Castanet

removed

From what I understand, steps are being taken by RDCO to address these issues. Bylaws are constantly being looked at and amended. In this case, Smith did his dog an injustice and it is clear dogs must be contained one way or another. There was no excuse for Diesel to have been impounded in the first place had the owner taken proper care of him. That is a tragedy. If people can't look after an animal's best interest, they shouldn' own one . That means keeping control of pets at all times.

yyy

That would help but he can't be forced to move and there lies the problem.

Calgary's bylaws:

dogs that are deemed adoptable will become available for adoption by the public.

And if they are not 'deemed adoptable"?

Whether a dog is under control is a question of fact to be determined by a Court hearing a prosecution pursuant to this Section of the Bylaw, having taken into consideration any or all of the following

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Do ... ership.pdf

The point is ensuring this dog is cared for and that means being under control at all times. Doesn't matter where it lives does it?

removed

Regardless of a move, the same problems will arise elsewhere if this dog's best interests aren't taken into consideration.

According to that Calgary document, Diesel has a bite history if the bruised hand story is true from the court decision:

“Bite” means wound to the skin causing it to bruise, puncture, or break;

Vicious Animal” means any Animal, whatever its age, whether on public or private property, which has
(i) chased, injured or bitten any other Animal or human,

So he would fall under this for the original injured dog.

35. (1) The Owner of a Vicious Animal shall ensure that the locked pen or other structure:
(a) shall have secure sides and a secure top, and if it has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be embedded in the ground to a minimum depth of thirty (30) centimeters;

Similar to the 'fence notice' which was never complied with.

36. (1) The Owner of a Vicious Animal shall, within 10 days of the date of the order declaring the Animal to be vicious, display a sign on his premises warning of the presence of the Animal in the form illustrated in Schedule “F”.
(2) A sign required by subsection 36(1) shall be placed at each entrance to the premises where the Animal is kept and on the pen or other structure in which the Animal is confined.
(3) A sign required by subsection 36(1) shall be posted to be clearly visible and capable of being seen by any person accessing the premises.

Most of the fines start at $1000.

Do you believe Mr. Smith would comply with all of these restrictions? They're harsher than the district ones and there are more in the bylaws I didn't cut/paste.

There has to be rules and laws, no doubt about it....maybe it is in the way those rules/laws are enforced that is the issue at question? Maybe other districts have qualified, dog and people friendly enforcement personnel who have a way of dealing in a non-threatening manner? (like not busting down doors, etc?) No doubt, also, there are owners that are very difficult to deal with (as in Mr Smith's case)....it would be interesting to know how that would be dealt with in other jurisdictions.
I still, and no one will ever convince me, do not believe that Diesel has done enough to be considered a "dangerous dog" or a vicious dog. I believe that what the RDCO's "professional" wrote, as opposed to what the other professional with many more years experience said, was sheer bs....and was totally written for RDCO.

removed

removed

That's all fine and dandy but Diesel deserves a home that puts his interests first.

Fancy wrote:That's all fine and dandy but Diesel deserves a home that puts his interests first.

Of course.

LordEd wrote:Do you believe Mr. Smith would comply with all of these restrictions? They're harsher than the district ones and there are more in the bylaws I didn't cut/paste.

Silverstarqueen wrote:Yes.

Why?

Silverstarqueen wrote:if he's been awol a few times, and got in a dog scrap? Give the guy a fine, give him enough fines, whatever, but it has to be simpler than going to supreme court.

Ok, you keep repeating this statement, but what happens when someone like Dave Smith has 10 incidents with warning tickets (disputed or not ) and he still refuses to take any action. Just keep ticketing him until something serious happens? Keep letting the dog run wild and annoy neighbors? Your argument makes no sense here. Dave Smith had many warnings and lots of opportunity to fix the problem. He choose not to.

So what do you suggest in all your infinite dog wisdom, is done when someone like Mr. Smith has to be dealt with in the future. Giving him warnings and tickets didn't work. Your argument holds no water. Please SSQ I would like you to answer this question.