Dog fatally injures kitten: $300 plus court fees, no problem.

From some members of Humane Halifax who attended provincial court last week, we heard about three cases of A300 violations. 

In one, the charges were dismissed by the judge, who said the city had insufficient evidence. The owner of a dog who was attacked by the offending dog was present and testified. Normally, that is the only sort of evidence available, barring photos of injuries or vet bills. 

In a second case, the city dropped one of the charges, and the owner was fined. It involved running at large and attacking an animal.

In a third, heard in the Halifax court on the 23rd of October, the dog in question was not registered. It was charged with running at large, being unlicenses, and attacking an animal. 

This apparently 10 year old dog, no breed indicated, escaped from the man's control while it was being put out on a lead in the backyard, according to the man. He said it ran off because it had spotted a kitten in the neighbor's yard. It then ran into their yard, grabbed the kitten, and shook it hard several times. The kitten died a few days later from the injuries. I.e., a fatal attack. Blood, guts, gore. Bona fide.

The man who testified in court claimed the dog was his wife's pet, not his. His wife was not in court. This factor seemed to reduce the harshness of the way the city handled it, although it's hard to see why. 

HRM lawyer Kishan Persaud asked the judge for two things: first, an order for the man to register his dog. Since it's a law that you must license your dog in HRM, it's a redundant request; the judge looked a bit perplexed at this. Second, Persaud said the city wanted to impose a fine of $300. That was it. He based this on the idea that the dog had never been reported before. The fees and costs would make it $500, replied the judge. The owner of the kitten was not present.

And that was that.

Humane Halifax notified the press ahead of these cases, but no media reporters were present.

No info was given about breeds for any of the dogs. 

You can find a few more details about these cases here. Numbers 8978, 8982, and 8760. The latter is the one with the fatal injuries. 

What is just? Well, couldn't the city at least ask the owners to build a fence around their yard?? Otherwise, how can Persaud support his decision in terms of maintaining public safety? The law does not make any provision for "prior records".

 

Under A300, any dog that attacks or threatens to attack is considered dangerous dog. 

This raises some instant questions. To begin with, to follow A300, isn't any case with a guilty conviction on "attacking" a candidate for a dangerous dog designation? 

Yet of 60 plus cases where dogs are convicted of attacking, how many are deemed dangerous, muzzled, seized, euthanized?? One or two, max. 

And how do these cases compare to the other cases??? One involved worse attacks than the average, although no killing. The other - well, it doesn't even compare to the rest. You can guess which one that is.

This is not to say that HRM should be seeking death to all these other dogs as it is for Brindi. In no way should anybody be fully applying a by-law that is so sweeping and so flawed, we think. That may be why it usually doesn't do it. But how can it justify singling out Brindi, and leave others untouched?? 

There is no doubt that a dog that kills another animal is a serious issue. It is a proven killer, rather than a hypothetical one - that might hurt a child, might kill another pet. Then the fines. There seems to be an unseen scale used with them: some people must pay $222 for not having their dog registered. Others pay $300 even though they plead guilty to three separate charges; the fines should in fact total $666.

Is this what HRM really considers good animal control?? Or is the city in danger of "bringing the administration of justice into disrepute"?

Meanwhile, Brindi's owner and her lawyer were turned down twice by provincial court judges when they brought an application of abuse of process before the court. Pretty much the same thing happened to their application to get the dog released now, as the city has no real legal basis to keep holding her and may never have had it. In violation of the Summary Proceedings Act. The city blocked Brindi's owner from the chance to even present the case to a judge - using a lame tactic of a last-minute adjournment request, which was argued using the argument it would have used during a real hearing. 

It seems the latest judge says that she has no authority to even get Brindi moved to a better facility than the Metro Shelter (a short-term stay facility...). Evidently, she has the power to order Brindi killed, but she can't order her to be transferred. 

A travesty? You decide. 

So other dogs can kill and never be taken from their owners, whose finds will put them out a pittance by comparison to some other owners... HRM is not ashamed to let the world see that it is intent on wiping out one financially and emotionally, and in order to do it,  it is even prepared to break the law and a lot of its own rules, not to mention court rules. Dogs that kill? Oh, well, it's their first time... ??

And the SPCA? Well, they are happy as clams and again busy raiding a backyard breeder. 

We have no independent confirmation is available to check out what conditions the SPCA said the animals were in. Experience tells us that an independent confirmation is a good idea in such cases.

More on that to come.

And another!

The Chronicle Herald must be getting quite a few letters these days, since they've been so reticent in the past year... 

Being held hostage

As I read recent letters to the editor, I see that poor dog Brindi is still being held in the shelter in Burnside. It has been over a year that this dog has been held hostage.

I understand that there are some fines for the owner to pay, but let the dog out. I am wondering who we have running this city to allow this to go on as long as it has. Are they expecting Brindi to pay for court fees? Is this why she is still being held? This seems like a vendetta against the owner, with the dog paying the price.

Peter and the gang are eroding their chances of re-election with one in this city who is an animal lover.

Kathleen MacAulay, Dartmouth

And there's more!

Today's Chronicle Herald contained yet another letter to the editor: 

Support for Brindi

Hope Bridgewater of Wentworth (July 30 letter) writes in defence of the dog Brindi, whom HRM appears determined to kill: "It is easier to stand by and say nothing, but my conscience compels me to ask HRM to drop the charges, to allow Ms. Rogier to take Brindi home after his long stay at the SPCA shelter and, in compensation, to pay Ms. Rogier’s legal bills."

As a resident and taxpayer of HRM who has followed this story from the outset, I concur — and for precisely the reason expressed so eloquently by Mahatma Gandhi in the quotation that opened Ms. Bridgewater’s letter, and which bears repeating as I close this one: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

Norm Sabowitz, Halifax

There was also a letter of interest regarding the treatment of animals in Canada, and seals in particular: 

Don’t be fooled

Canadians must not be fooled by our politicians’ bizarre insistence that the seal hunt is humane, though they purport to justify it by scientific evidence. Science may say that the animals die painlessly, but to look to veterinarians for an ethical justification of the seals’ killing is to shoulder their science with a burden it is not meant to bear.

That a seal dies painlessly is not enough: We must consider that seals, and many other animals, are evidently conscious, feeling beings capable of taking joy in their lives and in their relationships with other animals. They avoid harm because they desire to continue living. When a seal is killed, a member of a community has been destroyed, and a willing, feeling soul has been deprived of all its hopes — it has died when it wanted to live.

Seals are not a special case, since animal abuse is rampant throughout Canada and the world: The ending of the Canadian seal hunt, accompanied as it must be by measures to ease seal hunters into new employment, is only one step of many that must be taken.

John MacCormick, Bible Hill

No justice for Brindi -- even after one year?

But at least the newspaper finally printed a few letters... 

Drop the charges

Mahatma Gandhi stated, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Currently, Halifax Regional Municipality’s animal control bylaws and their application contradict the great philosopher in regard to the court case of Francesca Rogier and her dog Brindi.

A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge, on Jan. 16, 2009, was right to rule that the authorized killing of Brindi by HRM’s animal control bylaws exceeded the power of the municipality. The court case against Ms. Rogier and her dog should have been dropped then, but instead HRM insists on having a trial on Oct. 13, 2009, in order to have Brindi killed, even when Ms. Rogier pleads not guilty.

It is easier to stand by and say nothing, but my conscience compels me to ask HRM to drop the charges, to allow Ms. Rogier to take Brindi home after his long stay at the SPCA shelter and, in compensation, to pay Ms. Rogier’s legal bills.

Hope Bridgewater, Wentworth 
Halifax Chronicle-Herald, Thursday, July 30, 2009
-----------------------------

Send Brindi home

Brindi, the dog, has now been imprisoned unjustly by HRM for a year. A year in a kennel that is meant for short term stays! I am sure the SPCA is doing their best, but Brindi should at the very least be moved to a more accommodating kennel, where she can be walked! Her current situation is inhu mane!

This is not about public safety; this is about HRM trying to save face. They have the power to end this mess. Brindi is not a dangerous dog! This was proven when the Supreme Court quashed the euthanization order, only to have HRM charge her owner, Francesca Rogier, at literally the last hour of the six  month statute of limitations.

To re-home Brindi would mean declaring her not dangerous. The city will not agree to this, because then they would have to drop their charges. They want to kill Brindi; Brindi is not human aggressive (as stated by a professional assessment) and has never seriously injured any dog. Yes, she has issues with other dogs near her property and these issues will be worked on. Ms. Rogier has a certified dog behaviourist/ trainer on board to help.

Our animal control system is in trouble. Ms. Rogier has been denied due process. It horrifies me that I even have to write this letter, as it is all so unbelievable! Ms. Rogier and Brindi are being treated worse than criminals.

I am concerned for the welfare of my own dog under bylaw A-300. The way it’s written, if my dog “appears" to be threatening to someone, they can come and take my dog and kill her! This would all be decided by people who have little to no experience in animal behaviour! We should all fear for our dogs in HRM.

To the HRM councillors, please stop sweeping this under the rug! Hiring pricey outside lawyers to prosecute a bylaw infraction does not sit well with me as a taxpayer, either. Even the animal control in Calgary, which you are trying to model, is not pleased with the handling of this case.

Stop the injustice and send Brindi home where she belongs!

Jenn Richardson, Dartmouth, NS

Halifax Chronicle-Herald, Sunday, July 18, 2009

Brindi’s owner goes to trial in October on animal control charges 
Wed. Jul 22 - 4:46 AM

The owner of Brindi the dog will go to trial in October on three counts of violating Halifax Regional Municipality’s animal control bylaw.

Francesca Rogier of East Chezzetcook is charged with being the owner of a dog that was running at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failing to comply with a muzzling order.

She pleaded not guilty to the charges in February and appeared in Dartmouth provincial court again last week, when her trial was set for Oct. 13.

The charges stem from an event in East Chezzetcook in July 2008, when animal control officers, acting on a complaint from another pet owner, seized Brindi and ordered her euthanized.

The dog was under a muzzle order at the time. Ms. Rogier has said Brindi got away while she was holding the muzzle.

Brindi, a six-year-old mixed breed, has been kept at the SPCA shelter in Dartmouth since she was seized.

A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled Jan. 16 that the bylaw that authorized the killing of Brindi exceeded the power of the municipality.

PR vs. news

Here is a report from ABC News from 2005 about SPCA's across North America that we find very illuminating.

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!)

And what ever happened to the guy who stabbed the St. Bernard?

Nothing, as far as we hear. 

No word on whether he was charged with A300 violations - owning a dog that runs at large, owning a dog that attacks animals, and possibly, owning a dog without a license.

No media reports since the first few days. 

Wonder why??? Could it have something to do with the fact that he wields a knife and is a violent person? That might scare off an untrained animal control officer.

That is the speculation about the owners of the German Shepherd in Halifax that we posted about (below). One of its owners has a police record. Coincidence??

The tides are turning in Ontario: will they reach our shores?

 Newspaper ad running currently: 

Please write to the Toronto Sun and the Globe and Mail.

·       If you have been bullied or threatened by the OSPCA.
·       With OSPCA financial information re: legal costs, confidential settlements.  
·       With information about how the OSPCA treats its employees.
·       With information about how the OSPCA treats animals at OSPCA shelters.   
·       If your animal has been mistreated or killed by the OSPCA.  

Keep it really short and powerful & attach a photo. For the first time ever the media suggests the OSPCA be investigated.       

The OSPCA MUST be held accountable for their actions. Please write ASAP.     Change will not happen if YOU are too afraid to tell your story.      
torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca  with a copy to michele.mandel@tor.sunpub.com, peter.worthington@tor.sunpub.com

Send a separate copy to khammer@globeandmail.com and  cblatchford@globeandmail.com
 
Humane society critics smell blood (Toronto Sun June 9, 2009)
A euthanasia rate of only 7% does not necessarily make THS 'humane,' new group charges

By PETER WORTHINGTON
Last Updated: 9th June 2009, 2:55am
 
The uproar over how the Toronto Humane Society (THS) is run revolves around a couple of overlapping issues: Treatment of animals and treatment of employees and volunteers.

Provoked by a three-part Globe and Mail series, critics and rivals taste blood. The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA), formerly the Ontario Humane Society, suspended the THS as an affiliate, even before investigating charges of cruelty for letting sick animals die in cages rather than euthanize them.

The OSPCA and THS have a history of antagonism.

Ironically, the OSPCA has no shortage of critics. Its management and board seem to periodically resign en masse and squabble among themselves. Par for the animal movement.

A new group, comprised of several disillusioned THS members and former employees, is the Association to Reform the THS (ART). It wants the Office of the Official Guardian to appoint an interim manager to replace THS President Tim Trow. Spokesman Aries Gaertner insists "we are not political, and just want what's best for animals."

Whatever his people and management skills (or lack of same), Trow is indisputably empathetic with animals, and has lowered the THS' euthanasia rate to 7%, making it arguably the world's most "humane" humane society.

For many, genuinely animal-compassionate leadership at the THS tips the scales in favour of Trow, who insists decisions on euthanizing sick animals rests solely with the senior veterinarian.

Lee Oliver, an ART member and a former THS management employee, says roughly the same number of cats, dogs, birds and small animals like gerbils and rabbits die each year at the THS, regardless of whether the euthanasia rate is 7% (today) or 18% (pre-Tim Trow).

He says cage deaths make the euthanasia rate statistically low but may, in fact, increase the suffering of sick animals. To him, Trow is "too compassionate and reluctant to put sick animals out of their misery."

My interest goes back to Toronto Telegram days when the THS was a death camp, electrocuting animals at an alarming rate it claimed was more humane than lethal injections. THS members eventually rebelled and elected more compassionate directors. I was on the board when Vicki Miller and the late Kathy Hunter ran the place and were diehard animal protectors.

Co-chairmen of ART are THS members Linda MacKinnon and Judi King, who'd like the THS annual meeting scheduled for October speeded up to elect a new board.

Last week OSPCA inspectors accompanied by police checked the THS but found little wrong. A case can be made that the OSPCA and Toronto Animal Services (TAS -- the city pound) warrant independent investigations themselves. "Let everyone be investigated," says Trow.

The OSPCA membership has no say in electing directors -- they have no vote, and can just pay annual dues. Democracy doesn't exist.

TAS is mostly a killing agency, and is secretive about its statistics. A recent Sun investigation showed that TAS kills some 55% of cats and dogs that come in -- 25,000 in five years.

THS policy is to not kill healthy dogs, but to keep them alive indefinitely in hopes they'll be adopted. Of 1,970 dogs in the THS shelter in 2008, 37 died in their cages, while 47 were euthanized. An enviable record, unmatched by any other humane society.

Still, an independent inquiry might be helpful. Investigate and audit how money is spent at the THS and OSPCA, as well as how staff are treated.

There's no shortage of nutbars in the animal movement. They tend to feud and agitate, and actually harm animals they seek to protect. One hopes ART will escape these pitfalls in its quest to improve the THS.

An email sent to Minister Bartolucci and legislators June 8, 2009

• Between 2000 and 2004 the number of animal cruelty charges laid by the OSPCA increased from 97 to 695. The number of search warrants more than quadrupled in the last five years and the number of Orders issued almost tripled in the same time period,  (OSPCA Press Release October 3, 2006)  yet the number of complaints increased only marginally from 16,166 in 2000 to 16,478 in 2005.  In one case alone the OSPCA laid 183 charges.  

·        In February 2005, the first of two investigative reports by Grant Thornton commissioned by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) on OSPCA  finances was complete. Findings have not been made available to the public or the media.  



·        In a 2005 acquittal verdict for Cindy Pauliuk, Justice Anton Zuraw referred to the Hamilton-Burlington SPCA as “…a private police force empowered in cases involving animals to lay charges and seize property, using these charges or seizures to campaign for funds for their private coffers.”  An April 8, 2005  Globe and Mail article reported: “The Hamilton SPCA was more interested in raising money than saving what it believed were abused horses, a judge ruled yesterday.” “During the trial, one SPCA member testified the incident was used to garner more donations, the judge wrote”  “Jim Sykes, president and CEO of the Hamilton SPCA, disagreed with the judge’s statement that the SPCA needed high-profile arrests to keep it going.” Jim Sykes is now OSPCA Board Chair replacing Michael Chaddock who resigned along with 28 other directors in 2006.
·        In March 2006,  a mass resignation of 29 OSPCA board members including the Chair and the Treasurer commences.  (The province had just given the OSPCA an unprecedented $2,000,000.)  CEO Judy Marshall also leaves.  In a letter addressed to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) and Premier McGuinty, resigned directors stated: “The government is well aware of the problems (at the OSPCA)”  and urged that their resignation be regarded “as a request for intervention…” The letter claims “outdated legislation and dysfunctional governance" forced the organization to "irresponsibly and immorally squander donor and taxpayer dollars in an unsustainable and wasteful fashion."   “Resigning (OSPCA) board members urge (the) province to step in and investigate “insane” abuse and cruelty charges”.  Directors “feel strongly that government, not the humane society should be in charge of enforcing laws to protect animals and to prosecute offenders.”  (Toronto Sun May 15, 2006.)  

• In November 2006, the issue was addressed by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association: “If an animal welfare enforcement system is self-funded through public donations, there develops a motivation for high visibility publication of enforcement proceedings, with or without conviction, with the aim of collecting voluntary donations, at the risk of infringing on the civil rights of the accused.  This potential abuse may in itself be a violation of other legal protections.”  The Veterinary Profession’s Role in Policing Animal Welfare, Canadian Veterinary Journal, Volume 47, November 2006.    

The excerpt above is from a Briefing Note presented to Minister Kwinter during a May 2007 meeting.    

The province has since granted the OSPCA an additional $5,000,000. and unprecedented police powers – warrantless entry – without oversight, accountability and transparency. In January 2007 multiple copies of the letter below were sent to Jim Sykes, OSPCA Board Chair.  

Mike Draper acting CEO and former Director of Investigations resigned from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA), accepting the position of Sales Barn Inspector at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).

The OSPCA Investigations Department, under Mr. Draper, chose intimidation, harassment, arrogance and defiance over people skills and sound investigative techniques. OSPCA Inspectors and Agents exhibited extreme aggression.  
Bizarre numbers of charges were laid.  Statistics show the OSPCA laid 97 charges in 2000.  In 2004, 695 charges were laid despite there being fewer complaints.   

Mr. Sykes, in your capacity as Board Chair, I request that you notify your Investigations Department that, actions found to be in violation of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ mandate to provide law enforcement that is “safe, secure, effective, efficient and  accountable”, will not be tolerated by the OSPCA.  

It is imperative the OSPCA and the province permanently distance themselves from the previous investigative style and that the issue of unsupervised police powers in the wrong hands be addressed.   

Tensions between animal owners and OSPCA continue to escalate - culminating with a Toronto OSPCA inspector handcuffing his suspect.  Inspectors have been found guilty of severe breaches of the Charter of Rights.  (Rulings available on request). OSPCA inspectors continue to bully, threaten and nitpick.  Witness their recent dealings at Bergeron’s zoo.  
 
The public deserves better.  However, until there is media appetite for this information  – there will be no change.   Legislators and the majority of the public rest comfortably in the knowledge that with passing Bill 50 animals are better protected.  
 
Victims of the OSPCA live in fear of the OSPCA.  Bill 50 does not provide law enforcement that is “safe, secure, effective, efficient and  accountable”  - to us, Bill 50 is a nightmare come true.  
 
The same uproar at the THS almost happened at the OSPCA three years ago.  Lucky for the OSPCA there was next to no media interest.  The province has made the OSPCA the cornerstone of Ontario’s animal welfare system – protect your asset not just by empowering and partially funding it – OVERSEE IT.     
 
You're welcome to call Carl Noble, one of the original eight resigned OSPCA directors, at 519-534-3988.  
 
Excerpts from Peter Worthington’s article three years ago in the Toronto Sun May 15, 2006:
 
“there's big trouble within the OSPCA if anyone looks closely. Many board members are upset that public donations and grants from the government are spent on buildings and facilities rather than on animals  and curbing cruelty and abuse.”

“In their letter to McGuinty and Kwinter, eight (original resigned) board members noted that the government is well aware of the problems (at the OSPCA) and urged that their  resignation be regarded "as a request for intervention ... to suspend the bylaws of the OSPCA, suspend the board of the OSPCA, and appoint a  representative of your government to work with the CEO of the Society pending the promised update of the OSPCA Act."   
 
“last Nov. 2 chief inspector Mike  Draper wrote Tim Trow, president of the THS, and admitted "a private investigation firm" was hired to "obtain statements from a number of (THS)  employees." .... Criminal charges (by the OSPCA against the THS) were threatened.”    

Deja vu ????  

Excerpts from Peter Worthington’s article in the Barrie Examiner, November 2008:
In 2006, the OSPCA board of directors resigned (twenty nine of them), virtually en masse.  ... the OSPCA's (current) 12-person board of directors is not chosen by public vote of members, but appointed.

“This, folks, is dictatorial, not democratic -- aided and abetted by McGuinty.”

“The solution is simple: The government should take a hard look at the absolute control exercised by the OSPCA, and bring the police powers of its inspectors under control of the attorney general.”

“The McGuinty government seems reluctant to challenge the OSPCA, and recently gave it a $5 million windfall” (and 1.8 million before that).   

And “the way Bill 50 is written, a private charity has police powers to prosecute, is accountable to no one, is immune to the ombudsman, and is protected from access to information legislation. (Bill 50 grants the OSPCA warrantless entry). Not to disparage individuals who are inspectors, but their mandate and the OSPCA's style are more mindful of a secret police than a body serving the public.”
 
Additions are bracketed.  

Angry about Animal Control

A friend forwarded the message below and writes: I think this story is great for showing the inconsistencies in Animal Control & the by-law. We have Brindi, who never bit a person & here's a dog that bit a few people and other dogs, and is still at home. But Brindi is locked up for 10 months. Hello,  Last year I was bitten by the neighbour's German Sheppard (sic) and I couldn't get Animal Services to fine the owner no matter what I did! Their dog had attacked my Am-Staff six months before and the owner of the German Sheppard wanted MY dog put down...because HER DOG BIT HER! After I was bit, apparently they couldn’t even fine the owner because of some statute of limitations where they weren’t able to fine them within six months of it happening. So I’d like you to use these instances to show that there's a lot more dangerous dogs, and even more screwed up owners out there! If anyone comes by a F-----, or a J----- living somewhere around Tantallon (she works at the --------- Store)...their dog S------ is a vicious animal that has now bit two humans! What bothers me most is they don’t have any problem having him around their grandchildren. So anyway...my point is, I know firsthand how screwed up the HRM By-laws are.  Let me know if I, or this'll help at all;  J  NOTE we learned that this person was bitten in the leg by the German shepherd and required medical treatment. The dog has reportedly bitten other people and animals since then.   also: there is no statute of limitations on a dangerous dog. A dog can be seized at any time. Hello, Animal Services??

Update on Mr. Beazley

Mr. Beazley, the St. Bernard stabbed last weekend, seems to be recovering well. 

Get well soon, Mr. Beazley

Couple’s beloved dog stabbed

By DAN ARSENAULT Crime Reporter

A 56-year-old Dartmouth man is facing numerous charges after he allegedly stabbed a dog Saturday afternoon in Dartmouth.

According to police, the attack took place while a couple were walking their leashed St. Bernard on a trail from Princess Margaret Boulevard toward Burnside Park at 3:10 p.m.

The couple who own the dog, John and Penny Williams, said things turned bad soon after they started to head back home on one of their daily walks with Mr. Beazley.

Their six-year-old, purebred, doughnut-loving dog weighs 180 pounds.

"We saw this dog charging towards us," Mr. Williams said from his home Monday.

The dog, a yellow Labrador retriever, ran straight to Mr. Beazley and jumped on him in an attack, he said. Mr. Williams was trying to pull away the Labrador retriever when a man who also lives in their Princess Margaret Boulevard neighbourhood showed up.

According to Mr. Williams, the man said, "Get your . . . dog off my dog or I’ll kill it," and then took out a hunting knife and started to stab Mr. Beazley.

Ms. Williams started pulling at the man’s jacket to make him stop and Mr. Williams went a step further.

"I actually grabbed his wrist that had the knife in it to keep him from stabbing Beazley more," he said.

At one point, the man allegedly threatened the couple, but the dogs were soon separated. Mr. Williams found it strange that the man just walked away with the Labrador retriever once they were separated.

They contacted police and Ms. Williams hoisted Mr. Beazley into a car and took him to the Metro Animal Emergency Clinic in Dartmouth.

Halifax Regional Police’s quick response unit in East division arrested the suspect with the dog at 3:21 p.m.

He has since been released but will appear in Dartmouth provincial court at a later date to face charges of cruelty to animals, possession of a weapon and uttering threats. Police did not release his name.

Officers took the yellow Labrador retriever back to the man’s house afterward, something that concerns neighbours.

Shaune MacKinlay, a spokeswoman for Halifax Regional Municipality, said animal control has been notified about the matter.

"They need time to pursue it," she said. "This is first and foremost a police investigation involving the owner.

"Any move to seize a dog, any dog, requires a warrant. That’s not been done yet in this case and it would be premature to say what’s going to happen."

Mr. Williams said he has been losing sleep and is angry about the attack. He said his landlord has been contacted about the alleged attacker, but Mr. Williams did not want to provide details about that situation.

Another neighbour, Janice McKenzie, said people consider Mr. Beazley "the neighbourhood dog."

She is concerned that the suspect lives in the neighbourhood and has the Labrador retriever with him.

She said her five-year-old son was on the verge of tears after hearing about the attack. She bought a sympathy card for well-wishers to sign and has collected some money to offset the veterinary bills the Williamses will have to pay.

As for Mr. Beazley, he suffered three stab wounds to his neck and side and spent a night in a veterinary hospital.

On Monday, he was sprawled out on the floor of the couple’s apartment. He had some gauze around his upper shoulders and looked a little sheepish but seemed to appreciate a few pats to the head.

"He’s better today," Ms. Williams said Monday. "Yesterday, he couldn’t stand up or lift his head."

The Williamses don’t think Mr. Beazley will become afraid of people and said they can afford their veterinary bills.

They said their daily walks are just one of their rituals with Mr. Beazley.

Another is their nightly drive to get him a treat.

"Every night, he goes for a ride in the car and has two Tim Hortons doughnuts for a treat," Ms. Williams said.

If they don’t go, Mr. Beazley makes such a fuss no one gets any sleep that night, she said.

( darsenault@herald.ca)

We wish Mr. Beazley a speedy recovery, aided by a few extra doughnuts. 

Meanwhile, one wonders how long it really takes to get a warrant? 

In the case of Brindi... we heard it took four days flat to get both warrant and euthanization order together. And her owner was not charged with anything at all. No knife stabs, no assault, no nothing. 

Perhaps it's easy when you know how to skip the investigation part.

Man and dog released after both attack other dog

Man accused of stabbing dog, threatening owners

By DAN ARSENAULT Crime Reporter

By DAN ARSENAULT Crime Reporter 

Tue. May 12 - 2:29 PM

Halifax Regional Police charged a 56-year-old man after he allegedly stabbed a dog on a leash Saturday afternoon in Dartmouth. According to police, the attack took place while a couple were walking their leashed Saint Bernard on a trail from Princess Margaret Bouldvard toward train tracks near Windmill Road at 3:10 p.m.

A free-running Yellow Labrador ran up and attacked the couple’s dog so the man tried to intervene.

“The male tried to stop the other dog from attacking his dog and noticed that a suspect approached them with a knife in his hand.

“The suspect proceeded to stab their dog numerous times and then threatened the couple prior to leaving.”

That suspect, who had been walking with the Yellow Lab, then left the area and the couple called police.

The East Division’s quick response unit arrested a suspect with the dog at 3:21 p.m.

He has since been released, but will appear in Dartmouth provincial court at a later date to face charges of cruelty to animals, possession of a weapon and uttering threats.

Officers took the Yellow Lab back to the man’s house afterward.

“It’s been sent off to (HRM) animal control for their follow up,” said Police spokesman Const. Brian Palmeter.

The Saint Bernard was being treated by a veterinarian.

“The updated status (for that dog) is not known,” Const. Palmeter said, “but it’s not believed to be life-threatening.”

(darsenault@herald.ca)

Questions: Why isn't the name of the suspect given in this story?

Why was he released immediately? 

Why wasn't his dog seized for running at large and attacking another dog?  

Halifax is burning

Joan's Disclaimer

Spotted on CTV Atlantic Newstalk: (in reference to our first post, "RANDOM EMAIL")

Joan Sinden wroteon April 26, 2009 at 8:15pm
Well there's a lot of untruths in there - they said that Netta Armitage had her membership revoked, they said that Netta and I stopped supporting Zonda after the raid because we were getting too much flak, when in fact we stopped supporting her because we found out that she actually had been abusing animals, they say there's an endorsement by me of Zonda posted from 2006 when in fact that is a post by someone on another blog about the 2006 provincial elections - but some guy named Dave copied my letter that I wrote supporting Zonda - of which tons of people also did - when she was asking for support letters - before the raid - on that post from 2006 - so I had nothing to do with that post or comment. They said that Zonda MacIsaac's abuse of the animals in her care was unintentional - and we all know that was untrue - so we can get a very good feeling from that who this "blog" is being slanted towards. And that is only a few of the "untruths" written in the commentary.
What I write in my personal emails to other people is always the truth.
Whether it's to an animal abuser, or a friend. What other people write on
their blogs, I have no control over. Written communications are unfortunately always filtered through the brain of the reader - and sometimes the reader only sees what they want to see, and interprets it in their twisted way - and then transmits it to the world to suit their needs.
I stand by everything that I have ever personally written. With no apologies. Zonda MacIsaac is not the only animal abuser who has ever contacted me - and I've corresponded with them all. My Dogkisser blog gets over 5,000 hits a week and is growing all the time and my Charlie loves Halifax website has gotten over 1,000,000 hits - so I get a lot of emails.

Joan Sinden

The emails themselves suggest that Annette Armitage was kicked out; we made the necessary correction. 

It may or may not be true that what she writes in personal emails is "always the truth". We can't know that for certain. Comparing the emails to her blog is a different matter, as she admits herself that what she writes in her personal emails differs from what she writes on her blog, as with her assessment of Zonda Macisaac for many months in 2008. We wonder exactly when she found out that Zonda had hurt animals, given the length of time Joan conducted her correspondence - months and months after the shelter was raided. We think Joan doth protest too much. 

We do not take delight in labeling somebody an "animal abuser" in any instance and especially not for someone who not long before the raid was considered a vital part of the rescue community. Especially when there was no actual trial and she pled guilty as part of a bargain to get two dogs back - which to our knowledge had been seized illegally (because they were her own dogs and showed no signs of abuse - to our knowledge). We hope that some day the full story will come out in court, perhaps on appeal. Until then, as there are too many unanswered questions and not a lot of images to go by, we can't agree that "we all know" anything to be true or not. We'll just reserve the title of animal abuser for somebody who drowns cats or hits pomeranians in the head with a hammer. 

As a final observation, we find it rather puzzling when Joan complains that readers filter written communication through their brains. Is there some other organ they should use? We sort of thought it was the reader's task to interpret text for themselves. And good thing, too! Who better? Their "twisted way" notwithstanding, clearly Joan also interprets text and "transmits it to the world" to suit her needs - doesn't that describe her blog, or anybody's blog, for that matter?