Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[Lore]

and another that said he was.

And that dog behaviorist was a quake.
Have you even followed this case?
No dought she was a quake unlike the other dog behaviorist who said Diesel was
not dangerous. His testing on Diesel was online and if you saw it
then you would see that Diesel is not a dangerous dog.
If you know anything about dog behavior that is.

[LordEd]

And that dog behaviorist was a quake.

[30] When asked if Mr. Smith's dog was a threat to the public, Mr. Gibson testified that there was no chance that Mr. Smith's dog would ever attack or harm another dog in a normal situation. Indeed that he would never attack another dog unless he was first attacked by that dog. This is completely inconsistent to the many attacks that were testified to during the course of this trial and in particular the very vicious attack that was unprovoked on Ms. Luscomb's dog. Given the inconsistency between the facts as found by this Court and the evidence of Mr. Gibson, I can not rely on the opinion of Mr. Gibson.

The non-quack didn't provide an opinion consistent with other testimony.

[HonestBob]

I would ask this to those who have had issue with RDCO dog control...why is it, when we are talking about your dog, that it seems to be someone's, geez, for that matter, everyone else's fault???
There seems to be a slippery slope within dog advocacy, one that allows people (lousy dog owners) to shirk their responsibility and blame EVERYONE ELSE, whether it's the dog control people, the lawyer, the victim and whomever else.

[Silverstarqueen]

?yyy

[ifwisheswerehorses]

Mr Smith was the one who let things slide. How many more years of tickets (and vet costs) would it have taken for him to do what was right - What should have been done before he even got the dog. At the trial he stated that the neighbours were all ganging up on him because he pushed for the neighbourhood rules to be followed... Funny seems the other way around to me

[Amarow121]

I would ask this to those who have had issue with RDCO dog control...why is it, when we are talking about your dog, that it seems to be someone's, geez, for that matter, everyone else's fault???
There seems to be a slippery slope within dog advocacy, one that allows people (lousy dog owners) to shirk their responsibility and blame EVERYONE ELSE, whether it's the dog control people, the lawyer, the victim and whomever else.

I've had 2 interactions with dog control.
Once when I called them to report a woman who was letting her large, un-neutered, untrained dog run around the rutland sports fields. (Beside the off leash dog park I might add. Some people's kids...)

The second time was to inform me that my dog had escaped my yard and had been threatening someone. This was slightly perplexing, because I was on vacation with my dog, and we were not in Kelowna. When I asked why they thought it was my dog, the response was that I was the only person who owned a German Shepherd in the neighbourhood where the incident took place. This was confusing, as I didn't have a german shepherd. It worked out in the end, but the impression I got is that if your dog is registered with the RDCO, he or she will be prime suspect should anything bad involving a dog happen near your home.

[Silverstarqueen]

?yyy

[Triple 6]

People you need to "preview" your post before clicking send. Quotes are wonky.

[Amarow121]

Absolutely SSQ!

That's why I've been following all this RDCO stuff.
It occurs to me that my dog and I could have been in a position similar to Shadow's.

I've actually tossed around the idea of NOT registering my dog, since that way the RDCO won't realize my dog exists and try to pin something on him.
Not ideal at all.

[Silverstarqueen]

?yyy

[Treblehook]

This is a hard story to understand. Deisel got his sentence communted [as it were] after having been declared by the court to be a dangerous dog. The Regional District went out of their way it seems to extend an offer to the dog owner that would see the animal adopted out... to live a happy life elsewhere. The judge that heard the case had stated that Deisel's owner was an irresponsible dog owner, which was the basis for the animal not being returned to Mr. Smith. I can't see a judge making that kind of a statement without some decent evidence before him to support it. The dog was saved from being put down, but that's not good enough for the owner??? My question is... why is this going on and on and on????

[melscarandtruckrental]

its time the rdco,the courts and mr smith stopped worrying about each other and their egos and he did that or didn't do this and start worrying about that poor dog. dogs are dogs and sometimes dogs fight. Grab a brain people

[dogspoiler]

There has been thousands upon thousands of dollars wasted,and hundreds of hours of peoples time wasted. All because Dave would not look after his dog.
Will someone please let the dog out of the cage and put Dave in it so all this foolishness can end.

[travelingman]

Deisel is not in the news again, Dave smith is in the news again. A judge ruled that Smith is an unfit owner and by the evidence
of 10 witnesses. Ask around Peachland to get some some insight on his character and his dealings with other people. If mr Smith had his dogs welfare as a priority he would realize that he is an unfit owner and let Deisel go to someone else as quick as possible so he can live out his last few years with someone who will know how to handle Deisel. The RDCO also has a responsibility to the rest of the community not to give dogs back to an owner who continually think rules don't apply to them. In a case like this if Deisel would be given back to Smith and the dog attacked another dog again or a human, these pages would be burning up blaming the RDCO for giving back Deisel to an unfit owner.

[fall]

The deadline for his decision has come and gone so now what is it in an appeal