Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[Triple 6]

http://www.regionaldistrict.com/whats-new.aspx

Regional District Proposal Could Save 'Diesel'

The Regional District of Central Okanagan (RDCO) has made a further offer to save a dog that's been in its care for 21 months.

The new proposal to the owner of 'Diesel', Mr. Dave Smith, is consistent with the Regional District's vision that:

Dogs are valued in our region;
Protection of the public is paramount;
Responsible dog ownership is foundational to the region's new model.
If this further proposal is accepted, the RDCO will then be able to ask the Court to vacate the euthanization order and save 'Diesel', a German Shepherd cross that has been receiving care at the RDCO dog pound since March, 2011. The Regional District believes that this proposal provides the highest likelihood of success for 'Diesel'.

The proposal requires 'Diesel' to be transferred to a new owner through an anonymous adoption by a dog rescue agency approved by the RDCO. 'Diesel' would remain outside the jurisdiction of the RDCO with an owner who can provide 'Diesel' a safe and secure environment.

The rationale for this requirement is based on the RDCO's respect for the courts. The Honourable Judge McKimm, in his Provincial Court judgment on August 9, 2012, declared 'Diesel' a "dangerous dog". Further, Mr. Smith was held to be an "irresponsible" dog owner. As Judge McKimm held in paragraph 48 of his Reasons for Judgment, Dave Smith is:

"... unreliable and profoundly irresponsible about the care and control of his animal. He has shown a wanton indifference to the serious distress his failure to control this animal has caused to his neighbours. The case is overwhelming that the dog cannot be returned to Mr. Smith".

As such, returning a "dangerous dog" to a "profoundly irresponsible" dog owner is not an option available to the RDCO and would not satisfy public safety in the community.

This is not the first time that the RDCO has tried to seek an agreement with Mr. Smith. A consent order was attempted in March, 2012 and refused by Smith, which led to a Provincial Court hearing. In addition, Smith launched a BC Supreme Court civil action seeking terminations, suspensions and damages against the RDCO, certain employees of the RDCO and 2 citizen complainants. On October 23, 2012 the entire claim was ruled to be without merit and the RDCO was awarded court costs.

This proposal also requires Mr. Smith to agree to:

Partial reimbursement of costs for veterinary services to the victims of 'Diesel's' attacks and to the RDCO for costs including legal fees.
An apology letter to the residents of the District of Peachland who testified or were on the witness list at the Provincial Court trial before The Honourable Judge McKimm.
The RDCO is hopeful that Mr. Smith will do the right thing.

"The RDCO and its Dog Control Service staff are advocates for dogs. We have worked diligently to consider the best interest of dogs placed in our care with equal weight given to public safety" says Chief Administrative Officer Paul Macklem. "In the case of 'Diesel', we have been extremely disappointed with the campaign by a number of individuals to intentionally mislead the public regarding our handling and care provided for 'Diesel' and of the facts contained in court documents that are publicly available."

Macklem says, "This has been a deliberate attempt to harm the reputation of the RDCO, our employees and our legal representative in the print media and on social media sites. While we recognize the goal is to put public pressure on the RDCO for 'Diesel's' release to Smith, we are steadfast that the proposal will not be compromised given public safety concerns and the court order."

The Provincial Court decision of the Honourable Judge McKimm has been available to the public since August 9, 2012.

/media/24038/diesel_decision.pdf

The Supreme Court of BC decision regarding the Smith civil claim has been available to the public since October 23, 2012.

http://courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/12/1 ... 61cor1.htm

The decision is entirely in the hands of Mr. Smith.

(December 20, 2012)

[twofingers]

Sounds to me as if the courts and the Regional District have both gone the extra 1.6 kilometres for Mr. Smith, and more importantly, for DIesel.

[gardengirl]

It does sound like a reasonable proposal.

[Triple 6]

By them taking the euthanization offer off the table that would to me, mean Diesel is not as dangerous as the RDCO originally thought?
I don't think you can pick and choose that title. Either he is or he isin't?

[Captain Awesome]

Is there a reason why Mr. Smith is unfit to own dogs?

[Triple 6]

Is there a reason why Mr. Smith is unfit to own dogs?

He "failed" to contain/control his dog.

[janalta]

Is there a reason why Mr. Smith is unfit to own dogs?

I think they answer that question quite well...

Further, Mr. Smith was held to be an "irresponsible" dog owner. As Judge McKimm held in paragraph 48 of his Reasons for Judgment, Dave Smith is:

"... unreliable and profoundly irresponsible about the care and control of his animal. He has shown a wanton indifference to the serious distress his failure to control this animal has caused to his neighbours. The case is overwhelming that the dog cannot be returned to Mr. Smith".

As such, returning a "dangerous dog" to a "profoundly irresponsible" dog owner is not an option available to the RDCO and would not satisfy public safety in the community.

[Lore]

Diesel is not dangerous.
The RDCO just does not want to admit they were wrong.

[twofingers]

I don't the the dog is the dangerous one in this equation

[gardengirl]

Unfortunately, that is often the case with "dangerous" animals. It is not their fault, it is the fault of bad owners.
Abuse and neglect result in problem animals. Most often, it is the animal that suffers.

[yaktak]

Just by the size of diesel (well over 100 lbs, if not closer to 150), he is a dangerous dog, if not controlled properly by his owner. Which I think the courts pointed out, that Mr. Smith does not have that control or care too.

You can say what you want about the RDCO, but Mr. Smith's intentions will be very clear with his next decision, on to consent or not to the RDCO offer.

Personally I think he will snub the offer and continue trying to be a victim.

Man up Dave and do the right thing for Diesel. Let someone else take Diesel who will spend the time to properly train him and can handle such a large dog.

[Mtn Biker]

Doesn't seem reasonable at all to me. So they label him irresponsible, label the dog as aggressive, but are willing to put the dog into a different home. How does this work for Diesel or Mr Smith, except that Diesel will not be destroyed. I'd think after all this they could have found a better solution. But heck, when a person decides to make a stink about a dog and their credibility is never questioned or considered a factor, then it will always lead to this. The whole situation smells like dog poo.

[gardengirl]

This proposal also requires Mr. Smith to agree to:

Partial reimbursement of costs for veterinary services to the victims of 'Diesel's' attacks and to the RDCO for costs including legal fees.
An apology letter to the residents of the District of Peachland who testified or were on the witness list at the Provincial Court trial before The Honourable Judge McKimm.

This statement indicates that the dog has attacked other animals causing enough harm for them to require veterinary treatment.
Peachland residents testified in regard to the behaviour of the dog.

[Triple 6]

Partial reimbursement of costs for veterinary services to the victims of 'Diesel's' attacks and to the RDCO for costs including legal fees.
An apology letter to the residents of the District of Peachland who testified or were on the witness list at the Provincial Court trial before The Honourable Judge McKimm.

This statement also implies if he pays RDCO costs that Diesel can be free to a private adopter. I agree with MntnBiker it smells like dog poo.

[Lore]

What I understood to have happened is a dog attacked Diesel and Diesel defended
himself as any dog would do.
If the other dog had injuries because of this it was still that dogs fault
not Diesel's who was just defending himself.
Looks like the other dog was the aggressive one.
The RDCO has lost any credibility with me and they did it all by themselves.