Bug Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Ballarat pit bull saga continues BY EVAN SCHUURMAN 05 Mar, 2012 10:20 PM A BALLARAT couple are becoming increasingly frustrated by long delays as they desperately try to bring their beloved pit bull home. David and Megan Thurston have been without their dog Butch for more than five months after he was seized just hours after the amnesty for dog owners to register restricted breeds came to a close last October. They are now fighting to stop Butch being put down. Yesterday the Thurstons’ lawyers appeared in the Supreme Court in Melbourne for a directions hearing, which was adjourned for another directions hearing next month. “There’s been hearing after hearing, today was the Supreme Court,” Mr Thurston said. “There seems to be a bloody hearing every week or every second week. “As far as I know Ballarat City Council won’t give up, they’re just not going to back down. They’re just fighting it to the max and for ridiculous reasons.” The couple have two legal proceedings under way, one in the Supreme Court of Victoria and one with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. They allege that Butch is not a restricted breed, but if he is judged to be one, then they will challenge the council’s decision to refuse to register him. They are also seeking declaration that the council’s decision to seize and retain Butch was unlawful. “They said they’d use our dog as an example and they’re doing it. It’s just unfair,” Mr Thurston said. “He hasn’t even licked anybody out of place, or barked out of place. We haven’t seen him since (he was taken), he’s not our property any more. He’s sick, he’s got food allergies, and we’re not allowed any contact. We were at least buying him food while he was in Ballarat.” Pit Bull Association president Colin Muir said he was disappointed the council had acted “completely opposite” to their stated position, that they wanted to do everything they could to help the Thurstons. “The council has been given the ability to work their way through this, but they won’t engage which I think is an outright disgrace,” Mr Muir said. “The way the legislation is structured, prior to the changes if an owner appeals a matter it would be finalised in a maximum of 60 days,” he said. “Under the new system it goes through VCAT, which I think is better in some ways, but there is no end date in sight. There’s a huge cost to both council and the owners.” The City of Ballarat declined to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jade~Harley~Bella Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 And that's why those laws are so ridiculous. People who care for their dogs needs end up being the ones targeted and those they're trying to stop carry on as they were. It shows just how ineffective and pathetic they are. Glad I don't live in VIC. I wonder how many times this has happened already to people who can't afford to fight the councils. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Poor owners and poor Butch. Such a waste of time, money and a dog's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieLioness Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Very sad - especially for the dog - 5 months is a HUGE chunk out of a dogs life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace_Of_Mind Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Should we be surprised that the City of Ballarat has declined to comment? NO Poor dog and owners, feel so sorry for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Perhaps if the owners had been law abiding in the first place annd Butch had been registered, then this would not have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Whether or not the owners or the council are in the right or wrong, the owners should be allowed to see their dog. That alone is appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace_Of_Mind Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Whether or not the owners or the council are in the right or wrong, the owners should be allowed to see their dog. That alone is appalling. Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huck house Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Pav Lova , why are you less sympathetic to this couple?( I am respectful of your opinions) Have you been privy to extra informationon this particular case? I realize they have had their dog for six years, but Ican totally understand people's reluctance to abide by the law due to the expense and restrictions onthe dogs freedom. For sure their decision has backfired, but it would be so easy to paint yourself into a corner with the BSL laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I'm not sympathetic towards anyone who doesn't chip and register their dog where required. They could have easily avoided the situation by registering Butch when he was a puppy. Sure the Council may still have come knocking, checking that dogs were registered in the area. Had he been registered as a staffy cross, amstaff cross or whatever he is, then they could have at least dislpayed that they were law abiding and the dog had not been in trouble during his life. They opted not to register him until it was too late and raised council suspicions by meaving it til the last minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I think I said it previously,they wernt allowed to register being born a few weeks after the 05 amnesty, flew over a few heads though even the supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 They allege that Butch is not a restricted breed, Butch could have and should have been registered. They broke the law and the dog is now paying the price. Butch could have been registered as whatever breed or cross his owners believed him to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now