Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[normaM]

I'm just happy the poor thing is out of prison.

[Triple 6]

I'm just happy the poor thing is out of prison.

Me too. I do question the annonymous adoption. I trust RDCO as far as I can throw em.

[juz516]

hear! hear!

[ticat900]

I don't, for one second, believe this dog was/is "dangerous". Watching him again on this video shows nothing that might give an idea he may be...in fact, IMO, the exact opposite. I understand that DS may have po'd his neighbors and the "officers" of the RDCO...and their only way to get to him was through Diesel. I hope for only the best for this dog...and I really, sincerely hope that he actually is adopted out to a wonderful loving home and not simply shuffled off. I have zero faith in the "powers that be"...and I really wonder if, after dealing with Diesel in this situation, if they realize they were wrong about the designation?

Times 1000 I have seen and found there are more dummys involved in RD offices verses rational intelegent people
Iam not sure the original judge in this case was the brightest bulb on the tree either

[LordEd]

Me too. I do question the annonymous adoption. I trust RDCO as far as I can throw em.

Sounds like a great argument to contain your dog in the first place and not put them in a position where they can do anything.

[Triple 6]

Sounds like a great argument to contain your dog in the first place and not put them in a position where they can do anything.

One would think. You seem to think I'm all about Dave. I'm not. I think he failed his dog. Why he didn't contain his dog is beyond me.

[dirtybiker]

Why he didn't contain his dog is beyond me.

Because , like every other person with a dog, his dog could do no wrong.
It's harmless, it would never hurt anyone/thing, it only poops in
one spot in the yard.....etc...etc...etc.....

Love is blind I think is the old addage.....

$75.000.00 of wasted money.....our money

[juliatrops]

I'm just happy the poor thing is out of prison.

Me too. I do question the annonymous adoption. I trust RDCO as far as I can throw em.

It is nothing that is not deserved.

if you were asked to by the Regional District because of multiple offences and it was part of the condition to keeping your dog would be you build the required fence?

Absolutely. However I would also expect that a follow up would be done as a matter of course, and documented in my file that I have complied. That was not done. Another lapse from staff.

Lawyers go to court and get adjournments so I'm not understanding why this wouldn't have been expected in this case.

I would like to know why too - it is probably detailed in the transcript, and I do not have a copy of that.

[Treblehook]

So, does anyone know if Mr. Smith is going to have to foot ANY of the bill for this very expensive debacle or is it to fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers?

[juz516]

Take it up with RDCO, I would think....that is THEIR bill....and seeings how many of THEIR decisions were suspect....figure it out. Mr Smith fought, as was his right to do so.

[juliatrops]

Apparently it is to be discussed/decided on this Friday, if I read the decision right.

btw, this is not just a DS problem, it is an RDCO problem too. The other thread is quite in depth in discussing the costs and, in hindsight, the actions of both parties involved.

[Fancy]

So, does anyone know if Mr. Smith is going to have to foot ANY of the bill for this very expensive debacle or is it to fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers?

I would imagine this decision would be taken into account:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=48217&start=375

[Duke]

Thanks for a giant waste of money!
Shameful!!

[MAPearce]

I am deeply offended that my tax dollers are being spent like this.

\Imagine how offended you'd be if that over officious entity that is RDCO Dog Control decided to defend itself by labelling you "difficult" ??...... Sounds kind of "too easy"..

Bunch of @#$%oles

[juz516]