The SPCA and the Truth

We are grateful for the following comments in reference to a recent blog post on Free Brindi about SPCA Executive Director Kristin Williams' recent letter to the Herald defending her organization's role in "caring" for Brindi:

"The SPCA is never in favour of euthanasia where a viable alternative exists..."  

Looking at the statistics from the SPCA regarding animals received, placed and killed in a year, there seems to be a disproportionate number of sick/behavioral animals that were killed. We are curious: what constitutes sick/behavioral? Who makes this determination? Are they qualified to make such decisions regarding life and death? Is space an issue in this decision in any way -- because it would take time and space to make a animal adoptable?

 

"...the SPCA has advocated for [Brindi and has]... kept an open dialogue with HRM regarding Brindi’s health and well-being.."

But did you ever exercise your right to speak up on her behalf to say that Brindi is the gentle, loving dog that so many of your staff/volunteers have stated? If so, and if it was ignored, why did you not take the next step to tell the mayor who could easily end this travesty IF HE WANTED. That the mayor could put an end to this at any time and send Brindi home has been confirmed by MP Peter Stoffer numerous times. This makes Mayor Kelly equally complicit in this scandalous act; a reflection on his style of government. And a sad reflection on the city of Halifax.

"If the judge rules that Brindi is to be euthanized, it will not be carried out by the SPCA, nor will it occur on SPCA property."

Does this have anything to do with the loss of the HRM contract? Like NOW the SPCA speaks up?  

And what about all the other animals killed by the SPCA each year on their property? Will that continue? Again we ask about the sick/behavioral animals.

It is the job of a good marketing person to re-spin a story and bring their client into a favorable light. It's generally labeled "damage control." A perfect example is how far Michael Vick has come from being the evil henchman responsible for so many horrendous acts of cruelty against dogs. He stepped away from his life for a year and suffered some losses, but is currently back playing football for huge amounts of money and being considered for a reality tv show. No harm, no foul, right? It's like what he did never happened while many of the dogs from his dog fighting operation continue to mend from their experiences while in his care. 

Am I comparing the SPCA to Michael Vick? 

On some levels, maybe we are, for not doing the right thing and now spinning a new tale.  

• The SPCA is trusted to be the voice for the voiceless, first and foremost. They know Brindi is a kind and gentle dog, yet have not spoken up on her behalf. This is a right they have that carries more influence than most others of us have. Yet they have remained silent, allowing her unreasonable and unhealthy impoundment to continue for 566 days and counting. In addition, we believe it was based upon their recommendation that Francesca's visits be terminated. Some advocating for Brindi, huh? 
• Their image has been tarnished, so they must now craft a new image for themselves; they must "market" themselves in the same way you polish an apple to make it look good. You can rub an apple with a cloth and make it the prettiest apple in the bunch, but inside it can be just as rotten as it was without the shine. So we suggest that we not fall for the "words" of the SPCA as they scramble to redeem themselves from some pretty big lapses in judgement recently. 

Let's wait and see if their words are backed up by substantive actions and genuine change. THEN our faith will be restored. But not before.  

SPCA: We urge you to advocate FOR Brindi. Speak of her gentle character. And recommend she be released to her owner with certain reasonable conditions. She deserves her life back. Let Francesca show the doubters that she is indeed a responsible pet owner. Let her become the contributing member of community she has always been and always intended.

We are longtime Brindi supporters and believe she should be released to Francesca ASAP.


For other commentary, see Titanic Bugle and the comments there.

The Perpetrators Prosecute Other People

Well, the three-month deadline for the detention of property has long passed. Janice Bingley's dogs are property, and Nova Scotia provincial law (see section E, Summary Proceedings Act) clearly says no law enforcement agency can legally detain property beyond three months' time without permission for an extension from a judge. The SPCA has no such permission and could not likely get an extension, since animals are not evidence or otherwise required for any inquiry or court proceeding. There has been court ruling that Bingley's animals were subjected to cruelty (in distress) and thus are in need of detention. Some of these animals may not even be in the SPCA's possession, as it declared a few weeks ago it would adopt them out.
So it seems that even at this late date, the SPCA is still wearing blinders when it comes to the law. It is going to run out of luck any day now, we suspect. Provincial authorities may be slow, but according to correspondence we've seen, they are definitely paying attention.
We notice another thing: missing from this prosecution list are the ladies who were keeping cats in an abandoned house that the SPCA raided last summer. That's well over six months ago, way past the deadline for laying charges. We hear the SPCA told those women they may never own cats again - with what legal authority, we'd like to ask?

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Nova Scotia SPCA issues update on current active animal cruelty cases

Nova Scotia (Thursday, February 4, 2010) –Today, the Nova Scotia SPCA announced a number of animal cruelty provincial and federal charges served in ongoing cases throughout Nova Scotia:

1. Darren Gumbley, Annapolis County: 1 Criminal Code count 446 (1) b - failure to provide suitable food, water, shelter and care; one provincial offence 11 (2) - causing or permitting an animal to be or continue to be in distress. Plea date is March 1, 2010 in Annapolis Co. The case involves one dog and three cats. The owner allegedly did not provide proper care and medical attention for the animals.

2. Yassine Bekkour, Halifax (HRM): 1 Criminal Code count 445 (1) a - wilful neglect causing damage or injury to animals; two provincial offenses 11 (1) - wilfully causing an animal pain, suffering or injury; and 11 (2) causing or permitting an animal to be or continue to be in distress. Plea date is February 15, 2010 in Halifax. The case involves one cat. The owner allegedly struck the cat, resulting in severe trauma and a fracture.

3. Tom Jeffery, Yarmouth County: 1 Criminal Code count 446 (1) b - failure to provide suitable food, water, shelter and care; one provincial offence 11 (2) - causing or permitting an animal to be or continue to be in distress. Plea date is March 2, 2010 in Yarmouth Co. The case involves one dog. The owner allegedly did not provide proper care and medical attention for the animal.

4. Janice Bingley, Pictou County: 1 provincial offence 11 (2) - causing or permitting an animal to be or continue to be in distress. Plea date is February 22, 2010 in New Glasgow. The case involves 8 dogs and 14 puppies. The owner allegedly did not provide proper care and medical attention for the animals.

These cases will be prosecuted in provincial courts by the respective Crown Attorney in the county where the charges have been filed and served.

_________________________

Finally - who can ignore the obvious? Only Nova Scotia authorities, it seems. We can't help seeing that the SPCA is prosecuting other people for cruelty while it CONTINUES to commit cruelty and neglect to a dog named Brindi, a dog the SPCA shelter has been keeping confined since July 24, 2008, on behalf of a city that has no legal authority to impound her. That bird will come home to roost soon enough. Too bad it hasn't occurred to the SPCA that they are perfectly within their rights to decide to return Brindi to her lawful owner. That way, they would no longer be complicit in breaking the law - and can turn around and prosecute HRM for the same thing, as they no longer have any need to worry about their beloved pound contract. 

What better way to redeem its reputation and become the heroes - nothing to lose, everything to gain, folks!

___________________

We're also both disgusted and amused, though not very surprised, to see that notorious kisser of dogs Joan Sinden has broken her New Year's resolution so soon and allowed her muddled logic to lead to yet another libelous blog post. This time around, she's really done it. Joan cannot possibly back up some of her statements against Francesca Rogier, Brindi's owner, with any evidence, and they are very clearly intended to discredit/defame her. She's even got it wrong about Brindi: it's not true that "nobody" thinks this dog is dangerous. Quite clearly, HRM does, from the mayor to the prosecutor down to animal services! Why else would they have told a judge exactly one year ago that they are prosecuting Rogier in order to get the chance to ask him for a new euthanasia order? 

Joan has some curious opinions, and we noticed this one from January 20: 

In my dog training world - it's all sunshine and lollipops - ignore the bad and praise the good - if one of my dogs does something I don't want them to do - I don't give them any attention for it whatsoever, and soon enough - they figure out - that doesn't get them what they want - ATTENTION - so they stop that behaviour. And stuff I do want them to do - I praise that like hell and give them lots of attention. It's a no-brainer. 

A no-brainer? Hmmm. So we wonder what Joan would do when a dog does something against the by-law? Absolutely nothing? Is that what she thinks is "responsible ownership"? And yet Joan advocates taking a dog away from an owner for such violations, proven or not. We wonder about this wisdom also because clearly it would mean rehoming hundreds of dogs whose owners were convicted of by-law violations in HRM. It smacks of intolerance, and yes, it smacks of hypocrisy, as HRM has received at least one complaint about one of Joan's dogs. 


Now we hear through the grapevine that Joan herself may wind up in court soon. Perhaps that's unpleasant for her, but we can't help feeling it's high time the contentious blogger learns some lessons of her own about responsibility. She may think she's got nothing to fear, after she saw a judge ignore the law to reject Rogier's peace bond application against Joan's good friend Gail Gallant, but libel is a different matter. This time she may have committed it against a newspaper; not a good idea. No telling what can happen there. A certain Mr. Wayne Croft may want to sit up and take notice. 

__________________

Meanwhile, we've seen another report on the SPCA's ongoing efforts to punish alleged puppy mill owner Gail Benoit and her husband Dana Bailey for alleged cruelty - something like 15 years of efforts, six trials. Gail and Dana are now appealing to get their convictions overturned. The judge promised to issue a decision "as soon as I can", according to the Herald. 

At the same time, Brindi sits in the pound. She and her owner, who has been denied visits, must wait until February 23 to learn whether she will be convicted of alleged offenses dating back to summer 2008. No telling what will happen. 

The Hypocriticalympics: the Best of the Worst in Justice and Freedom for None

Now competing in the big arena, it's the champs of the chumps, the golden boys of bullying, the brightest band of bums, terrifying teams in a tight competition for those coveted hypocritimedals!

Who gets the gold?

In the yellow stripes, Mayor Peter Kelly, for acquiescing to staff who forbid him from setting Brindi free, way back in October 2008? Way to be a leader! (Who elected that "staff"??)

Sporting plush office bottoms, the Halifax Regional Council, for freely settling lawsuits by the score, but since 2008 (coincidentally when it passed A300, the worst by-law ever) claiming it can't do a thing for Brindi because "it's before the courts!"? Yay, team! Keep those BUY-laws coming!

Gnashing its leashes, the SPCA, for claiming its self-inflating pound contract barred it from sending Brindi home on day one? (Shhh, don't let the donating public know that no private contract can trump our provincial mandate.) Lost your pound contract? Blame Brindi's owner, like you blame her for Brindi's pancreatitis and ruined teeth! That'll teach her to rescue a mutt you could have killed perfectly well in the Celtic Pets raid! 

In the blood-red sweats, HRM's fearsome Animal Services staff, for dumping the SPCA contract and having the audacity to cite a "lack of long-term services" as a reason, while steadfastly refusing to move Brindi to a long-term facility even after a year and a half as it destroys the impudent owner who wants her dog back? Hey, let's get some neighbors with aggressive dogs to testify against her, yeah!

The always silent, never-vigilant Nova Scotia Ministry of Justice, for allowing both HRM and the SPCA to become more and more abusive of the legal system as time goes on, systematically denying due process in full view of the world? Sure, it's not like it's a fundamental right or anything! (What the heck, guys, just help yourselves to the dogs and don't bother laying charges unless you don't get your way!)

The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, competing in the Special Hypocritalympics, turning a blind eye to the persecution of not one, but TWO single women who shamelessly love their dogs - an emigre architect willing to fix up our unwanted "heritage" homes and our unwanted dogs; the other, a caring mother robbed of her many Danes because she can't afford the ransom, whose kids can't grasp why the puppies are gone? 

On and off the bench, the integrity-challenged Nova Scotia legal profession, for taking turns screwing over the foreign broad till she's broke and forced to represent herself, and doing nothing at all for the other on the ruse that they have to wait until charges are laid?

Or, middle-of-the-road, the Nova Scotia media, doing the long jump to keep it all real... uh, superficial, so the reading public doesn't ever get the whole picture and maybe start demanding something be done?

The suspense is KILLING us (and our pets)!!

Pawsitive Directions is Rescued!

GOOD NEWS!!!!

"I have just found out the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program has been saved!!! Contracts were just signed to ensure the continuity of the program. Thank you to everyone for your generous support and know that without your help, this would not have been possible."

Wonderful news! Bravo, CSC and all involved!!

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 yanks dog training program at Truro women's prison

By PAT LEE Staff ReporterThu. Dec 3 - 4:44 PM

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.

“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.

Photos courtesy of "Help Save Pawsitive Service Dogs"

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. 

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

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:

Janice Bingley wrote19 hours ago

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies is the national voice of humane societies and SPCAs. We bring together those who work with, and care for animals to promote respect and humane treatment toward all animals.

Position statements   Animals in transit

1. In order to protect the welfare of animals in transit, CFHS advocates adherence to the following principles:

a. Animals shall have priority over merchandise. 

b. All persons accepting shipping or carrying of live animals shall be fully familiar with all packing and care-giving requirements for all animals in their care. 

c. No animal shall be transported in a way that is likely to cause suffering. 

d. Animals in transit shall be protected from extreme fluctuations in environment. 

e. Animals shall be provided with sufficient ventilation but shall not be exposed to strong drafts. 

f. Only animals in good health shall be transported (except when transport is necessary to provide the animals with veterinary treatment). 

g. No animals obviously in advanced stages of pregnancy, or animals which have recently given birth, shall be transported (except when transport is necessary to provide the animals with veterinary treatment). 

h. All animals shall be transported in vehicles and/or containers and conditions appropriate to their species. 

CBC story:

Halifax area seeks new animal shelter

Last Updated: Friday, November 6, 2009 | 6:00 PM AT Comments10Recommend8

CBC News

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.

original link

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.

Do Animal Control Authorities (dog catchers) have to be nincompoops?

 “Tyranny” in animal control enforcement

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.”

original link