Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[Fancy]

I said educating those that are fearful isn't the answer if dog owners refuse to educate themselves. I didn't say it wouldn't make a difference.

not because Mr. Smith can't necessarily do what is necessary

He hasn't done so up to this point even though given plenty of opportunity to do so.

[LordEd]

Build a fence *AND* use a leash, not *OR*.

f. April 22, 2009 - Mr Smith was sent a letter called a "Fence Notice" indicating that he had fourteen days to construct an adequate fence to contain his dog(s) as required by District bylaws. He has never done so

g. April 22, 2009 - he received another "aggressive dog notice" requiring him to contain his animal on either a short leash or inside an enclosure.

Build a fence. Keep dog inside fence, or use a leash when outside fence.

Calgary bylaws state "All dogs must be on-leash at all times, unless posted signs indicate otherwise, or are in a securely fenced private yard.", instead of just 'aggressive dogs'. Do you think that might have anything to do with less bites there? Do you think Mr. Smith would have respected that bylaw anymore than the ones he was repeatedly sent to him by complaints?

[juz516]

This whole dog phobia thing is getting more and more out of control. People think if they kick a dog in the head or carry a heavy stick or scream at approaching dogs,they are doing a good thing. None of that is necessary.

Agree 100%....it definitely is a "phobia" and it is rampant, sadly enough for the dogs....and yes, ALL dogs have the potential to bite/attack/injure other dogs and humans. Someone said about the "foo foo" dogs....and I also have to agree that they can cause a lot of issues, whether they can "attack" or not they can certainly get the hackles of a larger dog up in a hurry. Most with larger dogs will agree with that.

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[LordEd]

Is the yes to less bites or yes to mr smith actually following the rules?

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[LordEd]

Why do you think he would respect those bylaws when he has repeatedly refused to do so here?

[Fancy]

And Diesel did not bite anyone.

Not according to Annagret Koehler's testimony.

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[Fancy]

It is clear he was to have erected a fence.

Either the dog was to be inside an enclosure OR on a short leash. Never to be at large.

[LordEd]

I read it as two separate things, but in either case, he didn't comply with either version.

Why do you think he would comply elsewhere?

[Silverstarqueen]

remove

[Fancy]

You actually heard her testimony? Why is it different in the decision? Have you actually read it?

[Fancy]

There are several stipulations in the offer however. The proposal says Diesel must not be returned to Smith but rather adopted by another owner.
“Non-negotiable,” Macklem said. “The dog will not go back to him unless the courts decided that.”
Smith must also partially reimburse veterinary costs to the victims of Diesel’s attacks and legal costs to the RDCO. He would also have to write a letter of apology to the witnesses who testified at Diesel’s trial.
They are stipulations that Smith does not agree with.
“Is it about Diesel? The RDCO says they want an apology. They want me to pay their legal costs,” said Smith.
He is resting his hopes on the appeal.
“He could be found totally innocent and be released to me,” Smith said.
Smith says he is working with his lawyer on an offer of his own but he declined to share those details with CHBC News.
“You’ll see it when it’s ready,” he said.
Though both sides disagree on how to move forward, this much is clear: neither wants the animal euthanized.
“We stand hand in hand with the people who want Diesel to be rescued,” Macklem said.
“I don’t have a perfect dog. I never said Diesel was perfect. He’s a good dog. He’s loud. He’s a talker,” Smith said.
RDCO says Smith has until January 15 to respond to its proposal.

Read it on Global News: CHBC Okanagan | Diesel's owner rejects RDCO proposal for dog

Peachland resident Dave Smith has filed a new appeal to be reunited with Diesel, his German Shepherd cross who has been in the custody of the RDCO since March 11, 2011.
In August 2012, the Honourable Judge McKimm of the BC Provincial Court ruled that Diesel was a “dangerous dog” and that Smith was “profoundly irresponsible.” Judge McKimm said that the dog could not be returned to Smith and ordered that he be euthanized.
In Paragraph 48 of his Reasons for Judgement, Judge McKimm held that 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 his animal has caused to his neighbours.”
Though there was no claim that Diesel has ever bitten a human, several of Smith’s neighbours testified that Diesel was allowed to run free, and had attacked their cats and dogs, once jumping on a 12-year-old girl.
In his testimony, Smith claimed that his “neighbours ganged up on his dog because they had a personal grudge against [Smith].”
On December 20, the RDCO made a proposal to Smith that Diesel be transferred to a new owner through an anonymous adoption by a dog rescue agency. Diesel would then reside outside of the RDCO with an owner who could provide him a safe and secure environment.
Smith has rejected that proposal.

http://peachlandview.com/local-news/diesels-owner-files-new-appeal-for-his-return

[juz516]

Though there was no claim that Diesel has ever bitten a human, several of Smith’s neighbours testified that Diesel was allowed to run free, and had attacked their cats and dogs, once jumping on a 12-year-old girl.

Fancy, you posted that according to a testimony, Diesel had bitten a human.....then you post the above as a quote? Also, if I am correct, he "chased" a cat, not "attacked", and "jumping" on someone is not "attacking" IMO, and as far as I have read, it wasn't "dogs" plural that there was an issue with. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that hardly sounds like it should have a "dangerous dog" designation!
Still sounds like disgruntled neighborhood, right or wrong, and an owner with the type of personality that rubs people the wrong way. Just too bad they had to try to punish the human using the dog.