The SPCA makes a FABULOUS DISCOVERY: Brindi is a peaceful, non-aggressive dog!

We thought they weren't supposed to notice. Or were deliberately not noticing.

We thought they were not involved in the decision or the outcome of the case in ANY way. After all, they posted a lot of news releases to this effect, and SPCA members repeated it on countless FB groups, blogs, and online newspaper comments, anytime people wanted to know why the "charity" (we use the word loosely) would not help get this dog off death row. 

BUT NOW ----- it's time to pull off the veil. We really knew it all along. 

Superintendent Bill Moore

Community Projects

Halifax Regional Police

February 12, 2010

Bill:

In follow up to our conversation yesterday, I would like to request that the Crown Attorney in

the Rogier/Brindi case make a further submission to the court to suggest an alternative

sentence to euthanasia.

The Nova Scotia SPCA would be willing to assist HRM in making alternative arrangements for

Brindi; such as adoption to home in which her needs could be met, and the community could be

assured of public safety.

It is the Society’s belief that Brindi could be safely placed. Brindi has demonstrated over the

last 18 months that she can live peacefully and happily with a responsible owner.

Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss further.

Best Regards,

Kristin Williams

Executive Director

Nova Scotia SPCA

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Nice, eh? 

So they would not argue against euthanasia when Brindi's desperate owner begged them to -and you will recall, she was NOT charged for six months, therefore, nobody tried to say that she was so irresponsible and guilty, too much to have the right to get her wrongly seized dog back. 

Let's remember something right away: The SPCA are NOT animal experts, trainers, or behaviorists, and they are NOT qualified to make such statements. Sean Kelly used this fact to back off of helping Brindi and her owner many times at the start of this whole cluster bang.... 


Second, the idea that Brindi's stay at the pound has any bearing on how she can live with a responsible owner is a total joke and typical SPCA logic. WHO ARE THEY KIDDING? They cannot have it all ways, but they seem to get it every time. It so happens that we already KNOW Brindi is perfectly capable of these things by virtue of having done it before for a year, with her owner. And very very happily living with two cats as well, even sleeping with them. 

Side note: We haven't had the time or the stomach to detail here what the SPCA has been continuing to do to Janice Bingley but we know that the dogs have been up for adoption permanently, long before charges were laid - correction, charge - and now the hearing on that charge is scheduled for July! 

By the way ...after Brindi's owner was finally charged, the AC officer Hamm invented the story that he didn't charge her earlier because he "felt sorry for her" because he took her dog, and she didn't need financial hardship (of a $300 fine? Instead of over $30,000 for court and legal fees=? LOGICAL! The judge bought it, too! Oddly, the fine is the ONLY penalty offered by A300 and the city swears she was guilty and irresponsible yet did NOT want to punish her with charges?? Not make money on fines and label her guilty`? MORE LIKELY, Hamm didn't want her to have the chance to go before a judge too easily, certainly not without great expense and not in the first month or two! The judge might have actually released her dog! He's no fool, as an ex-cop. But other people are if believe his story. We heard on the stand the man showed he literally has no idea what is written in the by-law. Yet he knows how to get around it AND the Charter just fine.

The SPCA has a lot in common with Tim Hamm in this regard. But we digress. 

It's just so interesting that a group that has kept an animal in a substandard short-term facility for 19 months, fiercely denying all the harm to her health (even with cancer scares, dental disease, and pancreatis accumulating by the month), now wants to have its opinion considered on the question of how to best meet Brindi's needs. 


How can the SPCA in Nova Scotia possibly purport to know what that even means, when their current president is known to be responsible for teaching Brindi bad behavior such as jumping up on people to demand (not receive, but also demand) a treat? Something that Brindi was strictly NOT allowed (let alone taught) to do in her life with her real owner! How can these people expect the right to have a say, even if they were qualified to have one??? 

THIS IS A TRAVESTY OF ANIMAL CARE AND ANIMAL PROTECTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND IT MUST BE PUT TO A STOP. 

SOONER OR LATER IT WILL. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME: We would simply prefer the time to be now, for Brindi's sake, and her owner's, who is a person with a lot of education and skill to offer to this province. 

The law makes animals property, and property is the sacred core of individual and corporate rights in any capitalist system - unless it's a dog, somehow! The "property owner" rights are somehow non-extant in this case. They are automatically value-less. 

SO is the idea that dogs themselves are the center of a billion-dollar industry; if people believed dogs were nothing more than property, Hollywood would not be spewing out dog movie after dog movie all year round. Yet these highly valued box office smashes are discarded by the thousands daily and if they happen to offend in the least possible way, it's off with their heads!! 

OR, off with their owner's head, if the dog happens to turn out to be a sweetheart that everybody likes!! How impossible it is for a human to compete with a sweet dog! No way for Francesca to endear herself as well to the powers that be, even if she were as cute and lovable as, say, Minnie Mouse! Tough luck...

Kristin Williams on the other hand could probably pull it off. After all, she used to work at an amusement park, didn't she? 

ON the other hand, 

How bright is Bob Ottenbrite, Councilor Wile?

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your concern. 
_______________________

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


BAD dog trainer!!!! 

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


Not long ago, this was seen on Facebook: 

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

We rest our case. 

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

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


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

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

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

Dog bites old lady in NB - gets probation. Are you listening, HRM?

We were very interested to see this story in light of the fate of Brindi, who has been given far less of a chance for committing much less serious offenses. We also learned directly from the reporter that in spite of its behavior and its owner's lack of control, the majority of folks in Hampton united firmly behind this woman in a determined campaign to save Sophie and get her back home. Remember: Brindi has never attacked a human and has never inflicted serious harm on a dog. Her owner was able to find a committed lawyer and a solid trainer to help her. 

After you read about this dog - which was never seized, allowing the owner time to work on its behavior - then see these videos: this one and this one. And tell us what YOU think. 

 Judge puts dog that bit Hampton senior on probation

Published Wednesday February 17th, 2010

A dog facing a death setence got a new lease on life Tuesday.

A1

Tammy Scott-Wallace

Telegraph-Journal

HAMPTON -  Sophie, a two-year-old German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Labrador mix, was given a second chance to behave by provincial court Judge Henrik Tonning despite the town of Hampton's order that the dog be euthanized for biting a senior woman last summer.

"I think this is the first time I put a dog on probation," Tonning told the large crowd who gathered for the unusual case.

From now on, Sophie must wear a muzzle at all
times when she is outside her owner's 1005 Main Street home in Hampton.

The court heard from 80-year-old Shirley Bettle who said on July 3, 2009, as she was making the regular half-hour trek she enjoys daily with a friend, she passed Short's home. Typically she would hear Short's two dogs barking as she strolled by, but on that morning Sophie was loose and shot out to the sidewalk, grabbing Bettle's upper thigh in her teeth and knocking her to the ground.

The dog's owner, who told the court she was in the process of taking Sophie into the house when she tripped and lost hold of the dog's collar, ran quickly to Bettle's aid. She put Sophie inside the house and returned to Bettle as others also converged to help.

Bettle was taken to the Saint John Regional Hospital and given a tetanus shot, the four punctures from Sophie's teeth were dressed and she was placed on pain killers and antibiotics for the injuries. Following the attack she was visited at home by a nurse twice a day to have her bandages changed until her husband learned the technique.

Ten days after the incident, Bettle's doctor, John Quinn, testified he treated Bettle for her reoccurring injury which, by the time he saw her, had developed into an oozing infection for which he changed her medications. She also had a large bruise on her upper thigh, Quinn said.

While he is not an expert, in a letter to the town's dog control officer Darin Clarke, he said it was "one of the most severe dog attacks" he had seen in 33 years as a family physician practising in Hampton.

"I recommended the dog be destroyed," Quinn said from the stand.

Seven months later, Bettle said she still experiences soreness from the bite and it is having a hard time healing.

Three neighbours of Short's took the stand and said they fear Short's dogs, which they said bark constantly in her backyard.

"I say shut up, and sometimes they do, sometimes they don't," said Robert Sturgeon who lives beside Short's property.

"If it comes into my yard it will be put down," Sturgeon said matter-of-factly. He has children ages six and 12.

Robert Harrison said he keeps a shovel outside near the door in case Sophie ventures onto his yard.

Since the incident, however, Short spent $4,200 to erect a four-foot fence - all she was allowed under town bylaws - and has enrolled Sophie in intense dog training as well as introduced her to dog agility classes.

The day after Bettle was attacked, at the advice of doctors she called the Hampton RCMP and Const. Simon Jones and dog officer Clarke attended the scene and seized Sophie.

Clarke, who was declared a dog training expert in court, testified that, when he visited Short's home and asked to see the dog, it was immediately apparent it was out of control. He said it was barking and growling, and once he took her to his property for the ensuing 12 days, her temperament was inconsistent and she showed fear and aggression when unprovoked.

Short said Sophie was worth fighting for and, while her pet has a lot of energy, she is a fast learner and has been making huge progress in the 20 hours of training she has had with Bloomfield dog trainer and behaviour counsellor Andrew Turner.

She said Sophie was young, untrained and nervous with strangers but is changing daily. She said on July 3, there was also a thunderstorm that frightened the dog.

"I had never seen this happen before," she said of Sophie's attack. "I'm very sorry that this ever happened and I have made every effort to ensure the town it will never happen again."

Turner said Sophie is obviously calmer and less fearful, but stressed to the court that all dogs bite.

"Dogs bark and dogs bite, that's what they do," the witness for the defence said.

"The underlying emotion is fear," he said.

When Sophie is training in town locations like the mall, he said she is double leashed, wears a harness and anxiety wrap, as well as a basket muzzle to ensure she can't bite.

"Even though she's doing really well, we have to take it slowly. I've advised against walking in Hampton" at this stage.

Turner said believes Sophie's removal from the property as she was following the biting incident made matters worse.

The way the dog was taken, Turner said, "showed little skill and no compassion for the dog."

Turner said it would not be humane to order Sophie to die when she is making progress and has great potential.

Representing the Crown, David Lutz said Sophie should either be euthanized or removed from the community.

"Seven-and-a-half months later, 15 lessons later, 20 hours later "¦ and this dog doesn't appear to be any safer than she was on July 3," he said.

He said Hampton is probably the safest place on Earth except for walkers, joggers and children passing Short's home.

"A dog like this does not belong in downtown Hampton."

Defence lawyer Nadia MacPhee said the dog biting was an isolated incident. She called Sophie a young dog that was scared on that day.

"This isn't the same dog who, a couple of months ago, wouldn't listen to her owner and charged onto the sidewalk," MacPhee said.

Under the town's bylaw, the judge could deem Sophie dangerous and order the dog euthanized, or he could impose restrictions to ensure the dog is kept under control.

Tonning said because of Short's "tremendous attempts," he ordered the second chance at life for Sophie.

He said it is unacceptable that Sophie bit, and stressed to Short that Bettle is entitled to walk the streets of Hampton in safety. He added, however, that the town's one-strike approach to biting dogs is not a good one.

The judge warned Short, however, if Sophie bites again, his decision will be death.

After Tonning's decision, Bettle and Short embraced and again Short offered her apologies.

"I have absolutely no doubt she will be a perfect dog," the elated Short said outside the courtroom.

..........................

By the way: the reporter also told us that the community of dog lovers in Hampton filled the courtroom to support this dog owner, and called the town to file numerous complaints against the animal control officer.

Sophie was seized and impounded for only 12 days - why? Because her owner was able to get an inspector to visit the pound and declare it unfit for the dog to be kept in any longer than that! So Sophie was able to go home where the owner could work with her and a trainer in private and successfully improve her behavior. Imagine. Sadly, in Halifax, since the SPCA ran the pound, there was NO inspector to come and do the same for Brindi.

We can't help but wonder: was Francesca Rogier's real mistake in settling here instead of New Brunswick?

More perplexing SPCA decisions...

Fate of dog before N.L. court

Last Updated: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 | 3:57 PM NT Comments58Recommend23

CBC News

The SPCA in St. John's wants the court's permission to put down this dog, arguing that it is dangerous and aggressive.(CBC)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 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.

The SPCA says the dog it believes should be put down lived in this makeshift doghouse. (CBC)Another dog, which was older and blind, was found dead inside the same makeshift doghouse, and Powers believes Girlie killed it.

"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.

Read more

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.   

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.