For that transgression, I have risked never being allowed to see her again.
I really don't understand so I cannot explain. I have asked. All I am told is that this transgression is apparently defined in the 12 conditions as "no high-value items." Who knew?? All I could think of was an iPod, or a heating pad... ???
If you accept bones for 10 months, who would dream that you were not really accepting them?
If you mean bones, why don't you please write "no bones"?
Raw beef bones happen to be cheaper than any dental bone or smoked bone or whatever - and they happen to be Brindi's chew of choice. Why the deception? Why not a discussion?
I just do not understand: I thought they said they were taking excellent care of my dog.
Posts
While I completely disagree with the shelter's rules on the "high value items", I can't for the life of me understand why you went ahead and brought her a bone again, after what happened last time? They made it clear to you that they didn't want her having the bone (why, I have no idea, seems cruel to me as well). Are you just trying to antagonise them? You're saying you'll do whatever it takes to be with her, and yet you've intentionally gone against their rule, and now it seems like you're just trying to piss them off!! Makes absolutely no sense to me!!
ReplyDeleteYou may view it that way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my dog needs a bone for her teeth. Desperately.
They have not specified in the conditions that bones are not allowed. If they meant bones they should have said bones.
But you already said that they had told you verbally last time that you were not allowed to give her the bones. I understand that Brindi's teeth have deteriorated drastically, and that she needs those bones. But now all you've accomplished is possibly getting yourself banned from there. So she's still not going to get the bones. You haven't accomplished anything, other than further alienating the people who are holding your dog, and showing everyone that you are intentionally trying to antagonise the SPCA. I am also not a fan of theirs, and they're proven over and over again their incompetence with holding animals, however when they are the ones holding your dog, don't you think it might have been a good idea to try to stay at peace with them?
ReplyDeleteWhat makes no sense to me is that they have these rules. Brindi is still Francesca's dog and she should have the right to determine what sort of bones she can have.
ReplyDeleteThe rules the SPCA invented clearly imply that Francesca poses some kind of a physical threat against the SPCA ("don't speak to staff; don't go inside the building"???). That is defamation in my book, and coming from a group that claims it is neutral in the matter, it looks pretty suspicious to me. And aren't they going to charge her $25 a day for the priviledge??
In a civilized democracy, a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals ought to avoid causing the decline in a dog's health that is in their care. They should also not profit from a dog's extended, and probably illegal, impoundment, and an owner's ill treatment by a city government. Why should it be acceptable for them to add unreasonable conditions and limits on top of this? Their contract has no provision of any kind for that.
I've written many letters to the SPCA and to the media and to HRM council.
If you completely disagree with the shelter's rules, have you given any thought to your part in this?
If you really think it is cruel to deny Brindi bones - and visits from her owner -just what are you willing to do, may I ask, other than accuse Francesca of "intentionally trying to piss them off"?
Verbally imposing conditions???
ReplyDeleteI have a better idea for keeping the peace, anonymous. How about sending Brindi to a suitable facility? The Metro shelter is not designed to hold a dog for more than a month.
Isn't that the "elephant in the room"? The SPCA complained that the circus elephant had no elephant buddies. Brindi gets no companionship with other dogs. Nobody has shown that she is a danger to them - in fact in her assessment, the only time she even so much as barked at other dogs was when they were leaving!! There are plenty of letters online from other dog owners whose dogs played with her -with no trouble at all.
She can't get enough exercise there anyway. I want to know, why didn't the SPCA themselves recommend moving her ages ago?? Surely they know better than anybody that it isn't possible to provide adequate care in a short-term care facility, one day longer than a month! They would probably prosecute anybody else for doing this!
The courts are booked!! Until HRM wakes up and becomes reasonable, I say the best thing for this dog is to go to a place where she can be walked and/or has a lot more space to run around in!!! There's plenty good ones and I am sure they cost no more than $25 a day or even less!
Come on, SPCA, do the right thing - at least one right thing - it won't kill ya!