Rosetta Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Poor people lost their little dog Grommet when it was killed by another dog at a kennel at Bracken Ridge in SE Qld. A reminder to thoroughly check out kennels and make sure that dogs are separated. RIP little Grommet - 10 years old and to be killed like that Pleased that the owners are suing. http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/brisbane-couple-sue-after-their-pet-dies-in-a-boarding-pet-motel-at-bracken-ridge/story-fnii5v6w-1226677294501 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 So because of humans two dogs are dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I feel for the owners of both dogs. If I owned the "attacking" dog I would be suing as well. The kennel has killed 2 dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pjrt Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) I feel for the owners of both dogs. If I owned the "attacking" dog I would be suing as well. The kennel has killed 2 dogs. yes that is what I thought too. It was the kennels mismanagement of 2 dogs that resulted in this tragedy. The owner of the attacking dog has as much right to be pissed off at the kennel. Their dog may also still be alive if not for the kennel mismanaging their dog. Sad situation all around Edited July 11, 2013 by skyefool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 How terrible for both dogs and both owners. I also feel very sorry for the attacking dog and its owners as others have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trisven13 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Way too close to home for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Extremely sad for the dogs and their owners on both sides but I don't know how this case will go because this is the truth under our constitution: Tracey Jackson, of Couper Geysen, Family and Animal Lawyers, said people had not previously sued because the law considered animals to be property. They could sue for damage or loss of property but to get Grommet's Law and change how companion animals are viewed they'd have to change the constitution and I can't see that happening. This is why I am so confused about BSL - if under the constitution animals are our property then how can council come and seize it? In effect they are stealing it and should be compensating people for that. Just like if they resume some of your land to widen a road they have to recompense for it. Both owners should sue the kennel owners for loss of property even though it wont bring their fur babies back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loving my Oldies Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Heartbreaking for all concerned. Take your eye of the ball and tragedy happens. Happened to me Monday 22 September 2008(my eye off the ball) and even nearly 5 years later, I think of my dog every day of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fit for a King Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 How do you know it's a kennel from Bracken Ridge? It doesn't mention a suburb in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 How do you know it's a kennel from Bracken Ridge? It doesn't mention a suburb in the article. The headlines and link mention it, but it changes it when you click on it. I'm thinking they had to change any identifying details but the cached details are still there. If you google it the suburb is mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellnme Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 A nightmare for the owners of both dogs, but they lose me when they ask for money, in this case, $25,000. Nothing would bring back your precious dog, and how can getting money help at all? I would like to see that the kennel owners were fined (which they were from BCC) and lift their game so that nothing like this could ever happen again to any animal. Offering the price of a replacement dog should happen, however "insulting" the owners think that is, but $25,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 A nightmare for the owners of both dogs, but they lose me when they ask for money, in this case, $25,000. Nothing would bring back your precious dog, and how can getting money help at all? I would like to see that the kennel owners were fined (which they were from BCC) and lift their game so that nothing like this could ever happen again to any animal. Offering the price of a replacement dog should happen, however "insulting" the owners think that is, but $25,000? I would sue an owner of the kennel if their mismanagement killed my dog. Yes, it won't bring the dog back but after a substantial fine it would be worth their effort to properly manage dogs in the future. The same applies to any dog that attacked mine - I would sue the owner so that the message would get out: control your dog or face a PROPER financial penalty. The sad fact of the matter is that it would be more economic for the kennel to continue to leave dogs together unattended and pay the odd cost of replacement than it would be for them to manage dogs in their care properly. The $25k changes that equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosetta Posted July 11, 2013 Author Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) Yes I see the premise of the case being around the pain and suffering caused to the owners through the negligence of the kennel rather than the monetary value of the animal. If they are successful it will give all kennels an incentive to lift their game. I don't think they would give a rats about the money - they want the kennel to be held accountable. Yes awful for both dogs - but the second dog would have had a kinder death. Edited July 11, 2013 by Rosetta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalathebear Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Extremely sad for the dogs and their owners on both sides but I don't know how this case will go because this is the truth under our constitution:Tracey Jackson, of Couper Geysen, Family and Animal Lawyers, said people had not previously sued because the law considered animals to be property. They could sue for damage or loss of property but to get Grommet's Law and change how companion animals are viewed they'd have to change the constitution and I can't see that happening. The Constitution has nothing to do with it. The Constitution is the supreme law under which the Commonwealth Government of Australia operates, including its relationship to the States of Australia and is only amended by a double majority referendum of all States and Territories. This issue would involve changing State/Territory laws relating to animals and personal property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) A nightmare for the owners of both dogs, but they lose me when they ask for money, in this case, $25,000. Nothing would bring back your precious dog, and how can getting money help at all? I would like to see that the kennel owners were fined (which they were from BCC) and lift their game so that nothing like this could ever happen again to any animal. Offering the price of a replacement dog should happen, however "insulting" the owners think that is, but $25,000? What it WILL do is raise insurance premiums for kennels and consequently kennel fees for boarding. When kennels become financially unviable and close or you can't find a place to board your dog that doesn't cost a kidney, hark back to this story. No dog should die due to kennel owner neglience (assuming there actually was any) but the only winners out of all of this will be the lawyers. Edited July 11, 2013 by Haredown Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxbright Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Not the first time this kennel has been in trouble though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvawilow Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 What it WILL do is raise insurance premiums for kennels and consequently kennel fees for boarding. When kennels become financially unviable and close or you can't find a place to board your dog that doesn't cost a kidney, hark back to this story. No dog should die due to kennel owner neglience (assuming there actually was any) but the only winners out of all of this will be the lawyers. Good point, I hadn't thought of that. How sad for both dogs and their owners at losing their pets due to some form of negligence. However, I do not understand what relevance the comment about the deceased dog being handed to owners frozen has to do with anything, would they have rather be handed a decaying body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Extremely sad for the dogs and their owners on both sides but I don't know how this case will go because this is the truth under our constitution:Tracey Jackson, of Couper Geysen, Family and Animal Lawyers, said people had not previously sued because the law considered animals to be property. They could sue for damage or loss of property but to get Grommet's Law and change how companion animals are viewed they'd have to change the constitution and I can't see that happening. The Constitution has nothing to do with it. The Constitution is the supreme law under which the Commonwealth Government of Australia operates, including its relationship to the States of Australia and is only amended by a double majority referendum of all States and Territories. This issue would involve changing State/Territory laws relating to animals and personal property. The Constitution sits above state, territory and local law. No state, territory or local laws should be developed in a way that obstructs our constitution as these were the agreed modus operandi for the establishment of this colony. From memory it is only a rep of the Crown who can approve the alteration of the constitution. Of course it happens all the time (particularly at LG level) and no-one knows about fighting them in a higher court or perhaps does not have the money to see it through. My sister is heavily involved in constitutionally based court cases regarding farms and other items considered property under the constitution. These have been or are presently before the Supreme Court and there is also a large Australian case currently before the International Court for constitutional breaches regarding property use and theft by federal, state and local authorities. As long as our 'property' is not harming another then the constitution is there to protect what we own, not have our use of it governed minutely by lesser authorities or even taken away from us by them. There is a very large movement around this because of land use laws that are denying farmers their basic rights to use their land as they see fit. I'm really surprised anyone involved in a BSL matter isn't also using this approach - if their property has done nothing to harm another then under our constitution no federal, state or local authority or officer has the right to seize, contain or destroy it. And where local, state or federal laws are at odds with our constitution then the constitution takes precedence. QLD is a little different as it is actually running as a corporation and not a state govt. Whole other story and set of rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 An awful situation but I also get confused when people sue as they still will be traumatised and their dog will still be gone. People have had goes at me because I won't run dogs together that are not from the same family- even if they are and the owner wants them runseperately they are. I am often there by myself and I know if two dogs got in a fight I would have buckleys of getting them apart. I couldn't think of anything worse than that phonecall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory the Doted One Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 It wouldn't just be kennel fees that would go up. If it's a test case, then the same thing would apply to vets wouldn't it? I feel horrified that animals were put into this situation, something completely avoidable. But I have some mixed feelings about the whole story and the way it was written. But then that could be said for a lot of news stories lately. 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