Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[juz516]

But, no one from RDCO went to court about the first citations, did they? No one let the man know they were not going to be there? I agree...there are bylaws set, but if they are not acted upon over years, or however it all took place all those years ago....the neighborhood never showed up in court either (complainants)....I am sure there must be protocol set out as well as bylaws....doesn't seem to me that any of that was followed other than the citations, warnings or whatever being made. I am in no way saying DS is/was in the right...obviously he wasn't. But, it is up to RDCO to properly enforce their bylaws.
I don't believe they did that....and I don't believe the complainants did that, they just kept complaining....and I believe DS took advantage of those facts. When no one showed up on the complaints in court, I understand they were thrown out? At that point, if I were DS, I would believe I had won that battle. I am sure they had DS on their radar....so when, in 2010, there were more (IMO it was a neighborhood gang up for whatever reason) then the "officer" (I use that term lightly) impounded Diesel and, I believe threatened DS...possibly said give up your dog for destruction or else as, apparently, has happened to not a few people. DS refused and the fight began...and, like I said before, I would do the same....I would in no way relinquish one of my dogs to be destroyed without a knock down dragem out fight.
I know none of this should have taken place.....but neither should the case on Shadow have taken place...nor Mary's little dogs...and likely many many more that were not published. Guess all of you that disagree with saving the dog....paying out taxpayers money....whatever it is you believe, need to insist that RDCO does their job correctly to avoid this from happening again because it WILL happen....people with pets are not trusting in the RDCO like maybe they did before and they will be well aware now. Hopefully with these stories will come a little more responsibility on the part of pet owners as well as huge changes in RDCO's bylaws and protocol.

[HonestBob]

or how about people just be good, straight up, consider your neighbours, not let your dog run around, build a fence when you've been requested to dog owners!!!

[juz516]

absolutely!

[jimsenchuk]

or how about people just be good, straight up, consider your neighbours, not let your dog run around, build a fence when you've been requested to dog owners!!!

I live in the bush, no neighbors, should i be required to build a fence for my 2 male German Rottweilers ?.

[HonestBob]

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?

[juz516]

IMO Building a fence is protecting one's pets, not necessarily conforming to what is required by society and cranky neighbors (if any). Out in the bush, I doubt it would be necessary... I guess it is simply how you look at it? We live in the country, have a huge fenced area for the protection of our dogs....not because we have to have one.

[LordEd]

But, no one from RDCO went to court about the first citations, did they? No one let the man know they were not going to be there?

April 22, 2009 - On the date set for trial the then animal control officer was not available to testify and an adjuornment application was refused by the trial judge.

The bylaw officer did not go to court on apr (22?) for how many, 4 or 5 tickets? (pretty important wouldn't you say?) because they had a funeral to go to

Combine these two points together, and it would appear they attempted to get an ajournment due to a funeral. Do you want to hold a funeral against somebody? Sorry, I can't attend my ___'s own funeral because I need to make sure some irresponsible dog owner gets a small fine that he'll probably disregard.

[juliatrops]

April 22, 2009 - On the date set for trial the then animal control officer was not available to testify and an adjuornment application was refused by the trial judge.

The bylaw officer did not go to court on apr (22?) for how many, 4 or 5 tickets? (pretty important wouldn't you say?) because they had a funeral to go to

Combine these two points together, and it would appear they attempted to get an ajournment due to a funeral. Do you want to hold a funeral against somebody? Sorry, I can't attend my ___'s own funeral because I need to make sure some irresponsible dog owner gets a small fine that he'll probably disregard.

To be fair, it was the judge who refused the adjournment not DS is how I read that. The bylaw officer should have known what the requirements are for court.

[LordEd]

That's what i'm saying. The reason for not attending was a funeral and the judge said no. Case dismissed as a result, yet you want to burn the officer for not skipping a funeral. Pretty heartless.

[juliatrops]

That's what i'm saying. The reason for not attending was a funeral and the judge said no. Case dismissed as a result, yet you want to burn the officer for not skipping a funeral. Pretty heartless.

The requirements for court are that if one person can not make it, the notice given is 24 hours is what I was told by PM.

Funerals are known many days in advance. For the officer to go to the funeral to full personal needs AND to go to court to fulfill professional needs COULD have been done. All he would have needed to do was to phone and give 24 hours notice.

Are you saying that the by law officer should be forgiven because he was ignorant in ways of the court? I don't.

He (assuming it was a he) should have known and should have acted accordingly. Knowing these things is his job. He failed in his job. This is why we have DS talking about it as being thrown out etc etc etc now. An expensive training lesson for RDCO and taxpayers.

[HonestBob]

wow, look at you organizing the officer's life for him. This lesson is for dog owners like DS, be a responsible and you won't have to deal with the RDCO!!! And that includes people who want to own more dogs than the by law allows! DS is a jerk who simply didn't want to do what he was told in regards to his dangerous dog, this case was his own doing! That dog spent 2 years confined because of DS's ego!

[juliatrops]

LOL!!!!

Wow, look at you disregarding or acknowledging the requirements of our judicial system. I guess you think it is nothing then, that the RDCO have poorly trained staff? Or that maybe the RDCO should be above the law? Are they special?

[Fancy]

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

[ticat900]

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?

yes I would except i would never have had multiple offences to begin with.Boy after seeing the vidio of diesel greeting Dave for farewell, man that dog sure acted like a bitter mean ole dog(hahahahaha)

[juz516]

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?