Page 4393 - Week 11 - Thursday, 25 October 2018

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

(7) If a dog/s was returned to its owner (a) was the owner charged holding fees for the dog/s for that period, (b) were any DAS charges waived, (c) was the dog registered prior to being released, (d) was the owner charged with a fee for registration, (e) were registration fees waived, (f) was the dog microchipped prior to release, (g) was the dog desexed prior to release, (h) and it was it was desexed, who paid for the procedure and (i) has that dog subsequently come to the attention of DAS since the date of the attack on 15 March 2016.

(8) Has the owner of the dog/s identified in the attack on 15 Match 2016 (a) had any dog that was in their care or ownership come to the attention of DAS since and (b) ever had any fees or charges waived for charges incurred by or due to DAS.

Mr Steel: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) Two.

(2) Yes.

(3) Yes, both dogs were seized.

(4) Yes.

(a) Neither dog was registered.

(b) Only one dog was microchipped.

(d) A Warning Notice had been issued.

(5) Both dogs were seized and impounded.

(6)

(a) One dog was euthanised on 20 July 2016.

(b) The second dog was held by DAS and eventually surrendered to DAS. It was subsequently rehomed on 11 August 2017.

(7) Neither dog was returned to the owner/s.

(a) N/A.

(b) No.

(d) Yes.

(e) No.

(f) Yes.

(g) The new owner organised the de-sexing of the dog on its impoundment at a private veterinary clinic.

(h) The new owner.

(i) No.

(8)

(a) No.

(b) No.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video