An eight-year-old Alaskan malamute named Girlie is at the heart of a court case in St. John's that pits the SPCA against the dog's owner.
The SPCA in St. John's wants the court's permission to put down this dog, arguing that it is dangerous and aggressive.(CBC)The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals asked a provincial court judge on Monday for permission to destroy the animal, arguing in court documents that it is dangerous and aggressive, is responsible for killing another dog and is a threat to people.
St. John's shelter director Debbie Powers said her group, which normally fights to protect animals, believes the move would be in the best interest of public safety.
"There are going to be a lot of wet eyes around here should we get this order," Powers told CBC News.
Powers said the SPCA seized the dog in October from the isolated area of Ferryland, 75 kilometres south of St. John's. It was living in a large plastic container used to transport fish.
Another dog, which was older and blind, was found dead inside the same makeshift doghouse, and Powers believes Girlie killed it.
The SPCA says the dog it believes should be put down lived in this makeshift doghouse. (CBC)"I blame the owner," she said. "I honestly blame people if they don't put the time mostly into their animals. Socially, that animal needed interaction with people... you live in total isolation on a chain — what are you learning? You are only learning to protect yourself."
The dog is owned by Gerald Clowe, who also owned the dog that died. The court documents said he is opposing the application to have Girlie put down.
Clowe moved to Fort McMurray a few years ago, but left instructions with someone else to feed and care for the animals.
CBC News was unable to reach Clowe for a comment on the court case.
Powers said she is worried that the dog, if not put down, will eventually hurt a human.
"If you take a child walking down the street with a puppy in its arms — this can happen very easily. I wouldn't want to be responsible for that child losing its face, losing its puppy … you could have someone torn up trying to protect their animal," she said.
The judge will make a decision on the case on May 14.
As many others did, we find this story troubling for several reasons. First, there is little or no mention of evidence that Girlie attacked another dog, let alone killed it. Second, there is no mention of charges laid against the owner and/or the person he put in charge of caring for this poor dog. Third, and this is always the bottom line, as well-meaning as she might be, Debbie Powers of the SPCA is taking a pre-emptive approach based on little evidence, and very likely doing so without any qualifications as a trainer or behavioral expert. With or without qualifications, it seems to us that there is an abundance of information out there about efforts to rehabilitate dogs in which the vast majority are successful. Beyond that, the number of fatalities due to dog bites is so low, it does not even make the top 20 causes of accidental death. Given this, what justification is there for slaughtering dogs at the drop of a hat - or an SCPA opinion?
At the very least, we feel strongly that this dog deserves a chance. Girlie deserves to be with a caring, committed person willing to devote time to her, and we are pretty sure, knowing dogs, that it will work out just fine. After all, the basic principle of training dogs is that their behavior can be modified; if not even one attempt to do so is made, the very notion of training is undermined.
In addition, like all laws, and far too many courts, the decision to kill this dog defies all logic, particularly with regard to what dogs have come to mean to humans over time. Nobody considers what dogs are as animals: they are not wild, they are domesticated to serve humans. For thousands of years they have been bred to be with, serve, and love humans, and for this reason alone, humans owe them the courtesy of giving them every chance to adjust to family life as a pet in such situations. In fact, when you think about all that dogs do for us, clearly we could never possibly pay the debt we owe them. Destroying these creatures who give us unconditional love - something that no human is capable of, possibly with the exception of the Dalai Lama - is an insupportable and irrational act of violence.
At the very least, we feel strongly that this dog deserves a chance. Girlie deserves to be with a caring, committed person willing to devote time to her, and we are pretty sure, knowing dogs, that it will work out just fine. After all, the basic principle of training dogs is that their behavior can be modified; if not even one attempt to do so is made, the very notion of training is undermined.
In addition, like all laws, and far too many courts, the decision to kill this dog defies all logic, particularly with regard to what dogs have come to mean to humans over time. Nobody considers what dogs are as animals: they are not wild, they are domesticated to serve humans. For thousands of years they have been bred to be with, serve, and love humans, and for this reason alone, humans owe them the courtesy of giving them every chance to adjust to family life as a pet in such situations. In fact, when you think about all that dogs do for us, clearly we could never possibly pay the debt we owe them. Destroying these creatures who give us unconditional love - something that no human is capable of, possibly with the exception of the Dalai Lama - is an insupportable and irrational act of violence.
