal costs. I also believe we requested to recover some costs for Diesel's care and impound dating back to the provincial court ruling in August last year," says Smith.

A Provincial Court Judge declared Diesel a dangerous dog back in August. Dave Smith appealed that decision to the BC Supreme Court.

The appeal was heard earlier this week with a decision expected sometime next month.

The responsibility of dealing with and prosecuting cases such as these were downloaded from the province to local governments in 2009.

Before then, Crown prosecutors handled the cases.

"In 2008 our legal fees were $3,500 and they climbed to $64,000 in 2011," says Smith.
Photo: Contributed - Twitter
No fun and games for Diesel

"At that time there was one case that required the regional district to incur legal fees to go through the process."

It was estimated the legal fees in 2012 were about $90,000.

Those included court costs for Shadow, a two-year-old Alaskan Malamute who was held for 15 months before a deal was reached to send him home back in July of last year.

Smith says the regional board is trying to take steps to lessen the burden on taxpayers.

"One of those is Consent Orders that we reach with dog owners to give them and their dog another chance," added Smith.

"Return the dog back to the owner under strict conditions to ensure public safety such as muzzling, short leashes and enclosures on the property."

Ultimately, he says these cases would not be necessary if owners took more steps to control their dogs.

"Our legal counsel suggested during arguments that much of this could possibly have been avoided had the dog been responsibly and securely contained on its property and securely controlled and on-leash when it was in public."

imho, the reason costs climbed so high is because the RDCO had staff who took dogs without proper paperwork being done (ie warrant/Shadow) and did not investigate timely (Diesel). I don't know anything about the Mary case, so can not comment on that. Proper training of staff will also reduce these costs. Implementation of the new responsible dog ownership viewpoint/awareness will also help. Everyone needs to do their part.

[janalta]

Taxpayers are forking out $800 a month to keep a dog in a small cage at the pound?
$800 a month to feed and care for one dog??????

[juliatrops]

Taxpayers are forking out $800 a month to keep a dog in a small cage at the pound?
$800 a month to feed and care for one dog??????

Exactly. That is why I wonder why the long term dog care can not be at a regular kennel ie contracted out. Paul Macklem said it was because it would be too expensive. I don't agree. I would love to see some kennels send in to RDCO a proposal that would encompass dog care, and maybe even some training while the dog is at their establishment. Win/win.

[Captain Awesome]

Paul Macklem said it was because it would be too expensive. I don't agree. I would love to see some kennels send in to RDCO a proposal that would encompass dog care, and maybe even some training while the dog is at their establishment. Win/win.

$800 a month would be around $25/day. I don't know how much kennels charge, but caring for a dog 24/7, feeding it, training her, entertaining, etc. for $25/day sounds kinda low.

[HonestBob]

The RDCO is a governmental body, the dog control function is an extension of that, they are not a dog training facility of any kind, and shouldn't be. Many of the dogs put down through the RDCO are put down because people are turning their own dogs into facility. A dog with any kind of known bite history is turned away from the SPCA. Imagine the costs if the RDCO kept all the dogs? Imagine how the facility would have to be expanded? The RDCO dog folks have more of a responsibility to keeping the public safe from dangerous dogs, not to rehab them. That is where I want my tax dollars going.
And to think, all this could have been avoided if a lousy owner had heeded some warnings...thanks for the hit to the pocketbook Dave...
And the three high profile cases in this area that have dog lovers in an uproar all could have been avoided if the owners heeded by laws, by keeping the appropriate number of dogs, and keeping them under control at all times.

[steelrules]

You give the dog catcher/ bureaucrat a little power and they'll find a way to abuse that power to the tune of $100,000 and they'll say it's in the name of public safety, what about the public purse?
I say fire the works at the Regional District, curb their powers of seizing private property.
This whole thing should have been settled in a court between the dog owner and the plaintiff without the pencil pushing bureaucrats.
God I hate bureaucrats who make their full time job "making false work to justifying their job".

[LordEd]

Taxpayers are forking out $800 a month to keep a dog in a small cage at the pound?
$800 a month to feed and care for one dog??????

Google time:

http://www.barknflyonline.com/rates.php
$23.20 (assuming the 20% long term discount) is $700 / month. This does NOT include food. Food is $2 per feeding on their website if your supply runs out, so $4 on twice a day.

That brings it to $816. This also wouldn't include vet visits or anything like that. This also assumes that a kennel would provide a discount for a dog that may have behavioral issues.

http://www.wildwindkennels.ca/rates.htm: $17.50,($525) you provide blankets, food ($645 using previous food formula). Maybe a little cheaper, but not much. Add tax, and we're at $722.

http://www.topdogkennels.ca/boarding.htm: Starts at $29 with lots of extras to pay for.
http://www.spottedspa.ca/ $34 / night.
http://www.charlyscottagekennels.com/prices.html: $28 / night.

None of these seem to include food.

[HonestBob]

The RDCO is hardly making false work in this case...Dave had multiple warnings about the aggressive behaviour of his dog...and this could have been settled, a long time ago, if Dave hadn't disregarded his duty to his neighbours in keeping them safe from his dog which has an aggressive documented past. Now Dave it seems is falling down in the poll of public opinion, and I'm glad folks are seeing this for what it is, and that is a man it seems who simply wants to win, not do what's right for this dog he says means so much to him. People were on a huge fundraising campaign to save Diesel, why didn't Dave consider those people and say, enough is enough, I won't take anymore of your money, because Diesel is being given a chance, and that's what we all wanted...it's over...but it seems not?

And Lore, where you get the idea that Diesel wouldn't be adopted out if Dave had taken the deal is fodder for some kind of conspiracy theory, why wouldn't the RDCO uphold their end of the deal? The other thing you folks who support dangerous dog need to think about is this, imagine if Diesel gets out, and is in the public again, what if he hurts someone, what if that someone is a child you know or your own pet? The safety of the masses needs to be held in a higher regard than some lousy owner and his likely problem animal.