Wonderful news! Bravo, CSC and all involved!!
Friday, December 4, 2009
Program serving women, dogs, and children is put down
A little-known but highly successful and internationally acclaimed program benefitting three different constituencies has been cut. We wonder: how can this bad bureacratic behavior be corrected?
Correctional Service of Canada has pulled the plug on a unique dog training program at the women’s prison in Truro, leaving its outgoing director distraught for the inmates, the animals and future recipients of the highly trained animals. The Pawsitive Directions Canine Program at the federal Nova Institute for Women had jailed women caring for and teaching obedience to shelter dogs to be paired with disabled clients.
Heather Logan, who has run the program under contract with the prison since 1996, said she told administrators in mid-November that she would retire in six weeks but her trained replacement was in place to keep the program going. Instead, she was shocked to learn that administrators had axed the program, lauded for its success in helping inmates learn highly marketable skills and rescuing dogs from shelters to help those with special needs.
“This is devastating,” Ms. Logan said Thursday from her home in Upper Stewiacke. “There are woman and dogs and children being hurt by this action.”
There were six dogs in various stages of the program, with one just three months away from being certified as a service dog. Prince had been paired with a boy from Onslow, but it is unknown if the training will be completed.
Ms. Logan has heard a rescue group in Halifax has been asked to find homes for the dogs.
The program director, her trained assistant Cathie Bell and the inmates were informed of the decision late last week and this week.
Calls to the correctional service and prison administrators in Truro were not returned on Thursday.
Ms. Logan said she doesn’t know why the program has been discontinued.
“Up to this point, I’ve not had a bad relationship with (prison administrators).”
She said if cost had been the issue, she had proposed running the program at a lower rate as a correctional service employee and not as a contractor, but the plan was not accepted.
The dog behaviourist, who teaches courses at the University of Prince Edward Island and the Nova Scotia Agricultural College, said the prison probably axed the program now because she had to step down a few weeks early for medical reasons.
But Ms. Logan said she had assured the prison that Ms. Bell, who works and volunteers for Pawsitive Directions several times a week, was ready to take over.
“I had no intention of leaving my women or my program high and dry.”
Ms. Bell, who first met Ms. Logan several years ago when she was looking for a dog for a nursing home, confirms that she was more than willing to step in, even just temporarily if the prison wanted to put someone else in charge. She is equally distraught about the change. “I’m upset about what I feel they’re doing to these women and the families who need these dogs,” Ms. Bell said Thursday.
Mel Harris, who is originally from Truro but lives in Labrador City, said his family’s been thrilled with their now 12-year-old border collie mix Lucky, who they adopted in 1998 as a companion for daughter Lynn, who has cerebral palsy. He said Lucky was less than 24 hours from being put to death at a shelter when rescued by Ms. Logan.
“Lynn took to him right away,” he said Thursday. “He’s a member of the family.”
Mr. Harris, who joined a Facebook group devoted to lobbying the correctional service to overturn the decision and has also written directly to the government agency, said he was sad to learn Pawsitive Directions had been axed.
“I had no intention of leaving my women or my program high and dry.”
Ms. Bell, who first met Ms. Logan several years ago when she was looking for a dog for a nursing home, confirms that she was more than willing to step in, even just temporarily if the prison wanted to put someone else in charge. She is equally distraught about the change. “I’m upset about what I feel they’re doing to these women and the families who need these dogs,” Ms. Bell said Thursday.
Mel Harris, who is originally from Truro but lives in Labrador City, said his family’s been thrilled with their now 12-year-old border collie mix Lucky, who they adopted in 1998 as a companion for daughter Lynn, who has cerebral palsy. He said Lucky was less than 24 hours from being put to death at a shelter when rescued by Ms. Logan.
“Lynn took to him right away,” he said Thursday. “He’s a member of the family.”
Mr. Harris, who joined a Facebook group devoted to lobbying the correctional service to overturn the decision and has also written directly to the government agency, said he was sad to learn Pawsitive Directions had been axed.
“The program was a win-win situation for everybody involved,” he said. “I don’t know who’s making the decision, but it doesn’t seem to make sense.”Fifteen inmates at a time took part in the three-tier obedience program that took two and a half years to complete. In the latter part of the program, the women worked with the future recipients of the service dogs.
When released from prison, the women have gone on to work at veterinary offices, dog daycares, kennels and even zoos. Ms. Logan said one former inmate now owns and operates a successful dog day care and boarding facility.
She said prison administrators told participating inmates on Wednesday that they wanted to provide different vocational training.
“The whole point of a vocational program is to get employment that is full-time, is meaningful and keeps the women out of prison. That’s what the canine program has done.”
The director said the decision is even more puzzling considering that the prison built a new wing for the program with a dog bath and outdoor play area. But in hindsight, she said the area has been finished since August and her group had never been allowed to use it.
(plee@herald.ca)
Once again, a government agency that doesn't live up to its own commitments without bothering to say why. Hard to see CSC's wisdom in cutting this special program, especially after it funded the construction of a purpose-built wing. Why penalize success?
Why this highly acclaimed program has been relatively unknown here in NS is also a mystery. We already knew about it, but not many of our dog-loving friends did. Now it might be gone for good.
We can't help but hope that somehow the decision to cancel this program will turn out to be bureaucratic mix-up. Maybe they really meant to cancel something else, like the underwater basket-weaving program at the men's prison. If so, we hope this error can be swiftly corrected, so that the two- and four-legged creatures benefitting from it won't be disappointed.
We also feel, under the circumstances, no rescue group ought to help re-home these dogs. Instead, how great would it be if all the rescue groups in the province would come forward to urge the authorities to keep the program, so that the boy in Onslow, and others like him, won't lose their chance for a special companion?
Let's train ourselves to do better!
Correctional Service of Canada (CSC)
Focus on … Restorative Justice
Restorative justice is a non-adversarial, non-retributive approach to justice that emphasizes healing in victims, meaningful accountability of offenders, and the involvement of citizens in creating healthier, safer communities.
It gives all parties involved in a conflict the opportunity to take an active role in a safe and respectful process that allows open dialogue between the victim, offender and the community.
About Heather A. Logan
In 1995, Corrections Services Canada invited Heather to design and implement a dog-training program for Nova Institution, the Federal Prison for Women, in Truro, Nova Scotia. Pawsitive Directions Canine Program involves much more than training assistance dogs. Heather also teaches inmates to incorporate the principles of operant conditioning behaviour analysis into all areas of their lives.
This program has been highlighted in Dogs in Canada, Dogs with Jobs, Readers Digest and a recently released book, More Great Dog Stories. Heather’s work has been profiled on television programs such as Fifth Estate, Live at Five and Dogs with Jobs. Pawsitive Directions Canine Program has been highlighted as a top prison program in Canada for the years 2000 to present and in December 2005 became the only program to be highlighted at the International Corrections Program Symposium in Paris, France.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Update on the Bingley case: documents and media
Janice Bingley has made her documents available here.
CTV Halifax covered the story in the 6 pm news, Dec. 1;
and The News of Pictou covered it as well.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The NS SPCA's Christmas ultimatum: Pay now or forever lose your dogs!
In an action we find difficult to explain from the known laws, the SPCA has issued an itemized bill totaling close to $16,000 to Janice Bingley, owner of 22 dogs seized in mid-October, half of them Great Danes just two weeks old, with their allegedly emaciated mother.
Bingley and her friends recently described the bill, which she received a few days ago, on a Facebook group. The tally of $15,797.98 includes wages for special constables and the cost of renting and fueling a van to take the animals from their home near New Glasgow to the Metro Shelter in Dartmouth, as well as the care and feeding of the puppies and the seven adult dogs since the seizure, with vaccinations and other vet treatment administered.
According to Bingley, in a letter delivered to her by the local Westville police, the SPCA set a deadline for payment of the massive sum by December 18. If she fails to pay in full by that date, the SPCA said it will assume ownership of all of the animals. And the costs listed only cover up to November 30, so they presumably continue to mount.
Meanwhile no charges have been laid against Bingley, and her lawyer and vet have been unable to get a reply to their inquiries about the situation. The SPCA shelter has reportedly placed all or most of the dogs to foster homes.
The letter did not cite any legal basis for such an ultimatum, or indeed why the urgency. But certainly, with children of her own to care for, Bingley is not likely to be in a position to fork over such a princely sum just weeks before Christmas.
UPDATE: Janice Bingley posted this scan of the letter on her Facebook profile:
The text of the letter is as follows:
November 20, 2009
Janice Bingley
1035 Lyon's Lane
Westville,
Pictou County,
Nova Scotia
Dear Ms. Bingley:
Further to the seizure of your animals on October 19, 2009, please find a statement of cost incurred by the Society in caring for the animals up to and including November 20, 2009.
These expenses are your responsibility and it is my expectation that by close of business December 18, 2009 you will either have made full payment or will have made alternate payment arrangements that are satisfactory to me.
In the event you do not make necessary arrangements for the payment, the animals will become the property of the SPCA.
Should you have any questions concerning the above noted matter, I can be reached at the Provincial Office at 835-4798. Mail should be sent to Nova Scotia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty, Suite 209, 1600 Bedford Highway, Bedford, N.S. B4A 1E8.
Yours truly,
The NOVA SCOTIA SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
Roger Joyce
Chief Provincial Investigator
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Still no charges laid against Bingley
"Hard to think this has gone on for four weeks now and still no charges," commented a friend on Facebook last night.
A lot of discussion surrounds the saga of these 22 dogs, about 14 of them puppies, seized in October from owner Janice Bingley in Westville by the SPCA. Bingley says her lawyer, her MLA, and her vet have all attempted to contact the SPCA for information about pending charges and the health of the dogs, but to no avail. Taken at the tender age of two weeks, the 11 Great Dane puppies in the group are the source of much speculation, as is the concern that the dogs were being pre-emptively advertised for adoption. Other rumours abound that the call that led to the seizure was made by a neighbor, or a prospective puppy purchaser, or a local cop.
The dogs are said to be doing well in the care of the SPCA, although their actual whereabouts are kept confidential. But the story is raising many questions about the system of anti-cruelty law enforcement now in place in Nova Scotia:
- Was an actual investigation carried out, or did the SPCA merely respond to the call and immediately get a warrant for seizure and execute it without further ado?
- Should the same time limit for laying charges after seizure of inanimate property (six months) apply in matters involving live animals?
- Does the owner have the right to be kept informed of the animals' location and status?
- Should the SPCA have seized all of the animals, healthy or not?
- For that matter, was it advisable or necessary to transport an emaciated nursing mother who gave birth only two weeks previous?
While she waited for news, Ms. Bingley posted several excerpts of legal documents and guidelines, including this section of the Canadian Federation position statement on animal transport:
Thursday, November 12, 2009
CBC story:
The Halifax Regional Municipality is looking for a new animal shelter service to house rescued and neglected dogs, cats and exotic animals.
The city is looking for a shelter with a minimum of 15 kennels for dogs, five for cats and at least one for other animals such as ferrets and reptiles.
It must also have a contingency plan to handle any overflow and a way to care for animals for an extended period of time if they are held for evidence or court proceedings.
The shelter would be the keeper for all animals picked up by HRM Animal Services, so the tender also calls for a facility that can provide 24-hour access for animal by-law officers.
Coun. David Hendsbee said the city is not interested in building its own facility because it would cost more than $1 million.
"All we're doing is looking for a venue available to us to use for services … a proponent in the general public to see if they have a facility either available now or want to build a facility they can utilize to service this contract," he said.
Old contract expires
The current shelter, run by the Nova Scotia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, receives about $500,000 a year from the city for its services. But the city's contract with the non-profit organization expires next spring.
A study by the municipality in 2005 found that the SPCA shelter in Burnside was "barely adequate in virtually every aspect of shelter management."
"Because of its poor design, it makes it extremely difficult to provide proper upkeep and maintenance," the report said. "It is surprising what is being accomplished in spite of the condition of the facility."
The report concluded that upgrading the facility was "virtually impossible" without gutting the entire building and renovating the inside.
Hendsbee said Friday the SPCA may still put in a bid on the current tender, but there could also be other interested parties.
"I think there's a number of kennel operations and other pet-care facilities out there that may want to look at this as an opportunity," he said. "We may have vacant warehouses anywhere in the Metro area that could possibly be utilized."
The contract is for a maximum of five years. Proposals must be submitted by Dec. 1 and municipal officials want the service to be in place by next April 1.
Interesting that the word "pound" does not appear in this article. Wonder why?
Click here to see our earlier post about the pound contract and the SPCA's budget
We have a clarification or two to add to the CBC story:
First of all, HRM does not contract the SPCA to run a shelter. It contracts it to run a POUND. The "pound" is presently an area within the Metro Shelter. The article fails to make the distinction.Second, comments on the CBC page were right to point out the dichotomy between one million dollars and the very small numbers of kennels Hendsbee says the city needs.
It should be known that Hendsbee's figure of $1 million is based on a study by HRM staff from a few years ago, prior to the first pound/AC contract it signed with the SPCA. At that time, apparently the city did not want to take on the task of launching its own shelter. So to discourage councilors from voting for it, the staff inflated the estimated costs to one million dollars. That figure backfired, however, because it led the SPCA to bid very high - $400,000 - for the pound and AC services.
It should and would not cost one million dollars to build a pound of such a small size; in fact, it's doubtful a much larger pound would even cost so much. Retrofitting a warehouse or even a farmhouse with lots of cheap land around it is entirely doable for less.
Lastly, HRM needs a much bigger facility for both the pound and the main shelter. The study mentioned pointed this out. The Metro Shelter is considerably smaller than shelters run for cities that are barely half the size of HRM.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Do Animal Control Authorities (dog catchers) have to be nincompoops?
from the Canada Free Press
By Dean A. Ayers Thursday, August 20, 2009
Do Animal Control Services (sometimes misnamed as a “Humane Society)” enforce animal control duties thru tyranny without “due process” or justice or even a nuisance complaint? Do Animal Control Authorities (dog catchers) have to be “nincompoops” to work for Animal Control Services (sometimes misnamed as a “Humane Society)” in their communities, or does just being a “nincompoop” in enforcing animal control duties just help tyranny without “due process” or justice prevail in animal care, control, and license laws?
Some “Nincompoop” Animal Control examples:
- In March 2009, Animal Control in Providence, Utah allegedly was going door to door to check on dog licenses. Yeah, let’s spend our time going after people whose dogs haven’t actually caused a problem. Mayor Randy Simmons put a stop to it.
- A few months ago, Animal Control in South Salt Lake, Utah allegedly left a skunk trap out in the hot sun for an entire weekend, then tried to prosecute the guy who moved the trap out of the sun.
- Last year, Sandy Animal Control allegedly picked up a 17 year old deaf cat on a sidewalk near its house and, unable to tell the difference between an old deaf cat and a sick cat, immediately killed it. (NOTE: familiar story for Halifax - remember Jean Hanlon's cat?)
- A couple of years ago, Animal Control in Tooele, Utah allegedly was doing even worse: They were going door to door and ordering people to get rid of any pets over their “technical number” limit, regardless of whether there had been any problem or any neighbors had complained. The city council put a stop to it.
- Recently, West Jordan, Utah Animal Control allegedly cited a woman whose dog got out while she was visiting her mother. That was fine, but they also cited her for not having her dog licensed in West Jordan, Utah. It wasn’t good enough that it was already and legally licensed inSandy, Utah where she lives.
- A while back, another Animal Control department in Salt Lake County, Utah allegedly cited a woman for having her gate open under animal control laws, even though her dog was still inside the yard.
- Last year, West Valley, Utah allegedly was planning to use an inhumane gas chamber to euthanize pets. Still no word on the outcome of this alleged “Nazi-like” animal death camp procedure.
These are just recent examples of “tyranny” in animal control enforcement in one state alone, when in fact there are many other various and numerous cases of pet owner ‘civil rights” abuse by animal control “rogue” power and authority that can be found in all 50 states of this family animal filled nation. Many other “true” horror tales of tyranny animal law experiences with Animal Control Authorities are found in virtually every community; these being just a few examples of “nincompoops”, to verify what pet owners all across the nation have been publicly reporting as an “abuse of power” – “tyranny enforcement” by animal control authorities against pet owners who’s pets and animals are not a nuisance, nor being complained about (by anyone), or causing any problem in their locale with their pets and animals.
What “We the People” can’t figure out is whether Animal Control workers are told to be jerky, or does it just come naturally being an Animal Control “nincompoop” when they exercise “tyranny” enforcement by going door to door, or going to rural private property to rural private property intimidating, threatening, and coercing dog, cat, pet, or animal owners. Demanding unpaid “TAXES” on licenses for pets to be paid (on the spot) or face immediate confiscation of their pets to be enforced, and also the demanding to know if owners are over arbitrary set pet “number limits”, etc?
The ultimate perversion of “petty” animal complaint’s truth at its deepest core in society.
Many of our fellow citizens no longer have the tolerant souls and morals of free men and women towards animal ownership. They have the souls and morals of a now “perverted” mentality of busy-bodies and petty “tyrants” who want to ruin their neighbors’ lives, kill their dogs, cats, or other pets and end their neighbor’s pet ownership rights. All in the name of an animal’s right not to be owned by its master, but rather only be parented or controlled only by a ‘parent-guardian’ designation, which can be revoked by the “state” at any time with the “stroke” of a pen, called an animal law.
This is the ultimate perversion of truth at it’s deepest core in society, by not cherishing family values with pet ownership “intrinsic value” in private property freedom, as well as, having pets being accepted as a lawful and protected member of the ‘extended family’ with the human beings in that family. In simple terms, the acceptance of socialism in the dogma of a dog hating, animal destroying neighborhood and society has taken root in America. Maybe even next door to your dog, cat, or other pet animal.
Our dogs, cats, pets and animals are, in fact, an integral part of our loving family units, having purpose, attention, affection, interaction, respect, family interaction and happiness for both humans and the pet animals on an “intrinsic value’ level, not that of meager chattel. However, the “animal rights activists” and legislative body members (local city, state and federal), who follow the animal rights activist’s agenda to intentionally pervert the idea of a loving family with pet ownership interactions, has gone astray, from a logical and common sense way of thinking. These animal activist legal proposals are being implemented with intent of “malice” to the pet owners, as well as the pet animals themselves.
These animal rights intolerant people have become “tyrants” thru the use of our various legal systems and its “manipulated” proposal of animal care, animal license taxation, and controlling laws, destroying the very freedoms “We as People” seek and have a right to possess in a free society. This is a ‘realistic’ and ‘common sense’ brief documentary of the multitude of insanely ‘perverted’ proposal of violations of “pet ownership” rights and freedoms by none other than “nincompoops” wearing a badge or shoulder patch representing an animal control authority, implying they are a “Humane Society.”
The animal control and “taxation” laws by necessity of the written laws are not the highest obligation for the pet owner.
There are people so addicted to exaggeration they can’t tell the truth without lying. ~Josh Billings
A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self- preservation, of saving our country and our people, to include our extended family of dog, pets, and animals when in danger, are of higher obligation. Pets and animals morally, legally, and rightfully belong to you, the pet owner, not the government. Any “tyrant” can write a law taxing and controlling virtually anything or any animal, but this does not make the law constitutional or valid in the spirit or execution of law enforcement. Animal laws need to be legally “challenged” at every turn of the animal control screw by the “nincompoops” who extend enforcement to people not creating or causing any animal nuisance or problem on private property. Their alleged “nincompoop” sole goal is to create more “taxes” for their locale thru fees, fines, confiscations, seizures, or threats of criminal citations, fines, fees, or euthanasia of their animals if the pet owner does not comply. In a majority of animal care and control laws, there is “NO” legitimate and “NO” constitutional “due process” written in the animal law to enforce any lawful confiscation, seizure, or euthanasia of the pet owner’s animals. In a majority of cases the counties, or municipalities, essentially just “plagiarize” the writing of their own animal care and control laws from a neighboring county or municipality, never even considering or caring whether lawful “due process” is included in the newly “copied” law for their locale.
To lose our beloved pet animals, our family units and structure, and ultimately our freedom in this country by a unscrupulous adherence to written “anti-pet” ordinances and laws would be to lose the spirit of the lawful intent in law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us being dissolved as we speak in every state of the union. This is absolute absurdity sacrificing the end to the means in “tyranny” of animal care, animal license taxation, and control law enforcement.
Many dog owners in recent years have faced the unthinkable
A knock at their door that has heralded the arrival of an Animal Control officer with a complaint about your dog(s). In some cases that visit has been concluded satisfactorily to both the dog owner and the animal control officer; in others it has meant the heartache of either seizure of the owner’s dog(s) or facing stiff fines for various reasons in citation.
With animal ownership laws undergoing evolving changes throughout the country, these ‘perverted’ evolving animal control laws are being actively used by ‘animal rights extremists’ some of which are in fact, animal control officers, and others in animal rights groups to enforce animal law tyranny as a means of dog owner ‘harassment.’ The possibility of a visit at your door on private property from Animal Control becomes ever more of a specter to haunt every dog owner.
Laws that ‘limit the number’ of dogs, cats. pets, and animals and also demand “license fees” for pets that never leave the home on their private property in a household are intended to make it easier to prosecute individuals who are thought to have “too many,” or “not enough animal tax paid” according to an arbitrary standard, but is also applied even to those people who are not in violation of health, nuisance and humane laws.
Pets and animals belong to YOU, not the government. The “number limit” laws and animal “tax” licensing laws are as different as ‘night is to day’ in all the various jurisdictions. None of these dog ‘limit laws’ or “animal tax license laws” are fair, balanced or lawful under the constitution with a proper established ‘due process’ to defend themselves and their animals “PRIOR”to confiscation or euthanasia of the animals belonging to the dog or pet owner documented in the ordinance itself.
ALWAYS, Always, always:
Remember that it is paramount that all pet owners educate themselves and learn their animal care and control laws in their area and have a plan, decision, and potential legal counsel known, documented (phone number) and at hand, in order for the pet owner to know how far they are willing and able to’stand your ground’ in knowing your ‘rights’ in responsible dog, pet and animal ownership if and when a “nincompoop” animal control authority comes knocking on your door, demanding to “steal” your dog, cat, pet, or animal from you, when you have “not’ been a nuisance on your own private property.
Remember when it comes to freely owning your dogs, cats, pets and animals in an area frequented by Animal Rights “Activists” or Animal Control Authorities, or “Nincompoops”, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
Monday, October 26, 2009
Westville SPCA Raid: right or wrong?
It's not clear exactly which criteria are used to decide when suspected abuse should lead to a seizure. Doubtless, the SPCA acts only when it thinks it has good reasons. To track down real abuse, the SPCA is bound to rely heavily on calls from neighbors. Only the most persistent neighbors - some goodhearted, some with other motives - seem to succeed in bringing about an investigation. Sorting the truth from the lies is a tough call. There are good and bad stories circulating throughout the province.
The public must trust that a group of volunteers know when to act, and, that they know how to enforce the law properly without harming animals or infringing the property rights of the people who own them. It's a tricky business at best. Of course, there is no guarantee that public officials (paid, trained) would do a better job - Quebec is a good case in point: there, animal advocates are suing the province's own governmental animal control agency for taking bribes from puppy mill owners (among other things).
So whether animal protection is the task of a charity or the government, some kind of oversight is probably a good idea. We cannot rely on the media to perform this function. When SPCA seizures are first reported, the details are usually scanty, as with this story. Not many more tend to emerge later. Nor do the media often independently confirm the facts. This makes for a murky situation whenever a raid is reported.
Here is the story from the Herald, published October 22, 2009:
Backyard puppy breeder faces animal cruelty charges
Animal protection officials expect to lay cruelty charges against a backyard dog breeder in Westville.
Provincial SPCA investigators seized 21 dogs from a Lyons Lane home on Monday, society president Sean E. Kelly confirmed Wednesday.
They included four adult Great Danes and 11 puppies, a chihuahua mix with three puppies and two other small mixed-breed dogs.
Mr. Kelly wouldn’t release many details while the matter is under investigation, but reported that seizing the animals was a last-ditch measure after other avenues to protect the dogs had failed.
The Society had been working with the breeder for an undisclosed period of time to improve the lot of the dogs, but moved to seize them when the health of one was threatened.
One of the mother dogs was dangerously emaciated, he said.
A warrant was obtained last Friday and executed on Monday by SPCA special constables, in conjunction with Westville police.
Mr. Kelly expects charges will be laid by mid-December under the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.
The unidentified suspect will likely appear in New Glasgow provincial court if charges are laid.
Neither backyard breeders nor large-scale puppy mills are crimes, but cruelty to animals is illegal, he said.
PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM JANICE BINGLEY
This letter appeared on Facebook with the request to circulate it. Thus, we're circulating it. Whether Mrs. Bringley is guilty of abuse is for a court to decide. However, her effort to be heard sharply contrasts the defiant attitude of convicted puppy miller Gail Benoit. Bingley's letter makes her pain quite tangible - something Benoit - whose lucrative sales of puppies ended in death all too soon, all too often - never expressed.
Animals seized from Westville home
Animal cruelty is one of the hardest things in life for us to except or understand. Why people can harm or mistreat something that is so devoted, so dependant and innocent lack all reasoning. At the slightest hint, people react. They jump to the defense of the animal and attack the people they feel responsible. They judge without facts. It’s human nature. I am writing this, to give you some facts.
I own 7 dogs – not 20, not 23. There are 4 Danes, 1 Border collie mix, 1 Pomeranian and 1 Japanese chin. They range in ages from 1 year to 5 years.
My dogs are fed twice a day. I buy Alpo for the larger ones and Purina Puppy for the smaller ones. Shadow has been on Purina Puppy since she was bred, but has recently been switched to Iams Puppy along with can dog food, on vet recommendation.
All dogs were on a worming program with Strongid T. Their third dose was due on Monday.
All dogs were flee treated on the 20th of September and due for another dose on Tuesday the 20th of November.
All dogs were licensed through the Town of New Glasgow. We recently moved here to get away from our neighbor.
Two of the dogs were under vet care, Shadow being one of them. She was in on Sunday night and placed on antibiotics. Mojo had an appointment at 4 on Tuesday for a recheck and blood work. As of 2:30 on Tuesday, the SPCA had still not contacted my vet. The rest of the dogs were not in need of vet care at this time.
Shadow has a nervous condition. She does not like change. She will go off of her food for weeks at a time. She has been treated in the past for this. We’ve learned tricks to get her to eat. Bear has a food allergy and certain foods will make her fur fall out in clumps. Nobody is interested in talking to me to know what not to feed her. I bet they don’t even know which one she is.
Reports came in that they were severely dehydrated. They were tied to the inside rails of a cube van (not caged) and driven for who knows how long to who knows where. I would be thirsty too.
Previous complaints have come in by a neighbor. Animal control, the local police and the SPCA have all been in my home. They all left with no concerns that I was made aware off. There was always food, always shelter, the dogs were friendly. I received one written warning to buy non-tipping water dished, replace a dog house (which was done) and to remove the dogs from a muddy area. We bought a truck load of shavings to dump on the ground to soak up the extra water as it had been raining for a week. This is all documented somewhere but I assume I am not allowed copies as I have made a large number of calls. Nobody will call me back.
The lady I believe continuously reported me tried in every way to have the dogs removed. She even called CAS and reported that my children were playing in feces, which was unfounded. We had a kennel; she called the town and made us have it removed. She even barged into our house once. I tried to have her charged with harassment, but we were told to move.
Willi has 3 puppies. I did not even realize she was in heat until it was too late. Her pups were born on Oct 2 between 1 and 2:30 in the morning. Her pups were not for sale, we were offering them to friends so we could still see them as adults.
Shadow’s breeding was planned. I had a list of potential buyers. On Oct 4th, she gave birth to 15 puppies in total. We lost 4, and they were breech and difficult for her. She was scared and confused, unsure of what to do, so with the vet on the phone I cut the first puppies cord and removed the sac. I drove the answering service for the vets crazy that day I’m sure. I called a lot. I cut every cord, I wiped every puppy down. I can tell you their birth order.
If you gave birth to 15 babies, would you be at your peak?
The 8th dog on the property was not even mine. She arrived here with her litter of 8 puppies when they were 5 days old. She needed a temporary home. The agreement was to sell the pups for 50 dollars each and use the money to spay her. The spay costs $235 plus tax. They will not spay her until she is first vaccinated, than she must wait 4 weeks after the needle. They will not vaccinate her until her milk is dry. She was going in on the 18 of November for her needle.
We are not a puppy mill, nor a back yard breeder. This was both Shadow and Willi’s first and last litter. I have received deposits for 5 of Shadows pups. That money is put up for their needles on the 18th of November. The balance of the pups was going to be used to spay and neuter 5 of the dogs plus 3 cats. I had no way of finically doing it other wise. Two of the pups were going to New Brunswick. We were delivering to their doors. I would not sell one of my babies without meeting the person first.
I openly invited you people into my home to see my dogs. I hid nothing nor had anything to hide. Shadow was battling with her weight, she was thin. The vet said she had no body fat left but he did not keep her. She walked in and out on her own four feet, without even a leash. She was eating, she was starting to gain.
You people barged into our home out of the blue. You tore apart our lives. You hurt my children, you hurt me. You wouldn’t even give me your names. If I am so cruel to my animals why did you only take the dogs? There are other animals here.
I opened up a face book page. The email is cosmothegreat@live.com. Add me. You will see what they took from us. You look, than you judge me. You know where I live, come see where the dogs lived, I have touched nothing. Knock on my door. I have nothing to hide. I am not afraid. They are wrong. My name is Janice Bingley and there’s nothing you can do to hurt me anymore. All I ask is that you save your hate for me, leave my children alone. I don’t know what else to do.
We want our family back, I need my family back.
Animal cruelty is one of the hardest things in life for us to except or understand. Why people can harm or mistreat something that is so devoted, so dependant and innocent lack all reasoning. At the slightest hint, people react. They jump to the defense of the animal and attack the people they feel responsible. They judge without facts. It’s human nature. I am writing this, to give you some facts.
I own 7 dogs – not 20, not 23. There are 4 Danes, 1 Border collie mix, 1 Pomeranian and 1 Japanese chin. They range in ages from 1 year to 5 years.
My dogs are fed twice a day. I buy Alpo for the larger ones and Purina Puppy for the smaller ones. Shadow has been on Purina Puppy since she was bred, but has recently been switched to Iams Puppy along with can dog food, on vet recommendation.
All dogs were on a worming program with Strongid T. Their third dose was due on Monday.
All dogs were flee treated on the 20th of September and due for another dose on Tuesday the 20th of November.
All dogs were licensed through the Town of New Glasgow. We recently moved here to get away from our neighbor.
Two of the dogs were under vet care, Shadow being one of them. She was in on Sunday night and placed on antibiotics. Mojo had an appointment at 4 on Tuesday for a recheck and blood work. As of 2:30 on Tuesday, the SPCA had still not contacted my vet. The rest of the dogs were not in need of vet care at this time.
Shadow has a nervous condition. She does not like change. She will go off of her food for weeks at a time. She has been treated in the past for this. We’ve learned tricks to get her to eat. Bear has a food allergy and certain foods will make her fur fall out in clumps. Nobody is interested in talking to me to know what not to feed her. I bet they don’t even know which one she is.
Reports came in that they were severely dehydrated. They were tied to the inside rails of a cube van (not caged) and driven for who knows how long to who knows where. I would be thirsty too.
Previous complaints have come in by a neighbor. Animal control, the local police and the SPCA have all been in my home. They all left with no concerns that I was made aware off. There was always food, always shelter, the dogs were friendly. I received one written warning to buy non-tipping water dished, replace a dog house (which was done) and to remove the dogs from a muddy area. We bought a truck load of shavings to dump on the ground to soak up the extra water as it had been raining for a week. This is all documented somewhere but I assume I am not allowed copies as I have made a large number of calls. Nobody will call me back.
The lady I believe continuously reported me tried in every way to have the dogs removed. She even called CAS and reported that my children were playing in feces, which was unfounded. We had a kennel; she called the town and made us have it removed. She even barged into our house once. I tried to have her charged with harassment, but we were told to move.
Willi has 3 puppies. I did not even realize she was in heat until it was too late. Her pups were born on Oct 2 between 1 and 2:30 in the morning. Her pups were not for sale, we were offering them to friends so we could still see them as adults.
Shadow’s breeding was planned. I had a list of potential buyers. On Oct 4th, she gave birth to 15 puppies in total. We lost 4, and they were breech and difficult for her. She was scared and confused, unsure of what to do, so with the vet on the phone I cut the first puppies cord and removed the sac. I drove the answering service for the vets crazy that day I’m sure. I called a lot. I cut every cord, I wiped every puppy down. I can tell you their birth order.
If you gave birth to 15 babies, would you be at your peak?
The 8th dog on the property was not even mine. She arrived here with her litter of 8 puppies when they were 5 days old. She needed a temporary home. The agreement was to sell the pups for 50 dollars each and use the money to spay her. The spay costs $235 plus tax. They will not spay her until she is first vaccinated, than she must wait 4 weeks after the needle. They will not vaccinate her until her milk is dry. She was going in on the 18 of November for her needle.
We are not a puppy mill, nor a back yard breeder. This was both Shadow and Willi’s first and last litter. I have received deposits for 5 of Shadows pups. That money is put up for their needles on the 18th of November. The balance of the pups was going to be used to spay and neuter 5 of the dogs plus 3 cats. I had no way of finically doing it other wise. Two of the pups were going to New Brunswick. We were delivering to their doors. I would not sell one of my babies without meeting the person first.
I openly invited you people into my home to see my dogs. I hid nothing nor had anything to hide. Shadow was battling with her weight, she was thin. The vet said she had no body fat left but he did not keep her. She walked in and out on her own four feet, without even a leash. She was eating, she was starting to gain.
You people barged into our home out of the blue. You tore apart our lives. You hurt my children, you hurt me. You wouldn’t even give me your names. If I am so cruel to my animals why did you only take the dogs? There are other animals here.
I opened up a face book page. The email is cosmothegreat@live.com. Add me. You will see what they took from us. You look, than you judge me. You know where I live, come see where the dogs lived, I have touched nothing. Knock on my door. I have nothing to hide. I am not afraid. They are wrong. My name is Janice Bingley and there’s nothing you can do to hurt me anymore. All I ask is that you save your hate for me, leave my children alone. I don’t know what else to do.
We want our family back, I need my family back.
Janice Bingley
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Dog fatally injures kitten: $300 plus court fees, no problem.
From some members of Humane Halifax who attended provincial court last week, we heard about three cases of A300 violations.
In one, the charges were dismissed by the judge, who said the city had insufficient evidence. The owner of a dog who was attacked by the offending dog was present and testified. Normally, that is the only sort of evidence available, barring photos of injuries or vet bills.
In a second case, the city dropped one of the charges, and the owner was fined. It involved running at large and attacking an animal.
In a third, heard in the Halifax court on the 23rd of October, the dog in question was not registered. It was charged with running at large, being unlicenses, and attacking an animal.
This apparently 10 year old dog, no breed indicated, escaped from the man's control while it was being put out on a lead in the backyard, according to the man. He said it ran off because it had spotted a kitten in the neighbor's yard. It then ran into their yard, grabbed the kitten, and shook it hard several times. The kitten died a few days later from the injuries. I.e., a fatal attack. Blood, guts, gore. Bona fide.
The man who testified in court claimed the dog was his wife's pet, not his. His wife was not in court. This factor seemed to reduce the harshness of the way the city handled it, although it's hard to see why.
HRM lawyer Kishan Persaud asked the judge for two things: first, an order for the man to register his dog. Since it's a law that you must license your dog in HRM, it's a redundant request; the judge looked a bit perplexed at this. Second, Persaud said the city wanted to impose a fine of $300. That was it. He based this on the idea that the dog had never been reported before. The fees and costs would make it $500, replied the judge. The owner of the kitten was not present.
And that was that.
Humane Halifax notified the press ahead of these cases, but no media reporters were present.
No info was given about breeds for any of the dogs.
You can find a few more details about these cases here. Numbers 8978, 8982, and 8760. The latter is the one with the fatal injuries.
What is just? Well, couldn't the city at least ask the owners to build a fence around their yard?? Otherwise, how can Persaud support his decision in terms of maintaining public safety? The law does not make any provision for "prior records".
Under A300, any dog that attacks or threatens to attack is considered dangerous dog.
This raises some instant questions. To begin with, to follow A300, isn't any case with a guilty conviction on "attacking" a candidate for a dangerous dog designation?
Yet of 60 plus cases where dogs are convicted of attacking, how many are deemed dangerous, muzzled, seized, euthanized?? One or two, max.
And how do these cases compare to the other cases??? One involved worse attacks than the average, although no killing. The other - well, it doesn't even compare to the rest. You can guess which one that is.
This is not to say that HRM should be seeking death to all these other dogs as it is for Brindi. In no way should anybody be fully applying a by-law that is so sweeping and so flawed, we think. That may be why it usually doesn't do it. But how can it justify singling out Brindi, and leave others untouched??
There is no doubt that a dog that kills another animal is a serious issue. It is a proven killer, rather than a hypothetical one - that might hurt a child, might kill another pet. Then the fines. There seems to be an unseen scale used with them: some people must pay $222 for not having their dog registered. Others pay $300 even though they plead guilty to three separate charges; the fines should in fact total $666.
Is this what HRM really considers good animal control?? Or is the city in danger of "bringing the administration of justice into disrepute"?
Meanwhile, Brindi's owner and her lawyer were turned down twice by provincial court judges when they brought an application of abuse of process before the court. Pretty much the same thing happened to their application to get the dog released now, as the city has no real legal basis to keep holding her and may never have had it. In violation of the Summary Proceedings Act. The city blocked Brindi's owner from the chance to even present the case to a judge - using a lame tactic of a last-minute adjournment request, which was argued using the argument it would have used during a real hearing.
It seems the latest judge says that she has no authority to even get Brindi moved to a better facility than the Metro Shelter (a short-term stay facility...). Evidently, she has the power to order Brindi killed, but she can't order her to be transferred.
A travesty? You decide.
So other dogs can kill and never be taken from their owners, whose finds will put them out a pittance by comparison to some other owners... HRM is not ashamed to let the world see that it is intent on wiping out one financially and emotionally, and in order to do it, it is even prepared to break the law and a lot of its own rules, not to mention court rules. Dogs that kill? Oh, well, it's their first time... ??
And the SPCA? Well, they are happy as clams and again busy raiding a backyard breeder.
We have no independent confirmation is available to check out what conditions the SPCA said the animals were in. Experience tells us that an independent confirmation is a good idea in such cases.
More on that to come.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
And another!
The Chronicle Herald must be getting quite a few letters these days, since they've been so reticent in the past year...
Being held hostage
As I read recent letters to the editor, I see that poor dog Brindi is still being held in the shelter in Burnside. It has been over a year that this dog has been held hostage.
I understand that there are some fines for the owner to pay, but let the dog out. I am wondering who we have running this city to allow this to go on as long as it has. Are they expecting Brindi to pay for court fees? Is this why she is still being held? This seems like a vendetta against the owner, with the dog paying the price.
Peter and the gang are eroding their chances of re-election with one in this city who is an animal lover.
Kathleen MacAulay, Dartmouth
Sunday, August 2, 2009
And there's more!
Today's Chronicle Herald contained yet another letter to the editor:
Support for Brindi
Hope Bridgewater of Wentworth (July 30 letter) writes in defence of the dog Brindi, whom HRM appears determined to kill: "It is easier to stand by and say nothing, but my conscience compels me to ask HRM to drop the charges, to allow Ms. Rogier to take Brindi home after his long stay at the SPCA shelter and, in compensation, to pay Ms. Rogier’s legal bills."
As a resident and taxpayer of HRM who has followed this story from the outset, I concur — and for precisely the reason expressed so eloquently by Mahatma Gandhi in the quotation that opened Ms. Bridgewater’s letter, and which bears repeating as I close this one: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
Norm Sabowitz, Halifax
There was also a letter of interest regarding the treatment of animals in Canada, and seals in particular:
Don’t be fooled
Canadians must not be fooled by our politicians’ bizarre insistence that the seal hunt is humane, though they purport to justify it by scientific evidence. Science may say that the animals die painlessly, but to look to veterinarians for an ethical justification of the seals’ killing is to shoulder their science with a burden it is not meant to bear.
That a seal dies painlessly is not enough: We must consider that seals, and many other animals, are evidently conscious, feeling beings capable of taking joy in their lives and in their relationships with other animals. They avoid harm because they desire to continue living. When a seal is killed, a member of a community has been destroyed, and a willing, feeling soul has been deprived of all its hopes — it has died when it wanted to live.
Seals are not a special case, since animal abuse is rampant throughout Canada and the world: The ending of the Canadian seal hunt, accompanied as it must be by measures to ease seal hunters into new employment, is only one step of many that must be taken.
John MacCormick, Bible Hill
Saturday, August 1, 2009
No justice for Brindi -- even after one year?
But at least the newspaper finally printed a few letters...
Drop the charges
Mahatma Gandhi stated, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Currently, Halifax Regional Municipality’s animal control bylaws and their application contradict the great philosopher in regard to the court case of Francesca Rogier and her dog Brindi.
A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge, on Jan. 16, 2009, was right to rule that the authorized killing of Brindi by HRM’s animal control bylaws exceeded the power of the municipality. The court case against Ms. Rogier and her dog should have been dropped then, but instead HRM insists on having a trial on Oct. 13, 2009, in order to have Brindi killed, even when Ms. Rogier pleads not guilty.
It is easier to stand by and say nothing, but my conscience compels me to ask HRM to drop the charges, to allow Ms. Rogier to take Brindi home after his long stay at the SPCA shelter and, in compensation, to pay Ms. Rogier’s legal bills.
Hope Bridgewater, Wentworth
Halifax Chronicle-Herald, Thursday, July 30, 2009
--------------------------
Mahatma Gandhi stated, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Currently, Halifax Regional Municipality’s animal control bylaws and their application contradict the great philosopher in regard to the court case of Francesca Rogier and her dog Brindi.
A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge, on Jan. 16, 2009, was right to rule that the authorized killing of Brindi by HRM’s animal control bylaws exceeded the power of the municipality. The court case against Ms. Rogier and her dog should have been dropped then, but instead HRM insists on having a trial on Oct. 13, 2009, in order to have Brindi killed, even when Ms. Rogier pleads not guilty.
It is easier to stand by and say nothing, but my conscience compels me to ask HRM to drop the charges, to allow Ms. Rogier to take Brindi home after his long stay at the SPCA shelter and, in compensation, to pay Ms. Rogier’s legal bills.
Hope Bridgewater, Wentworth
Halifax Chronicle-Herald, Thursday, July 30, 2009
--------------------------
Send Brindi home
Brindi, the dog, has now been imprisoned unjustly by HRM for a year. A year in a kennel that is meant for short term stays! I am sure the SPCA is doing their best, but Brindi should at the very least be moved to a more accommodating kennel, where she can be walked! Her current situation is inhu mane!
This is not about public safety; this is about HRM trying to save face. They have the power to end this mess. Brindi is not a dangerous dog! This was proven when the Supreme Court quashed the euthanization order, only to have HRM charge her owner, Francesca Rogier, at literally the last hour of the six month statute of limitations.
To re-home Brindi would mean declaring her not dangerous. The city will not agree to this, because then they would have to drop their charges. They want to kill Brindi; Brindi is not human aggressive (as stated by a professional assessment) and has never seriously injured any dog. Yes, she has issues with other dogs near her property and these issues will be worked on. Ms. Rogier has a certified dog behaviourist/ trainer on board to help.
Our animal control system is in trouble. Ms. Rogier has been denied due process. It horrifies me that I even have to write this letter, as it is all so unbelievable! Ms. Rogier and Brindi are being treated worse than criminals.
I am concerned for the welfare of my own dog under bylaw A-300. The way it’s written, if my dog “appears" to be threatening to someone, they can come and take my dog and kill her! This would all be decided by people who have little to no experience in animal behaviour! We should all fear for our dogs in HRM.
To the HRM councillors, please stop sweeping this under the rug! Hiring pricey outside lawyers to prosecute a bylaw infraction does not sit well with me as a taxpayer, either. Even the animal control in Calgary, which you are trying to model, is not pleased with the handling of this case.
Stop the injustice and send Brindi home where she belongs!
Jenn Richardson, Dartmouth, NS
Brindi, the dog, has now been imprisoned unjustly by HRM for a year. A year in a kennel that is meant for short term stays! I am sure the SPCA is doing their best, but Brindi should at the very least be moved to a more accommodating kennel, where she can be walked! Her current situation is inhu mane!
This is not about public safety; this is about HRM trying to save face. They have the power to end this mess. Brindi is not a dangerous dog! This was proven when the Supreme Court quashed the euthanization order, only to have HRM charge her owner, Francesca Rogier, at literally the last hour of the six month statute of limitations.
To re-home Brindi would mean declaring her not dangerous. The city will not agree to this, because then they would have to drop their charges. They want to kill Brindi; Brindi is not human aggressive (as stated by a professional assessment) and has never seriously injured any dog. Yes, she has issues with other dogs near her property and these issues will be worked on. Ms. Rogier has a certified dog behaviourist/ trainer on board to help.
Our animal control system is in trouble. Ms. Rogier has been denied due process. It horrifies me that I even have to write this letter, as it is all so unbelievable! Ms. Rogier and Brindi are being treated worse than criminals.
I am concerned for the welfare of my own dog under bylaw A-300. The way it’s written, if my dog “appears" to be threatening to someone, they can come and take my dog and kill her! This would all be decided by people who have little to no experience in animal behaviour! We should all fear for our dogs in HRM.
To the HRM councillors, please stop sweeping this under the rug! Hiring pricey outside lawyers to prosecute a bylaw infraction does not sit well with me as a taxpayer, either. Even the animal control in Calgary, which you are trying to model, is not pleased with the handling of this case.
Stop the injustice and send Brindi home where she belongs!
Jenn Richardson, Dartmouth, NS
Halifax Chronicle-Herald, Sunday, July 18, 2009
Brindi’s owner goes to trial in October on animal control charges
The owner of Brindi the dog will go to trial in October on three counts of violating Halifax Regional Municipality’s animal control bylaw.
Francesca Rogier of East Chezzetcook is charged with being the owner of a dog that was running at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failing to comply with a muzzling order.
She pleaded not guilty to the charges in February and appeared in Dartmouth provincial court again last week, when her trial was set for Oct. 13.
The charges stem from an event in East Chezzetcook in July 2008, when animal control officers, acting on a complaint from another pet owner, seized Brindi and ordered her euthanized.
The dog was under a muzzle order at the time. Ms. Rogier has said Brindi got away while she was holding the muzzle.
Brindi, a six-year-old mixed breed, has been kept at the SPCA shelter in Dartmouth since she was seized.
A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled Jan. 16 that the bylaw that authorized the killing of Brindi exceeded the power of the municipality.
Monday, June 22, 2009
PR vs. news
Here is a report from ABC News from 2005 about SPCA's across North America that we find very illuminating.
With the current problems in Ontario, and the Ed Chase story in BC, and others in between, we are hopeful that the media will continue to investigate SPCA issues across Canada. Nobody should assume that all SPCA's are bad, or that they are bad all the time. Clearly they perform a vital function for society and they are desperately needed. Society needs to pay more attention so that the SPCA's know they are expected to do their job properly and that there will be consequences otherwise. It goes without saying that society should also do more to prevent the needless loss of life of millions of unwanted dogs and cats. But that's a bigger discussion and there are no quick remedies.
In the meantime, we hear there is a surprising rumour going around town about the NS SPCA regarding the dog Brindi, who has been held at the SPCA's shelter since last July. According to the story, certain members of the SPCA, including some who were since elected to the "executive" board, have been petitioning HRM officials since January to "re-home" Brindi. At least eight or nine emailed letters are involved, more we don't know. Evidently the SPCA has not shared their ideas with the owner, as she could not confirm for us whether this story is true.
Apart from the appearance of vengefulness that giving Brindi away conjures - everybody knows the SPCA doesn't care for Brindi's owner, who was foolish enough to expect it to uphold its mission of protecting animals - if the story is true, it seems to mean that the SPCA has now taken a stand on the specifics of the outcome of Brindi's case. What happened to their many previous disavowals that they have no part in it, and that they cannot discuss the case due to a confidentiality clause?
We note that the statement to this effect which was posted on spcans.ca for nearly a year has now been taken down. In its place is a "press release" about the "level of care" provided for Brindi. The point about the shelter being a short-term care facility ought to raise a few eyebrows - the input of vets on PEI notwithstanding. But the surprising nugget in the press release is its disclosure that for some time now, the SPCA has been making many "proposals" to HRM to resolve the case.
While HRM is not required to consider the input and advice of the NS SPCA, SPCA representatives have been in frequent contact with HRM about Brindi and have proposed alternative options for Brindi's care and the resolution of the case on multiple occasions.
This seems like a pretty stunning piece of news. But it wasn't in the news, for some reason.
To clarify, the NS SPCA does not have the authority to make any decisions related to the outcome of Brindi's case. While HRM is not required to consider the input and advice of the NS SPCA, SPCA representatives have been in frequent contact with HRM about Brindi and have proposed alternative options for Brindi's care and the resolution of the case on multiple occasions.
The statement refrains from identifying what the "alternative options" are. However, according to our source, they have been proposing one and only one option: to give Brindi away to somebody else. How this would and could be done, and more importantly, exactly why, we don't know.
Here's the thing: people seem to agree Brindi is not dangerous. This implies two things: 1. that she should never have been seized from her owner in the first place, and 2. people don't agree with the definition of dangerous in the by-law. Now it seems that the SPCA has openly admitted these things by proposing an alternative to euthanization. (Note that the SPCA was previously so insistent on claiming its pound contract prevented it from advocating for this dog that it reportedly had a man arrested for criminal harassment after he had the audacity to argue with a shelter manager about whether Brindi is aggressive! Luckily the charges were dropped.)
The hitch about "re-homing" Brindi is that this is a dog that HRM still claims is dangerous and should be put down; prosecutors restated their intention of asking for a new euthanization order to a judge as recently as May 29 (you won't see that in the news papers either). So how can HRM possibly endorse such a "solution? If they are willing to reverse a decision that the owner has been trying to appeal since last July, how is it fair and justified to give away her wrongly seized (and possibly illegally held) dog?? If they think they can argue that this owner is just too irresponsible to get her dog back, good luck!! Who is the more irresponsible party here: a city department that seizes dogs for no good reason and stubbornly keeps them in a pound for a year, or an owner who stumbled a few times and admitted her mistakes long ago and has been trying to do the right thing all along?
Honestly, how would giving away a dog they wrongly seized make HRM look more reasonable at this late date?
The media may be turning a blind eye to this, but we feel HRM Animal Services has a lot to explain, especially when you compare the case to this chart of other by-law prosecutions that we found online. Even a quick glance shows how inconsistent their decisions are. So the question must be asked: why is it reasonable to take this dog away, and not others? What about dogs whose owners were actually charged and convicted of three or more offenses? Some of these dogs actually bit people as well. Is the public interest being served?
Now, our readers may chide us for posting about a rumor when we have committed to publishing only the facts on this blog. While we did post links to the chart and the press release link, it is fair to acknowledge that we do not have access to copies of any emails or other documents that the SPCA may have sent to HRM. The story does come from a reliable source within the HRM government, but we would prefer to be able to confirm it. Because if true, it seems to represent a significant shift in the SPCA's position. It gives some confirmation to the effect of hundreds of letters sent to the SPCA asking for them to work to get Brindi back home. It also seems to sync up with a plethora of posts on Facebook groups (CTV Atlantic, etc.) demanding that Brindi's owner "get on her knees and beg" for her dog to be given away, in order to save it! We ignored these so far, because we discerned that they are mainly posted by people who support the SPCA no matter what.
If anyone is willing to contribute some factual information on this we would appreciate it a lot. Actually, we would prefer to find out that the story is not true. If it turns out otherwise, we find it regrettable that the misguided thinking among some SPCA officials that led them to refuse to help at the start, has now led them to even more misguided actions, none of which are helping this poor dog!
Another reason to post this is that the news media in Halifax really does appear to be boycotting Brindi. Even PETA's statement about Brindi back in May didn't make it into the news. (Pretty amazing in a city that is often so starved for news that the re-opening of a french fry shop makes headlines - not that we don't like fries!)
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
And what ever happened to the guy who stabbed the St. Bernard?
Nothing, as far as we hear.
No word on whether he was charged with A300 violations - owning a dog that runs at large, owning a dog that attacks animals, and possibly, owning a dog without a license.
No media reports since the first few days.
Wonder why??? Could it have something to do with the fact that he wields a knife and is a violent person? That might scare off an untrained animal control officer.
That is the speculation about the owners of the German Shepherd in Halifax that we posted about (below). One of its owners has a police record. Coincidence??
The tides are turning in Ontario: will they reach our shores?
Newspaper ad running currently:
Please write to the Toronto Sun and the Globe and Mail.
· If you have been bullied or threatened by the OSPCA.
· With OSPCA financial information re: legal costs, confidential settlements.
· With information about how the OSPCA treats its employees.
· With information about how the OSPCA treats animals at OSPCA shelters.
· If your animal has been mistreated or killed by the OSPCA.
Keep it really short and powerful & attach a photo. For the first time ever the media suggests the OSPCA be investigated.
The OSPCA MUST be held accountable for their actions. Please write ASAP. Change will not happen if YOU are too afraid to tell your story.
torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca with a copy to michele.mandel@tor.sunpub.com, peter.worthington@tor.sunpub.com
Send a separate copy to khammer@globeandmail.com and cblatchford@globeandmail.com
Humane society critics smell blood (Toronto Sun June 9, 2009)
A euthanasia rate of only 7% does not necessarily make THS 'humane,' new group charges
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Last Updated: 9th June 2009, 2:55am
The uproar over how the Toronto Humane Society (THS) is run revolves around a couple of overlapping issues: Treatment of animals and treatment of employees and volunteers.
Provoked by a three-part Globe and Mail series, critics and rivals taste blood. The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA), formerly the Ontario Humane Society, suspended the THS as an affiliate, even before investigating charges of cruelty for letting sick animals die in cages rather than euthanize them.
The OSPCA and THS have a history of antagonism.
Ironically, the OSPCA has no shortage of critics. Its management and board seem to periodically resign en masse and squabble among themselves. Par for the animal movement.
A new group, comprised of several disillusioned THS members and former employees, is the Association to Reform the THS (ART). It wants the Office of the Official Guardian to appoint an interim manager to replace THS President Tim Trow. Spokesman Aries Gaertner insists "we are not political, and just want what's best for animals."
Whatever his people and management skills (or lack of same), Trow is indisputably empathetic with animals, and has lowered the THS' euthanasia rate to 7%, making it arguably the world's most "humane" humane society.
For many, genuinely animal-compassionate leadership at the THS tips the scales in favour of Trow, who insists decisions on euthanizing sick animals rests solely with the senior veterinarian.
Lee Oliver, an ART member and a former THS management employee, says roughly the same number of cats, dogs, birds and small animals like gerbils and rabbits die each year at the THS, regardless of whether the euthanasia rate is 7% (today) or 18% (pre-Tim Trow).
He says cage deaths make the euthanasia rate statistically low but may, in fact, increase the suffering of sick animals. To him, Trow is "too compassionate and reluctant to put sick animals out of their misery."
My interest goes back to Toronto Telegram days when the THS was a death camp, electrocuting animals at an alarming rate it claimed was more humane than lethal injections. THS members eventually rebelled and elected more compassionate directors. I was on the board when Vicki Miller and the late Kathy Hunter ran the place and were diehard animal protectors.
Co-chairmen of ART are THS members Linda MacKinnon and Judi King, who'd like the THS annual meeting scheduled for October speeded up to elect a new board.
Last week OSPCA inspectors accompanied by police checked the THS but found little wrong. A case can be made that the OSPCA and Toronto Animal Services (TAS -- the city pound) warrant independent investigations themselves. "Let everyone be investigated," says Trow.
The OSPCA membership has no say in electing directors -- they have no vote, and can just pay annual dues. Democracy doesn't exist.
TAS is mostly a killing agency, and is secretive about its statistics. A recent Sun investigation showed that TAS kills some 55% of cats and dogs that come in -- 25,000 in five years.
THS policy is to not kill healthy dogs, but to keep them alive indefinitely in hopes they'll be adopted. Of 1,970 dogs in the THS shelter in 2008, 37 died in their cages, while 47 were euthanized. An enviable record, unmatched by any other humane society.
Still, an independent inquiry might be helpful. Investigate and audit how money is spent at the THS and OSPCA, as well as how staff are treated.
There's no shortage of nutbars in the animal movement. They tend to feud and agitate, and actually harm animals they seek to protect. One hopes ART will escape these pitfalls in its quest to improve the THS.
An email sent to Minister Bartolucci and legislators June 8, 2009
· In a 2005 acquittal verdict for Cindy Pauliuk, Justice Anton Zuraw referred to the Hamilton-Burlington SPCA as “…a private police force empowered in cases involving animals to lay charges and seize property, using these charges or seizures to campaign for funds for their private coffers.” An April 8, 2005 Globe and Mail article reported: “The Hamilton SPCA was more interested in raising money than saving what it believed were abused horses, a judge ruled yesterday.” “During the trial, one SPCA member testified the incident was used to garner more donations, the judge wrote” “Jim Sykes, president and CEO of the Hamilton SPCA, disagreed with the judge’s statement that the SPCA needed high-profile arrests to keep it going.” Jim Sykes is now OSPCA Board Chair replacing Michael Chaddock who resigned along with 28 other directors in 2006.
· In March 2006, a mass resignation of 29 OSPCA board members including the Chair and the Treasurer commences. (The province had just given the OSPCA an unprecedented $2,000,000.) CEO Judy Marshall also leaves. In a letter addressed to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) and Premier McGuinty, resigned directors stated: “The government is well aware of the problems (at the OSPCA)” and urged that their resignation be regarded “as a request for intervention…” The letter claims “outdated legislation and dysfunctional governance" forced the organization to "irresponsibly and immorally squander donor and taxpayer dollars in an unsustainable and wasteful fashion." “Resigning (OSPCA) board members urge (the) province to step in and investigate “insane” abuse and cruelty charges”. Directors “feel strongly that government, not the humane society should be in charge of enforcing laws to protect animals and to prosecute offenders.” (Toronto Sun May 15, 2006.)
The province has since granted the OSPCA an additional $5,000,000. and unprecedented police powers – warrantless entry – without oversight, accountability and transparency. In January 2007 multiple copies of the letter below were sent to Jim Sykes, OSPCA Board Chair.
Mike Draper acting CEO and former Director of Investigations resigned from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA), accepting the position of Sales Barn Inspector at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).
The OSPCA Investigations Department, under Mr. Draper, chose intimidation, harassment, arrogance and defiance over people skills and sound investigative techniques. OSPCA Inspectors and Agents exhibited extreme aggression.
Bizarre numbers of charges were laid. Statistics show the OSPCA laid 97 charges in 2000. In 2004, 695 charges were laid despite there being fewer complaints.
Mr. Sykes, in your capacity as Board Chair, I request that you notify your Investigations Department that, actions found to be in violation of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ mandate to provide law enforcement that is “safe, secure, effective, efficient and accountable”, will not be tolerated by the OSPCA.
It is imperative the OSPCA and the province permanently distance themselves from the previous investigative style and that the issue of unsupervised police powers in the wrong hands be addressed.
Tensions between animal owners and OSPCA continue to escalate - culminating with a Toronto OSPCA inspector handcuffing his suspect. Inspectors have been found guilty of severe breaches of the Charter of Rights. (Rulings available on request). OSPCA inspectors continue to bully, threaten and nitpick. Witness their recent dealings at Bergeron’s zoo.
The public deserves better. However, until there is media appetite for this information – there will be no change. Legislators and the majority of the public rest comfortably in the knowledge that with passing Bill 50 animals are better protected.
Victims of the OSPCA live in fear of the OSPCA. Bill 50 does not provide law enforcement that is “safe, secure, effective, efficient and accountable” - to us, Bill 50 is a nightmare come true.
The same uproar at the THS almost happened at the OSPCA three years ago. Lucky for the OSPCA there was next to no media interest. The province has made the OSPCA the cornerstone of Ontario’s animal welfare system – protect your asset not just by empowering and partially funding it – OVERSEE IT.
You're welcome to call Carl Noble, one of the original eight resigned OSPCA directors, at 519-534-3988.
Excerpts from Peter Worthington’s article three years ago in the Toronto Sun May 15, 2006:
“there's big trouble within the OSPCA if anyone looks closely. Many board members are upset that public donations and grants from the government are spent on buildings and facilities rather than on animals and curbing cruelty and abuse.”
“In their letter to McGuinty and Kwinter, eight (original resigned) board members noted that the government is well aware of the problems (at the OSPCA) and urged that their resignation be regarded "as a request for intervention ... to suspend the bylaws of the OSPCA, suspend the board of the OSPCA, and appoint a representative of your government to work with the CEO of the Society pending the promised update of the OSPCA Act."
“last Nov. 2 chief inspector Mike Draper wrote Tim Trow, president of the THS, and admitted "a private investigation firm" was hired to "obtain statements from a number of (THS) employees." .... Criminal charges (by the OSPCA against the THS) were threatened.”
Deja vu ????
Excerpts from Peter Worthington’s article in the Barrie Examiner, November 2008:
In 2006, the OSPCA board of directors resigned (twenty nine of them), virtually en masse. ... the OSPCA's (current) 12-person board of directors is not chosen by public vote of members, but appointed.
“This, folks, is dictatorial, not democratic -- aided and abetted by McGuinty.”
“The solution is simple: The government should take a hard look at the absolute control exercised by the OSPCA, and bring the police powers of its inspectors under control of the attorney general.”
“The McGuinty government seems reluctant to challenge the OSPCA, and recently gave it a $5 million windfall” (and 1.8 million before that).
And “the way Bill 50 is written, a private charity has police powers to prosecute, is accountable to no one, is immune to the ombudsman, and is protected from access to information legislation. (Bill 50 grants the OSPCA warrantless entry). Not to disparage individuals who are inspectors, but their mandate and the OSPCA's style are more mindful of a secret police than a body serving the public.”
Additions are bracketed.
· If you have been bullied or threatened by the OSPCA.
· With OSPCA financial information re: legal costs, confidential settlements.
· With information about how the OSPCA treats its employees.
· With information about how the OSPCA treats animals at OSPCA shelters.
· If your animal has been mistreated or killed by the OSPCA.
Keep it really short and powerful & attach a photo. For the first time ever the media suggests the OSPCA be investigated.
The OSPCA MUST be held accountable for their actions. Please write ASAP. Change will not happen if YOU are too afraid to tell your story.
torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca with a copy to michele.mandel@tor.sunpub.com, peter.worthington@tor.sunpub.com
Send a separate copy to khammer@globeandmail.com and cblatchford@globeandmail.com
Humane society critics smell blood (Toronto Sun June 9, 2009)
A euthanasia rate of only 7% does not necessarily make THS 'humane,' new group charges
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Last Updated: 9th June 2009, 2:55am
The uproar over how the Toronto Humane Society (THS) is run revolves around a couple of overlapping issues: Treatment of animals and treatment of employees and volunteers.
Provoked by a three-part Globe and Mail series, critics and rivals taste blood. The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA), formerly the Ontario Humane Society, suspended the THS as an affiliate, even before investigating charges of cruelty for letting sick animals die in cages rather than euthanize them.
The OSPCA and THS have a history of antagonism.
Ironically, the OSPCA has no shortage of critics. Its management and board seem to periodically resign en masse and squabble among themselves. Par for the animal movement.
A new group, comprised of several disillusioned THS members and former employees, is the Association to Reform the THS (ART). It wants the Office of the Official Guardian to appoint an interim manager to replace THS President Tim Trow. Spokesman Aries Gaertner insists "we are not political, and just want what's best for animals."
Whatever his people and management skills (or lack of same), Trow is indisputably empathetic with animals, and has lowered the THS' euthanasia rate to 7%, making it arguably the world's most "humane" humane society.
For many, genuinely animal-compassionate leadership at the THS tips the scales in favour of Trow, who insists decisions on euthanizing sick animals rests solely with the senior veterinarian.
Lee Oliver, an ART member and a former THS management employee, says roughly the same number of cats, dogs, birds and small animals like gerbils and rabbits die each year at the THS, regardless of whether the euthanasia rate is 7% (today) or 18% (pre-Tim Trow).
He says cage deaths make the euthanasia rate statistically low but may, in fact, increase the suffering of sick animals. To him, Trow is "too compassionate and reluctant to put sick animals out of their misery."
My interest goes back to Toronto Telegram days when the THS was a death camp, electrocuting animals at an alarming rate it claimed was more humane than lethal injections. THS members eventually rebelled and elected more compassionate directors. I was on the board when Vicki Miller and the late Kathy Hunter ran the place and were diehard animal protectors.
Co-chairmen of ART are THS members Linda MacKinnon and Judi King, who'd like the THS annual meeting scheduled for October speeded up to elect a new board.
Last week OSPCA inspectors accompanied by police checked the THS but found little wrong. A case can be made that the OSPCA and Toronto Animal Services (TAS -- the city pound) warrant independent investigations themselves. "Let everyone be investigated," says Trow.
The OSPCA membership has no say in electing directors -- they have no vote, and can just pay annual dues. Democracy doesn't exist.
TAS is mostly a killing agency, and is secretive about its statistics. A recent Sun investigation showed that TAS kills some 55% of cats and dogs that come in -- 25,000 in five years.
THS policy is to not kill healthy dogs, but to keep them alive indefinitely in hopes they'll be adopted. Of 1,970 dogs in the THS shelter in 2008, 37 died in their cages, while 47 were euthanized. An enviable record, unmatched by any other humane society.
Still, an independent inquiry might be helpful. Investigate and audit how money is spent at the THS and OSPCA, as well as how staff are treated.
There's no shortage of nutbars in the animal movement. They tend to feud and agitate, and actually harm animals they seek to protect. One hopes ART will escape these pitfalls in its quest to improve the THS.
An email sent to Minister Bartolucci and legislators June 8, 2009
- Between 2000 and 2004 the number of animal cruelty charges laid by the OSPCA increased from 97 to 695. The number of search warrants more than quadrupled in the last five years and the number of Orders issued almost tripled in the same time period, (OSPCA Press Release October 3, 2006) yet the number of complaints increased only marginally from 16,166 in 2000 to 16,478 in 2005. In one case alone the OSPCA laid 183 charges.
· In a 2005 acquittal verdict for Cindy Pauliuk, Justice Anton Zuraw referred to the Hamilton-Burlington SPCA as “…a private police force empowered in cases involving animals to lay charges and seize property, using these charges or seizures to campaign for funds for their private coffers.” An April 8, 2005 Globe and Mail article reported: “The Hamilton SPCA was more interested in raising money than saving what it believed were abused horses, a judge ruled yesterday.” “During the trial, one SPCA member testified the incident was used to garner more donations, the judge wrote” “Jim Sykes, president and CEO of the Hamilton SPCA, disagreed with the judge’s statement that the SPCA needed high-profile arrests to keep it going.” Jim Sykes is now OSPCA Board Chair replacing Michael Chaddock who resigned along with 28 other directors in 2006.
· In March 2006, a mass resignation of 29 OSPCA board members including the Chair and the Treasurer commences. (The province had just given the OSPCA an unprecedented $2,000,000.) CEO Judy Marshall also leaves. In a letter addressed to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) and Premier McGuinty, resigned directors stated: “The government is well aware of the problems (at the OSPCA)” and urged that their resignation be regarded “as a request for intervention…” The letter claims “outdated legislation and dysfunctional governance" forced the organization to "irresponsibly and immorally squander donor and taxpayer dollars in an unsustainable and wasteful fashion." “Resigning (OSPCA) board members urge (the) province to step in and investigate “insane” abuse and cruelty charges”. Directors “feel strongly that government, not the humane society should be in charge of enforcing laws to protect animals and to prosecute offenders.” (Toronto Sun May 15, 2006.)
- In November 2006, the issue was addressed by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association: “If an animal welfare enforcement system is self-funded through public donations, there develops a motivation for high visibility publication of enforcement proceedings, with or without conviction, with the aim of collecting voluntary donations, at the risk of infringing on the civil rights of the accused. This potential abuse may in itself be a violation of other legal protections.” The Veterinary Profession’s Role in Policing Animal Welfare, Canadian Veterinary Journal, Volume 47, November 2006.
The province has since granted the OSPCA an additional $5,000,000. and unprecedented police powers – warrantless entry – without oversight, accountability and transparency. In January 2007 multiple copies of the letter below were sent to Jim Sykes, OSPCA Board Chair.
Mike Draper acting CEO and former Director of Investigations resigned from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA), accepting the position of Sales Barn Inspector at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).
The OSPCA Investigations Department, under Mr. Draper, chose intimidation, harassment, arrogance and defiance over people skills and sound investigative techniques. OSPCA Inspectors and Agents exhibited extreme aggression.
Bizarre numbers of charges were laid. Statistics show the OSPCA laid 97 charges in 2000. In 2004, 695 charges were laid despite there being fewer complaints.
Mr. Sykes, in your capacity as Board Chair, I request that you notify your Investigations Department that, actions found to be in violation of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ mandate to provide law enforcement that is “safe, secure, effective, efficient and accountable”, will not be tolerated by the OSPCA.
It is imperative the OSPCA and the province permanently distance themselves from the previous investigative style and that the issue of unsupervised police powers in the wrong hands be addressed.
Tensions between animal owners and OSPCA continue to escalate - culminating with a Toronto OSPCA inspector handcuffing his suspect. Inspectors have been found guilty of severe breaches of the Charter of Rights. (Rulings available on request). OSPCA inspectors continue to bully, threaten and nitpick. Witness their recent dealings at Bergeron’s zoo.
The public deserves better. However, until there is media appetite for this information – there will be no change. Legislators and the majority of the public rest comfortably in the knowledge that with passing Bill 50 animals are better protected.
Victims of the OSPCA live in fear of the OSPCA. Bill 50 does not provide law enforcement that is “safe, secure, effective, efficient and accountable” - to us, Bill 50 is a nightmare come true.
The same uproar at the THS almost happened at the OSPCA three years ago. Lucky for the OSPCA there was next to no media interest. The province has made the OSPCA the cornerstone of Ontario’s animal welfare system – protect your asset not just by empowering and partially funding it – OVERSEE IT.
You're welcome to call Carl Noble, one of the original eight resigned OSPCA directors, at 519-534-3988.
Excerpts from Peter Worthington’s article three years ago in the Toronto Sun May 15, 2006:
“there's big trouble within the OSPCA if anyone looks closely. Many board members are upset that public donations and grants from the government are spent on buildings and facilities rather than on animals and curbing cruelty and abuse.”
“In their letter to McGuinty and Kwinter, eight (original resigned) board members noted that the government is well aware of the problems (at the OSPCA) and urged that their resignation be regarded "as a request for intervention ... to suspend the bylaws of the OSPCA, suspend the board of the OSPCA, and appoint a representative of your government to work with the CEO of the Society pending the promised update of the OSPCA Act."
“last Nov. 2 chief inspector Mike Draper wrote Tim Trow, president of the THS, and admitted "a private investigation firm" was hired to "obtain statements from a number of (THS) employees." .... Criminal charges (by the OSPCA against the THS) were threatened.”
Deja vu ????
Excerpts from Peter Worthington’s article in the Barrie Examiner, November 2008:
In 2006, the OSPCA board of directors resigned (twenty nine of them), virtually en masse. ... the OSPCA's (current) 12-person board of directors is not chosen by public vote of members, but appointed.
“This, folks, is dictatorial, not democratic -- aided and abetted by McGuinty.”
“The solution is simple: The government should take a hard look at the absolute control exercised by the OSPCA, and bring the police powers of its inspectors under control of the attorney general.”
“The McGuinty government seems reluctant to challenge the OSPCA, and recently gave it a $5 million windfall” (and 1.8 million before that).
And “the way Bill 50 is written, a private charity has police powers to prosecute, is accountable to no one, is immune to the ombudsman, and is protected from access to information legislation. (Bill 50 grants the OSPCA warrantless entry). Not to disparage individuals who are inspectors, but their mandate and the OSPCA's style are more mindful of a secret police than a body serving the public.”
Additions are bracketed.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Angry about Animal Control
| A friend forwarded the message below and writes: I think this story is great for showing the inconsistencies in Animal Control & the by-law. We have Brindi, who never bit a person & here's a dog that bit a few people and other dogs, and is still at home. But Brindi is locked up for 10 months. Hello, Last year I was bitten by the neighbour's German Sheppard (sic) and I couldn't get Animal Services to fine the owner no matter what I did! Their dog had attacked my Am-Staff six months before and the owner of the German Sheppard wanted MY dog put down...because HER DOG BIT HER! After I was bit, apparently they couldn’t even fine the owner because of some statute of limitations where they weren’t able to fine them within six months of it happening. So I’d like you to use these instances to show that there's a lot more dangerous dogs, and even more screwed up owners out there! If anyone comes by a F-----, or a J----- living somewhere around Tantallon (she works at the --------- Store)...their dog S------ is a vicious animal that has now bit two humans! What bothers me most is they don’t have any problem having him around their grandchildren. So anyway...my point is, I know firsthand how screwed up the HRM By-laws are. Let me know if I, or this'll help at all; J NOTE we learned that this person was bitten in the leg by the German shepherd and required medical treatment. The dog has reportedly bitten other people and animals since then. also: there is no statute of limitations on a dangerous dog. A dog can be seized at any time. Hello, Animal Services?? |
Friday, May 15, 2009
Update on Mr. Beazley
Mr. Beazley, the St. Bernard stabbed last weekend, seems to be recovering well.
Couple’s beloved dog stabbed
A 56-year-old Dartmouth man is facing numerous charges after he allegedly stabbed a dog Saturday afternoon in Dartmouth.
According to police, the attack took place while a couple were walking their leashed St. Bernard on a trail from Princess Margaret Boulevard toward Burnside Park at 3:10 p.m.
The couple who own the dog, John and Penny Williams, said things turned bad soon after they started to head back home on one of their daily walks with Mr. Beazley.
Their six-year-old, purebred, doughnut-loving dog weighs 180 pounds.
"We saw this dog charging towards us," Mr. Williams said from his home Monday.
The dog, a yellow Labrador retriever, ran straight to Mr. Beazley and jumped on him in an attack, he said. Mr. Williams was trying to pull away the Labrador retriever when a man who also lives in their Princess Margaret Boulevard neighbourhood showed up.
According to Mr. Williams, the man said, "Get your . . . dog off my dog or I’ll kill it," and then took out a hunting knife and started to stab Mr. Beazley.
Ms. Williams started pulling at the man’s jacket to make him stop and Mr. Williams went a step further.
"I actually grabbed his wrist that had the knife in it to keep him from stabbing Beazley more," he said.
At one point, the man allegedly threatened the couple, but the dogs were soon separated. Mr. Williams found it strange that the man just walked away with the Labrador retriever once they were separated.
They contacted police and Ms. Williams hoisted Mr. Beazley into a car and took him to the Metro Animal Emergency Clinic in Dartmouth.
Halifax Regional Police’s quick response unit in East division arrested the suspect with the dog at 3:21 p.m.
He has since been released but will appear in Dartmouth provincial court at a later date to face charges of cruelty to animals, possession of a weapon and uttering threats. Police did not release his name.
Officers took the yellow Labrador retriever back to the man’s house afterward, something that concerns neighbours.
Shaune MacKinlay, a spokeswoman for Halifax Regional Municipality, said animal control has been notified about the matter.
"They need time to pursue it," she said. "This is first and foremost a police investigation involving the owner.
"Any move to seize a dog, any dog, requires a warrant. That’s not been done yet in this case and it would be premature to say what’s going to happen."
Mr. Williams said he has been losing sleep and is angry about the attack. He said his landlord has been contacted about the alleged attacker, but Mr. Williams did not want to provide details about that situation.
Another neighbour, Janice McKenzie, said people consider Mr. Beazley "the neighbourhood dog."
She is concerned that the suspect lives in the neighbourhood and has the Labrador retriever with him.
She said her five-year-old son was on the verge of tears after hearing about the attack. She bought a sympathy card for well-wishers to sign and has collected some money to offset the veterinary bills the Williamses will have to pay.
As for Mr. Beazley, he suffered three stab wounds to his neck and side and spent a night in a veterinary hospital.
On Monday, he was sprawled out on the floor of the couple’s apartment. He had some gauze around his upper shoulders and looked a little sheepish but seemed to appreciate a few pats to the head.
"He’s better today," Ms. Williams said Monday. "Yesterday, he couldn’t stand up or lift his head."
The Williamses don’t think Mr. Beazley will become afraid of people and said they can afford their veterinary bills.
They said their daily walks are just one of their rituals with Mr. Beazley.
Another is their nightly drive to get him a treat.
"Every night, he goes for a ride in the car and has two Tim Hortons doughnuts for a treat," Ms. Williams said.
If they don’t go, Mr. Beazley makes such a fuss no one gets any sleep that night, she said.
We wish Mr. Beazley a speedy recovery, aided by a few extra doughnuts.
Meanwhile, one wonders how long it really takes to get a warrant?
In the case of Brindi... we heard it took four days flat to get both warrant and euthanization order together. And her owner was not charged with anything at all. No knife stabs, no assault, no nothing.
Perhaps it's easy when you know how to skip the investigation part.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Man and dog released after both attack other dog
Man accused of stabbing dog, threatening owners
Halifax Regional Police charged a 56-year-old man after he allegedly stabbed a dog on a leash Saturday afternoon in Dartmouth. According to police, the attack took place while a couple were walking their leashed Saint Bernard on a trail from Princess Margaret Bouldvard toward train tracks near Windmill Road at 3:10 p.m.
A free-running Yellow Labrador ran up and attacked the couple’s dog so the man tried to intervene.
“The male tried to stop the other dog from attacking his dog and noticed that a suspect approached them with a knife in his hand.
“The suspect proceeded to stab their dog numerous times and then threatened the couple prior to leaving.”
That suspect, who had been walking with the Yellow Lab, then left the area and the couple called police.
The East Division’s quick response unit arrested a suspect with the dog at 3:21 p.m.
He has since been released, but will appear in Dartmouth provincial court at a later date to face charges of cruelty to animals, possession of a weapon and uttering threats.
Officers took the Yellow Lab back to the man’s house afterward.
“It’s been sent off to (HRM) animal control for their follow up,” said Police spokesman Const. Brian Palmeter.
The Saint Bernard was being treated by a veterinarian.
“The updated status (for that dog) is not known,” Const. Palmeter said, “but it’s not believed to be life-threatening.”
Questions: Why isn't the name of the suspect given in this story?
Why was he released immediately?
Why wasn't his dog seized for running at large and attacking another dog?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
