For all the lovely detractors I am blessed with...

This is for public knowledge: Bob Ottenbrite, the best-known trainer in Nova Scotia whose obedience course Brindi passed, said repeatedly in small claims court on March 23 that he would "love" to see Brindi come home to me and would love to work with us then. He said she is a GREAT DOG and can achieve great things. And he told me before witnesses outside of court the same day that he is CERTAIN that I won't let anything ever go wrong with Brindi again if she gets her back.
And he said in writing, which I gave to the court, and which the prosecutor did not refute or question, that he will work with me if the judge gives me my dog back.
The fact is, Bob Ottenbrite has never said anything in public against me getting Brindi back, and he swore this to me that night in March. He also vehemently claimed that he has no contact with the SPCA about Brindi, and no knowledge of comments on the internet, including the ARPO group's circulated statements about him refusing to work with me. His comments to the press about a new home were a way to appease the city. He has failed to save dogs in the past when he tried to help owners, like Thomas Roberts, whose dog Baby was destroyed after a single incident occurred. Bob simply believed his proposal to rehome Brindi might increase Brindi's chances of staying alive - it was more a sign of his lack of faith in the system than a lack of faith in me. The press never asked him a question that would have made this clear.



Here is the video that was shown in court yesterday, with footage of the assessment done on April 8, 2010.

The minority out there - a small but loud and persistent minority that has been seeking every chance to discredit me - continues to spin every fact in a way that avoids questioning the city of Halifax. The fact is, every trainer that has commented on the story, and the two trainers who have assessed Brindi, plus the trainer that helped train her, ALL oppose euthanization.
It is likely as well that none would have recommended a muzzle either. The two that assessed her did recommend a muzzle but this is because the order already existed, not because it was suggested by their direct observations from the evaluation. It is not true that they can be legally held liable for the behavior of a dog at some point in the future: they cannot bear responsibility for this, only the owner can, in the eyes of the court. However, they are understandably concerned about their reputations as business people.
This should concern people greatly. Trainers earn their living like everybody else. 
Ultimately it is not about the dog, but about business.
The problem is that the law does not contain any criteria or prescribe anything about when a muzzle is called for. Everything is left up to the discretion of animal control employees who are themselves not required to possess any training whatsoever.
And it seems that Halifax is content with this situation. 
Gary Lunn, who does animal control in the Windsor/Hantsville area, has a very low opinion of animal control in Halifax. When I spoke to him a few weeks ago, I was shocked to hear that he has put down only six dogs in his twenty years of experience. I knew Halifax has killed 31 dogs since 2007, and that it is a very high number for such a small city. The Hants area is smaller, granted. But they continue at this pace, in twenty years they will have killed over 210 dogs! Also, with the exception of two known cases, one of which was challenged but lost in court, no judge was involved in these 31 killings. The likelihood is that Animal Services told the owners that they had only one option if they wanted to save their dogs: to hire a lawyer at great expense, while dogs would be kept in the pound for the duration, which could last months or years, without being able to see them. Confronted with this, the owners sign the dogs over to the city for extermination, believing it was more humane.
When he came to my house the time he said he'd fine me (which he later arbitrarily changed to a muzzle order), the animal control officer Tim Hamm told me that the pound was a terrible place, and the dogs were rarely walked - i.e., prepping me for the next time when he would seize Brindi, so that I'd also be willing to sign her over as well. Wrong.
The letter announcing euthanization had been booked for Brindi that he handed me on July 24, 2008, as he prepared to seize Brindi, advised me I could also hire a lawyer if I wanted to oppose it. 
However, it should now be painfully obvious that the city not only refuses due process to dog owners in this predicament; it has no intention of ever allowing an owner the chance to get a dog back, even through the courts. In fact, I believe no owner has ever succeeded. 
The city simply does not entertain the possibility that an owner could or should get the dog back, whether or not it made a mistake. Its infallibility is insured by the possession of absolute power (thanks to a bad law) and an inexhaustible supply of taxpayer money.
Left to their own devices by the mayor and the elected council, Halifax city staff devote all their energy to preventing an owner from even getting into court. The animal services staff do this by intimidating them as I described above, and the legal staff do this by refusing to listen to anyone about the case, including trainers, and by delaying the proceedings as much as possible, should they actually file suit. I refer to the six months it took to get to the supreme court - three months were sheer blocking by HRM - and to the use of charges to get a judge to issue a kill order as "an additional penalty" - i.e., not as a means of insuring public safety against an incorrigible animal. This is not about animal control. It is about the relentless march of power - which is most absolute, it seems, at the municipal level.
The irony is that when I managed to find the secret location of the animal services office and tried to reason with them, supervisor Lori Scolaro told me that if I could get the law changed, things would be different and Brindi would be free. Well, as you know, I did change the law, Lori. What about your end of the deal??
Instead, Lori was in court yesterday, advising the prosecutor what to say. Several times, she knelt down at his side and whispered something he should tell the judge, including a fiction that is just as repugnant as it is unlikely: that the 31 dogs put down were a matter of owners coming to HRM to ask them to take the dogs off their hands and put them down!!! I really, really hope the judge doesn't give any credence to such a sick way to wash the blood from their hands. No vet would put a healthy dog down for the city because a resident just asked it to.
The city's war against dogs is also ensured victory by the support, indirectly or directly, of the SPCA, headed by Kristin Williams, and of detractors like Joan Sinden, Angela Granchelli, Gail Gallant, Heather Morrison, and Wayne Croft, who are not strong enough to effectively challenge a city denying Charter rights, but see no reason not to defame a private person all over the internet and the media. For people like this, it is not "all about the dog", ever.