Regional Districts Proposal Could Save Diesel.

[Fancy]

had they all dealt with this properly from the start, there wouldn't be this going on,

2009 a request was given to build a fence - that sure wasn't dealt with properly. What should have been done was to contain and manage a dog properly instead of thumbing their nose at the system.

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[Fancy]

Use their bylaws, use their ticket system properly

I would think now if someone will contest a ticket, RDCO knows there won't be an adjournment and will have to have someone in attendance so this type of gong show doesn't happen again. The dog should have been impounded upon word it was out multiple times with escalating costs to retrieve it but the manpower just isn't there.

[Fancy]

It's out of RDCO's hands now but Smith is contining his day in court - so much for Diesel's well being. A responsible owner would have reliquinshed the dog to a better owner when he had the chance as he knew he couldn't control the dog.

[LordEd]

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

The destruction order is under the community charter section 49: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... e/03026_03.

I don't think they have any 'intermediate' option to order a re-home without the owner surrendering the dog (which hasn't happened). The option to 'sell' the animal only applies on section 48 if the animal is not claimed and/or fines not paid.

There were 4-5 years of complaints and no corrective actions were taken based on those complaints. What other action do they have?

What would have been 'proper'?

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[Fancy]

the manpower is there

So a call is made and someone can be dispatched to pick up a dog immediately? Good to know. Still would like to know what would have been "proper" in this case.

[juz516]

2009 a request was given to build a fence - that sure wasn't dealt with properly

Agreed...as I said the owner may be a jacka$$, does not require strong arm methods on the part of RDCO such as has been recorded in not a few cases. Yes, they could impound the dog and fine the owner up the ying yang....but to order the dog destroyed? To what end? Just so it is easier to appease the neighborhood? or the "taxpayers" .... Or does the "officer" have an issue?

but the manpower just isn't there.

are you kidding? They had the manpower to take the little dogs....they had the manpower to impound Diesel....and Shadow....it is the misuse of the "manpower" that gets me. The fact that they want to "destroy" these animals and will go to court if the owners do not relinquish their pets to be destroyed at the moment it is requested. Did you read the latest letter from the Madsens to RDCO? Pretty tell tale on how things are handled.

[Fancy]

My remark was specifically to impounding repeat offenders - how many times does a dog need to be impounded before different action is taken?

http://www.regionaldistrict.com/media/1 ... %20366.pdf

What might have been appropriate was to seize the dog and wait for the fence to be built, inspected and then deliver the dog back to the owner.

[juz516]

And that would definitely be one option for sure!

[Silverstarqueen]

removed

[LordEd]

And that would definitely be one option for sure!

Is it?
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/media/1 ... %20366.pdf

The way I read sections 26/27 is that they can hold a dog for 72 hours unless the owner picks it up first. They can by the request of the owner, hold the dog for 14 days to allow a fence to be built.

I don't read them as having that ability without the agreement of the dog owner. They have fines, but anything else jumps straight to charter.

They can do what the bylaws and charter say. They can't arbitrarily make consequences.

[Fancy]

You don't hear about any more bite incidents in other parts of the okanagan

Doesn't mean they don't exist. Maybe there were people involved that were more responsible and opted to fix the problem instead of escalating it.

[Silverstarqueen]

removed