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!)
