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:
6 comments:
The owner issed two letters the public, released online a vet receipt dated the day before seizure, a vet letter was sent to the SPCA and CTV news. The warrant was signed Friday but not executed until Monday- according to the president of the SPCA, "it was because of the condition of the mother dog that they had to take immediate action" Everyone agrees the mom dog was thin. The owner was addressing this on the advice of her vet and also supplimenting the pups. The cited reason on the warrant was "due to a large number of dogs and pups" -yet no SPCA official was in her home to view the pups prior to seizure...it does seem strange
It is not unusual for a mother to appear thin when she is nursing -- especially with such a large litter. That's just common sense. To save the city the huge expense this seizure will cost -- as noted by Sean Kelly on Facebook -- why were they not ALL sheltered where they were. Seems it would be cheaper for the city to allow Janice to continue to care for all her dogs (and foot the bill) and the city could make visits to follow-up on their care. Is this such an incredible stretch in logic???
The SPCA is not able to comment on this case, however I have seen Sean Kelly say a lot on Facebook. Kind of speaking out both sides of his face[book].
SPCA needs to revamp its relationship with the community. It sure seems they jumped the gun on this seizure -- taking in all these dogs because a nursing mother dog looks thin? If this is not the whole truth and the SPCA had a valid reason for seizing them, why do we have to wait 6 months to find out? Kind of sounds like they take them now and figure something out later.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....
Send these dogs home!
this dog was severly emaciated, & at first ms bingley did not mention supplimenting the pups feeding, & wasn't the vet receipt for an infection? ms bingley & her supporters seem to have a conspiracy theroy - they seem to think the only reason the dogs were seized is because the spca thinks they could sell the pups - pure nonsense. Also I believe she mentioned she fed her dogs alpo- different size/breed dogs, & a nursing mom all on alpo? Different dogs have different nutritional needs. There seem to be a lot of facts missing from this story, hopefully there will be charges.
It does seem "like they take them now and figure something out later."
I was astonished to read a newspaper account of the seizure from the summer - 89 cats and dogs (mostly cats)? A Ms. De Young was one of the two women caring for them, housing them in an old house not fit for humans but "fine" for animals, as she said. She said the SPCA caught them between cleanings in the morning and noontime and that explained the mention of ammonia fumes. There was nothing said about cruelty or serious neglect and we haven't heard about charges being laid yet either. They left some of the dogs with the owner, but took all the cats.
What stumped me was that although there has been no charges and no trial, Ms. De Young said the SPCA told her she can never again own a cat. ????
Alpo or not - the mom was definitely on antibiotics and under a vet's care.
We would like to know from the past and present government how much tax money has been spent on trials and transportation for all these seizures,not to mention the credit cards motels and entertainment provided when partyers spend a weekend at the annual AGM meetings which to all appears to be a waste of time and money.Now they are giving unqualified handymen jobs that legally require degrees instead of BULLSHIT APPOINTMENTS FOR REPORTING REGULARLY TO PAST EMPLOYEES WHO RECEIVE SEVERENCE PAY FOR DOING POLITICAL FAVORS ON AN ON GOING BASIS.TOO MUCH MONEY IS BEING WASTED ON BELLS AND WHISTLES FOR CARS AND USELESS COURT CASES THAT WEREN'T LEGAL AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE ILLEGAL UNTIL PEOPLE WAKE UP AND SMELL THE RATS WHO ARE GETTING THE CREDIT CARDS AND PERKS FOR THE JOBS THEY CAN'T EVEN COME NEAR TO QUALIFYING FOR.WHEN IS THE GOVERNMENT GOING TO CHECK OUT THEIR MANDATE AND SEE THE NSSPCA FOR what they are-A JOKE AND A HANDFUL OF WANTABE COPS THAT CAN'T EVEN LEARN HOW TO GET A WARRANT PROPERLY.
Post a Comment