Letters to the editor
Feb 26, 2013 / 8:48 pm
There are several things you should know. All the complaints came from a two block area. The Judge in Provincial Court stipulated that no matter where else Diesel was taken he interacted without any attacks.
As far as taxpayers money being wasted, you should look to the RDCO. The Provincial Court Judge also noted that the failure of RDCO to use other options available to them could in itself a reason to return Diesel to me.
A ticket would have avoided all the costs to the taxpayer and to me. With regards to my history, I have had six other dogs since 1978 in Peachland without ever being in a situation like this, much less any complaints.
I do not agree that I am irresponsible. The RDCO was well aware that I was involved in a dispute with several neighbors.
You do the math. No complaints or incidents outside of a two block area. Is that a dog issue, an owner issue, or a neighbor issue?
Diesel was also assessed by a provincially recognized expert who said Diesel would not attack, but would respond if attacked.
Testimony in Court was given to this exact occurrence. The Judge discounted this and ALL other evidence for the defense. The SC Judge had to decide on existing evidence.
No new evidence was allowed, yet he still overturned a lot of the decision. No one is perfect. It is possible that Diesel has been unfairly found guilty, and that may be partly my fault for not retaining a lawyer right at the beginning.
Read more Letters to the editor
for these and other issues.
- Feds: 'Fire the thieves' May 19
- Crude gas prices May 19
- Dog gone mad May 16
- Dog gone kindness May 16
- Casting a ballot May 16
(Click for RSS instructions.)