Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[Fancy]

Fancy, you posted that according to a testimony, Diesel had bitten a human.

Yes, read the decision (page 8)

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[Fancy]

Okay, so you are getting this information not first hand.

[Fancy]

So now with the appeal filed, how many more months will Diesel have to be behind bars and at taxpayer's expense? RDCO has no choice but to hold the dog until a final outcome and that certainly isn't fair to the dog.

[juz516]

Yes, read the decision (page 8)

I have....and I have to agree with SQ that the decision can be very different from the actual testimony. A dog "bite" to me is not a bruise. There are just far too many discrepancies regarding what actually happened over the how ever many years this has gone on. And, IMO, IF there were legitimate complaints and tickets issued, then why did the complainants not show up at court to exercise their rights at the time? Instead tickets were dismissed.....but then they are allowed to be used in this case much later? Lawyers will pull any information from anywhere they can to make their cases.....IMO, the "complainants" or "neighbors" or whatever are also at fault, but in a different way. BUT RDCO and Mr. Smith BOTH are right fighters....and I have to admit if it were me as the dog owner I would be fighting too to save my dog....but RDCO is a governmental entity that should have their "poop in a group" when it comes to enforcing the law and keeping their employees in line. None of this should have ever happened....bottom line? Diesel is NOT a "dangerous dog"....and IMO never should have had that designation

[juz516]

"taxpayer's expense"? Yup....get on RDCO for that one! You must admit this has been mishandled by all involved over years....Or should people just bend over when it comes to that..whatever RDCO and their minions want/do? Not. It is sheer idiocy. IMO of course.

[Fancy]

So in your opinion, a dog bite is only when the skin is broken? I don't know the legalities of a severity of a bite is concerned but I don't rely on opinion. What is proven are the requests for animals to be contained and aren't. Adjournments were denied and that does not mean the incidents didn't happen.

[Fancy]

BUT RDCO and Mr. Smith BOTH are right fighters....and I have to admit if it were me as the dog owner I would be fighting too to save my dog

RDCO at this time have no choice but to respond to appeals and defend an action - all costing the taxpayers plenty of money.
http://courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/12/1 ... 61cor1.htm

[juz516]

Not saying that at all....but I believe it would depend on how that happened.....in an aggressive way or in a "pay attention to me" way. Apparently, the lady needed no treatment for either the bite or mental stress over it or so the story goes. Mind you, I have read so much on this subject and am amazed that there is so much discrepancy.....but I also have formed the opinion that, yes, Mr. Smith is a jacka$$. and yes, the neighborhood was sick of everything, that yes, Diesel was allowed to run....but I have not formed the opinion that he should be destroyed. I have, however, a very bad taste in my mouth over RDCO, their employees, and methods in this case and others. So happy I do not have to deal with them in any way, and pity the people that do....or should I say, pity the dogs that have a run in with these people. To me, the order to destroy Diesel was a form of punishment for Mr. Smith and was unfair from the start.....but that is simply my opinion.

[Fancy]

RDCO does not want the dog destroyed and have offered a solution that Diesel's owner won't accept who has already proven unreliable and unable to look after Diesel properly.

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[juz516]

RDCO at this time have no choice but to respond to appeals and defend an action - all costing the taxpayers plenty of money.

Of course they don't at this point.....but had they all dealt with this properly from the start, there wouldn't be this going on, now, would there? From the start, there was absolutely no reason to want to destroy the dog. Like I said, I would be fighting from the beginning as well (mind you....would have built a proper fence and such)....but you're damn right I would fight, taxpayers or not.

[LordEd]

Instead tickets were dismissed.....but then they are allowed to be used in this case much later?

[12] I am mindful of the fact that many, if not all, of the Ticket Informations were disputed successfully by Mr. Smith. I do not take them as evidence of the truth of the allegations except facts that were proven at this hearing. What I do take from this history is the fact that Mr. Smith had years of notice and warnings and continue to neglect or refuse to curtail the behaviour of his animal.

[juz516]

still no reason to kill the dog, dammit! Sooooo frustrating!!!!!!!!