Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 138

Thread: Victoria; Seized Dog's Future 'up to VCAT' *BUTCH IS HOME*!

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by realist View Post
    "DAVID and Megan Thurston say they have been devastated by a decision to seize their pet pit bull terrier, Butch.
    The six-year-old red nose American pit bull terrier was taken from the Thurstons’ home in Canadian on Friday afternoon, just hours after the amnesty for dog owners to register restricted breeds came to a close."


    Gee I dont know...perhaps read the beging of the thread (name calling removed by mod H).
    While i can probably guess, i would rather you spell out your post. Or are you just showing your ignorance of the argument?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cavalierqld View Post
    It seems from the story council became aware of the dog and where it lived from the owners TRYING to register it. Deceitfully done council.

    Sorry i dont get it? How is it deceiptful? The council can only act inside its guidlines, as could the owners.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    I think it was nasty on the part of the council.

    The owners tried to do the right thing by some incredibly stupid new legislation, and get their dog registered. There had been no previous problems with the dog - or council would have previously dealt with those.

    So the council denies registration - at the last minute and then goes around and confiscates the dog. I'm sure if the owners, who were trying to do the right thing by their dog which had not eaten a small child - had known that what they were doing was a death sentence for their dog - they would have left things as they were and not attempted to register the dog at all, ever.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I think that the main problem with peter70's position is that he refuses to accept that there appears to have been devious and deceiptful misconduct on the part of the council. Peter70 prides himself in his avatar as a "Whistle Blower".

    He is hardly a whistle blower; whistle blowers are defined as:

    "A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues)." (wikipedia)

    In fact, peter70 has shown by his posts to be the antithesis of a whistle blower, as he is actively supporting the apparent dishonest and deceitful actions of the Ballarat council.


    (removed ricey's mind reading thought) In this case, the Thurstons tried do do what was necessary to register their pet, but were given misleading and incorrect information by a council officer. When they returned the following day to do what they were told was necessary to secure their pet's future, the council acted to impound their dog. That is deceiptful and misleading conduct on the part of the council, and if peter70 really was a whistle blower he would be doing whatever he could to expose the councils actions to the wider public.

    But he isn't doing that is he? He's just saying "the Thurstons missed the deadline so its all their fault! Nananananana!"

    Of all the posts on this thread, I suggest that peter70's posts (all 6 of them) have been the least helpful and the most divisive. peter70, I'd suggest that if you can't bring yourself to say something helpful you should (say nothing - H).

    ricey
    Last edited by Hyacinth; 05-04-2012 at 03:05 PM. Reason: took out a few of the posts that assumed Ricey knows what Peter70 is thinking.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Ricey; Peter70's moniker refers to an avid interest in trains- he has explained this previously elsewhere (can't recall which thread).

    Whether I agree with your sentiments or not, I just though I'd clear that one up as it is a miscommunication we've dealt with before. I don't really agree with targeting only Peter70, as I'm sure he is not the only person out there with a different opinion.....

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ricey View Post
    I think that the main problem with peter70's position is that he refuses to accept that there appears to have been devious and deceiptful misconduct on the part of the council. Peter70 prides himself in his avatar as a "Whistle Blower".

    He is hardly a whistle blower; whistle blowers are defined as:

    "A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues)." (wikipedia)

    In fact, peter70 has shown by his posts to be the antithesis of a whistle blower, as he is actively supporting the apparent dishonest and deceitful actions of the Ballarat council.


    (removed ricey's mind reading thought) In this case, the Thurstons tried do do what was necessary to register their pet, but were given misleading and incorrect information by a council officer. When they returned the following day to do what they were told was necessary to secure their pet's future, the council acted to impound their dog. That is deceiptful and misleading conduct on the part of the council, and if peter70 really was a whistle blower he would be doing whatever he could to expose the councils actions to the wider public.

    But he isn't doing that is he? He's just saying "the Thurstons missed the deadline so its all their fault! Nananananana!"

    Of all the posts on this thread, I suggest that peter70's posts (all 6 of them) have been the least helpful and the most divisive. peter70, I'd suggest that if you can't bring yourself to say something helpful you should (say nothing - H).

    ricey



    Nice to log on and see a personal attack, but from you Ricey i would expect little else.

    Maybe do some research on my previous posts instead of googling wikipedia you would know that im a train driver hence "whistleblower" Bahhahahahaha.


    Mr and Ms Thurston had budgeted to pay for desexing and microchipping, and Mr Muir said they arrived to register the dog without enough cash because a council officer had incorrectly advised them of the cost.

    Mr Thurston offered to go home and get more money but was advised he could return the following day.


    Must have been some budget i mean dog was 6 years old???


    All sounds pretty convincing to me NOT. Seems everyone is to blame but the owners? I mean all this information is being provided by a third party, that party being the President of The American Pitbull Association, so it must be true???? as clearly he would have no vested interest in the case???
    If it was all as clear cut as you have me believe i would find it hard pressed that the matter hasnt come under any major scrutiny IMO!!!!!!! . I guess when you leave things to the last minute you put yourself or as in this case your dog at risk, the laws gave you more than 24 hours notice.
    As for questioning my input, just because i have a different view on the matter doesnt mean im not entitled to my opinion and if you dont like it, stiff, dont read it!!!! And in future i'll continue to have have my opinion whether you think im entitled to it, or whether you like it or not.
    Last edited by peter70; 05-04-2012 at 08:30 PM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    Ricey; Peter70's moniker refers to an avid interest in trains- he has explained this previously elsewhere (can't recall which thread).

    Whether I agree with your sentiments or not, I just though I'd clear that one up as it is a miscommunication we've dealt with before. I don't really agree with targeting only Peter70, as I'm sure he is not the only person out there with a different opinion.....
    Thanks for trying to clear that up

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    Seems everyone is to blame but the owners? I mean all this information is being provided by a third party, that party being the President of The American Pitbull Association, so it must be true
    The dog has done nothing wrong - so why should it be PTS because some other dog with some other idiot owner broke a bunch of perfectly good existing laws.

    This dog had managed to live 6 years incident free (I'm guessing, or the council would have done something about it long a go -yes?) and now the council make it really difficult to for the owners to do the right thing?

    Registration requirements for one of their "restricted breeds" are about 3 times more expensive than standard rego.

    Restricted Breed Dogs - Department of Primary Industries

    They had one month to comply with the new rules. And I met dog owners in Victoria last Feb 2012 - who had no idea about these new rules or how they applied to their dogs.

    And I love this phrase...
    From 30 September councils across Victoria will, after due process, have the right to seize and destroy unregistered restricted breed dogs.
    Ie it doesn't matter the outcome of "due process" they get to kill the dog - who hasn't done anything wrong.

    And don't get me started on what dog is a "restricted breed" - "authorised officers" in vic could declare a minature poodle to be a "restricted breed" and then it gets locked up, due process happens, and they put the dog down. That's how that law is written at the moment. The only way out is to produce ANKC Amstaff papers for the poodle!

  9. #49

    Default

    i'll have to go back and re-read the legislation but i think hyacinth you have just opened a massive can of legal worms. i.e any dog that is deemed to meet the visual standard is an APBT UNLESS its an amstaff, so even if you have ANKC papers to prove that your dog is a poodle(as per your example) its still an APBT unless you can prove its an amstaff. hmm, going to go read up again now

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    any dog that is deemed to meet the visual standard is an APBT UNLESS its an amstaff, so even if you have ANKC papers to prove that your dog is a poodle(as per your example) its still an APBT unless you can prove its an amstaff
    That's my reading of it. And I wasn't the first person to notice. Unfortunately a lawyer's poodle is going to have to get locked up first before it gets fixed. I had an email discussion about it with a Dept Primary Industries person in Victoria.

    There is no exemption for dogs belonging to tourists or visitors to Victoria ie I can't bring my dog to Victoria for a training seminar and expect her not to be arrested for being unregistered in Victoria - let alone mistaken for a staffy cross (aka pitbull). The person I emailed with said if she has been mistaken for staffy x (and she has), then don't bring her to Victoria. It's that bad.

    But as with most really stupid laws, they're so randomly enforced - that this side of it is still being ignored. Who is the local radio legal crusader in Vic? Maybe I can send them an email and ask them to find out what the rules actually are. My federal MP is about as useful as an abandoned dog crap.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •