Friday, February 12, 2010

Voice of the people ??

Who is this about, anyway??

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 SPCA

One 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.  


Francesca Rogier

------ Forwarded Message
From: Francesca Rogier <>Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:34:53 -0400To: <>, <>Cc: "" <>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.    

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."

------ End of Forwarded Message

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.