Dangerous Dog Declaration

[Tempus Fugit]

Can we clarify what this forum is about and what it is not about, given that this forum's heading is:

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)

A forum to discuss all matters associated with BSL and breed bans

including events that can influence

BSL (eg dog attacks etc)

[Tralee]

All dogs need to be contained where Joe Public can't release them, especially dogs who run in a pack and have a strong guarding instinct. Don't need the council to tell you that.

Tralee - you seem to delight in talking in riddles and not stating the facts. I assume you do this to annoy people and muddy the situation. Putting a whole lot of threads together it seems like one dog was accused of biting a woman with psychiatric issues, you put the dog down based on what the ranger told you and then you found out that the dog hadn't bitten any one.

Is that what happened? Yes or no answers only please.

ETA: In which case, I totally understand being angry at the council and I myself would take legal action.

Yep.

Got it in one.

I don't talk in riddles or try to antogonise people, I am Tralee.

There are a lot of threads to put together because I offered to provide further information if people required it.

I didn't ask for a retrial, or to be tried by social media, as some seem to think it is their right to do.

In regard to my puppy girl, she is sorely missed, not just by myself but by the other dogs as well.

[Tralee]

Can we clarify what this forum is about and what it is not about, given that this forum's heading is:

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)

A forum to discuss all matters associated with BSL and breed bans

including events that can influence

BSL (eg dog attacks etc)

There was an allegation that the four dogs had attacked a person.

The dogs were declared to be dangerous dogs because they:

had, without provocation, attacked a person or animal (other than vermin)

had displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin).

Let me quote from my Barrister for you to decide amongst yourselves whether the DDDs were dismissed or not, and let others judge your interpretation of that quote.

I confirm my appearance on your behalf at the Xxxxxxx Local Court on the 12 and 26 February 2013 in relation to your appeals against 3 dangerous dog declarations and your election in relation to infringement notices.

I confirm that on the 12/2/13, the council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous and therefore your 3 appeals against the dangerous dog declarations were upheld. ...

Likewise, on the 26/2/13, the infringement notices against Winja, Sooki and Flynch were withdrawn.

If you and the others wish to dispute the reading of the judgement made by my Barrister and the presiding Judge who oversaw the case then I suggest you contact them in person and put your objections.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Tralee

[Are You Serious Jo]

They were withdrawn because you accepted the control order instead of a DD one. They gave you a choice right, accept a control order, accept a dangerous dog order or go to court. All terms dictated by the council not you. The fact your dogs are under a control order means you lost. If you won there would be no control order. Do you really truly believe you won or do you think people can't read the judgement and just take your word for it. I don't understand why you still insist it is a BSL matter when it's a generic breed DD matter. You can scramble a whole lot of words out of context but it doesn't change the fact you lost. I hope you abide by the conditions set down by the council and realise they could have made things much much worse for you.