Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[Triple 6]

^^^^Owners like these are why so much money is being spent.

I don't doubt that the people mentioned have had problems or issues. I have a problem with the bullying by RDCO. There are ways to work with people. I've read the stories about Dave. Should he have done something before? Darn rights. Could have saved himself a lot of heartache and money.

[motorhomebabe]

And nothing has changed for the dog . He is still in Jail.When does that end?

[travelingman]

If you read the judgement by the judge on August 12 you will see that Smith was given 12 warnings about his dogs menacing neighbours . 6 witness swore under oath that Smiths dog either lunged at them, caused injury to their animals and was belligerent to anyone who questioned the behaviour of his unruly dog. A 13 year old girl was chased twice by his dog and Smith was reported (under oath by the witness) as having told the girl ,as his dog was lunging ,that the dog was indeed trying to bite her.

12 warnings and 6 credible witness who under oath describe the character of a man who is obviously out to lunch on how to act civily in a neighbourhood with seniors, kids and yes a dangerous dog. This is now becoming a sick act of wasting yours and my money. Smith should have to pay all court costs for this blatant disregard of common sense. This should have been all settled with the removal of the dog from Smiths control in 2006. There are hundreds of well trained dogs under the control of great owners. This is not a well trained dog and a vengeful terrible owner!

[HonestBob]

bravo travelingman...well said!!!

[Steve-O]

I agree with travelingman. enough is enough. The dog has no future. It can not be trusted and instead of letting it languish in a cage, put him down and end this sorry saga. This has gotten to the point that there will be no winner.

[Lore]

I agree with travelingman. enough is enough. The dog has no future. It can not be trusted and instead of letting it languish in a cage, put him down and end this sorry saga. This has gotten to the point that there will be no winner.

I don't think you know about this case.

[Lore]

Kelowna Courier article from Tues. Jan.22/13.

http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/front ... mment-4690


Dog fight back in court
Tuesday, 22 January 2013 02:00 Kelowna Daily Courier

David Smith has taken his dog fight with the regional district back to the courtroom after negotiations over his pooch's release collapsed last week.
The Peachland man hired a Vancouver lawyer to appeal a provincial court decision that confirms Diesel as a dangerous dog. The ruling permits the district's dog-control service to destroy Diesel, a seven-year-old Labrador cross that has spent nearly two years in the pound.
Lawyers will argue for two days before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Geoff Barrow decides whether to overturn the lower-court ruling. Smith said he refused to accept the district's settlement offer because it requires him to adopt out the dog to an anonymous owner outside the Central Okanagan.
"They've tried to kill Diesel for 22 months. If no one knows where he is, they could kill him. It has happened before," Smith said outside the courtroom.
Neighbours on and near Wiig Road in Peachland have complained about Diesel since 2006. They say the dog chases cats up trees, runs up to other dogs and jumps on people.
One owner claimed Diesel jumped on her dog and caused lacerations that needed a vet's care. Another said Diesel made her dog limp after jumping on its back.
A woman testified that Diesel attacked a dog recovering from surgery due to a stomach ailment and injured it in early 2011. She said it was unprovoked, but Smith argues the other dog attacked first.
A woman claimed she was having tea with Smith at his house when Diesel "got into her space" and bit her hand. It wasn't clear if the dog bit her hand or scratched it as she pushed it away, said lawyer Rebeka Breder.
Dog-control staff have ticketed Smith five times for Diesel's behaviour, but he has successfully contested all but one of them. He lost the first because he never showed up in court, Breder said.
After a four-day trial in June, Judge Mayland McKimm said he lacked the authority to grant Diesel a conditional release. The district proposed last month that Smith could have Diesel back if he paid its legal fees, apologized and agreed to have the dog adopted out to a stranger.
Smith refused and carried through his appeal under the province's Small Claims Act. He argues that designating his pet a dangerous dog doesn't mean it must be euthanized. In a couple of cases, he said, dogs that have killed other dogs were allowed to live.
"Diesel has never killed another dog," Smith said.
The case has attracted two or three protesters. Connie Mahoney waved a pink sign as traffic drove past the Kelowna Law Courts. The message read "Don't kill Diesel because his owner is a bonehead."
Mahoney thinks both sides are responsible for the dog spending such a long time on death row.
"Dog control has a terrible reputation, but it's getting better," she said. "It's the least I can do for the dog. Animals don't have any rights. They are a possession."
Breder argued the district's offer to give Diesel back to Smith on certain conditions shows that bylaw authorities don't believe the dog is dangerous enough or Smith is irresponsible enough to warrant Diesel's destruction.
The district's lawyer, Troy D'Souza, said the settlement offer is inadmissible as new evidence.
"The crux of the case is whether Diesel is a dangerous dog and whether the courts have jurisdiction to make orders. They can. That's what the appeal is about," said D'Souza.

[Lore]

Kelowna Courier article from Wed. Jan.23/13.

District defends Diesel's care as appeal wraps up
Wednesday, 23 January 2013 02:00 Kelowna Daily Courier

The Central Okanagan regional district is defending its 22-month incarceration of Diesel the dog, a German shepherd-cross facing death after being labeled a dangerous animal.
The seven-year-old dog has spent nearly two years in the pound while its case slowly plays out in the courts.
In a statement released Tuesday after lawyers finished debating in B.C. Supreme Court whether animal-control staff have the right to destroy Diesel, the district said it "continues to seek the best efforts to save Diesel's life."
"Throughout this . . . ordeal, the regional district dog pound staff continue to provide professional care and surroundings for Diesel," said spokesman Bruce Smith in a news release.
"This has not been an easy time for anyone,
including Diesel. Although the regional district doesn't normally contain a dog for this length of time, in this circumstance we are bound by law to follow through on our bylaws and court decisions."
An appeal of an August 2012 provincial court decision branding Diesel as dangerous and its owner as irresponsible wrapped up Tuesday.
After hearing two days of arguments, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Geoff Barrow reserved his decision on whether to overturn the lower court's ruling to allow the district to euthanize the dog. Barrow's verdict is expected within a month.
Smith, a Peachland resident, appealed to the higher court after rejecting the district's offer to let Diesel live if he adopted it out to an anonymous owner outside the Central Okanagan. Smith argued if his dog is secretly relocated, there would be nothing stopping officials from euthanizing it.
Neighbours on and near Wiig Road in Peachland have complained about Diesel since 2006, with some saying the dog injured their pets by jumping on them. One woman testified that Diesel attacked a dog recovering from surgery. Another woman said she was having tea with Smith at his house when Diesel bit her hand.
The regional district said Tuesday there's a message in the dispute: "Owners need to be in control of their dog at all times. Doing that may have avoided prolonged proceedings and the extended stay of Diesel."

[Lore]

Some comments off of the Kelowna Courier site.


+1 # Dave Smith 2013-01-24 01:21
Some points-- RDCO offered to release Diesel to me seemingly showing Diesel was not dangerous and I was not irresponsible. I made a counteroffer which RDCO has never responded to. 2) the Provincial Judge noted that the failure of RDCO to explore other solutions could in itself be a reason to return Diesel to me. 3) the Judge described Diesel' s conditions as cruel. 4) Diesel was caged,(punished ), for 15 months even before getting his day in court. RDCO opposed bail. The Shadow case, Diesel's case, Mary's case, and RDCO's own Consultant indicate there are many problems within dog control. It must change from what has been described as an antagonistic, intransigent attitude to a more cooperative, mediation one with public safety still in mind.


+1 # Dailyreader 2013-01-24 01:51
I don't care what the District calls "professional" care, 22 months in 24/7 solitary confinement is beyond ridiculous, and there isn't one excuse they can come up with that would justify it to a caring human being. We are talking about a dog here, not a piece of furniture that you can throw out, or set in the attic until you are rid of it for good. Diesel would be pushing up daisies by now if People weren't fighting for his release, and that is mainly Mr. Smith. If the district cared one little bit about Diesel they could have arranged somewhere more decent for a long term encarceration. They kept poor Shadow in jail for 15 months, Mary's four litte dogs for eight months. It's a bad habit and they have to STOP THE INSANITY.


# RDCOSUCKS 2013-01-24 02:54
Well cared for they say, no choice they say, more lies from the RDCO, other jurisdictions don't hold an animal for 23 1/2 hours a day in a small cage for 2 years! They choose to inflict people with this psychological torture for trying to save their pets. RDCO has one of the highest kill rates for doggies and a consultant's review even said they need to change their tune. Over 1 million a year is spent on dog control and we are starting to understand why now. Not a common story for the RDCO? Obviously the writer of this story hasn't done much research in the matter. Sounds like a parrot for the RDCO... What about Shadow and Mary's 4 poms? Even a complete moron can see what this is all about. Professionals? are we talking about the same people???? This paper is totally mental, not good enough to wipe my bottom with.


# pimmsy 2013-01-24 05:59
The District might have prevented this ordeal for the pound's staff, Diesel and Mr. Smith, had they properly responded to the complaint about the Dec.31, 2008 dog fight between a Shar-Pei and Diesel. The Shar-Pei's owner complained to Dog Control. No one investigated this complaint or sent a ticket to either of the dog owners. Then, because complaints escalated in that Peachland neighbourhood, the District decided to appease the Shar-Pei's owner and other complainers by seizing Diesel on March 11, 2011, more than two years after not investigating the complaint. Mistakes were made. Everyone makes mistakes. Hiding them by persecuting Dave Smith and locking up Diesel has only cost the District thousands of dollars that we the taxpayers will have to fund. PS Courier reporting is just fine. Let's not blame the messenger.

[butcher99]

Some comments off of the Kelowna Courier site.


. Then, because complaints escalated in that Peachland neighbourhood, the District decided to appease the Shar-Pei's owner and other complainers by seizing Diesel on March 11, 2011, more than two years after not investigating the complaint. Mistakes were made.

Sure Diesels owner is a bonehead. Sure he should not be allowed to own a dog when he has such a poor attitude about training or responsibility. But is that the dogs fault?
This has become nothing more than a phissing match between the two and we can all see it. One that has cost all of us a ton of money. There is no way the regional district would have let this go on this long if they actually had to be responsible for how much this has cost everyone. Just the fact that they say the dog is ok with another owner ruins any case they have against the dog.

[Fancy]

Unfortunately, nothing can be done until Justice Geoff Barrow hands down his decision - another month from now. All this could have been avoided if a dog was leashed.

[dogspoiler]

Butcher99 I agree with most of your post except the last line. Smith has proven to be a negligent owner.

He has often let the dog run at large. Despite complaints.
He has often taken him out off leash. Despite him getting into fights.
He has refused to confine him properly. Despite compaints.
He has refused to deal with the complaints properly. It's his nature.

Diesel is just being a dog. It is up to the Dogs owner to make sure he can fit into society.
Smith has failed his duty to his Dog, and to his nieghbours.
Diesel may be fine with another owner that meets his needs and sets proper guidleines.
There is a good chance that Diesel can be a good Dog for a responsible owner.

Smith will never be that person.

RDCO has also displayed very poor perfomance, I believe that is fairly normal for them and this whole thing could have been avoided if they had acted in a timely and appropriate manner from the start.

[Lore]

If I were Dave I would fight to get Diesel back as well
Because of the RDCO track record I would not trust that they
would be adopting Diesel to someone.
Besides that, its like Dave has said,"Diesel is family".
He loves his dog and now a days when people will give away
their cat/dog for any lame reason it is always heart warming
to see someone who would go this far for their pet.
I am sure that any problems on Dave's side will not be repeated.
Who would want to go through all this once let alone again.

[Fancy]

The probability of another incident happening is high from what I gathered reading the decision. If steps weren't taken to protect Diesel after the first couple of warnings, I don't see anything changing.

[Lore]

The probability of another incident happening is high from what I gathered reading the decision. If steps weren't taken to protect Diesel after the first couple of warnings, I don't see anything changing.

You really think that after all that Diesel and Dave have gone through
that Dave would not do things differently?