Refusal To Pay Dog Fine

[Niques]

Jed, I've no idea about her current dog, but the two dogs that the fine relates to were both unregistered, for starters. I'm sure she said on the news that she couldn't afford the original fine - can anyone confirm that?

Ignoring the licence issue, the mere facts that she owned two dogs for whom she obviously would never have been able to afford any potential vet fees for, left one in the pound and now has a new dog are disgusting.

Back on the issue. She's had 3 years to deal with the fine - whatever gets it paid.

[Greytmate]

Some years ago, a dog was found out of his yard, and impounded by a council. The owner collected the dog the same day, and was faced with hundreds of dollars of fines. He rightly pointed out that the dog was correctly registered with the council, was wearing a collar and tag, and was loose for several hours only. The dog had been registered all his life - he was middle aged. The dog was not a serial escaper.

The owner stated that the registration fee he paid should have been sufficient for the council to telephone him to collect the dog, or to return the dog to its home as soon as it was collected. He further stated that as he collected the dog from the pound within a few hours of impounding, he should not have been charged hundreds of dollars.

As a protest, he refused to pay the fines, and the dog was pts. He featured in the paper - he said he would be devastated to lose the dog, but the system was unjust, and he would not therefore support it.

Full story time Jed. How much exactly was the "hundreds of dollars"', which council was it?

I have been placed in that position (through foster carers), and of course I paid the fine. What sort of person lets his dog die because of a principle? Somebody has to pay to collect and impound the dog, rego won't cover that cost, why should ratepayers subsidise?

It is obvious to me that Council Animal Management departments are out to make as much as they can. The answer to this is to lobby for changes, not to "make a stand" while your dog is killed.

But not everyone really wants to be responsible, easier to blame somebody else and let them dispose of your unwanted dog at the same time.

Jed you have had Patricia's side of the story, what other side do you want? The dog's side?

I don't believe that the government should be allowed to remove your license,which may well be your means of livlihood for unpaid fines which have nothing to do with your car, no matter what they are. The government already has means to collect money, as others have already pointed out, and that is what they should do.

The SPER system only removes defaulter's licences after they have totally refused to cooperate with any other payment plan. I don't have a problem with it.

[sas]

Oh boo hoo....she did the crime...she pays the fine.

[Sheridan]

I think it is extremely unjust to take away her license for fines which do not involve driving or the car.

We know nothing about the events which led to this, and I can see a number of scenarios which meant she was not happy about paying the $150

Some years ago, a dog was found out of his yard, and impounded by a council. The owner collected the dog the same day, and was faced with hundreds of dollars of fines. He rightly pointed out that the dog was correctly registered with the council, was wearing a collar and tag, and was loose for several hours only. The dog had been registered all his life - he was middle aged. The dog was not a serial escaper.

The owner stated that the registration fee he paid should have been sufficient for the council to telephone him to collect the dog, or to return the dog to its home as soon as it was collected. He further stated that as he collected the dog from the pound within a few hours of impounding, he should not have been charged hundreds of dollars.

As a protest, he refused to pay the fines, and the dog was pts. He featured in the paper - he said he would be devastated to lose the dog, but the system was unjust, and he would not therefore support it.

I don't know that I could have done that, but I do understand where the owner was coming from.

I'd like to see the full story, and no matter what it was, I don't believe that the government should be allowed to remove your license,which may well be your means of livlihood for unpaid fines which have nothing to do with your car, no matter what they are. The government already has means to collect money, as others have already pointed out, and that is what they should do.

Talk about Big Brother.

Sorry, but that just sounds like another dog who's lost its life due to an irresponsible owner.

[mita]

The SPER system only removes defaulter's licences after they have totally refused to cooperate with any other payment plan. I don't have a problem with it.

Yes, what Ashanali posted proves the licence removal is a last ditch to get payment. Seems a fair system to me.

I'm paying fines via sper. They take $20 a fortnight on arrangement. It means I can drive!

This woman doesn't seem to have lacked quite a few $20s, to go out & buy/keep another dog.

[GeckoTree]

It beats me why the court couldnt give her a community corrections order intead of licence suspension. Community service cleaning out pound cages would be more worthy than hanging out for 150 bucks 3 years ago.

[WildatHeart]

There was a story on tv recently about some council wanting to take his drivers license also for not paying a dog registration fine, even though he told them years ago that the dog was dead.

[aleeleewolfe]

my friend wasnt able to get his licence back until he paid his cityrail fine, its all connected but thats really the only way to get someone to pay, if she didnt pay before, well she isnt going to pay if they dont take more serious action. make her pay for leaving her dog!!

[justin19801]

It beats me why the court couldnt give her a community corrections order intead of licence suspension. Community service cleaning out pound cages would be more worthy than hanging out for 150 bucks 3 years ago.

Excellent suggestion.

Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog.

[Greytmate]

It beats me why the court couldnt give her a community corrections order intead of licence suspension. Community service cleaning out pound cages would be more worthy than hanging out for 150 bucks 3 years ago.

Excellent suggestion.

Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog.

No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth.

Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog.

This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it.

[justin19801]

It beats me why the court couldnt give her a community corrections order intead of licence suspension. Community service cleaning out pound cages would be more worthy than hanging out for 150 bucks 3 years ago.

Excellent suggestion.

Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog.

No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth.

Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog.

This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it.

Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates.

The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance.

It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more.

[~Anne~]

Personally, I think the current method and the suggestion are excellent. What works for some may not work for others and with several penalities at their disposal, the choice can be made to make a punishment more suit the crime.

What a disgusting woman. How could you call yourself a decent person leaving a dog that you owned to die in a pound, and choosing to bring home the other.

[Howl]

It beats me why the court couldnt give her a community corrections order intead of licence suspension. Community service cleaning out pound cages would be more worthy than hanging out for 150 bucks 3 years ago.

Excellent suggestion.

Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog.

No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth.

Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog.

This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it.

Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates.

The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance.

It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more.

I know - we'll just send all the homeless dogs to you. You seem to have all the answers to everything, although where you get your facts and figures (and logic) is beyond me. Australia one of the few countries that registers dogs? Gee, don't tell that to the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. They may feel a bit left out...

[justin19801]

It beats me why the court couldnt give her a community corrections order intead of licence suspension. Community service cleaning out pound cages would be more worthy than hanging out for 150 bucks 3 years ago.

Excellent suggestion.

Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog.

No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth.

Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog.

This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it.

Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates.

The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance.

It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more.

I know - we'll just send all the homeless dogs to you. You seem to have all the answers to everything, although where you get your facts and figures (and logic) is beyond me. Australia one of the few countries that registers dogs? Gee, don't tell that to the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. They may feel a bit left out...

We'll just send all the corpses to you for disposal shall we? Perhaps you'd prefer to kill them yourself?

UK and US don't have mandatory registration for a start and the world consists of far more countries than the small numbers mentioned. Check your facts before posting, that way you wont look too much like a goose.

[WreckitWhippet]

Actually I'd prefer to see people working with animals in pounds and shelters because they want to, not because of a court order. Dealing with dogs in a kennel/shelter situation requires people with level heads, that care about and understand the stresses that the animals are under, not some uncaring dog dumper, that is there because the court says so.

[justin19801]

Actually I'd prefer to see people working with animals in pounds and shelters because they want to, not because of a court order. Dealing with dogs in a kennel/shelter situation requires people with level heads, that care about and understand the stresses that the animals are under, not some uncaring dog dumper, that is there because the court says so.

If only that were the case instead of people lauding their power of life and death over the poor creatures or there's nothing else they can do .

[Howl]

It beats me why the court couldnt give her a community corrections order intead of licence suspension. Community service cleaning out pound cages would be more worthy than hanging out for 150 bucks 3 years ago.

Excellent suggestion.

Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog.

No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth.

Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog.

This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it.

Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates.

The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance.

It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more.

I know - we'll just send all the homeless dogs to you. You seem to have all the answers to everything, although where you get your facts and figures (and logic) is beyond me. Australia one of the few countries that registers dogs? Gee, don't tell that to the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. They may feel a bit left out...

We'll just send all the corpses to you for disposal shall we? Perhaps you'd prefer to kill them yourself?

UK and US don't have mandatory registration for a start and the world consists of far more countries than the small numbers mentioned. Check your facts before posting, that way you wont look too much like a goose.

Honk, Honk!! Gee, I must have visited different countries to see how they do there animal management... I could have sworn it was the US and the UK, but I must have been wrong...These places had licencing in place - something to do with rabies control... but what would I know? Honk, honk, they must have seen me fly in, dodgied up computer systems and rego forms just for me.

Yes, there are other countries out there then the ones I mentioned. Many of them have shocking animal control methods. You should visit the incinerator facilities that they have at Japan.

I don't want to see any animals die. But you seem intent on blaming everyone else but the person responsible for it - the owner. Remember, she was the one that decided to leave the dog in the pound rather than pay for its release.

[justin19801]

It beats me why the court couldnt give her a community corrections order intead of licence suspension. Community service cleaning out pound cages would be more worthy than hanging out for 150 bucks 3 years ago.

Excellent suggestion.

Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog.

No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth.

Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog.

This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it.

Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates.

The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance.

It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more.

I know - we'll just send all the homeless dogs to you. You seem to have all the answers to everything, although where you get your facts and figures (and logic) is beyond me. Australia one of the few countries that registers dogs? Gee, don't tell that to the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. They may feel a bit left out...

We'll just send all the corpses to you for disposal shall we? Perhaps you'd prefer to kill them yourself?

UK and US don't have mandatory registration for a start and the world consists of far more countries than the small numbers mentioned. Check your facts before posting, that way you wont look too much like a goose.

Honk, Honk!! Gee, I must have visited different countries to see how they do there animal management... I could have sworn it was the US and the UK, but I must have been wrong...These places had licencing in place - something to do with rabies control... but what would I know? Honk, honk, they must have seen me fly in, dodgied up computer systems and rego forms just for me.

Yes, there are other countries out there then the ones I mentioned. Many of them have shocking animal control methods. You should visit the incinerator facilities that they have at Japan.

I don't want to see any animals die. But you seem intent on blaming everyone else but the person responsible for it - the owner. Remember, she was the one that decided to leave the dog in the pound rather than pay for its release.

Yup you got it wrong alright.

Any evidence the few countries with licencing have lower kill rates, nup you didn't look at that either. The reason they cut the heads off dogs involved in attacks even in areas in the US with licencing would be?

As for the white Western world you seem so enamoured with, wont even go there. honk honk.

Make it too expensive to own dogs and fewer people will, but then there are those who would rather see a dog dead than fed.

I wasn't too keen on her as she let one go, but when I see the alternative

[Howl]

Yup you got it wrong alright.

Any evidence the few countries with licencing have lower kill rates, nup you didn't look at that either. The reason they cut the heads off dogs involved in attacks even in areas in the US with licencing would be?

As for the white Western world you seem so enamoured with, wont even go there. honk honk.

Make it too expensive to own dogs and fewer people will, but then there are those who would rather see a dog dead than fed.

I wasn't too keen on her as she let one go, but when I see the alternative

What????

After staring at your post for about 20 minutes I think I may get what you are trying to say.

The reason they sometimes cut heads off dogs involved in attacks in the US may be because there is no information on the dog's rabies vaccination status, therefore testing of brain tissue needs to be performed to ascertain whether the dog had rabies. Important to know if you were bitten by a dog. And if a dog is not registered, there may be no proof on hand that the dog is vaccinated.

I don't understand your dig at "the white Western world" that I am supposed to be so enamoured with. Simply, I am not going to comment on the animal control practices of other countries when I am not familiar with them. The ones I mentioned are the ones I know about. There is no racism intended. I have been to some countries where they don't have registration - but they are third world countries. They have enough trouble with people welfare let alone animal welfare. I don't know anything about correlations between kill rates and not having registration, versus with registration (although I do with cats). But then that was the not issue I was responding to. However, if you do have soundly researched, robust information on that matter please let us know - it would be interesting.

You say that if it is made too expensive to own dogs then fewer people will. Although you haven't clarified I think you are referring to the costs governments impose such as registration and fines. But what makes the need for registration and fines in the first place? If there were no problems with animals in the community then there would be no need for a government response. No complaints to be investigated, no roaming animals to impound. But it's not a perfect world, unfortunately some animals are allowed to cause a nuisance that needs to be resolved, some do need to be impounded until their owners can be found. These activities cost money. Registration and fines help to pay for these activities.

Unfortunately, some people all too easily acquire pets and all too easily dispose of them when things get a bit rough. It's not about things being too expensive. It's about choice. And if you don't value something you're not going to fight very hard for it are you?

[justin19801]

Yup you got it wrong alright.

Any evidence the few countries with licencing have lower kill rates, nup you didn't look at that either. The reason they cut the heads off dogs involved in attacks even in areas in the US with licencing would be?

As for the white Western world you seem so enamoured with, wont even go there. honk honk.

Make it too expensive to own dogs and fewer people will, but then there are those who would rather see a dog dead than fed.

I wasn't too keen on her as she let one go, but when I see the alternative

What????

After staring at your post for about 20 minutes I think I may get what you are trying to say.

The reason they sometimes cut heads off dogs involved in attacks in the US may be because there is no information on the dog's rabies vaccination status, therefore testing of brain tissue needs to be performed to ascertain whether the dog had rabies. Important to know if you were bitten by a dog. And if a dog is not registered, there may be no proof on hand that the dog is vaccinated.

I don't understand your dig at "the white Western world" that I am supposed to be so enamoured with. Simply, I am not going to comment on the animal control practices of other countries when I am not familiar with them. The ones I mentioned are the ones I know about. There is no racism intended. I have been to some countries where they don't have registration - but they are third world countries. They have enough trouble with people welfare let alone animal welfare. I don't know anything about correlations between kill rates and not having registration, versus with registration (although I do with cats). But then that was the not issue I was responding to. However, if you do have soundly researched, robust information on that matter please let us know - it would be interesting.

You say that if it is made too expensive to own dogs then fewer people will. Although you haven't clarified I think you are referring to the costs governments impose such as registration and fines. But what makes the need for registration and fines in the first place? If there were no problems with animals in the community then there would be no need for a government response. No complaints to be investigated, no roaming animals to impound. But it's not a perfect world, unfortunately some animals are allowed to cause a nuisance that needs to be resolved, some do need to be impounded until their owners can be found. These activities cost money. Registration and fines help to pay for these activities.

Unfortunately, some people all too easily acquire pets and all too easily dispose of them when things get a bit rough. It's not about things being too expensive. It's about choice. And if you don't value something you're not going to fight very hard for it are you?

Sounds like something out of the PETA / R$PCA manual of pet ownership, not . That's what rates are for .