Mrs Rusty Bucket Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) Mr Black admitted he ought to have had CJ registered and microchipped As far as I know - any NSW council can put the dog down (or rehome it) after 7 days if it's not claimed. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s64.html Edited July 17, 2013 by Mrs Rusty Bucket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 In NSW unchipped dogs have 7 days before becoming the property of the pound - chipped, they get 14 days. Once they become pound property, the pound may dispose of them as they see fit - either rehome or euthanaise basically... Also, due to space restrictions in many pounds, a dog can't be held indefinitely until the owner gets around to sorting out issues such as breed identification... if that is in doubt. I sincerely hope that the owners of this particular dog make sure that any future dog they own is properly chipped and registered - this has probably been a very hard lesson to learn, but if they don't learn from it, then it could all too easily happen again... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trisven13 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 After 18 days unclaimed in the pound their other dog was adopted today by a member of the public. Makes me so sick to think that these people can make such a fuss about the pound but fail to mention that they left their gorgeous female staffy unclaimed in the pound. That same "terrible" pound who held on to a dog way past its requirement because it was of a good nature and not a restricted breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 This dog wasn't a restricted dog either if it was unmicrochipped. The pound had no obligation to kill this dog and did not give the dog the options it deserved. A good deed for one dog does not negate their failure to this dog because it had a red nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Whatever the owner behaviours were, the essential point is that a dog was put down for a reason based on its appearance, not on its behaviour. If such pre-scientific age laws did not exist, the dog might've made it into an adoption program. I always wonder if, in jurisdictions that have such a law, criminal traits are detected from bumps in the skull & witches are identified from shape of moles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 After all that, why didn't they immediately get their other dog out of the pound? They left it there another 8 days and let it be adopted by someone else? Something just isn't adding up here at all... run to the media about Dog 1, and completely ignore the fate of the other one still in the SAME pound? WTF?? Am I missing something here? T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trisven13 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Apparently Pebbles was staying at their house but didn't belong to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Apparently Pebbles was staying at their house but didn't belong to them. So someone's else's dog escaped, ended up in the pound and has been adopted? Wow, do the owners know, or Did they trust their dog with their friends while they were away or something ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Did Pebbles' owners know she was in the pound Trisven? T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiecuddles Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Wow what a mess! I am sad for the dog but to be honest i have no sympathy for the owners. It's a shame that the dog was classified as it was or it might have found a nice home where it was appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 With that info I'd blame the owners completely. Hope they don't get another dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trisven13 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 No idea if the other owners know - they don't seem to know or care. This is a situation where I'm stuck in the middle knowing both parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Whatever the owner behaviours were, the essential point is that a dog was put down for a reason based on its appearance, not on its behaviour. If such pre-scientific age laws did not exist, the dog might've made it into an adoption program. I always wonder if, in jurisdictions that have such a law, criminal traits are detected from bumps in the skull & witches are identified from shape of moles. was put down because of it's stupid owners. They are the ones at fault here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) I'll confess to growing a little short on sympathy for people who buy unpapered Amstaffs (if indeed that's what the dog was) in BSL states and end up in this situation. It keeps happening. It's not rocket science to buy a dog that won't be subject to BSL is it? And these are not new laws. EPIC fail on the part of the owners for failing to do anything to keep their dog safe. Edited July 17, 2013 by Haredown Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvawilow Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Whatever the owner behaviours were, the essential point is that a dog was put down for a reason based on its appearance, not on its behaviour. The dog was put down because the owner failed to: a) microchip b) register the dog with Council c) claim it after 7 days With the information provided by another DOL member on here I hope the paper runs an article on how these "poor hard done by owners" left a second dog in the pound to possibly the same fate. With BSL in place why do people keep buying unpapered bull breeds, not register them and then cry "victim" when their unregistered, unpapered dogs are picked up at large? They should get no sympathy, only their poor dogs and should be banned from owning a dog for x amount of time. The amount of AST, SBT and AmBull dog and their crosses available on FB is so sad, there was 32 puppies go up on one day from different "breeders" - surly if someone's dog is seized under BSL they can sue the breeder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) I hope the paper run some kind of article on how to avoid this entire scenario. I feel sick for all the dogs who end up in this exact situation due to their owner's ignorance or lack of care or both. And yes, the owners suck. Trisven's information made me feel even more ill. Edited July 18, 2013 by BlackJaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 No idea if the other owners know - they don't seem to know or care. This is a situation where I'm stuck in the middle knowing both parties Was the dog that got put down nice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 The owners are to blame for their dog ending up there but the pound are to blame for failing to seek other alternatives to death. Given their complete lack of understanding of the law, I wonder how many other dogs are quickly disposed of once they become Council's property. We shouldn't forget that just because a pound operated within the system, it doesn't mean that system is just. And just because the owners failed to chip or register their dog, the dog shouldn't have paid with its life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ari.g Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Whatever the owner behaviours were, the essential point is that a dog was put down for a reason based on its appearance, not on its behaviour. The dog was put down because the owner failed to: a) microchip b) register the dog with Council c) claim it after 7 days I agree with mita. If the above were the reasons the dog got put down, why wasn't the other dog put down at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) Whatever the owner behaviours were, the essential point is that a dog was put down for a reason based on its appearance, not on its behaviour. The dog was put down because the owner failed to: a) microchip b) register the dog with Council c) claim it after 7 days I agree with mita. If the above were the reasons the dog got put down, why wasn't the other dog put down at the same time? Maybe the other dog was chipped or registered, or they were trying to locate the owners? Someone has said the other dog wasn't theirs, it was apparently at their house but belongs to someone else. Edited July 18, 2013 by minimax 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