Little Gifts Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) I had all kind of tags to the 'Save Hugo' page when I logged in to FB this morning. From what I can tell he is a well loved shar pei who has been seen by council outside his property on three occasions and is now facing destruction. It has started to get print and tv media attention up here so hopefully more of the story will come out. I didn't like the page or comment on it because I couldn't get past the fact that it seems from their comments that he was a serial escape artist but because he didn't harm anyone they didn't feel it was a problem and didn't take council's letters seriously. Now they are gutted he is in a cold cage and facing euthanasia. He could've been hit by a car, attacked by another dog or even stolen while he was out of his yard. What does it take for some people to get it? It is always the dogs suffering from the actions of their owners. http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/lifestyle/pets-and-wildlife/fight-to-save-gold-coast-dog-hugo-from-death-row-goes-viral-after-council-seizes-him-for-escaping-home/story-fnk74alk-1227036995308 Edited August 26, 2014 by Little Gifts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HazyWal Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Yes I was reading the FB page earlier, sorry but the dog was caught wandering many times, another case of stupid owner syndrome. Her comment saying "he rushed the dog and owner because he was saying hello!" shits me to tears. Keep your dog contained, walk in on a lead and it won't end up in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Plain and simple his owners are irresponsible. The dog has a menacing dog order on it from 2013 for something they haven't clarified (or I haven't seen it clarified yet), the dog then has proceeded to aggressively rush at an owner and their dog but their response to that was it was just saying Hi.....right....so we're lead to believe someone approached the council because a dog was just saying Hi. The dog was probably off leash even though its not allowed to me. The dog can't be an escape artist because under the menacing dog order it has to be kept in a child proof cage....which they clearly have not done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted August 26, 2014 Author Share Posted August 26, 2014 Yep, that's what I thought SAS. If it was a repeat offender the owners would've had plenty of warning from council about what they needed to address to avoid any further fines (or a seizure). I certainly don't want to see this dog pts but from the owner's comments you can tell this is all happening due to their lack of responsibility to their dog. I couldn't like their FB page because I didn't see anything in the way of what they were willing to do to change the circumstances that led them here. Nothing about their fences having been repaired or having installed a dog run or his training or exercise regime that might address his desire to wander. Frustrating. Council must be biting their tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 I can't support owners who don't take responsibility for their pets. I'm very sorry Hugo is the victim in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffyluv Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Isn't it Logan Council?? Dogs don't have to do much to get a menacing dog tag in that council.. Poor dog, paying for his owners lack of responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Flying Furball Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 It seems wrong that the dog dies when clearly the owners were irresponsible. The dog would be different with different owners, no doubt. Crappy situation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) What concerns me is what Sas said, he has a menacing order on him from 2013 so clearly he has been involved in an aggressive incident. He has escaped numerous times since then, with at least one occasion being him rushing at a person walking their dog. While I feel sorry for the dog, depending on how severe the incident was that happened in 2013 I'd potentially be going for destruction as well. Here in NSW you can't rehome a menacing or dangerous dog (which shits me to tears but anyway), so that would be the only option if it's the same up there. Edited August 26, 2014 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trisven13 Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 The most recent report on Nine MSN says that he has had up to 20 complaints made about him and a neighbour who says he has been a menace for the last 12 years. Even if you split the difference between the two stories sounds like Hugo has owners who have not done the right thing in protecting their dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted August 26, 2014 Author Share Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) Gold Coast City Council. The additional info about Hugo's antics and the families lack of addressing them sheds a different light doesn't it. What is the council to do if an owner repeatedly ignores advice and instructions? Can't love your dog a whole lot if you aren't concerned about its personal safety. Still don't want to see this lovely boy destroyed but the owner is causing this, not the dog. Edited August 26, 2014 by Little Gifts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Yes I was reading the FB page earlier, sorry but the dog was caught wandering many times, another case of stupid owner syndrome. Her comment saying "he rushed the dog and owner because he was saying hello!" shits me to tears. Keep your dog contained, walk in on a lead and it won't end up in this situation. Totally agree. If they don't care enough to contain the dog for his own safety, I guess I find it a bit "off" that they'd suddenly care so much when facing his destruction (despite how many times it could have happened under a car while they mismanaged him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Watched this on tv this morning and yes thought there was a lot more to it since councils don't seize and destroy dogs for ebing off lead and 'saying hi'. Though the owner saying that 'rushing' was something 'all dogs' did and gthat he was saying hi just made me angry. Obvoiusly they are standing back telling upset people its good their dog is friendly rather than its being a one off and running to grab the dog and apologising to the other owner. And in this case blaming the swf is unfair. The dog has been off lead in an on lead area but she said its an 'understanding' that's its all fine in their 'area' as they live across from a park. Sorry what? The dog has rushed other dogs and owners - rushing is not puppy bouncing all friendly like rushing is a lot more serious and can lead to attacks especially if the owner has always let it go and not disciplined their dog for not returning when called or bothered to train their dogs. I would have thought as mentioned here the dog would have been under some kind of dangerous dog order as the step prior to seize and destroy but on tv they didn't mention that. Owner hasn't worried about controlling or training the dog and its learnt it can get away with harassing other dogs which may have led to something more once again owner doesn't take responsibility early and the dog now suffers as it wouldn't have known any better and is now a menace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juice Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 I posted a comment on the nine news page, after I read all the whingers complaining about the council. Owners have signed its death warrant and now are trying to pass the buck, idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miss2 Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) I think they have a 14 day appeal don’t they? When I worked for council ( NSW) if we gave an order like that on the dog the owners had 14 days to appeal the order and document and then commencement the changes they would make to ensure their dog was contained at all times. What annoys me is all the whinging on the media, I bet the fence or where the dog is getting out still hasn’t been fixed yet.... Edited August 26, 2014 by miss2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 I think they have a 14 day appeal don’t they? When I worked for council ( NSW) if we gave an order like that on the dog the owners had 14 days to appeal the order and document and then commencement the changes they would make to ensure their dog was contained at all times. What annoys me is all the whinging on the media, I bet the fence or where the dog is getting out still hasn’t been fixed yet.... Yes, they can appeal. And have already lodged it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loving my Oldies Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 It seems wrong that the dog dies when clearly the owners were irresponsible. The dog would be different with different owners, no doubt. Crappy situation! I first saw this on FB and my comment there was along that lines that yet again a dog pays the price for having stupid owners. And from the accounts here of the owner's appearance on TV, "stupid owners" seems to be the real problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 I heard on the news this afternoon that she plans to move to a farm if she gets the dog back. The council should rehome the dog if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiverStar-Aura Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Depending on the circumstances, if the dog isn't dangerous, rather than euth-ing, the council should look at permanently rehoming him. Clearly his owners don't give a f*** about him otherwise she would've done something about him escaping before now. Her comment in the article is that she will "now keep him locked up". Why the need to threaten a euthanasia before you act? The fact he's been picked up before and you've paid multiple release fines wasn't a clue that he needs to be secure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HazyWal Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Saw it on the Sydney news tonight and the news guy, Hugh Rimington, said the dog was impounded after a complaint that the dog was off lead in it's own front yard. We then see the woman walking through a gate, that has a menacing dog sign on it, and walking up the stairs to the house before blubbering something and showing a huge canvas photo of the dog and son. Now I'm assuming she was walking through the back gate as if it was the front why would someone complain about a dog in a fully fenced front yard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lhok Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 I heard on the news this afternoon that she plans to move to a farm if she gets the dog back. The council should rehome the dog if anything. I hope not, if the reports are to be believed and he escapes out on farmland he will be a dead dog if a farmer catches him. --Lhok 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