Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[dirtybiker]

What's the final bill for "saving" Diesel?

I just heard the number, I cannot fathom it!!

$75.000..That is SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
of TAXPAYERS money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is so wrong on so many different levels.

This blows me away, I did not sign up for this, I want a rebate!!!!

I love animals but, let's put things in proper persective here and get a grip!!!!!

[juliatrops]

I just heard the number, I cannot fathom it!!

$75.000..That is SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
of TAXPAYERS money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is so wrong on so many different levels.

This blows me away, I did not sign up for this, I want a rebate!!!!

I love animals but, let's put things in proper persective here and get a grip!!!!!

This is the bill for training the animal control department in how to do their job. I have serious concerns about the leadership and some of the bylaw people in that department. Yes DS was a *bleep*, but, I have to say, if the RDCO had done the followup necessary four years ago, then this would not have happened. Intervention would have happened 4 years ago. Acknowledging this does not alleviate any responsibility on DS, but with the changes in RDCO animal control department, this should never ever happen again.

I consider this also training for the general public for us to know exactly what was going on in RDCO. It's not pretty is it? Outrage is fine, but direct it to get some good healthy changes happening.

[ixler8]

There are definitely PEBKAC issues at the RDCO.

[LordEd]

This bill exists because the dog owner challenged in court, which he is entitled to. The result was the court determined he was irresponsible and should not own the dog. The order was changed from destruction to re-ownership (which would probably require a court order and couldn't be done arbitrarily).

If you don't like the bill, here are things that the RDCO could do to avoid the bill:

1. Deny dog owners their day in court (probably illegal)
2. Give up anytime when challenged (no dog control)
3. Give up based on the financial capabilities of the dog owner (discrimination by income)
4. Build fences for owners (reward irresponsibility)

Pick one.

Fines and notices over multiple years didn't work.

This blows me away, I did not sign up for this, I want a rebate!!!!

[juz516]

If you don't like the bill, here are things that the RDCO could do to avoid the bill:

1. Deny dog owners their day in court (probably illegal)
2. Give up anytime when challenged (no dog control)
3. Give up based on the financial capabilities of the dog owner (discrimination by income)
4. Build fences for owners (reward irresponsibility)

Pick one.

That is ridiculous...pick one? IF they had followed up in the first place....IF the people with complaints had actually shown up in court previously then the other tickets/violations would have stood...IF the owner had complied with the fence, etc., too many IF's....and a lot of that is on RDCO.
What about the case with Shadow? Same thing....destroy, destroy, destroy. What about the case with Mary's little dogs and the way that was handled? Pathetic...IMO RDCO has a crapload of things to work on...one being hiring people that are capable of working with humans in a constructive way...not just simply "give up your dog for destruction or else"...which I am sure has happened many many times on people that are intimidated..then they run into people like DS and Shadow's owners who will not give up....and this is what you end up with. RDCO tries, IMO, to make the people suffer through the pet and/or through intimidation....then they come up with the "We are so pleased with the outcome of re-homing Diesel...what we wanted all along". So much BS! They wanted the dog destroyed. period.

[sobrohusfat]

We could save taxpayers alot by sending our awsome armed Conservation Officers to deal with all our dog control issues

[LordEd]

That is ridiculous...pick one? IF they had followed up in the first place....IF the people with complaints had actually shown up in court previously then the other tickets/violations would have stood...IF the owner had complied with the fence, etc., too many IF's....and a lot of that is on RDCO.

...

They wanted the dog destroyed. period.

Nov 19, 2006
June 22, 2007
Feb 10, 2008
April 22, 2009
Aug 3, 2010
Mar 11, 2011

These are the dates cited in the first court decision as times they notified, fined, or had complaints.

The beginning was 2006. They did not want to destroy then, or in 2007, or 2008, or 2009, or 2010. Five years. How many more years of complaints should they have waited?

[juz516]

and how many of those citations were thrown out? Or how many did the complainants not show up for? Like I said, had it been handled with follow ups etc. back then maybe there wouldn't have been this issue....and what about Shadow....and the other dogs? Seems to me, and IMO only....RDCO has a history which, up to this point, has been ignored and/or hidden from the public. When it all comes to light, they are as much at fault as the people trying to save their pets. I never said the the owner in Diesel's case was not at fault. He most definitely was...but the way it was handled on both sides was a total "I will win" attitude. IMO

[Fancy]

I thought RDCO is looking at ways to improve the way they do business.

[Captain Awesome]

I just heard the number, I cannot fathom it!!

$75.000..That is SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
of TAXPAYERS money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Old Yeller way would be much cheaper.

[LordEd]

His neighbours, two judges, and his own dog expert label him as irresponsible. What do you think a 'followup' would do?

'Followups' keeps being explained as what they should have done. What would be involved in this followup?

[dirtybiker]

Pick one.

I'll go with;
5) Hot lead injection!

It's the owner that deserves it but, it should've just been the dog that got it..

One and done.

A restriction placed on the dough head banning him from future pet ownership.

easy, cheap, solved!!!

[juliatrops]

His neighbours, two judges, and his own dog expert label him as irresponsible. What do you think a 'followup' would do?

'Followups' keeps being explained as what they should have done. What would be involved in this followup?

A fence was indicated by the bylaw people as necessary - was it built? no. was it followed up to see if it was built? no

The bylaw officer did not go to court on apr (22?) for how many, 4 or 5 tickets? (pretty important wouldn't you say?) because they had a funeral to go to, and did not know they had to call Smith to tell him with 24 hours notice that they would not be there is what I was told by Paul Macklem on Jan 8th in his office. So the bylaw officer did not know how court worked. Lack of knowledge, lack of training, describe it as you wish. As a result we have DS bleating about these tickets being "thrown out" etc etc.

If things were handled differently, we as taxpayers would not be in this position. Similar mishandling as described by Shadows owners as indicated earlier, in a letter to the RDCO which focused on staff interactions with them.

Followup and training and knowledge and yes, maybe even less ego, okay, a lot less ego, would have made things a very different situation today ....

[juz516]

His neighbours, two judges, and his own dog expert label him as irresponsible. What do you think a 'followup' would do?

'Followups' keeps being explained as what they should have done. What would be involved in this followup?

Had the follow ups been done in 2006 - 2010 or even simply 2006 and 2007...none of this would have ended up where it did. Had the RDCO employee known the court process...and someone had shown up....maybe none of this would have ended up where it did. IMO, IF DS had gone against the bylaws in each of those years and was not brought up on the carpet for it any of those times and did not get any sort of reprimand for not doing as asked....who's fault is it really? Yes, maybe the man is a knothead....but RDCO is supposedly the "law"....is it not up to them and their employees to ensure that things like this are taken care of? Destroying dogs left, right and centre does not fix the issues there are at this point in time....not following up on things like this does not fix any issues, nor does it give the public/pet owners a reason to trust these people. Instead of trying to take it out on the dog/dogs.....put blame where it needs to be....with the RDCO. Hopefully, they have learned their lessons with all the controversy and ire this has brought them. THEY are the ones that need to be above board on all and enforce their bylaws in a respectful and honest way....they work for the public.

[LordEd]

Are you asking them to return on a oor daily basis to apply as many fines as possible on an uncooperative owner?

Looks like in 2010 that they visited 3 times in August with no results.