How bright is Bob Ottenbrite, Councilor Wile?

REPLY FROM HRM COUNCILOR TO A PLEA TO LET BRINDI GO BACK HOME TO HER OWNER SENT BY A MEMBER OF HUMANE HALIFAX:

From: Mary Wile <mailto:wilema@halifax.ca>  
To: VS
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Brindi

Mrs. S- there is another option and that is a Mr. Bob Ottenbrite, a well-known dog trainer, who help train Brindi,, said he would take the dog and Francesca can visit Brindi. They live nearby.  However, the owner doesn't want to do this.

Franseca has done this before, it wasn't the first time, so obviously she has proven that she is unable to care for her dog.  It gets down to what is the best for the dog-i don't think Brindi should be put down and  I do feel Mr. Ottenbrite should care for the dog. A happy ending.

There was an article in the paper a couple of days ago re the possibility of Mr. Ottenbrite taking Brindi.

Thank you for your concern. 
_______________________

Ms. Wile, we respectfully disagree with your notion of a happy ending!!!!! Aside from the question of how the public can be sure that Mr. Ottenbrite would live up to his word, we must protest loudly, what sort of option this is? What decent trainer would recommend locking up this poor sick animal forever? 


Ms. Wile, an awful lot of Haligonians are very dissatisfied with you and your colleagues for creating an unconstitutional and incomplete law, and not lifting a finger to change it for two years already. They are also deeply unhappy with the way HRM Animal Services applies the law (badly), not to mention its unacceptable treatment of Rogier and Brindi. 

So tell us, Ms. Wile, exactly what has Brindi's owner "done before"? Was she charged and convicted for anything? NO. We ask, why is an elected official speaking in this libelous way? 

Tell us also, how has Rogier “obviously proven" she is unable to care for her dog?? We strongly doubt this. Can the Council say with certitude that Rogier is any worse than the dozens of HRM dog owners who since January 2007 allowed their dogs to seriously and in many cases repeatedly injure people and/or animals - including several who killed chickens and cats? Anyone doubting how poorly Animal Services insure public safety, must see this chart of by-law charges (nobody knows how many dogs are never charged). 67 of those dog owners were charged, some convicted, yet only one ever lost their dog. 
Rogier is a far better dog owner than a certain policeman on that chart named Justin Murphy who owns a rather large and fierce dog (a dogo argentino). In one instance alone, Murphy's dog savagely bit the hand of Bonita Pasquet's 15 year old son, leading to emergency surgery with stitches. Murphy quickly changed  his location in order to protect his dog from a seizure. None ever came. After a long battle to have him charged, the judge simply dropped the case, claiming the Crown could not prove the dog was Murphy's, due to the change in address, even though Murphy freely admitted it was his dog. Pasquet planned to sue him in civil court but life took another course for her. She was furious to learn recently that this was not the first time Murphy was charged for his dog attacking people/animals. One charge was withdrawn, the other converted into a charge of running at large, and fined for about $200. No muzzle. No euthanization. No nothing. Pasquet says before he moved, his dog terrorized the neighborhood, attacking many kids and animals that never resulted in charges. It's nice when you are in the business, eh?


So in our view, Rogier's guilty verdict means precious little. The Council may not know that absolutely NO evidence was presented in court to prove that Brindi bit or truly attacked any dog on July 20, 2008; we only have the dogwalker's word for it, contradicting two other witnesses. For his part, Mr. Shea, the dog walker, changed his testimony a number of times, and in each version he claimed he never heard what was a very loud truck horn, honked about 15 seconds after Brindi escaped her owner's grip (which ended the "attack" that he says lasted minutes). The truck driver testified to his own honking AND to seeing Rogier arrive at the street edge at the same moment - after she ran less than 40 feet to get there, which did not take longer than 15 seconds. That driver also testified that he saw Mr. Shea kicking Brindi repeatedly and pursuing her into the road with his kicks. Brindi might have run off to just have a sniff at his dogs - we'll never really know, because he started kicking her right away! (He says he heard her growl - but never heard the horn. Weird hearing!)
We respectfully remind the councilors and the mayor that Ms. Rogier took a four year old rescue dog from a two year stint in a shelter and pretty smoothly acclimated her to a community where she was fairly beloved, passing obedience class within two months, sleeping with two cats within three months. The mishaps were anomalies that led to no serious harm, and are regarded by the vast majority of dog lovers and trainers around the world (thousands) as normal behavior, if not ideal for humans to witness: this is not a dog that tried to kill an animal or a person. Far from it! In this video of Rogier and her loving dog at the shelter, we challenge anybody to recognize a dog that is truly so vicious it must be locked up forever.

We respectfully ask Mary Wile and her buddies on the council to carefully read the letters on http://supportbrindi.blogspot.com about Brindi and her owner, including the ones from two young girls, a mom with small kids, and several other dog owners, not to mention the kennel, groomer, and vet. 

We also remind the councilors that it was due to their neglect to provide a proper appeal process that forced Ms. Rogier to file suit against HRM to stop the kill order, then launch a supreme court case to get her dog back. And for her trouble, HRM continued to illegally keep her dog locked up. You cannot be unaware that she has been suffering financially, emotionally, and professionally and her poor dog is aging fast and contracting chronic illness - while the SPCA has treated her like a terrorist when it comes to visits, prohibiting even photos!! 

We fear that Ms. Wile has been badly misled, and so has the public. Not only is Mr. Ottenbrite's Mt. Udiacke facility well over an hour away from Ms. Rogier's home in East Chezzetcook, but we have serious doubts both about the wisdom of his "option", as well as about his sincerity and motives. We feel the entire council ought to be made aware of these things it publicly endorses his “option”.

So, how bright is Mr. Ottenbrite? Shiny like vinyl posing as satin. Get this flow of events:

• Brindi and her owner passed Ottenbrite's obedience course in late summer 07 with relative ease (and hard work, we assume), shortly after Brindi was adopted. During those eight weeks of classes, Brindi never attacked another dog. This is not disputed; in fact, a vet who attended many of the same classes testified to this. 
• After that, Ms. Rogier turned to Ottenbrite for advice on how to handle Brindi on the few occasions when, to everyone's surprise, a mishap occurred . 
• His advice consisted of not much more than reassuring Rogier that Brindi's behavior was just a chance happening, basically harmless and normal, until the third time she called more insistently on him for help. At that time, he advised her to take Brindi to agility training at his facility an hour away. Rogier obediently paid his fee and started classes. 
• In this regard, we feel Ottenbrite is partly responsible for Brindi and let down her owner. But Instead of stepping up to the plate for Brindi at the start to tell HRM she is not dangerous, he said nothing, to cover his reputation; later, he blamed everything on her owner.
• After a year and a half of letting Rogier twist in the breeze, Mr. O quite inappropriately wrote a letter to her trial judge to try to intervene in the proceedings without anyone requesting his help– either HRM or Rogier. The judge was greatly annoyed; she did not read the letter, so did not know who wrote it. Interestingly, the hired-gun prosecutor, Mr. Newton, DID KNOW. That must mean that Newton was privy to Ottenbrite's plans - Rogier was not, however. 
• SO, after failing this dog and owner for ages, Mr. O now deceives the latter and proposes to lock up the former for the rest of her life. Nice.
• To achieve his goal, on Feb. 3, he promised Rogier in front of witnesses that his intentions were all in her favor; he promised he would not propose his option to the court or public until and unless the sentencing came down to death for Brindi. He later promised only to offer to take Brindi temporarily and give her back at a future time - after either a proper legal action or Rogier leaving HRM. 
• But as soon as the verdict was announced this past Tuesday, Mr. O went directly to the media even before they had a chance to interview Rogier. And in his media version of the "option", O changed the temporary stay to a permanent one, unbeknownst to Rogier. Nice!
• Mr. O then had the audacity to let it be thought that he and Rogier live close to one another!??! If East Chezzetcook and Mt. Uniacke are close by, it's news to us!! 

Not only does Ottenbrite stand alone in his view of HRM geography: we also understand that no other trainer since 2008 - and Rogier has been contacted by many and contacted many others - has echoed O's advice of agility training. The consensus has been that she should hire a private trainer to work with her and her dog right on her property. 


So how bright is Ottenbrite? What is really going on?


Ottenbrite's longtime connections to the infamous SPCA are no secret. Around 2003, he was its director and is reputed to have ruled with an iron hand. So his earlier silence about the seizure raises many questions: was he silent to protect the SPCA from criticism for their part in this fiasco? What is his position now, now that the SPCA has succeeded in ruining this dog's life, with chronic illness? 

What we see is a trainer taking advantage of a former client in many ways. Recently we learned from a contact to Rogier that Ottenbrite still owes her a fair amount of cash for the remaining agility lessons. A year ago, he told Rogier he would never refund that money despite her financial need. He cited a no-refund policy not given in writing. The problem is, he also flatly refused to give her the remaining lessons at any time. She has since filed a small claims suit against Ottenbrite for the money, plus damages. The hearing is scheduled March 23. We think she'll get win on that one.) So Ottenbrite is, um, far from a neutral third party.... he has a decided interest here, and it is not in Rogier's favor, let alone her dog's.

We find that Mr. Ottenbrite's "option" is far from a fair outcome; it simply compounds HRM's initial wrongdoing in a blatant way. It is so dismaying that he is willing to deceive Rogier and the public for personal gain, while claiming he is impartial. He is hoping to be seen as a knight in shining armour with an option that is so clearly NOT in the best interest of any dog or anyone involved, other than HRM and the SPCA. 


BAD dog trainer!!!! 

Unfortunately, the councilors are too in the dark to understand that far from resolving this situation fairly, Ottenbrite wants to complete the process started by their own staff at Animal Services, namely, a rape in all but name of a single woman who came to Canada to fulfill her dream. Ottenbrite is shamelessly using this woman's misery and her dog's life simply to promote his own business and protect his friends. Worse - he has a connection to a strange woman named Gail Gallant who is known to have been harassing and stalking Rogier for a year now. Ms. Gallant has publicly stated numerous times that she is determined to prevent Rogier from getting Brindi back home - even spreading rumours that neighbors would shoot the dog! 


Not long ago, this was seen on Facebook: 

Bob O said Dec 7, 09: Gail,I will work with the judge before Jan. & you do what you do best.  

We rest our case. 

And in contrast to Mr. O, we find that Rogier has shown far more integrity, told the truth, and been consistent, not to mention the fact that she is the only person to provide a badly needed corrective to the bad by-law A300 to date, while Ottenbrite has said nothing about the law, never mind making an attempt to improve it.

Plus: soon after Animal Services - contrary to all reason and expectation and the law - seized Brindi, Rogier committed publicly to how she would insure public safety in exchange for her dog's life: correct Brindi's behavior with targeted training, and build a fence; she also stated she was quite willing to pay fines for guilty charges, IF only she were charged! Rogier even went one step further and built the fence and hired the trainer soon afterwards, but there came no response at all from Halifax. The contrast to the recent case in NB could not be greater. 


We feel Halifax can trust in Rogier to do the right thing more than Ottenbrite, who is out for himself and his own business interests (the PR will do a lot for him).

MS. WILE: Perhaps you are not aware that it so happens that Ms. Rogier has a much better option on the table, that the judge knows nothing about thanks to HRM. A trainer right here in Halifax named Ted Efthymiadis informed HRM lawyers early last summer that he is willing to train Brindi for free and insure against future issues. But the lawyers and animal services staff never told you and the Council about this. WHY?

PLEASE,  DO YOUR JOB, Ms. Wile! First of all, get the info yourself! Take the time to find out how these officials staff go about their business, and above all, find out the real facts before you endorse any option. And no option is right, other than returning Brindi to her poor beleaguered owner!!