Decision not SPCA’s
Re: the Feb. 5 article "Judge reserves decision in Brindi case: Seized dog a safety hazard, says HRM."
As part of the HRM animal control contract, the SPCA is obligated to house animal control dogs and cats that are retained for court cases. Brindi has become a high-profile, long-term resident at the SPCA, but remains under the control of HRM.
The SPCA is not involved in the determinations made by the court and has no influence on the final decision.
Over the course of Brindi’s residence, the SPCA has advocated for and provided for exceptional care. We have kept an open dialogue with HRM regarding Brindi’s health and well-being and we have ensured that all of her needs are met, including medical, behavioural and social.
This is a very sensitive matter and we have great sympathy for all parties involved. The SPCA is never in favour of euthanasia where a viable alternative exists; however, the court will ultimately decide what is right for the community. 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.
Kristin Williams, Executive Director,
Nova Scotia SPCAOne would have thought that the main point of the story was about Brindi and me, not the SPCA. Apparently, the Chronicle-Herald didn't think so. But the SPCA was mentioned in the story only in passing.
And people wonder why things are so bad here.
Needless to say there are doubts about the veracity of the statement above. For one thing, it simply cannot be true that all of my dog's needs are met; she has been kept in a short-term facility designed for a maximum of 30 days, and it's been eighteen months. Who are they kidding?
It is the SOLE task of the NS SPCA to protect the welfare of animals in this province. They are not obligated to do anything that might be harmful to an animal. They are the last ones who can or should, even for half a million dollars a year.
And as for sympathy, there's a nice one; just to name a few sympathetic gestures: a ban, a false arrest of a friend, and lying straight to my face while secretly refusing to give my dog bones I bought for her to keep her teeth health, then refusing to give her a teeth cleaning - not to mention the most fascist restrictions on visits imaginable - I've met more sympathetic border guards at Checkpoint Charlie in the old days.
As far as the contract goes, it gives the SPCA the task of carrying out euthanasia orders. I can send it to anybody who wants it. I did send it to the Coast, but they were not interested.
All I know is, I wouldn't mind making $80,000 a year for writing letters to the paper and to threatening single women whose animals were taken unfairly.
Sent today:
Dear Editor:
Over a week ago, on Feb. 4, I sent you a letter regarding the same article to which Kristin Williams replied. You chose to print her letter over mine. It seems to me that in the interest of fair coverage, you should also print my letter. It strove mainly to correct significant errors in the original article, and also to point out some too often overlooked facts. It did not attack the SPCA or anyone.
I do not understand why the Herald restricts information and coverage about my dog Brindi and myself, let alone has refrained from asking key questions about our situation for well over a year. That cannot be in anyone's interest.
If you claim to be fair and objective in any way, you will seek to cover both sides - or as many sides as there are - of this issue.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
------ Forwarded Message
From: Francesca Rogier <rogier@eastlink.ca>Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:34:53 -0400To: <letters@herald.ca>, <sbruce@herald.ca>Cc: "Humane_Halifax@yahoogroups.ca" <Humane_Halifax@yahoogroups.ca>Subject: CORRECTION and comment on Brindi story
Dear Editor:
Steve Bruce’s account of the conclusion of the trial yesterday (“Brindi the dog saga still not over”) was a welcome sight. I am glad that the Herald allowed a reporter to return to the story. However, please correct two points: first, the judge confirmed no evidence exists of any wounds to the dog in question, contrary to Mr. Newton’s claims. Second, there were two, not three complaints from other dog owners prior to Brindi’s seizure. The first led to a warning; the AC officer Hamm informed me he would lay a fine after the second. But, as he testified, a week later he changed it to a muzzle, only because (unbeknownst to me) the other dog owner involved asked him not to fine me.
The question of what actually led to the seizure has never been answered. We do know that Hamm never conducted a required investigation beforehand. And to get a seizure warrant, he used false reports that my dog Brindi attacked people. He also falsely claimed that he had to seize any muzzled dog after any complaint was received, an action unauthorized by any law in Canada. To this day he appears not to comprehend A300’s statutes, let alone the gravity of his actions.
Once again, Brindi never killed a chicken or badly harmed any other animal; her offenses cannot be termed serious. Yet Brindi and I have been seriously harmed. Thanks to the SPCA’s care, she now has diseased gums and bad teeth, plus chronic pancreatitis. No reasonable person could deny that this is about animal cruelty on top of serious infringement of a human's rights. The fact is, my property has been held illegally the entire time, given the Supreme Court decision and the law limiting the detention of property to three months.
Is HRM really acting to insure public safety? Few people know that between 2007 and late 2009, HRM obtained convictions on no less than 67 dog attacks on animals and/or people. Four owners have multiple convictions; their dogs are at home. Only one dog was seized or euthanized. Yet By-law A300 clearly defines each and every one of those 67 dogs as a "dangerous dog". It’s no wonder Mr. Newton didn’t want the court to admit a record of by-law prosecutions. But regardless of the outcome on February 23, people in HRM deserve to know the truth.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
Judge reserves decision in Brindi case
Seized dog a safety hazard, says HRM
An East Chezzetcook woman says Halifax Regional Munici pality only charged her with vio lating its animal control bylaw because it wants to destroy her dog, Brindi.
“HRM is seeking to accept nothing short of murdering my dog," Francesca Rogier said Wednesday at her trial in Dart mouth provincial court.
“They believe my dog is dan gerous and should be put down. . . . The issue isn’t whether or not I broke bylaws.
“I’m very unhappy with the fact it was handled this way."
Ms. Rogier is charged with be ing the owner of a dog that was running at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failing to comply with a muz zle order.
Judge Alanna Murphy, who is presiding over the trial, reserved her decision until Feb. 23 after hearing final arguments Wednesday.
Animal control officers, acting on a complaint from another pet owner, seized Brindi in July 2008 and ordered the mixed-breed dog euthaniz ed.
But a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled last January that the bylaw that authorized the killing of Brindi exceeded the power of the municipality. Justice Duncan Beveridge also said Ms. Rogier was never given a chance to oppose the decision to seize and destroy her dog.
Three days later, and one day before the six-month limitation period would have expired, the municipality laid the charges against Ms. Rogier.
If Ms. Rogier is convicted, the municipality will seek to have Brindi euthanized.
Brindi has been kept at the SPCA shelter in Dartmouth since she was seized.
Judge Murphy heard three days of evidence and arguments. The trial got underway Oct. 13 and also sat last Friday.
Dartmouth lawyer Geoff New ton is prosecuting the case for the municipality. Ms. Rogier,who has spent more than $30,000 on lawyers since her dog was seized, ended up representing herself at trial.
Fifteen people, including Ms. Rogier, testified at the hearing.
Brindi was under a muzzle or der in July 2008 because of earlier complaints about her behaviour. On July 20, she allegedly ran off Ms. Rogier’s property and attacked a dog that was being walked along the road.
Ms. Rogier told the court that Brindi got away from her as she was putting on the muzzle.
“I can’t be sure what was going through her mind when she es caped my double-handed grip," she said.
In her closing submission, Ms. Rogier said she had rescued the dog from a shelter where it had been locked up for two years. Brindi needed more training, she said, but was making progress, despite “understandable lapses."
Ms. Rogier said she showed due diligence on the day in ques tion by trying to muzzle the dog. Mr. Newton, in his closing com ments, said the dog allegedly at tacked by Brindi suffered punc ture wounds to its neck area.
He said “if that’s not a public safety issue, I don’t know what is."
“She took Brindi outside the house without a leash and a muz zle," Mr. Newton said of Ms. Ro gier. “She’s guilty of all three counts on the information and I seek convictions on all three counts."
(sbruce@herald.ca)
------ End of Forwarded Message “HRM is seeking to accept nothing short of murdering my dog," Francesca Rogier said Wednesday at her trial in Dart mouth provincial court.
“They believe my dog is dan gerous and should be put down. . . . The issue isn’t whether or not I broke bylaws.
“I’m very unhappy with the fact it was handled this way."
Ms. Rogier is charged with be ing the owner of a dog that was running at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failing to comply with a muz zle order.
Judge Alanna Murphy, who is presiding over the trial, reserved her decision until Feb. 23 after hearing final arguments Wednesday.
Animal control officers, acting on a complaint from another pet owner, seized Brindi in July 2008 and ordered the mixed-breed dog euthaniz ed.
But a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled last January that the bylaw that authorized the killing of Brindi exceeded the power of the municipality. Justice Duncan Beveridge also said Ms. Rogier was never given a chance to oppose the decision to seize and destroy her dog.
Three days later, and one day before the six-month limitation period would have expired, the municipality laid the charges against Ms. Rogier.
If Ms. Rogier is convicted, the municipality will seek to have Brindi euthanized.
Brindi has been kept at the SPCA shelter in Dartmouth since she was seized.
Judge Murphy heard three days of evidence and arguments. The trial got underway Oct. 13 and also sat last Friday.
Dartmouth lawyer Geoff New ton is prosecuting the case for the municipality. Ms. Rogier,who has spent more than $30,000 on lawyers since her dog was seized, ended up representing herself at trial.
Fifteen people, including Ms. Rogier, testified at the hearing.
Brindi was under a muzzle or der in July 2008 because of earlier complaints about her behaviour. On July 20, she allegedly ran off Ms. Rogier’s property and attacked a dog that was being walked along the road.
Ms. Rogier told the court that Brindi got away from her as she was putting on the muzzle.
“I can’t be sure what was going through her mind when she es caped my double-handed grip," she said.
In her closing submission, Ms. Rogier said she had rescued the dog from a shelter where it had been locked up for two years. Brindi needed more training, she said, but was making progress, despite “understandable lapses."
Ms. Rogier said she showed due diligence on the day in ques tion by trying to muzzle the dog. Mr. Newton, in his closing com ments, said the dog allegedly at tacked by Brindi suffered punc ture wounds to its neck area.
He said “if that’s not a public safety issue, I don’t know what is."
“She took Brindi outside the house without a leash and a muz zle," Mr. Newton said of Ms. Ro gier. “She’s guilty of all three counts on the information and I seek convictions on all three counts."
(sbruce@herald.ca)
I didn't "take her"; she got loose. And there were no neck wounds; no treatment, no photos, not even a mention to HRM Animal Services. Newton deliberately distorted and misrepresented the facts.
Posts
Sadly the article and letter referenced here are all just hollow words... no substance. Just marketing meant to confound those who do not know better.
ReplyDeleteFor the SPCA: would the statement about euthanasia have been the same had they retained the contract with HRM for housing seized animals? Perhaps they kept "an open dialogue with HRM regarding Brindi's health and well-being," but was any such consideration afforded Francesca? No. Remember, she was there once a week for her 30 minute supervised visit under the changing dictates of HRM -- you must come alone, you cannot shoot photos or videos, you must not bring high quality treats, etc. Perhaps they might have engaged in dialogue regarding her dog during those visits? Seems simple enough.
If the SPCA was genuinely interested in "viable alternatives", why has upper management never spoken up about Brindi's gentle and loving nature? What about the "birthday" photo taken where Brindi is pictured with the many volunteers and staff of the SPCA -- including a small child? A "safety hazard"???????
For HRM: "Dog seized as a safety hazard." You have known this is not the case for a long time, but kept mum. You have ignored remedies offered by Francesca where she fenced her yard with runs that would have kept Brindi from being accessible to the public. How come?
Surely even Geoff Newton must find it hard to keep a straight face when he says "if that’s not a public safety issue, I don’t know what is." But we must not forget that's what he's paid to do/say.
This is a sickening case of overzealous and unreasonable actions on the part of HRM to even pursue this case to the lengths it has. Look at other cases of By-Law violations brought before the courts where the incidences have been serious. A fine and life returns to normal.
Brindi is neither incorrigible nor dangerous. She is not a safety hazzard. She has numerous local supporters that include parents, children, seniors as well as cats and dogs. I hope the judge will see through the smoke and mirrors of HRM to the truth of the matter and finally free Brindi to go home.
As for Kristin Williams of the SPCA -- it is her job to market the SPCA into a favorable light, so when she speaks, she is working. It doesn't mean there is substance to her words. They sound good, but they don't hold water. Let's see her and the SPCA walk the talk!
When I saw the Letter to the Editor from the NS SPCA, my first reaction was somebody sure hit a nerve. I think this is clearly an organization which has lost itself.
ReplyDeleteThe very fact they wrote the letter is an admission of guilt.
What is this about? It's really supposed to be about a woman's dog cruelly locked up while her owner's life falls apart, for no good reason whatsoever, in both instances.
ReplyDeleteThat's the truth. The reality is, clearly the SPCA cares more about itself than any animal.
And clearly the same is true of the Chronicle Herald.
Here are some comments about the SPCA.
As for the Herald - the less said, the better. http://novascotiatruth.blogspot.com/2010/02/spca-and-truth.html
There was some really good comments from a guest blogger posted here earlier, but it disappeared. (?) I was going to make a few observations but it is no longer there.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the SPCA is trying to sidestep some reality. They certainly have NOT kept any dialogue with HRM that was anything close to advocacy for Brindi. They should have fought to have the dog placed in a long-term facility.
As the (now vanished) guest blogger so concisely pointed out, a disproportionate number of animals are euthanized through the NS SPCA, so the credibility of this organization has again been totally vaporized.
Finally the comment about the SPCA being the "voice of the voiceless" I agree does not pass the reality test. Last year when they refused to accept an abandoned animal, that animal was accidently killed by an SPCA person in the parking lot who backed over it with her car; they also refused to accept some unwanted kittens from a man who was subsequently charged with cruelty for killing the animal himself. The judged fined him $1 which should have sent a clear message. They did not get it.
Yes they are trying to spin themselves a new image, but it is too little too late. They were silent when Brindi needed an advocate, and now when this poor dog needs the "voice of the voiceless" to speak for her, they retreat into "spin"
Thanks for your comments, everybody, and you too, William. You will find the guest blog you mentioned on Novascotiatruth.blogspot.com. It seemed a better fit for that blog, which is authored by an anonymous group, so I sent it to them.
ReplyDeleteAdvocated for!? I don't think so...exceptional care?...why did Brindi get pancreatitis in their care? How often did they take her for walks? What kind of food were they feeding her and what are they feeding her now? And now she is sick how come they don't advocate for Brindi to have unrestricted visits with Francesca? Why haven't they done ... See Morethat at the beginning? Even having the bylaw violations verses the penalty the HRM have been charging Francesca is completely way out of the ball park (insanity)! Did they advocate this was unreasonable? Really what has the NS SPCA done for Brindi and Francesca? They continue to keep Francesca banned from the property their building is on, though it is public land. They have not ensured All Brindi's needs are met!!! Far from it. They even had the vicious mean hearted nerve to have a birthday party for Brindi, but without Francesca being there. Instead Francesca and friends/supporters celebrated Brindi's birthday at a park! And to rub it in the NS SPCA taken pictures of them celebrating with Brindi!!! Eerrrrrr....What liars!!!
ReplyDeleteCut the BS~~~drop charges against Ms. Francesca Rogier & send Brindi home to her NOW!
ReplyDeleteThis is from Freeblogspot: Thursday,January 1, 2009.
ReplyDeleteThe SPCA has a rather more pressing dilemma, for three reasons. First, I have combed through the SPCA's oft-cited contract with HRM, and as far as I and my lawyer can tell, the $376,000 a year payment notwithstanding, as long as its shelter continues to fulfill the terms of the contract (which it most certainly is doing), SPCA officials are not in any way prohibited from speaking out - to the city, or, for that matter, a Supreme Court justice, in writing or in person - on behalf of an animal it is requested to impound. In fact, it must, according to contract, as a special clause requires the shelter to pass on information about an animal's "disposition" to Animal Services. This confirms that the SPCA is an integral part of HRM's animal control system and that it contributes to HRM decision-making on a regular basis, contrary to the disclaimer still posted on the SPCA web page. Contributing to a decision or policy (like not allowing visits) is not neutral. The SPCA has a clear conflict of interest, which it seems to me it can only resolve by making sure it carries out its other obligation, namely, to the citizens and animals of the province to protect animal welfare and intervene when needed - i.e., its primary reason for existing.
Second, the positive assessment, done by an expert, plus their five months of caring for Brindi, means SPCA staff must have a pretty good idea, if not at least a few nagging doubts, that "euthanization" ("euphemization", in fact) is not justified in her case. Should they have any suspicions of this kind, they must act on them in order to uphold their publicly declared mission to protect all animals in the province. That means ALL.
Third, I remain Brindi's lawful owner, and while it may not be a provincial or federal crime for an owner to put down a dog deemed healthy and trainable dog, it certainly is a crime if somebody else - singular or plural - kills it. That is exactly what would happen if the city goes through with its plans. The SPCA is a higher authority than HRM animal control when it comes to enforcing anti-cruelty laws in the province. So the SPCA's duty to lay charges against all animal abusers would compel it to charge the city and its officials if they succeed in putting down an animal without proper justification. The fact that the SPCA would be guilty of the very same crime if it carried out an HRM order whose validity is in doubt ought to really be of some concern, as otherwise, a successful case could be made to the province's lawmakers that the SPCA gravely failed its mission and should be replaced.
There's not much time left until January 5. How about it, SPCA board members?? Do any of you have the courage to show up in court to save Brindi's life -- and your mission??
You people know nothing. Hrm never allowed the SPCA to take her out for walks, and they had been in talks with HRM to try and do several things to help keep her stimulated and every time HRM replied no. You only know one side and thats what you'll stick to. Why don't you get all the facts before making brainless accusations about the SPCA which again you know nothing about. You only hear Francesca's side. Nobody at the SPCA has ever wanted brindi euthanized and if you have ever met anyone from the SPCA you'd know that. But your lack of knowlegde speaks volumes and makes me realize that it doesn't matter what I say the SPCA will get SHIT on reguardless because there will always be people like you in the world. Frivolous know nothings who just sit behind their computers because they have no life of their own and need to take out their anger from being alone somehow.
ReplyDeletefrancesca should have been smart about all this and subpoenaed the spca workers-no one can lie under oath. It's been done before. maybe that would of helped save brindi-too little too late.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds so noble, Anonymous - until you reflect on a few things.
ReplyDelete1. For ages and ages, the SPCA kept swearing it could not help because of its contract. LIE.
2. For ages and ages, the SPCA was perfectly happy to live with the possibility that IT might be asked by HRM to kill Brindi. (Euthanize is the wrong word here.)
3. The SPCA publicly treated Francesca like a criminal from the start even though she begged them for help.
4. The SPCA shelter manager had the cops arrest a friend of Francesca's for criminal harassment merely because of one argument and a few months later she had the cops ban Francesca from the premises because she had the audacity to ask to see her dog.
5. The SPCA shelter for nearly one year accepted dozens of bones brought to Brindi by Francesca and let her think they would be given to her dog - but later it turned out they were never giving any bones to Brindi; nor were they giving her anything to chew and keep her teeth and gums healthy. This is THEIR decision, not HRM's.
7. As of January 2009 the SPCA began secretly contacting HRM every few weeks to make demands that Francesca start paying boarding fees, AND that HRM should "re-home" Brindi. Hendsbee received copies of all these emails.
6. The HRM contract does NOT prevent the SPCA from doing its job to protect animal welfare in ALL instances including this one. The provincial law outranks the contract AND A-300. The SPCA CHOSE NOT TO do its job.
IF it is true that the SPCA staff care SO MUCH about Brindi - why do they not speak out? I don't see why Francesca should have trusted anybody from the SPCA to get on the stand. The HRM hired gun would simply have used them to discredit Francesca.
The fact is that some people quit the shelter committee and say that the board of directors was perfectly okay with the idea that Brindi would be killed - - y their own staff. Sean Kelly who is now the president was heard to say directly to Francesca in OCtober 2008 that the SPCA could not help Brindi because it might mean other dogs could not be helped (fictional dogs) - i.e., Kelly was willing to live with the idea that Brindi would die as well, just so no HRM feathers would be ruffled.
So don't tell me about sitting behind the computer. The SPCA people have voices. They also have the law behind them. They should have used BOTH. Now it may be too late!!
No one can lie under oath? SURPRISE. They DO anyway!!
ReplyDelete