Edited post to have info on one page.
Edited post to have info on one page.
Last edited by CK1; 08-02-2015 at 11:39 PM.
The law was voted on and passed on December 27, 2012. However, the law did not take effect until January 1, 2015. Therefore, this law does not apply to this case because the law was not in force at the time of this incident.
Here is what I found:
Is the Dog Act in power?
In December of 2012 the Dog Act was unanimously approved in Parliament. Because dog owners may need time to adapt to the new rules in the Dog Act, article 11 in the Dog Act states that the Minister of Justice must set a date on which the Dog Act comes into power. The Dog Act will come into power on January 1, 2015.
Why was implementation of the Dog Act postponed?
For some dog owners, the Dog Act will cause them to make changes in the way they keep their dogs. This needs to be explained to the public and some time should be given to adapt to the new situation. Luckily many dog owners do already comply and the new Dog Act doesn’t change anything for them.
What are the most important changes compared to the old Dog Act issued in 1955?
The new Dog Act states that:
- You, owner or caretaker, are responsible for the well-being of your dog (food, water, shelter, enough space to walk around, and veterinary medical care when suffering).
- You should always keep your dog on your terrain and it also states how you must do that in a Ministerial Decree: fenced in, dog run cable, or dog run.
- Outside your terrain you must keep your dog on a leash.
More at link:
In Ms. Hajdinyak's case, I wonder which adjustments she had made since Dec 2012? As it now became obvious there have been at least three announcements made to inform the public about the new Dog Act.
It seems the dog was still off leash, was still roaming the streets and beach despite she has a fenced-in-yard as I understood. The dog was neither micro-chipped nor tattooed nor wearing a collar with an ID tag, the dog did not have a collar to prevent ticks or was otherwise medically treated against ticks etc etc...
As the link states: "Luckily many dog owners do already comply and the new Dog Act doesn’t change anything for them."
Well, Ms. Hajdinyak it not one of them despite she has the means, IMO. It seems her priorities were clearly somewhere else. JMO.
Here's the one thing I do not understand about this whole situation. If this woman could spend all this money to get the dog back can someone please tell me why she couldn't spend $20 for a collar and a leash and a dog tag with her # on it and the dog's name? And also, take the dog for a walk like a normal human being does when they own a dog. Don't let it roam the streets.
I mean please, she comes to America to fight the case. Yes, I know she is a flight attendant so the airfare doesn't apply to her. But she does this and then can't even spend money to buy a collar and a dog tag with at least the dog's name and her telephone number.
And even though this "ACT" wasn't implemented at the time that this happened, who cares? As a "so called dog owner", she had a responsibility to that dog. I know that, everyone knows that, I don't need the government to tell me that. If I love my animal, I would be doing that already, no one needs to implement a law to tell me to do that. And if she LOVES this dog as much as she says she does and is only on the island 6 months and is flying all over as a flight attendant, then why would you want to put this dog back in the same situation it was in roaming the streets?
It boils down to love and as one member said, "what's best for the dog".
i hope that the judge sees and acknowledges these things that you pointed out gaby.
however, the usa judge cannot rule that a leash law was being broken with the dog roaming the streets freely as if it were a stray.
now if i were the judge, i would absolutely rule in favor of the defendants m/m o'connell.
does anyone know when the judge will set his ruling?
you're right about that Andrea, the judge can't rule on the leash law but the judge can rule that this dog was abandoned and therefore up for grabs for adoption. I still say, if she has no papers, no collar, no license for this dog, who's to say it is hers if it was roaming the street. Maybe she just likes lawsuits. And don't think that's unheard of at all. We had quite a few people that loved to file lawsuits (not as rare as you might think).
I say, tell the couple to call the Humane Society and have them picket outside the courthouse, lol......
Does anybody know where this alleged Aruban "co-owner" is? Did he show up in court?
I am not taking sides and I will not "judge" since I (like the majority of people) do not know all of the facts and I won't speculate without ALL facts since this is not my case, not my dog, I was not there, etc. etc. But here is an interview with Yentl from Aruba's channel 15 that gives more details (and also plenty of photos on this Facebook page showing Whitey in Aruba with a collar in many photos). Just food for thought.
Yes, they did show up in court on both occasions when they were asked to be there.
"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts." - - Marcus Aurelius
33rd trip to Aruba - May 2016
San Fran/Napa Valley - Sept. 2016
Barcelona, Mallorca, and Andorra - Nov. 2016
This interview with Yentl represents Cornelia's "Version of the truth".
However, it is not consistent what other people involved in this case have to say. It is not even consistent with Cornelia's own words and actions.
well if the o'connell's are to be believed, they saw this dog one day, then a couple of days later still with no collar, still roaming around. to me, case closed. this dog was abandoned, not in the traditional sense but more of a "whatever" sense. and if Aruba has a euthanasia tradition, then that dog would not be around for a year before you can take it as the lawyer in the article said. it would have already been put down.