Save Hugo Campaign

[VizslaMomma]

Any updates on what happened to Hugo?

Not sure if you are J/K...... but a copy of a post 11 hours ago off FB

Hi Everyone, it has been mentioned tonight that our post of the Review outcome is confusing, we have written just what the review decison says however we believe it means this…

Hugo is not to come home to us here on the Gold Coast and they want Hugo to be relocated to Cairns. It also states that the destruction order is confirmed ( we have an understanding that this means he has not been taken off the desctruction order).

within our review we asked that if the council refused to accept our amendments to secure the yard we would plead that Hugo be relocated to a family and we had an offer in Cairns that we feel would be suitable.

They have given us the relocation option however have made it clear Hugo is staying on death row. also we must remember that Hugo is on a stay of time, we want him out of the council lock up as early as Monday and we are doing all that we need to do to have that happen.

appologies that this has caused confusion, we are having media interviews tomorrow and that will be much clearer to all, tonight we have been taking a rest from the pace of the past few days.

we do not want people to feel disgruntled with the council we need to co-operate to see Hugo is safe. love to all of you xx

[mita]

let's just say she was left with NO illusions as to my feelings for PETA (no swear words though). I DID manage to get her to back off my cousin for deciding to buy a well bred pup from an ethical and responsible registered breeder. A small "win" for me anyways... lol!

T.

Good win! Sad thing is that such a PETA person goes by the simplest slogans. They say buying from a 'breeder' dooms another unadopted dog to die in a shelter. But never, ever distinguish what kind of 'breeder' they're talking about. While evidence points to the fact that those breeders who breed wisely, socialize their dogs & puppies well & rehome carefully actually prevent dogs being dumped in the first place. And they're more likely to be registered breeders.

Edited August 29, 2014 by mita

[tdierikx]

I thoroughly checked out the breeder that my cousin is getting her pup from - they do all of the health tests, and show successfully. My cousin picked very well I reckon. If there were any doubt about where this pup was coming from, I'd have been the first to make sure my cousin found a better option... she has a 3 year old child, who's safety is paramount IMHO. Some unknown from the pound just ain't gonna cut it I'm afraid.

The funniest thing was this stupid PETA supporter said that she would still be friends with my cousin even though she was buying a pedigree pup instead of adopting from a shelter... WTF?? Who gives a toss lady?

T.

[Animal House]

1409269726[/url]' post='6552642']

1409268763[/url]' post='6552634']

Any updates on what happened to Hugo?

Not sure if you are J/K...... but a copy of a post 11 hours ago off FB

Hi Everyone, it has been mentioned tonight that our post of the Review outcome is confusing, we have written just what the review decison says however we believe it means this…

Hugo is not to come home to us here on the Gold Coast and they want Hugo to be relocated to Cairns. It also states that the destruction order is confirmed ( we have an understanding that this means he has not been taken off the desctruction order).

within our review we asked that if the council refused to accept our amendments to secure the yard we would plead that Hugo be relocated to a family and we had an offer in Cairns that we feel would be suitable.

They have given us the relocation option however have made it clear Hugo is staying on death row. also we must remember that Hugo is on a stay of time, we want him out of the council lock up as early as Monday and we are doing all that we need to do to have that happen.

appologies that this has caused confusion, we are having media interviews tomorrow and that will be much clearer to all, tonight we have been taking a rest from the pace of the past few days.

we do not want people to feel disgruntled with the council we need to co-operate to see Hugo is safe. love to all of you xx

Thanks for that VM, I'm on my phone and FB takes forever to load, so thought I'd ask in here :)

[Little Gifts]

My one-eyed, blind, deaf, 15-year-old, rescued shih tzu was at large today. I am really pleased I found him before he terrorized any member of the public, encountered council or, indeed, ran into many of the dog lovers who voice their opinions on this thread. Good luck, Hugo. And good luck to his owners, too. They obviously give a damn. So many dogs are not that lucky.

Wha? Have you read what they haven't done to keep this two year old dog safe so far? They only gave a damn at the end, not in the first instance when it mattered most. Poor Hugo will be tagged as a dangerous dog for life now and have to be managed accordingly or it is back on death row for him. It didn't need to be like that.

I don't doubt his owners loved him but they didn't keep him safe from harm - not from council, not from being hit by a car, not from injuring himself getting out of the yard, not from being attacked by another loose dog, not from being stolen by someone else who might like the breed or even from a disgruntled neighbour who may have considered dumping him in the bush.

Hugo's current owners have made numerous public excuses as to why they couldn't address all the issues that saw Hugo at risk of death. They have shown they don't have what it takes to be a responsible pet owner. I hope they don't get another dog.

[melzawelza]

Team Dog's thoughts here

All the comments, shares and likes are pretty heartening that people really do get it.

Text here:

We here at Team Dog have been contacted numerous times over the last few days in regards to Hugo, a dog from the Gold Coast that was issued with a destruction order by Gold Coast City Council, and we love how passionate you guys are and how quick you are to alert us to possible situations that might need our help.

Our response has been that we cannot assist with this case. We’ll be honest, it was a stock reply that was designed so we could maybe avoid having to discuss the real issue. But after a talk amongst ourselves, we feel it’s important we do talk about this issue and that we continue to be open with you guys as to why we’re not throwing ourselves behind this case.

Those that have followed us for some time will know that we are very passionate about the implementation of proven animal management models to reduce the incidence of dog attacks in our communities. These proven models do not include Breed Specific Legislation (banning or restricting dogs of certain breeds or appearances), and instead focus on the behaviour of individual dogs and their owners, regardless of appearance. Many will have heard the slogan ‘deed, not breed’ which loosely describes these sorts of models.

The information publicly available regarding Hugo shows that he was declared to be a ‘Menacing’ dog in 2013. A dog must have been involved in some sort of aggressive incident for such a declaration to be placed. Despite this, Hugo has been impounded twice and his owners fined seven times. He has been reported to the Council by members of the public up to twenty times, and neighbours have made comment to the media regarding aggressive behaviours from him while loose in public.

His owners lied to Council in December, telling them that he had died, to avoid registering him. He has since been found loose in the street without his owners, has been reported as attacking a small dog in August, and is said to have rushed at a person walking their leashed dog. Hugo’s owners have stated that ‘he’s the kind of dog that doesn’t like others touching him’.

The facts of Hugo’s situation show a dog showing menacing behaviours that has been continually mismanaged by his owners, despite intervention from the Council numerous times. It seems that Council has given the owners many opportunities to ensure that Hugo is not a threat to the community and they have continued to mismanage him despite this.

Situations such as Hugo’s have the potential to escalate to much more serious attacks – something that must be prevented if at all possible. The repeated warning signs are there and Council is acting on them. We have to acknowledge that if we want our legislation to reflect 'deed, not breed,' we need to accept the consequences when a dog does that deed and the owners are incapable of managing that dog.

It's always sad when a dog pays for owner mismanagement but, in this case, the owners were given every opportunity to comply with legislation and not only failed to contain him numerous times but lied to council by saying he had died - just so they didn't have to register him. We understand more than most people how legislation can push people to desperate measures but allowing a dog to roam multiple times - a dog that had already been declared 'menacing' because of a previous incident - and giving your local council no reason to believe you are at all capable of managing such a dog is basically begging for someone to take the decision about your dog's future away from you.

From what we can tell from all the information presented, Council had given Hugo's owners more chances than most ever would, and ultimately their hand has been forced. For all intents and purposes, a 'menacing' dog has been repeatedly allowed to roam where he could be a danger to the community and if council do not act, they will be letting that community down.

Saying all that, we do want to make it clear that we aren't advocating for any one outcome, only explaining why we can't throw our support behind this one. As always we hope for the best outcome for everyone and that extends to not just Hugo and his family but the community they live in. This is what we all talk about when we say 'deed not breed.'

The latest news from today is that Hugo is to be rehomed with a family in Cairns. We are pleased to see that Hugo will be given another chance and we hope his new owners will manage him responsibly to ensure he never poses a risk to the community again.

We hope that the tens of thousands of caring and passionate people who did get behind Hugo's family (this includes the media) will also do the same for those owners who do everything right for their dogs but are unfairly targeted because of appearance. These families are rarely afforded as many chances and are often left with little hope.

[Little Gifts]

That statement was it. The bomb. It said everything I felt. Thank you Team Dog.

[HazyWal]

That statement was it. The bomb. It said everything I felt. Thank you Team Dog.

Agree 100%, well done Team Dog.

[Cody]

It's good to see the public are starting to wisen up to the fact that these owners are liars and irresponsible.

[mita]

Excellent response, Team Dog. Specially loved that neat final paragraph.

The Save Hugo Campaign should've been called the Save Hugo from his Current Owners Campaign. Here's hoping he makes it to more aware & alert new owners in Cairns.

[Lhok]

I really hope this isn't true

"SAVE HUGO Hugo is coming home to his owners"

--Lhok

[Maddy]

I really hope this isn't true

"SAVE HUGO Hugo is coming home to his owners"

--Lhok

Above that was..

why would the Council give him back to us? and they are….he is coming home a way that keeps everyone happy.

I assume she means going "home" to someone else? Although I could be wrong, her wording is a bit..

[Lhok]

Oh I missed the first bit. Although I would question why she said owners unless she has already signed him over? It is really hard to follow what they say.

--Lhok

[raffikki]

She has also just posted on a reply to a question on the Team Dog post as well.

Someone asked "how were they able to rehome him if he had a dedtruction order as the council seized the dog...can anyone shed light on this..is it fact"

Lynette Mcilveen I can. Council are giving Hugo back to the owners because the council had no right to take him. The family are happy to have him relocated to Cairns as a side step to ensure that there is no further ramifications placed on the Council for the unlawful empounding and order of destruction placed on Hugo and Hugo's family. If council made the correct decison they would not give Hugo back or rehome him.

27 minutes ago · Like · 1

..

Lynette Mcilveen Further more the owner of the dog is the owner and will remain the owner of the dog.

[tdierikx]

Huh? confusing to say the least...

T.

[_PL_]

What does she mean they had no right to take him? How can it be an unlawful order of destruction when as far as I can see they got every single notification and chose to ignore them. And then claimed the dog was dead.

[raineth]

and then there's this bizarre comment by Hugo's owner:

you would be interested in something I found that is assured you will never be harrassed by council again…or anybody else for that matter…contact Darren Thomson and tell him I said you can have the information.

[Kajirin]

Hoping the council provide a press release [if they haven't already] and say what actually happened.

[Cody]

It looks like they're banning people and deleting comments.

[HazyWal]

This guy is all kinds of speshal.

From the FB page...

I'll move to cairns, take Hugo, we can rename him and reregister him in the Gold Coast under a different name and return him home...

Like · Reply · 327 · Yesterday at 4:36pm

..

22 Replies · 4 hours ago