Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 138

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

  1. #61

    Default

    It had taken 1 man, many grass roots helpers, a lot of cash, and 7 years to change Qld to a better state of BSl than it was. ( not that any state of BSL is acceptable). I hope Vic can change in time.
    This dog is still languishing from deferral after deferral with no end in sight.

    8 months so far people.
    Last edited by Beau; 05-07-2012 at 10:40 PM.
    If you find yourself going through hell; Don't stay. Just keep on going.
    Beau.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peter70 View Post
    Ricey
    Cmon surely you cant be serious? How could one not assume it was personal after all you only referrred to ME. I only got to read your post after the mods had removed some bits.
    Yours sincerely
    Sensitive Pete
    Hello sensitive Pete,

    Really, I don't accept that any of my posts on this thread were a personal attack on you. I merely pointed out that you posted that the Thurstons only had themselves to blame for the predicament that they find themselves in, when anyone who has read and understood the posts in this thread would accept that the council has instigated this outcome. Even Villain & Flirtt who is certainly not on my side has stated that they consider that the council has been deceiptful.

    If I have offended you by outlining the usual understanding of the term "whistle blower" then I apologise to you. It was not my intention to cause offense. However, I do not resile from my posts on this thread; albeit recognising that the Thurstons could have rectified their situation earlier, they did what they were asked to do by the council and so were stitched up by the council. Peter, you can't seriously believe that the council behaved properly and without prejudice in this case.

    Like Villain & Flirtt says, talk to people; teach others and kids how to be safe around dogs; write letters; stand on a tall building with a megaphone; above all, highlight how BSL is a form of visual discrimination. But do not just blame owners of innocent dogs that were led to believe that they were doing everything that needed to be done for their dog by a corrupt council. The Thurstons got stitched up; that is not something to crow about.

    Regards,

    ricey

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ricey View Post
    Hello sensitive Pete,

    Really, I don't accept that any of my posts on this thread were a personal attack on you. I merely pointed out that you posted that the Thurstons only had themselves to blame for the predicament that they find themselves in, when anyone who has read and understood the posts in this thread would accept that the council has instigated this outcome. Even Villain & Flirtt who is certainly not on my side has stated that they consider that the council has been deceiptful.

    If I have offended you by outlining the usual understanding of the term "whistle blower" then I apologise to you. It was not my intention to cause offense. However, I do not resile from my posts on this thread; albeit recognising that the Thurstons could have rectified their situation earlier, they did what they were asked to do by the council and so were stitched up by the council. Peter, you can't seriously believe that the council behaved properly and without prejudice in this case.

    Like Villain & Flirtt says, talk to people; teach others and kids how to be safe around dogs; write letters; stand on a tall building with a megaphone; above all, highlight how BSL is a form of visual discrimination. But do not just blame owners of innocent dogs that were led to believe that they were doing everything that needed to be done for their dog by a corrupt council. The Thurstons got stitched up; that is not something to crow about.

    Regards,

    ricey

    To be honest I don't think offended is the word I would use, it would be more like bemused especially with your take on whistleblower.
    As for my view I really couldn't care less what you or everyone else thinks, I don't try to make up your minds, I was merely stating that I believe the Thurstons only have themselves to blame, regardless of councils actions (to which we have no evidence or proof that it really happened the way it's been published).

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peter70 View Post
    To be honest I don't think offended is the word I would use, it would be more like bemused especially with your take on whistleblower.
    As for my view I really couldn't care less what you or everyone else thinks, I don't try to make up your minds, I was merely stating that I believe the Thurstons only have themselves to blame, regardless of councils actions (to which we have no evidence or proof that it really happened the way it's been published).
    Hi Peter,

    As you say, you believe that the Thurstons only have themselves to blame for the predicament that they find themselves in, while everyone else here believes that the council engineered this outcome. Whatever; once this whole sorry episode has been adjudicated by VCAT, will you accept that the council was at fault if VCAT finds that they were? Or will it just be some sort of conspiracy theory on your part?

    I put it that neither of us are privy to what actually happened here, so we can only read what is posted and make our own judgements based on the scanty evidence. My reading is that the Thurstons appear to have been done over by the council; your reading is that they only have themselves to blame. I have qualified all my posts about this issue with the descriptive word "appear" to illustrate that there is some doubt, whereas you are quite OK with stating categorically that the Thurstons are totally at fault.

    Me, I do not like making categorical black and white statements that I can't back up with evidence, so I have persisted with describing the evidence as "it appears"; and I think that it appears that the council has behaved appallingly. But I will wait to see how VCAT sees it before I comment again.

    Cheers,

    the other sensitive Peter

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,583

    Default

    ricey

    You might not have felt your posts were "attacking" but many were addressed to Peter70 - which seems personal to me. I didn't think they were attacking and I felt your mistake about "whistle blowing" which was pointed out by someone else - was a backfire on your part which deserved to stay - said more about where you were at, than peter70.

    For everybody
    My take on it - Thurstons definitely did wrong by not registering their dog, but for most people - that's merely a fine and a slap on the wrist from council - if they ever even bother to do something about it, and if the dog is never reported, that's unlikely. It's even unlikely if the dog is reported.

    So as of Sept 2011 - in Victoria, a dog in victoria that is not registered - can be seized and declared dangerous or restricted. That's the rules now. Doesn't have to be a pitbull or even look like one.

    So most people probably don't want to bet their pet's life on that - so these people (Thurstons) tried to do the right thing - eventually - and were punished for it.

    But I would also say - many Victorian dog owners are completely unaware of these rule changes and their potential impact.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    206

    Default

    I'm ignoring the lover's quarrel that seems to be going on...

    V&F - I do have trouble with the educating people about responsible behaviour around dogs, especially people with children, but also adults older than me.
    Have you seen this chart?

    My Duke is not aggressive, but he is protective, and can be a little bit stand-offish when meeting new people. Others don't seem to take me seriously when I ask them to approach him a certain way, or to not get in his face. Or they think they know better than me. It's so frustrating.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D-Dog View Post
    I'm ignoring the lover's quarrel that seems to be going on...

    V&F - I do have trouble with the educating people about responsible behaviour around dogs, especially people with children, but also adults older than me.
    Have you seen this chart?

    My Duke is not aggressive, but he is protective, and can be a little bit stand-offish when meeting new people. Others don't seem to take me seriously when I ask them to approach him a certain way, or to not get in his face. Or they think they know better than me. It's so frustrating.
    I have not seen that particular flyer, but I have seen similar. We dog people know how to appropriately behave around dogs (well, at least some of us do). I have spent the last 45 years of my life (I am now 55) around dogs and I have not been bitten by one for the last 44 years (with one exception 5 years ago; I was trying to remove Hobbes my pit bull from a kelpie who had latched on to his throat and the kelpie bit me). Hobbes is not an aggressive dog but he is a dominant dog (not as dominant as Lulu my Maltese/Shih Tsu/silky cross) but he will stand his ground. After the altercation with the kelpie, Hobbes was bleeding, I was bleeding, and the dip stick kelpie owner was bleating about my dog FFS! After I pointed out to her that her dog started it and that I had witnesses that would corroborate my version of events, and that her dog was off lead in a 'non off lead dog exercise area' and my dog was on lead and that her dog had raced up to my 'on lead' dog and latched onto his throat, then she started to back pedal. I did point out to her how her dog could easily become a designated 'dangerous dog' under WA's Dog Act.

    Sheesh! I'd just like dog owners to take responsibility for their dogs. Is that really too much to ask?

    ricey

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    206

    Default

    I don't think it's too much to ask. The problem is that everyone's idea of "responsible" dog ownership is different.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Rural Victoria
    Posts
    159

    Default

    This particular situation is in my back yard and I do know some of the parties concerned.

    I feel most sorry for Butch, who has been impounded for months for no fault of his own but because his owners broke the law for 6 years by making no attempt to register him (before the restricted breed laws) and then when they because alarmed because of the new state govt. legislation they tried to register him at the last moment during the amnesty period. When they failed to do so in time, due to not properly reading the counci's perfectly clear fee schedule, the council then seized the dog, in my opinion as a test case to find out the limits of the laws imposed upon them by state govt.

    In my personal opinion, the council and the owners and the stupid state govt. legislation are all at fault, and the real loser is poor old Butch.

    I am aware of more than one bully breed dog in the Ballarat area, which council officers have assessed as 'pit bull type' using the ludicrous State Govt. guidlelines, so have refused ordinary dog registration. In those cases, the dog remains in the owner's back yard, with full knowledge of the council, while the owners seek paperwork to prove that the dogs in question are not pit bulls or pit bull crosses. Poor Butch is a test case, and while that is unresolved, council's butt is covered and they cannot be blamed for NOT seizing the others.

    ETA : The legistlation re restricted breeds is stupid but so are people who can't be bothered spending money on council registration, microchipping or desexing for 6 years and then scream blue murder when they fall afoul the law.
    Last edited by RuralPug; 05-25-2012 at 09:01 PM. Reason: hit

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,583

    Default

    The legistlation re restricted breeds is stupid but so are people who can't be bothered spending money on council registration, microchipping or desexing for 6 years and then scream blue murder when they fall afoul the law.
    yeah but this never used to be an automatic death sentence for the dog. If the owners had continued as they were, not registering the dog, chances are it would not be news, in the news, and the dog woudl be as it was before.

    No good deed goes unpunished.

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
  •