Cody Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) This particular dog was picked up a few times. Council stated that no attempt has been made to pay for the dog to be released. There are a hell of a lot of inconsistencies in the story. If my dog was picked up by council I sure as hell would make sure it wouldn't happen again. If it did, you bet I'd be in contact with council asap regarding payment. THAT is my issue with the whole story. Edited March 14, 2014 by Cody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 This particular dog was picked up a few times. Council stated that no attempt has been made to pay for the dog to be released. There are a hell of a lot of inconsistencies in the story. If my dog was picked up by council I sure as hell would make sure it wouldn't happen again. If it did, you bet I'd be in contact with council asap regarding payment. THAT is my issue with the whole story. Why would you pay for the dog to be released when it isn't going to be released for another month? I'd not be paying for it until I have actual guarentee that I'd be getting the dog back, they are just as likely to take the money and say thanks we'll keep the dog for another few months, bring more money to pay for the additional times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) The Council only said they would allow the dog to be released when the fees were at over 4.5k. Not many people have that much cash up their sleeve, but the owner had about 3k through previous fundraising efforts. Team Dog raised the rest and then Council changed their minds again and refused to release him until after the hearing despite having the funds to pay. Luckily they've changed their minds back again, the fees have been paid, and his transport should pick him up on Wednesday. Doesn't change the fact that the dog can't go back to a family that loves him and wants him, that nearly 5k has been wasted on impound fees(imagine what that money could have done for pet retention, free desexing, microchipping etc), the cost of transporting him, the time taken to find him a home, get the letter required from DAS in the ACT... you would not believe the time, resources and money that have gone in to just trying to get this dog out alive. All because he has a red nose. Giving any credence at all to the legislation and BCC's actions because the dog escaped a couple of times is ridiculous. Edited March 14, 2014 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffyluv Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 The Council only said they would allow the dog to be released when the fees were at over 4.5k. Not many people have that much cash up their sleeve, but the owner had about 3k through previous fundraising efforts. Team Dog raised the rest and then Council changed their minds again and refused to release him until after the hearing despite having the funds to pay. Luckily they've changed their minds back again, the fees have been paid, and his transport should pick him up on Wednesday. Doesn't change the fact that the dog can't go back to a family that loves him and wants him, that nearly 5k has been wasted on impound fees(imagine what that money could have done for pet retention, free desexing, microchipping etc), the cost of transporting him, the time taken to find him a home, get the letter required from DAS in the ACT... you would not believe the time, resources and money that have gone in to just trying to get this dog out alive. All because he has a red nose. Giving any credence at all to the legislation and BCC's actions because the dog escaped a couple of times is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 The Brisbane Cify Council stated last week the owners still hadn't made any contact re payment, that's why the dog was still impounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 The Brisbane Cify Council stated last week the owners still hadn't made any contact re payment, that's why the dog was still impounded. The Council only said they would allow the dog to be released when the fees were at over 4.5k. Not many people have that much cash up their sleeve, but the owner had about 3k through previous fundraising efforts. Team Dog raised the rest and then Council changed their minds again and refused to release him until after the hearing despite having the funds to pay. Luckily they've changed their minds back again, the fees have been paid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Wandering dogs shouldnt be handed a death sentence at the hands of a bloomin council IMO, fine the owners to try and mitigate the dogs security sure, but to kill a dog for that or even its x breed genetics no way. The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. Some Indian dude called Gandhi said that in 1930 whatever.. Slightly off topic but he also said.. "Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals." It's a pity he didn't consider the treatment of other humans to be something worth judging. Back on topic.. I have to agree with Cody. What happens to your dog is your responsibility. If you dog gets out, you have a responsibility to that animal to prevent it from happening again. I don't have much sympathy for people who do the wrong thing and then play victims when the consequences finally roll in (and sadly, the one that actually suffers is usually the dog). This is not to say I agree with PTS for dogs who are found wandering on more than one occasion. There, I think a more sensible approach would be to seize the dog and rehome to someone who gives a sh*t about its safety. For wandering dogs, being picked up by council is really the least of the risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 The Brisbane Cify Council stated last week the owners still hadn't made any contact re payment, that's why the dog was still impounded. The Council only said they would allow the dog to be released when the fees were at over 4.5k. Not many people have that much cash up their sleeve, but the owner had about 3k through previous fundraising efforts. Team Dog raised the rest and then Council changed their minds again and refused to release him until after the hearing despite having the funds to pay. Luckily they've changed their minds back again, the fees have been paid Like I said, Council stated last week that they were ready to release the dog but they had not had any contact from the owners re payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 BCC have told many an untruth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) BCC are scum lol have been since 1990's in regard to dogs. Edited March 17, 2014 by DaffyDuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 And: This Article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffyluv Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 And: This Article. :happydance2: :happydance2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nushie Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I don't really understand BSL - so excuse me if I am naïve - but wouldn't it be cheaper for all (including the council) to get each dog they impound for BSL temp tested?? If they fail then go through all the courts etc. But if they pass, who gives a crap, fine the owner for having a wandering dog and get on with it. I just don't understand how impounding a dog for 200+ days is helping anyone. Charge the owners for it if they really want, I am sure most would be happy to pay for it if it meant that their dogs weren't going to be impounded. So glad Zeus is free - sad that he has to leave his family though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) I don't really understand BSL - so excuse me if I am naïve - but wouldn't it be cheaper for all (including the council) to get each dog they impound for BSL temp tested?? If they fail then go through all the courts etc. But if they pass, who gives a crap, fine the owner for having a wandering dog and get on with it. I just don't understand how impounding a dog for 200+ days is helping anyone. Charge the owners for it if they really want, I am sure most would be happy to pay for it if it meant that their dogs weren't going to be impounded. So glad Zeus is free - sad that he has to leave his family though. At the end of the day BSL is not based on temperament - it is based on solely appearance. BSL assumes that any dog with a certain appearance is dangerous - in the eyes of the lawmakers the dog does not need to be temperament tested - it is dangerous regardless. (Zeus is doing brilliantly in his new home and has an absolutely incredible temperament, especially for a dog that has just been locked up for so long. He is super friendly with everyone and every other dog he meets, and is winning over many hearts in the ACT!) Edited April 11, 2014 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyCamper Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Here is a silly question because I keep getting different answers and being told I am being unreasonable. I have a dog here that another group was going to send to qlds now am I crazy or would this dog not have been safe up there should he have been picked up by council? I know you cant say for sure but I guess what I am asking is if you would send this dog to QLDs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) At the end of the day BSL is not based on temperament - it is based on solely appearance. BSL assumes that any dog with a certain appearance is dangerous - in the eyes of the lawmakers the dog does not need to be temperament tested - it is dangerous regardless. You're right, mel. Thoroughly lacking in any scientific base. It's as primitive as how they used to identify 'witches' by the shape of moles, and 'criminals' by the kind of bumps on their head. Every reputable body now says.... it's behavioral history/assessment that counts, not breed. American & Australian Veterinary Associations , for starters. Even RSPCA Qld says it's deed, not breed. I'm appalled at the level of ignorance that an elected Council has shown in Brisbane. Even more appalling to me, is this sentence: Both council veterinary officers and the head of veterinary science at the University of Queensland assessed him as a pit-bull. What is UQ doing adding input to a process that the Veterinary Associations don't recognize? Edited April 11, 2014 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amax-1 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I don't really understand BSL - so excuse me if I am naïve - but wouldn't it be cheaper for all (including the council) to get each dog they impound for BSL temp tested?? If they fail then go through all the courts etc. But if they pass, who gives a crap, fine the owner for having a wandering dog and get on with it. I just don't understand how impounding a dog for 200+ days is helping anyone. Charge the owners for it if they really want, I am sure most would be happy to pay for it if it meant that their dogs weren't going to be impounded. So glad Zeus is free - sad that he has to leave his family though. At the end of the day BSL is not based on temperament - it is based on solely appearance. BSL assumes that any dog with a certain appearance is dangerous - in the eyes of the lawmakers the dog does not need to be temperament tested - it is dangerous regardless. (Zeus is doing brilliantly in his new home and has an absolutely incredible temperament, especially for a dog that has just been locked up for so long. He is super friendly with everyone and every other dog he meets, and is winning over many hearts in the ACT!) It's not actually based on appearance, the appearance governs speculation of a breed that is outlawed. It doesn't speculate that a dog of certain appearance is dangerous, it speculates that a dog of certain appearance is an outlawed breed. The policing of BSL isn't based on the perceived danger level of specific breeds or individual dogs, it's based on breeds that are banned in a given area thereby the owners of dogs perceived to be of banned breeds are breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) [ It's not actually based on appearance, the appearance governs speculation of a breed that is outlawed. It doesn't speculate that a dog of certain appearance is dangerous, it speculates that a dog of certain appearance is an outlawed breed. The policing of BSL isn't based on the perceived danger level of specific breeds or individual dogs, it's based on breeds that are banned in a given area thereby the owners of dogs perceived to be of banned breeds are breaking the law. That's understood... the assessment of appearance links a dog to a 'breed' that has been banned. Those breeds have been banned because of a belief that such dogs are inherently dangerous. And... again, understood.... those breed bans are enshrined in the law. Given that 'mixes' are included in the Qld legislation, that broadens the variety of dogs that 'someone' decides to classify as pitbull. based on conformation (appearance) 'markers. And, accordingly, must be inherently & invariably dangerous. All of this against a backdrop of scientific evidence which doesn't support such a conclusion being predictive of actual danger.... pointing, rather, in the direction of an individual dog's behavioral history/current assessment. Edited April 11, 2014 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) I don't really understand BSL - so excuse me if I am naïve - but wouldn't it be cheaper for all (including the council) to get each dog they impound for BSL temp tested?? If they fail then go through all the courts etc. But if they pass, who gives a crap, fine the owner for having a wandering dog and get on with it. I just don't understand how impounding a dog for 200+ days is helping anyone. Charge the owners for it if they really want, I am sure most would be happy to pay for it if it meant that their dogs weren't going to be impounded. So glad Zeus is free - sad that he has to leave his family though. At the end of the day BSL is not based on temperament - it is based on solely appearance. BSL assumes that any dog with a certain appearance is dangerous - in the eyes of the lawmakers the dog does not need to be temperament tested - it is dangerous regardless. (Zeus is doing brilliantly in his new home and has an absolutely incredible temperament, especially for a dog that has just been locked up for so long. He is super friendly with everyone and every other dog he meets, and is winning over many hearts in the ACT!) It's not actually based on appearance, the appearance governs speculation of a breed that is outlawed. It doesn't speculate that a dog of certain appearance is dangerous, it speculates that a dog of certain appearance is an outlawed breed. The policing of BSL isn't based on the perceived danger level of specific breeds or individual dogs, it's based on breeds that are banned in a given area thereby the owners of dogs perceived to be of banned breeds are breaking the law. And yet many mixed breed dogs without a drop of the legislated breeds are assessed, by their appearance, as being of that breed and therefore subject to restriction or euthanasia. In practice, BSL is absolutely, 100%, appearance based rather than breed based. If it truly was breed based we would only be seeing dogs from a closed gene pool of the 'american pit bull terrier' subject to restrictions, not mutts of every mix under the sun. ETA: A good example of this is the fact that there have been dogs in Victoria assessed under the standard as a restricted breed and seized, and yet their parents, proved by DNA, were assessed under the standard as NOT restricted. The fact that the parents are legally not restricted has no relevance in the legislation on the restricted status of the progeny, a d cannot be used to defend the declaration on the progeny. In practise it is 100% appearance based, not breed based. Edited April 11, 2014 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Here is a silly question because I keep getting different answers and being told I am being unreasonable. I have a dog here that another group was going to send to qlds now am I crazy or would this dog not have been safe up there should he have been picked up by council? I know you cant say for sure but I guess what I am asking is if you would send this dog to QLDs I would want that dog in the ACT at a place that will assess it individually regardless of breed, unless it has a fully committed home elsewhere, 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