This is from an anonymous comment on an excellent and very kind blog post by Granny regarding Brindi:
... I cannot fathom why this case has not been resolved. As a member of an SPCA outside the province, I can attest that we get plenty of dogs just like Brindi. Dogs that were not socialized with other animals, dogs that were not spayed/neutered until we got 'em. Dogs that have had a tough life. Many have dogs they don't like but are fine with some others (often with no rhyme or reason to us humans), some don't really like any other dogs. With patience and training, many will learn, but it doesn't happen overnight and it sounds like in the short time Francesca had Brindi, the dog had already made progress. I believe that Francesca and Brindi deserve that chance.
As much as we'd like to think we progress, sometimes it seems in ways we are going backward. When I was a child, cases like this were settled among neighbours. If your dog got in fight with another dog, you felt shitty about it, apologized to each other, settled up and it was over. People just knew it was a dog being a dog and didn't take it as a personal affront to themselves. Too many people anthromorphize and expect dogs to act and reason like people. If people could understand there are no good dogs, no bad dogs, just dogs.
October 25, 2008 2:44 PM
The last paragraph sums up my exact feeling dating from the first time Brindi was reported, since in each instance I did my best to act as she describes.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Compare and contrast, in 25 words or less
I note the following, taken from the Animal Advocates website:
The SPCA in Surrey, B.C., has seized a homeless man's dog because it bit a stranger — but the man says his pet was just trying to protect his owner.
Ed Chase said one of his two dogs, Raymond, was taken away almost three weeks ago (July 23 or thereabouts) and was deemed a dangerous dog by the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Chase said the SPCA has decided to put down the dog and notified him of a court proceeding on July 31. Earlier, the SPCA said it hadn't made a decision about whether the dog would be euthanized.
Chase said his dog was trying to save him after a man hit him.
Animal control contracts is a subject that the BC SPCA seldom mentions, and in fact, when the public became aware of the SPCA's role as the paid dog-catcher/disposer/destroyer in Surrey, (the SPCA) tried to deflect that understanding in a Surrey Now article and in several radio interviews. What is needed in our opinion is an application through Surrey FOI to find out how many dogs the SPCA has applied to kill in the many decades it has been the paid animal control contractor for the City of Surrey, and in all municipalities where the SPCA has been the paid dog-catcher/disposer/destroyer.
Hmmm.
The SPCA in Surrey, B.C., has seized a homeless man's dog because it bit a stranger — but the man says his pet was just trying to protect his owner.
Ed Chase said one of his two dogs, Raymond, was taken away almost three weeks ago (July 23 or thereabouts) and was deemed a dangerous dog by the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Chase said the SPCA has decided to put down the dog and notified him of a court proceeding on July 31. Earlier, the SPCA said it hadn't made a decision about whether the dog would be euthanized.
Chase said his dog was trying to save him after a man hit him.
Ed Chase and his dog, Darryl His other dog, Raymond, a German Shephard, was seized in mid-July.
SPCA does damage control: Surrey Now
... "It's going to trial on April 1, 2009," SPCA spokeswoman Corry Anderson-Fennell said later that day, stressing it was the city, not her organization, that asked for the destruction order."
"[BC SPCA spokesperson Lorie] Chortyk said the [$5000] fine doesn't make sense and won't be enforced..."
Read article>>
Anderson-Fennell isn't quoted explaining that the BC SPCA is the City's paid enforcer. It's true that the City makes the rules, but the SPCA takes money to carry them out. It is paid to apply for destruction orders. But the SPCA doesn't have to take money to control/dispose/destroy dogs... it chooses to. Surrey could choose to run its own municipal pound and enforcement as so many other municipalities have chosen to since 2001. These new animal control municipalities all improved the standard of animal welfare over that of the SPCA which they replaced.
The Animal Welfare agency mandated to protect animals from people is taking money to protect people from animals, and in the process, killing animals rather than speaking for them.
Animal control contracts is a subject that the BC SPCA seldom mentions, and in fact, when the public became aware of the SPCA's role as the paid dog-catcher/disposer/destroyer in Surrey, (the SPCA) tried to deflect that understanding in a Surrey Now article and in several radio interviews. What is needed in our opinion is an application through Surrey FOI to find out how many dogs the SPCA has applied to kill in the many decades it has been the paid animal control contractor for the City of Surrey, and in all municipalities where the SPCA has been the paid dog-catcher/disposer/destroyer.
...
There was more media uproar over an SPCA destruction order than we have ever been aware of before. CBC radio and TV, FaceBook group and petition, The Vancouver Sun, Metro News, 24 Hours News, radio, an online poll and many search engines were lit up with comment by concerned, even enraged animal lovers. Googling bc spca ed chase gets over 2400 hits. Some of the commentators appear to have understood the conflict in an animal welfare society (which gets approximately $20 million a year from animal lovers to protect animals from humans), being paid to protect humans by killing animals. There is a long history of the SPCA changing its mind after the media reveals something that creates outrage. The media now includes the internet, the medium that can't be spun by p.r. We believe it is the internet that is going to change the way animals are treated, all over the world._____________________________________________
Hmmm.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Three months: nobody's priority
There comes a time when you find yourself unable to utter a word, let alone write, not because you don't have anything to say, but because you have already said so much to so many without any shred of a discernible effect, as far as real results are concerned. I am a usually very expressive. Okay, I talk too much and write too much, just like I used to eat too much. Not anymore. Eating is a chore. Fighting is a bore. Writing is painful. I am sick and tired of it. I feel like I am trying to free a suspected terrorist. All I want is my dog back. Just a dog. I will happily promise we won't bother anybody ever again. If I survive.
Folks love to say, "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." There may be some truth in this, but I wouldn't advise believing it until you have actually survived something. Till then it's anybody's bet. You might become stronger, or you might be thoroughly crushed. The best you can do then, I suppose, is pray for acceptance, try to forgive, and somehow, some way, move on, trying to avoid the same thing. I don't know or care about that right now; I can't see past today. And today, well, frankly, today really, really sucks.
Two days ago I drove the stretch of highway and bridges to Halifax in the gray rain, listened to people talking about dogs and how to control and regulate and protect them, and then drove home again. Fortunately I had some company in the car; otherwise, I am not sure I would have made it back. I totally forgot to check CTV news, both evening broadcasts. (I missed the news because I was watching a PBS program on the 1968 Chicago Ten trial, wow! Where are those Yippies when you need 'em?) I had attended the SPCA press conference in the afternoon, and afterwards reporter Kelland Sundahl interviewed me, but wasn't certain if I would be included in the broadcast. Probably a good thing; I may have been more outspoken than my lawyer would like. That evening I went to a "flow yoga" class and fought back the emotions rising, as they always do during yoga, while the mind is focusing on breathing. The rest of the time I leave my "self" on autopilot, and by that I mean a numbness impenetrable to any to-do list, the coming winter, my finances, work, housecleaning, or anything else, other than TV and the occasional meal. More awareness-engaging activity, including this blog, threatens to set me into hysterics. As soon as my brain is working comes the risk of grasping reality again and my reality, forgive me for saying again, really, really sucks. Still I have had a lot of hysterics, perhaps too much or not enough. My dog is not dead, yet I grieve terribly, for time lost, for suffering, for what may yet come. Some may wonder why I haven't gotten over it, why I am still so devastated at this late date, why I don't just get on with life. Well, all I can say is, everybody does the best they can, and I don't feel the need to apologize or defend myself. But I take my hat off to anybody who can deal with it better - I invite them to teach me how.
Today is yet another dreaded "Badiversary": three months since two men in uniforms arrived, shut the door on my beautiful dog curled up obediently in a cold metal cage, and drove off. Imagine knowing that you spent three months working as much as you can to get your dog back, yet you haven't got anywhere. Yes, there are many people, most of them total strangers to me, who have come to my aid, and tried, and are still trying, to help. Yes, there was some press, mostly good, but not enough apparently. Yes, there are petitions and letters and a good start at raising funds. And I am lucky to have the help of a very intelligent lawyer, with a court application or two.
But the closest court date we could get is December 16, which means that unless something else happens, Brindi is sure to suffer nearly five months of "impoundment". A famous TV dog trainer told me at the fourth or fifth week with absolute certainty that Brindi will be a "write-off" if she is in the pound for five months. (Then he proceeded to dress me down mercilessly, placing full blame on me for the situation mainly because I told him she sleeps on my bed. But that's another story.)
Before this happened, it is not as if my life were a bed of roses; I hardly socialized for the past, oh, say eight years, for one reason or another, mainly work. I was not happy about it, but I was more or less used to the isolation. In the past two years, and especially this past summer, I was struggling to get major construction underway, taking leaps upon leaps of faith. I went to a small worship group twice a month, and the eight-week yoga class twice a year, and that's about it. My dog was my main activity partner, and on an average day, she and I rarely even saw or spoke to another human being. We did visit neighbors, and go to the beach, as well. I don't do that anymore. I can't very well go visit Hermann and Teddy, his shih-tzu, alone. I can't feel comfortable hanging out in the pet food store alone. Knowing that some customers have harassed the owner for supporting Brindi, a dog she knows and likes, makes it hard to be there.
A small worship group of a denomination widely known for their great tolerance and practice of peaceful non-violence to whose gatherings I gladly drove 45 minutes for the last two years, and whose support I cherished, practically vanished into thin air since Brindi was taken and seem content to go on without me as they file for a higher status within the organization. I don't know what to say, except that it hurt me more than I can say.
One of Brindi's Angels put in a lot of time calling ministers and priests, looking for somebody to accompany me to the shelter to ask to see Brindi and put the St. Francis medal on her collar. None would agree to do it, including a retired police chaplain who came highly recommended from an ex-cop. He was hard to locate. But he turned me down flat, saying only that he would pray for us. I also spoke for nearly an hour to the local parish priest, but he restricted his help to offering to bless the medal, for fear of alienating parishioners.
During the past three months, I have written dozens of animal groups of one kind or another, from PETA down to the local rescue groups, from the start. Many others did the same on my behalf. I failed to win any support from such groups. The SPCA, rather than speak up on Brindi's behalf, continues to insist that by virtue of its role as poundkeeper its mission to "intervene in animal welfare cases" is automatically voided for any animal unlucky enough to be caught by Animal Services, regardless of circumstance, and that this suspension of its charity function, in order to protect its $300,000-plus contract, is legitimate. No conflict of interest is recognized. And the shelter manager had a friend arrested a few hours after he happened to utter the phrase "Nuremberg Defense" on hearing yet again the explanation of why they cannot help Brindi. Early on, I must note again, the SPCA misinformed many people about my case, which may or may not be responsible for a lot of the silence among dog rescue groups. I certainly understand the SCPA are going through a lot of changes, and bravo for that. But after three months, you'd think they would have done something to try and set the record straight. I know in response to many calls about Brindi they were quick to post a disclaimer on their website, saying they have no say in the outcome of her case. They do, however, execute the city's orders, as a core part of the entire system. But I'm back to the Nuremberg Defense again. Befehl ist Befehl, or in this case, Geschäft ist Geschäft. Enough said.
I have written and spoken to politicians from the local up to the federal level, many times apiece. I wrote and forwarded various other writings, including the petitions, to the provincial minister of justice, the mayor, and to Sgt. McNeil, the by-law enforcement officer in charge of Animal Services, with no response. Same with Animal Services itself: no response to letters, with the exception of a denial without explanation in answer to my fourth in a series of letters I sent requesting permission to see Brindi. I and others have written the Dog Whisperer, Oprah, Ellen, Sarah McLachlan (I think), W5, and plenty of public-minded programs, also to no avail. I'm sure I missed a lot more. I am also sure I'd rather not remember them all.
I should say it is not quite true that no group is supporting me at all: recently, some wonderful law students at Dalhousie from a group dedicated to animal law volunteered to help with the case by doing research, an offer I and my lawyer gratefully accepted. And of course, a group formed on Facebook, all on its own, actually. With some dedicated women who truly love dogs that have embraced me and Brindi without hesitation, and I love them so much for this. I am very fortunate to have support from these many individuals; they have not been silent or scarce. There are over 800 Facebook members, led by a dedicated advocate from Montreal, and a solid core of individuals supporting me. And folks from here to California are donating to the defense fund. Here, we held a little march through downtown, and a little vigil at the SPCA. The petitions continue to grow.
And to his credit, David Hendsbee, my local councilor who met Brindi on two occasions, did his best within his busy life; among other things, he presented the online petitions (turned down by the clerk) to the HRM Council in mid-September. The minutes do not record any ensuing discussion, however. David also spoke to the radio and has written letters to the police and Animal Services asking that I be allowed to see Brindi - with no response. He was turned down himself, when he went to the SPCA to make sure she was even still alive.
But driving back from the city two days ago, the words "nobody's priority" came to mind and stuck. Not that we ever were - or should be - anybody's first priority. It sure would be nice, though!! And it wouldn't be for long, just enough to get her back!
I know that Brindi and I are of concern to many, and for that I am grateful, don't get me wrong. I am single, I am new here, and I am not a longstanding member a company, faculty, parish, club, or other group, so the most I can hope for is to be one of many priorities people have. But despite this, and at the risk of wallowing, I must say it: we are in a great big bottomless void. Among those who can do the most to help, I fear we are simply never going to be a priority. At first, the local politicians were busy with their campaigns before the October 18 election. During the campaign, at least one councilor, Linda Mosher, who was re-elected, told a constituent she deletes any email with Brindi in the title, without reading it. (In the states, senators and representatives are required to answer voter mail. Is this the case here??) Now that it's over, well... word gets back to me that at least a few publicly shake their heads and say it's not right. But Brindi remains locked up all the same.
Because I was not charged with any offense, I did not earn a day in court; I must pay for it instead, and handsomely – it could total a year's income for some people by the time it's over. Attempts to avoid the delay and the cost by dealing directly with Animal Services failed, at least so far. Getting support from city officials is nearly impossible, because as a result of not being charged with a violation, I must take the city to court to save Brindi's life. To a great extent this is necessitated by the law the councilors created, but like the mayor, most claim they cannot get involved because the case is before the courts. Because of the court case, I cannot even get on the agenda to speak to Council - even if I talked about rutabagas, I have a feeling.
This situation makes the city of Halifax worthy of a Joseph Heller novel. Even the US Army, whose current privatized state was predicted by Heller's Catch-22, relented only a few weeks after it banned a woman soldier from taking a puppy home from Iraq. Thank heaven. According to petitions, Ratchet would have been killed if left behind; moreover, army policy prohibits soldiers from keeping pets (stupidly, it seems to me: what better way to prevent or heal post-traumatic stress syndrome? What better way to keep the soldiers civilized, just like the effects of dogs in prisons? Much cheaper than therapy and healthier than medications!).
The day I went to the city, the radio announced Ratchet could finally follow his military mama home to the US. I reflected on this as I drove pass Burnside, the industrial park where Brindi is behind bars at the SPCA. Who would have thought that the Pentagon can be moved, and pretty quickly, more easily than HRM?
The misconceptions and half-truths that abound despite my best efforts, are daunting, and, I fear, may be responsible for the lack of support from "official" animal rescue and other groups. For instance, stories are circulating that Brindi "ripped open" a dog's stomach, and the dog nearly had to be put down. And a letter circulated by an SPCA official declared that I had had many chances, had gone before a judge and lost, so I shouldn't expect to save her. Both totally and utterly false, which anyone could determine, if they bothered to get the facts; both harmful and, actually, libelous, but that's no help now. I just want my dog back.
Or another apparently widespread misconception that, it seems to me, a bit of media coverage could do a lot to dispel (will somebody out there please write an in-depth newspaper article on all these issues???) : the notion that there is some sort of "three strikes and you're out" policy under the law. A CBC radio news reporter I spoke to a few weeks ago believed a three-strike policy exists. Chances are a lot of people in Halifax do as well. But there is no such thing, and thank heaven. By-Law A300 has absolutely no set number of violations beyond which a dog must be destroyed. It has no set anything, as far as I can tell, other than a short list of possible actions that can be taken.Contrary to popular belief, these possible actions, including the destruction of a dog, should the animal control officer see fit to do them, can be taken at any time, without verification of facts (which unfortunately is seldom possible), or the owner's consent or knowledge. No judge, no expert assessment, no time period is mandated by the law (nor are they prohibited, of course). No confirmation of facts is even required, and it may not even be possible. And, dare I say it again, this includes muzzle orders: there is absolutely NOTHING in the law that requires or forces Animal Services to seize and kill a dog because of a presumed muzzle order violation - contrary to the insistence of the supervisor and manager. Read the law: it's just not there. What is there, they did not do: namely, charge the owner with a violation. If they had, things would be very, very different today.
Nor did they follow a procedural policy that Animal Services publishes on its web page, namely, that if a dog appears to be dangerous, the department seizes it first, then investigates to determine what action to take. This is particularly odd, since I have become aware of at least a dozen cases in HRM during the past year that were handled quite differently (sample month in which owners of dogs believed to have bitten humans were duly charged, and with one exception, either fined, or had the charges withdrawn. I don't think there was even a muzzle order involved.
So, fellow campers, it would appear that Animal Services found a loophole in the law, created their own policy, and used it to great effect. This loophole landed, or pushed, Brindi and me into a legal, bureaucratic, social, political, and cultural nomansland.
Now, on this past Wednesday morning, Mayor Kelly was kind enough to keep an appointment scheduled nearly a month ago with a group of five people to discuss A300. The original reason for this appointment was to help free Brindi. I refer to Linda Koekman's little story of a dog named Faith, posted below, circulated to all councilors and the mayor, to which the latter responded with an offer of help. Shortly afterwards, citing the court case, mayoral staff retracted the offer. Linda persisted, settling on the appointment, with the understanding that Brindi could not be discussed. I was not sure I would or should go, at first. But at the time, October 22 seemed so far off, and I wanted to believe that Brindi would be out of the pound by that date. The idea that she was there for even one night was wretched enough. Then there was the first week, then three, then the prospect of five or six with the court case. All of it makes me ill.
So, since to my great sorrow, Brindi was still in the pound by October 22 after all, I felt it necessary to join the discussion, since the appointment originated with Brindi, and since I wanted to hear what the mayor would say about A300 and its enforcement. I was happy to stick to the rules: don't mention the dog. Joan Sinden, that fearless, tireless blogger-ette, prepared a number of materials to hand over, including a chart of previous by-law prosecutions. Several good points were made. Above all, the meeting taught me (again) of the vast gap between how city officials think A300 works, and how it is actually affecting dogs and people (unevenly!). My councilor had no idea that it protects dogs and people equally - punishing dogs equally for attacking either. Regardless of the years of discussion predating A300, cats or no, the fact is, the law was written by a police officer charged with all by-law enforcement. Some, but not all, of the objections raised by the public helped improve it, and some recommendations made by the officer, such as choice of terminology, were not adopted at all. As one of the group pointed out, since when is law written by those who enforce it?
And since when does the law completely omit any sort of appeal process or checks and balances? Add to this list the right to go before a judge: the law appears to provide this, in calling for charges for violations (fines or other), yet it does not require it in all cases, apparently, as in my case, where my dog was taken, but I was never charged with anything, no fine, nothing. Needless to say, I would gladly pay a $222 fine instead of $12,000 in legal costs, plus the boarding costs for five months of my dog's life, and the loss of a chunk of her lifetime, easily equivalent to five years of a human's life.
So I was grateful for the opportunity to be present during the discussion. It was a long-awaited dialogue, just a start, but we were able, I think, to point out a few things the mayor was not aware of. Nobody is saying that dangerous dogs should be allowed to run around and hurt people. Nobody is saying that there should be no penalties.
The question is, what is going to be done to prevent another Brindi? Or another Ducky, for that matter? That question goes to everybody in this town, including the SPCA, along with a much more pressing question for everybody:
just who is willing to make rescuing Brindi NOW a priority??!!
It's not that it can't be done. It could happen any day. Just because there is a court case does not mean public officials are prohibited from acting. In fact several kinds of officials could act, should they choose to, and it seems to me they could act in any number of ways; from requesting a review of the case by Animal Services, to suspending the law in some way. At the very least, somebody could at least see to it that I am allowed to visit Brindi in the SPCA Metro Shelter. To be charged $25 a day for boarding - more expensive than my kennel - while being denied visiting rights, must be cruel and unusual punishment by any measure, especially since I haven't been charged with anything, and the court date is so far away. It's like paying for a loved one to be held at Guantanamo Bay, said a friend. I tend to agree. Don't blast me for saying it, until you're in my situation, please; I don't mean to equate the pound with that hell-house, I am just trying to make a point: NO comparison should be possible, if things were done right.
I am hopeful that with new board members, things on that score might change. They have a lot of work cut out for them. I was glad to learn at the press conference that I may be able to meet with one of them soon. But my optimism is cautious, as I was also told up front to expect things to change "slowly", even though Brindi is a recognized "casualty" of the recent state of affairs. Not exactly reassuring words, after three months not seeing her, the discovery of the use of the rabies pole and no outside pen, the arrest of a friend for criminal harassment, and the false information (not to mention having the cops called on me on October 4 when I parked across the street from the Metro Shelter, sat in the car and cried, after the march through town). Whoever called, called more than once, and oddly, identified me as someone who "might not be okay". The shelter manager clearly saw me and could tell it was my red car when she put out the trash. Fortunately, the woman officer answering the call was a very good listener and became very sympathetic when she heard the story; in a way, I was glad she showed up). The question is: why isn't Brindi a priority for them?
Of course there is more to discuss about the meeting and about the press conference, worth mentioning, but I can only do that after I recover a bit more from the experience - not because they were so awful as such; on the contrary, in many ways, they were both very constructive on many fronts. I was glad I went; I also got to meet a few true animal advocates. It's just I arrived home to my dog-less, heatless, cellar-less, chaotically lifted house, a threat of losing my heritage grant now hanging over my head, and was hit with a terrible realization. I had spent the day among well-meaning people, but all were talking theory, while my living, breathing, loving dog is still locked up. Am I any closer to seeing her, let along bringing her home, than I was three months ago? No, not really. So, my Thursday was a wreck, and the day after that, and probably a lot of days to come.
So here's the thing: unless somebody is willing to make it a priority to save Brindi from death (and the eternal threat of death via a muzzle), she is doomed to wait till Christmas, and possibly longer, and/or may end up dying. This is the truth, not me being pessimistic. And it's a truth I have to live with every day, like it or not, and every day, it kills me. I have no choice but to continue fighting for her, not for the sake of pride or stubbornness, but because I love this dog, and I need this dog, and she needs me. And in principle, I refuse to let any government ignore this important bond of mine, as a human being, and take away my non-aggressive dog from her only loving home ever and kill her in the name of public safety that it admits she doesn't threaten (generally, "public" equals "human") .
Let me add, what a fallacy it is to refer to these orders to destroy as "humane euthanization". Humane for whom? Let's call a spade a spade: it's a kill. Euthanasia really means a painless mercy killing. Animal euthanization is humane when it involves an animal near death and/or in tremendous pain. There is nothing humane about killing a healthy dog with a good home and an owner committed to training her and fencingher in. Even if a dog trained to fight or one that is very vicious is seized, putting it down is not "humane" or "euthanization", but simply, destruction of life presumed necessary for the sake of humankind. Like eliminating pests. Not in my name, thank you. Sometimes courts agree (three words: Michael Vick's pit bulls. Either adopted or sent to Best Friends; none killed).
Last week I talked to Jean Hanlon, the owner of a sweet old kitty named Ducky that Animal Services mistakenly and swiftly "humanely euthanized" in August solely on the strength of her neighbor's signed statement that the 17-year old angora was a stray. (His single comment afterwards: Oh, was that your cat?) Jean is now selling her house. I hope she won't mind me sharing this, but she asked me whether I, like her, find the experience is changing me, and not necessarily for the better. Sadly, I had to say yes, it is changing me, inwardly hoping it isn't, but certain it is, all the same. Will I still trust people? Is there a choice?
Folks love to say, "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." There may be some truth in this, but I wouldn't advise believing it until you have actually survived something. Till then it's anybody's bet. You might become stronger, or you might be thoroughly crushed. The best you can do then, I suppose, is pray for acceptance, try to forgive, and somehow, some way, move on, trying to avoid the same thing. I don't know or care about that right now; I can't see past today. And today, well, frankly, today really, really sucks.
Two days ago I drove the stretch of highway and bridges to Halifax in the gray rain, listened to people talking about dogs and how to control and regulate and protect them, and then drove home again. Fortunately I had some company in the car; otherwise, I am not sure I would have made it back. I totally forgot to check CTV news, both evening broadcasts. (I missed the news because I was watching a PBS program on the 1968 Chicago Ten trial, wow! Where are those Yippies when you need 'em?) I had attended the SPCA press conference in the afternoon, and afterwards reporter Kelland Sundahl interviewed me, but wasn't certain if I would be included in the broadcast. Probably a good thing; I may have been more outspoken than my lawyer would like. That evening I went to a "flow yoga" class and fought back the emotions rising, as they always do during yoga, while the mind is focusing on breathing. The rest of the time I leave my "self" on autopilot, and by that I mean a numbness impenetrable to any to-do list, the coming winter, my finances, work, housecleaning, or anything else, other than TV and the occasional meal. More awareness-engaging activity, including this blog, threatens to set me into hysterics. As soon as my brain is working comes the risk of grasping reality again and my reality, forgive me for saying again, really, really sucks. Still I have had a lot of hysterics, perhaps too much or not enough. My dog is not dead, yet I grieve terribly, for time lost, for suffering, for what may yet come. Some may wonder why I haven't gotten over it, why I am still so devastated at this late date, why I don't just get on with life. Well, all I can say is, everybody does the best they can, and I don't feel the need to apologize or defend myself. But I take my hat off to anybody who can deal with it better - I invite them to teach me how.
Today is yet another dreaded "Badiversary": three months since two men in uniforms arrived, shut the door on my beautiful dog curled up obediently in a cold metal cage, and drove off. Imagine knowing that you spent three months working as much as you can to get your dog back, yet you haven't got anywhere. Yes, there are many people, most of them total strangers to me, who have come to my aid, and tried, and are still trying, to help. Yes, there was some press, mostly good, but not enough apparently. Yes, there are petitions and letters and a good start at raising funds. And I am lucky to have the help of a very intelligent lawyer, with a court application or two.
But the closest court date we could get is December 16, which means that unless something else happens, Brindi is sure to suffer nearly five months of "impoundment". A famous TV dog trainer told me at the fourth or fifth week with absolute certainty that Brindi will be a "write-off" if she is in the pound for five months. (Then he proceeded to dress me down mercilessly, placing full blame on me for the situation mainly because I told him she sleeps on my bed. But that's another story.)
Before this happened, it is not as if my life were a bed of roses; I hardly socialized for the past, oh, say eight years, for one reason or another, mainly work. I was not happy about it, but I was more or less used to the isolation. In the past two years, and especially this past summer, I was struggling to get major construction underway, taking leaps upon leaps of faith. I went to a small worship group twice a month, and the eight-week yoga class twice a year, and that's about it. My dog was my main activity partner, and on an average day, she and I rarely even saw or spoke to another human being. We did visit neighbors, and go to the beach, as well. I don't do that anymore. I can't very well go visit Hermann and Teddy, his shih-tzu, alone. I can't feel comfortable hanging out in the pet food store alone. Knowing that some customers have harassed the owner for supporting Brindi, a dog she knows and likes, makes it hard to be there.
A small worship group of a denomination widely known for their great tolerance and practice of peaceful non-violence to whose gatherings I gladly drove 45 minutes for the last two years, and whose support I cherished, practically vanished into thin air since Brindi was taken and seem content to go on without me as they file for a higher status within the organization. I don't know what to say, except that it hurt me more than I can say.
One of Brindi's Angels put in a lot of time calling ministers and priests, looking for somebody to accompany me to the shelter to ask to see Brindi and put the St. Francis medal on her collar. None would agree to do it, including a retired police chaplain who came highly recommended from an ex-cop. He was hard to locate. But he turned me down flat, saying only that he would pray for us. I also spoke for nearly an hour to the local parish priest, but he restricted his help to offering to bless the medal, for fear of alienating parishioners.
During the past three months, I have written dozens of animal groups of one kind or another, from PETA down to the local rescue groups, from the start. Many others did the same on my behalf. I failed to win any support from such groups. The SPCA, rather than speak up on Brindi's behalf, continues to insist that by virtue of its role as poundkeeper its mission to "intervene in animal welfare cases" is automatically voided for any animal unlucky enough to be caught by Animal Services, regardless of circumstance, and that this suspension of its charity function, in order to protect its $300,000-plus contract, is legitimate. No conflict of interest is recognized. And the shelter manager had a friend arrested a few hours after he happened to utter the phrase "Nuremberg Defense" on hearing yet again the explanation of why they cannot help Brindi. Early on, I must note again, the SPCA misinformed many people about my case, which may or may not be responsible for a lot of the silence among dog rescue groups. I certainly understand the SCPA are going through a lot of changes, and bravo for that. But after three months, you'd think they would have done something to try and set the record straight. I know in response to many calls about Brindi they were quick to post a disclaimer on their website, saying they have no say in the outcome of her case. They do, however, execute the city's orders, as a core part of the entire system. But I'm back to the Nuremberg Defense again. Befehl ist Befehl, or in this case, Geschäft ist Geschäft. Enough said.
I have written and spoken to politicians from the local up to the federal level, many times apiece. I wrote and forwarded various other writings, including the petitions, to the provincial minister of justice, the mayor, and to Sgt. McNeil, the by-law enforcement officer in charge of Animal Services, with no response. Same with Animal Services itself: no response to letters, with the exception of a denial without explanation in answer to my fourth in a series of letters I sent requesting permission to see Brindi. I and others have written the Dog Whisperer, Oprah, Ellen, Sarah McLachlan (I think), W5, and plenty of public-minded programs, also to no avail. I'm sure I missed a lot more. I am also sure I'd rather not remember them all.
I should say it is not quite true that no group is supporting me at all: recently, some wonderful law students at Dalhousie from a group dedicated to animal law volunteered to help with the case by doing research, an offer I and my lawyer gratefully accepted. And of course, a group formed on Facebook, all on its own, actually. With some dedicated women who truly love dogs that have embraced me and Brindi without hesitation, and I love them so much for this. I am very fortunate to have support from these many individuals; they have not been silent or scarce. There are over 800 Facebook members, led by a dedicated advocate from Montreal, and a solid core of individuals supporting me. And folks from here to California are donating to the defense fund. Here, we held a little march through downtown, and a little vigil at the SPCA. The petitions continue to grow.
And to his credit, David Hendsbee, my local councilor who met Brindi on two occasions, did his best within his busy life; among other things, he presented the online petitions (turned down by the clerk) to the HRM Council in mid-September. The minutes do not record any ensuing discussion, however. David also spoke to the radio and has written letters to the police and Animal Services asking that I be allowed to see Brindi - with no response. He was turned down himself, when he went to the SPCA to make sure she was even still alive.
But driving back from the city two days ago, the words "nobody's priority" came to mind and stuck. Not that we ever were - or should be - anybody's first priority. It sure would be nice, though!! And it wouldn't be for long, just enough to get her back!I know that Brindi and I are of concern to many, and for that I am grateful, don't get me wrong. I am single, I am new here, and I am not a longstanding member a company, faculty, parish, club, or other group, so the most I can hope for is to be one of many priorities people have. But despite this, and at the risk of wallowing, I must say it: we are in a great big bottomless void. Among those who can do the most to help, I fear we are simply never going to be a priority. At first, the local politicians were busy with their campaigns before the October 18 election. During the campaign, at least one councilor, Linda Mosher, who was re-elected, told a constituent she deletes any email with Brindi in the title, without reading it. (In the states, senators and representatives are required to answer voter mail. Is this the case here??) Now that it's over, well... word gets back to me that at least a few publicly shake their heads and say it's not right. But Brindi remains locked up all the same.
Because I was not charged with any offense, I did not earn a day in court; I must pay for it instead, and handsomely – it could total a year's income for some people by the time it's over. Attempts to avoid the delay and the cost by dealing directly with Animal Services failed, at least so far. Getting support from city officials is nearly impossible, because as a result of not being charged with a violation, I must take the city to court to save Brindi's life. To a great extent this is necessitated by the law the councilors created, but like the mayor, most claim they cannot get involved because the case is before the courts. Because of the court case, I cannot even get on the agenda to speak to Council - even if I talked about rutabagas, I have a feeling.
This situation makes the city of Halifax worthy of a Joseph Heller novel. Even the US Army, whose current privatized state was predicted by Heller's Catch-22, relented only a few weeks after it banned a woman soldier from taking a puppy home from Iraq. Thank heaven. According to petitions, Ratchet would have been killed if left behind; moreover, army policy prohibits soldiers from keeping pets (stupidly, it seems to me: what better way to prevent or heal post-traumatic stress syndrome? What better way to keep the soldiers civilized, just like the effects of dogs in prisons? Much cheaper than therapy and healthier than medications!).
The day I went to the city, the radio announced Ratchet could finally follow his military mama home to the US. I reflected on this as I drove pass Burnside, the industrial park where Brindi is behind bars at the SPCA. Who would have thought that the Pentagon can be moved, and pretty quickly, more easily than HRM?The misconceptions and half-truths that abound despite my best efforts, are daunting, and, I fear, may be responsible for the lack of support from "official" animal rescue and other groups. For instance, stories are circulating that Brindi "ripped open" a dog's stomach, and the dog nearly had to be put down. And a letter circulated by an SPCA official declared that I had had many chances, had gone before a judge and lost, so I shouldn't expect to save her. Both totally and utterly false, which anyone could determine, if they bothered to get the facts; both harmful and, actually, libelous, but that's no help now. I just want my dog back.
Or another apparently widespread misconception that, it seems to me, a bit of media coverage could do a lot to dispel (will somebody out there please write an in-depth newspaper article on all these issues???) : the notion that there is some sort of "three strikes and you're out" policy under the law. A CBC radio news reporter I spoke to a few weeks ago believed a three-strike policy exists. Chances are a lot of people in Halifax do as well. But there is no such thing, and thank heaven. By-Law A300 has absolutely no set number of violations beyond which a dog must be destroyed. It has no set anything, as far as I can tell, other than a short list of possible actions that can be taken.Contrary to popular belief, these possible actions, including the destruction of a dog, should the animal control officer see fit to do them, can be taken at any time, without verification of facts (which unfortunately is seldom possible), or the owner's consent or knowledge. No judge, no expert assessment, no time period is mandated by the law (nor are they prohibited, of course). No confirmation of facts is even required, and it may not even be possible. And, dare I say it again, this includes muzzle orders: there is absolutely NOTHING in the law that requires or forces Animal Services to seize and kill a dog because of a presumed muzzle order violation - contrary to the insistence of the supervisor and manager. Read the law: it's just not there. What is there, they did not do: namely, charge the owner with a violation. If they had, things would be very, very different today.
Nor did they follow a procedural policy that Animal Services publishes on its web page, namely, that if a dog appears to be dangerous, the department seizes it first, then investigates to determine what action to take. This is particularly odd, since I have become aware of at least a dozen cases in HRM during the past year that were handled quite differently (sample month in which owners of dogs believed to have bitten humans were duly charged, and with one exception, either fined, or had the charges withdrawn. I don't think there was even a muzzle order involved.
So, fellow campers, it would appear that Animal Services found a loophole in the law, created their own policy, and used it to great effect. This loophole landed, or pushed, Brindi and me into a legal, bureaucratic, social, political, and cultural nomansland.
Now, on this past Wednesday morning, Mayor Kelly was kind enough to keep an appointment scheduled nearly a month ago with a group of five people to discuss A300. The original reason for this appointment was to help free Brindi. I refer to Linda Koekman's little story of a dog named Faith, posted below, circulated to all councilors and the mayor, to which the latter responded with an offer of help. Shortly afterwards, citing the court case, mayoral staff retracted the offer. Linda persisted, settling on the appointment, with the understanding that Brindi could not be discussed. I was not sure I would or should go, at first. But at the time, October 22 seemed so far off, and I wanted to believe that Brindi would be out of the pound by that date. The idea that she was there for even one night was wretched enough. Then there was the first week, then three, then the prospect of five or six with the court case. All of it makes me ill.
So, since to my great sorrow, Brindi was still in the pound by October 22 after all, I felt it necessary to join the discussion, since the appointment originated with Brindi, and since I wanted to hear what the mayor would say about A300 and its enforcement. I was happy to stick to the rules: don't mention the dog. Joan Sinden, that fearless, tireless blogger-ette, prepared a number of materials to hand over, including a chart of previous by-law prosecutions. Several good points were made. Above all, the meeting taught me (again) of the vast gap between how city officials think A300 works, and how it is actually affecting dogs and people (unevenly!). My councilor had no idea that it protects dogs and people equally - punishing dogs equally for attacking either. Regardless of the years of discussion predating A300, cats or no, the fact is, the law was written by a police officer charged with all by-law enforcement. Some, but not all, of the objections raised by the public helped improve it, and some recommendations made by the officer, such as choice of terminology, were not adopted at all. As one of the group pointed out, since when is law written by those who enforce it?
And since when does the law completely omit any sort of appeal process or checks and balances? Add to this list the right to go before a judge: the law appears to provide this, in calling for charges for violations (fines or other), yet it does not require it in all cases, apparently, as in my case, where my dog was taken, but I was never charged with anything, no fine, nothing. Needless to say, I would gladly pay a $222 fine instead of $12,000 in legal costs, plus the boarding costs for five months of my dog's life, and the loss of a chunk of her lifetime, easily equivalent to five years of a human's life.
So I was grateful for the opportunity to be present during the discussion. It was a long-awaited dialogue, just a start, but we were able, I think, to point out a few things the mayor was not aware of. Nobody is saying that dangerous dogs should be allowed to run around and hurt people. Nobody is saying that there should be no penalties.
The question is, what is going to be done to prevent another Brindi? Or another Ducky, for that matter? That question goes to everybody in this town, including the SPCA, along with a much more pressing question for everybody:
just who is willing to make rescuing Brindi NOW a priority??!!
It's not that it can't be done. It could happen any day. Just because there is a court case does not mean public officials are prohibited from acting. In fact several kinds of officials could act, should they choose to, and it seems to me they could act in any number of ways; from requesting a review of the case by Animal Services, to suspending the law in some way. At the very least, somebody could at least see to it that I am allowed to visit Brindi in the SPCA Metro Shelter. To be charged $25 a day for boarding - more expensive than my kennel - while being denied visiting rights, must be cruel and unusual punishment by any measure, especially since I haven't been charged with anything, and the court date is so far away. It's like paying for a loved one to be held at Guantanamo Bay, said a friend. I tend to agree. Don't blast me for saying it, until you're in my situation, please; I don't mean to equate the pound with that hell-house, I am just trying to make a point: NO comparison should be possible, if things were done right.
I am hopeful that with new board members, things on that score might change. They have a lot of work cut out for them. I was glad to learn at the press conference that I may be able to meet with one of them soon. But my optimism is cautious, as I was also told up front to expect things to change "slowly", even though Brindi is a recognized "casualty" of the recent state of affairs. Not exactly reassuring words, after three months not seeing her, the discovery of the use of the rabies pole and no outside pen, the arrest of a friend for criminal harassment, and the false information (not to mention having the cops called on me on October 4 when I parked across the street from the Metro Shelter, sat in the car and cried, after the march through town). Whoever called, called more than once, and oddly, identified me as someone who "might not be okay". The shelter manager clearly saw me and could tell it was my red car when she put out the trash. Fortunately, the woman officer answering the call was a very good listener and became very sympathetic when she heard the story; in a way, I was glad she showed up). The question is: why isn't Brindi a priority for them?
Of course there is more to discuss about the meeting and about the press conference, worth mentioning, but I can only do that after I recover a bit more from the experience - not because they were so awful as such; on the contrary, in many ways, they were both very constructive on many fronts. I was glad I went; I also got to meet a few true animal advocates. It's just I arrived home to my dog-less, heatless, cellar-less, chaotically lifted house, a threat of losing my heritage grant now hanging over my head, and was hit with a terrible realization. I had spent the day among well-meaning people, but all were talking theory, while my living, breathing, loving dog is still locked up. Am I any closer to seeing her, let along bringing her home, than I was three months ago? No, not really. So, my Thursday was a wreck, and the day after that, and probably a lot of days to come.
So here's the thing: unless somebody is willing to make it a priority to save Brindi from death (and the eternal threat of death via a muzzle), she is doomed to wait till Christmas, and possibly longer, and/or may end up dying. This is the truth, not me being pessimistic. And it's a truth I have to live with every day, like it or not, and every day, it kills me. I have no choice but to continue fighting for her, not for the sake of pride or stubbornness, but because I love this dog, and I need this dog, and she needs me. And in principle, I refuse to let any government ignore this important bond of mine, as a human being, and take away my non-aggressive dog from her only loving home ever and kill her in the name of public safety that it admits she doesn't threaten (generally, "public" equals "human") .
Let me add, what a fallacy it is to refer to these orders to destroy as "humane euthanization". Humane for whom? Let's call a spade a spade: it's a kill. Euthanasia really means a painless mercy killing. Animal euthanization is humane when it involves an animal near death and/or in tremendous pain. There is nothing humane about killing a healthy dog with a good home and an owner committed to training her and fencingher in. Even if a dog trained to fight or one that is very vicious is seized, putting it down is not "humane" or "euthanization", but simply, destruction of life presumed necessary for the sake of humankind. Like eliminating pests. Not in my name, thank you. Sometimes courts agree (three words: Michael Vick's pit bulls. Either adopted or sent to Best Friends; none killed).
Last week I talked to Jean Hanlon, the owner of a sweet old kitty named Ducky that Animal Services mistakenly and swiftly "humanely euthanized" in August solely on the strength of her neighbor's signed statement that the 17-year old angora was a stray. (His single comment afterwards: Oh, was that your cat?) Jean is now selling her house. I hope she won't mind me sharing this, but she asked me whether I, like her, find the experience is changing me, and not necessarily for the better. Sadly, I had to say yes, it is changing me, inwardly hoping it isn't, but certain it is, all the same. Will I still trust people? Is there a choice?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Oct. 4: Feast of St. Francis Vigil to Bless the Animals at Burnside
Well, it's been a while since my last post, and I apologize. Still recovering from last week, which was quite a whopper. Seems like this week is more of the same - a series of troubling discoveries, mos tof which are better left unmentioned. And my laptop, with all its stored emails, documents, notes, is still in repairs. I hope I see it again someday. My car stereo broke completely on the day of the downtown march. I don't want to complain though, I'm just glad my 15 year-old Chrysler still works, knock on fake wood!
The most important thing to say up front is, as I am a big fan of St. Francis, patron saint of animals and the environment (and, incidentally, a restorer of churches) I want to hold a silent candlelight vigil on his feast day this Saturday, for Brindi as well as all of the precious animals held in the Burnside pound and the shelter. In the Catholic tradition, all animals receive special blessings on St. Francis' feast day.
The vigil will be a time to come together and pray, meditate, or simply think good thoughts about the animals, depending on our individual persuasions. It all amounts to blessings. The vigil will start at 7 pm, eleven minutes after sunset, and go for about an hour. Everybody welcome, on two and four legs, or any combination thereof.
On Monday, I sent another request to Animal Services for permission to see Brindi. Two weeks ago, after sending three letters in a row, I got a written refusal. There is no law or written policy banning it, and I suppose I could file a request for a court order to visit her, but the cost of the rest of the legal action is already so high. I just paid a healthy sum and am about to do so again, as the work continues. Whatever the Brindi Defense Fund amounts to will certainly be a help, but at the moment, I fear, it lags well behind the running total of expenses (about... a tenth, I would say?). I am optimistic about it, however!
I just figured out today is Wednesday...! Missed my Tuesday yoga class! And I should mention that the Tuesday city hall "Meet and Treat" events dropped off a bit, but will resume. On a brighter note, my councilor, David Hendsbee, was kind enough to present our online petitions to the session last week. The minutes have not been published yet.
I noticed a good column in the Community Herald by Angela Monbourquette reviewing municipal election issues. She did include the by-law, but only in terms of cats - sections calling for tags and leashes that were deleted in June. The remaining issues of A300 ought to be considered as well, it seems to me. I hope she'll think about it.
In August, there was a wonderful posting about Brindi at For the Love of the Dog - They are "Man's Best Friend" - Are We Theirs?" Today, the blog's compassionate owner, Deanna, who lives in Wisconsin kindly did an update. Thank you, Deanna! On, Wisconsin!
The most important thing to say up front is, as I am a big fan of St. Francis, patron saint of animals and the environment (and, incidentally, a restorer of churches) I want to hold a silent candlelight vigil on his feast day this Saturday, for Brindi as well as all of the precious animals held in the Burnside pound and the shelter. In the Catholic tradition, all animals receive special blessings on St. Francis' feast day.
The vigil will be a time to come together and pray, meditate, or simply think good thoughts about the animals, depending on our individual persuasions. It all amounts to blessings. The vigil will start at 7 pm, eleven minutes after sunset, and go for about an hour. Everybody welcome, on two and four legs, or any combination thereof.
On Monday, I sent another request to Animal Services for permission to see Brindi. Two weeks ago, after sending three letters in a row, I got a written refusal. There is no law or written policy banning it, and I suppose I could file a request for a court order to visit her, but the cost of the rest of the legal action is already so high. I just paid a healthy sum and am about to do so again, as the work continues. Whatever the Brindi Defense Fund amounts to will certainly be a help, but at the moment, I fear, it lags well behind the running total of expenses (about... a tenth, I would say?). I am optimistic about it, however!
I just figured out today is Wednesday...! Missed my Tuesday yoga class! And I should mention that the Tuesday city hall "Meet and Treat" events dropped off a bit, but will resume. On a brighter note, my councilor, David Hendsbee, was kind enough to present our online petitions to the session last week. The minutes have not been published yet.
I noticed a good column in the Community Herald by Angela Monbourquette reviewing municipal election issues. She did include the by-law, but only in terms of cats - sections calling for tags and leashes that were deleted in June. The remaining issues of A300 ought to be considered as well, it seems to me. I hope she'll think about it.
In August, there was a wonderful posting about Brindi at For the Love of the Dog - They are "Man's Best Friend" - Are We Theirs?" Today, the blog's compassionate owner, Deanna, who lives in Wisconsin kindly did an update. Thank you, Deanna! On, Wisconsin!
Friday, September 26, 2008
A visit from Brianna and Kasse
Today I got such a nice surprise visit from two girls from the neighborhood. They were on their way to the baseball park with a puppy named Cassie, and stopped by to cheer me up about Brindi. Brianna thoughtfully picked some wildflowers as a present. They wanted to know how I was, and how Brindi is - if I've seen her lately. What a wonderful thing to see these two lively young spirits! Brianna is in fourth grade and Kasse (pronounced like "Casey") is in seventh. After we chatted for a bit, they asked me if I had any pictures, so I gave them some posters. Brianna said she would put one up in her bedroom. Kasse asked if she could circulate some petitions at her school and the high school.
And then they decided to write a letter to the mayor. It might open if you click it:
Brianna writes (with permission for spelling changes), "Dear Mayor Kelly, I beg you to let her go this instant, miss or mister. She loves us, and we love her. From, Brianna Clark."
Kasse writes, "Dear Peter Kelly, You need to let Brindi go, all of us miss her. We are making 3 petitions. I hope it will be enough. I really love Brindi. Please let her go. In my diary I always write I hope Brindi comes home today. By Kasse Kinnaird Gr. 7 12 yrs old."
Needless to say, it really did cheer me up to see them, and I accepted their kind invitation to go along to the park with Cassie, who is quite a dog. I regret that I didn't take a photo, but they did promise to come by again soon. Thank you, my friends!
Meanwhile, I have new legal representation, and I hope to have some news to report soon.
Brindi, I love you my dear baby girl, please hang on, I am coming!
And then they decided to write a letter to the mayor. It might open if you click it:
Brianna writes (with permission for spelling changes), "Dear Mayor Kelly, I beg you to let her go this instant, miss or mister. She loves us, and we love her. From, Brianna Clark."
Kasse writes, "Dear Peter Kelly, You need to let Brindi go, all of us miss her. We are making 3 petitions. I hope it will be enough. I really love Brindi. Please let her go. In my diary I always write I hope Brindi comes home today. By Kasse Kinnaird Gr. 7 12 yrs old."
Needless to say, it really did cheer me up to see them, and I accepted their kind invitation to go along to the park with Cassie, who is quite a dog. I regret that I didn't take a photo, but they did promise to come by again soon. Thank you, my friends!
Meanwhile, I have new legal representation, and I hope to have some news to report soon.
Brindi, I love you my dear baby girl, please hang on, I am coming!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Story Sent to the Mayor
My name is Hope. At least I think it is; I haven't heard it in a while. They say they named me Hope because I looked like I had such hope when they came by my kennel. And I did. It must have worked because they took me home--my first real home. I loved very minute of it. A warm bed, lots of food, long walks, hands that never hit. Life was great! For the first time I felt safe and content. When I heard them talking about starting a family, I thought, great! Someone else to love me. I couldn't wait.
Then the baby arrived. She was so cute, I loved her. They named her Bethany Hope. Life couldn't be better! Then it all changed. Life became too busy for them. No more walks, no more sleeping in the same room as them. Then one day, they took me for a car drive, the first in a long time. I thought maybe things were turning around. Then I felt my heart sink. It was the place that was to familiar to me. I thought why is he bringing me here? He dropped me off, and they put me behind bars. I tried to stay calm and tell myself that the people that loved me will be back, I'm still waiting. In here it is hard to have hope.- I am leary of people coming by my little prison. Will they abandon me too?
In here, there are many sad stories. But the one that saddens me the most is the dog down the hall, in a special room. They say her name is Brindi. She is on death row. She cries every night. Like me, she was in a shelter for a very long time before a loving owner came and rescued her. They say her name is Francesca, so I guess she must be named after St. Francis, the Patron of Saints and protector of animals. Brindi loved her new life. She tells of long walks on the beach, cats and dog friends to play with, lessons, great treats, warm bed, car rides. Life was the best she had ever had. Like us all, Brindi has instincts, and some fears. So she ran into a little trouble with some other dogs, but there were no serious injuries and no trouble ever with a human. I heard them say because of a "ByLaw A 300", Brindi was seized and is supposed to die. They say Brindi can still hear her owner's screams as they drove her away in the big white truck. They haunt her at night. Doesn't it seem ironic that my owners would be allowed to see me any time they want but choose not to, and Francesca is denied visits?
I am afraid I do not understand this way of thinking. If only my owners were so supportive of me. Every dog in here would give anything to have such a dedicated owner as Francesca. Francesca will do anything to save her dog's life. My owners don't seem to care if I live or die. Surely there has to be someone out there with compassion who will help Brindi. You know, they take her outside on a rabies pole, even though she has never been aggressive to humans. She knows her owner is trying her best to get her home. But she cries herself to sleep every night. It has been so long, over two months! As I say, it's hard to have hope in here. I can only pray I find a Francesca, someone who won't desert me, someone who will fight with everything they have for me.
I'm thinking about changing my name and giving it to Brindi. She really needs Hope. She needs your help, from all of you that are not behind bars and separated from those who love you. Please speak up, speak up for the voiceless. Hear our cries at night. Let Brindi go home, to a home we can only dream of. Give us all back our HOPE. They say there are almost 2000 names on petitions to help save her. There are protests and people called "Brindi's Angels" trying to help right this wrong. Francesca is also paying thousands to a lawyer, so she can go to court, and this the only thing keeping Brindi alive. Please do the right thing, and help Brindi. Brindi HOPE, that's what I am going to call her from now on. She needs You! We all need you, so maybe we can all have Hope again. Since I gave my name to Brindi, I have changed mine to FAITH, because I have to have faith you will do the right thing.
Thank you.
Faith, The Shelter Dog
(with my most heartfelt thanks to Linda Koekman, an Angel for Brindi, who wrote and sent this to all the councillors and the mayor in early September. She also gave me the St. Francis medal, with the hope that a kind priest would go with me to the SPCA, visit Brindi, and put this medal on her collar with a special blessing.)
Then the baby arrived. She was so cute, I loved her. They named her Bethany Hope. Life couldn't be better! Then it all changed. Life became too busy for them. No more walks, no more sleeping in the same room as them. Then one day, they took me for a car drive, the first in a long time. I thought maybe things were turning around. Then I felt my heart sink. It was the place that was to familiar to me. I thought why is he bringing me here? He dropped me off, and they put me behind bars. I tried to stay calm and tell myself that the people that loved me will be back, I'm still waiting. In here it is hard to have hope.- I am leary of people coming by my little prison. Will they abandon me too?
In here, there are many sad stories. But the one that saddens me the most is the dog down the hall, in a special room. They say her name is Brindi. She is on death row. She cries every night. Like me, she was in a shelter for a very long time before a loving owner came and rescued her. They say her name is Francesca, so I guess she must be named after St. Francis, the Patron of Saints and protector of animals. Brindi loved her new life. She tells of long walks on the beach, cats and dog friends to play with, lessons, great treats, warm bed, car rides. Life was the best she had ever had. Like us all, Brindi has instincts, and some fears. So she ran into a little trouble with some other dogs, but there were no serious injuries and no trouble ever with a human. I heard them say because of a "ByLaw A 300", Brindi was seized and is supposed to die. They say Brindi can still hear her owner's screams as they drove her away in the big white truck. They haunt her at night. Doesn't it seem ironic that my owners would be allowed to see me any time they want but choose not to, and Francesca is denied visits?
I am afraid I do not understand this way of thinking. If only my owners were so supportive of me. Every dog in here would give anything to have such a dedicated owner as Francesca. Francesca will do anything to save her dog's life. My owners don't seem to care if I live or die. Surely there has to be someone out there with compassion who will help Brindi. You know, they take her outside on a rabies pole, even though she has never been aggressive to humans. She knows her owner is trying her best to get her home. But she cries herself to sleep every night. It has been so long, over two months! As I say, it's hard to have hope in here. I can only pray I find a Francesca, someone who won't desert me, someone who will fight with everything they have for me.
I'm thinking about changing my name and giving it to Brindi. She really needs Hope. She needs your help, from all of you that are not behind bars and separated from those who love you. Please speak up, speak up for the voiceless. Hear our cries at night. Let Brindi go home, to a home we can only dream of. Give us all back our HOPE. They say there are almost 2000 names on petitions to help save her. There are protests and people called "Brindi's Angels" trying to help right this wrong. Francesca is also paying thousands to a lawyer, so she can go to court, and this the only thing keeping Brindi alive. Please do the right thing, and help Brindi. Brindi HOPE, that's what I am going to call her from now on. She needs You! We all need you, so maybe we can all have Hope again. Since I gave my name to Brindi, I have changed mine to FAITH, because I have to have faith you will do the right thing.
Thank you.
Faith, The Shelter Dog
(with my most heartfelt thanks to Linda Koekman, an Angel for Brindi, who wrote and sent this to all the councillors and the mayor in early September. She also gave me the St. Francis medal, with the hope that a kind priest would go with me to the SPCA, visit Brindi, and put this medal on her collar with a special blessing.)
Friday, September 19, 2008
The answer is no
Today I received a reply from the city clerk: the online petitions will not be presented to the Council next week, because they lack street addresses for all the signees. This is some 1800 names we are talking about. We will email the petitions to each councilor anyhow.
In addition, my request to address the Council as part of the agenda was denied, because "the case is before the courts." The idea was that the Council could act faster than the courts to resolve the situation - send Brindi home. To do that, somebody has to request the Council to take action on the matter by suspending the by-law. What other way is there? A letter? Dozens of people have already written to the Council. The topic has to be put on the agenda in order to have anything happen.
Third, and more bizarrely, the mayor has reversed his offer to help that he made to a supporter a week ago, in reply to her urgent appeal. He said, "I would love to help." We were elated about it. But when she tried to set up an appointment, as he had advised, his staff intervened, taking up the familiar "before the courts" phrase.
So it appears as though any dialogue with elected officials is forfeited, because I had to hire a lawyer to save my dog, having no other option under the law. I don't get it.
In addition, my request to address the Council as part of the agenda was denied, because "the case is before the courts." The idea was that the Council could act faster than the courts to resolve the situation - send Brindi home. To do that, somebody has to request the Council to take action on the matter by suspending the by-law. What other way is there? A letter? Dozens of people have already written to the Council. The topic has to be put on the agenda in order to have anything happen.
Third, and more bizarrely, the mayor has reversed his offer to help that he made to a supporter a week ago, in reply to her urgent appeal. He said, "I would love to help." We were elated about it. But when she tried to set up an appointment, as he had advised, his staff intervened, taking up the familiar "before the courts" phrase.
So it appears as though any dialogue with elected officials is forfeited, because I had to hire a lawyer to save my dog, having no other option under the law. I don't get it.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Our two month "badiversary"
Two months, or eight weeks, FIFTY-SIX nights and days for Brindi in the pound, all those nights with the bed empty, no walks, no cheerful furry face next to me, no brown body wiggling with the wagging tail, not even a glimpse of her for all this time, only bad news.
It is hard to be detached about things today. My disbelief and shock and anger and sadness and grief and horror and fear and terror conspire against such a feat. I hope nobody out there has to go through this. There may be worse things indeed, but in my life, with all the ups and downs I have had, this is by far the worst, for its senselessness and frustration and duration. Among other things.
I cannot hold onto any other thought for very long.
"It is a dog, you know," says a lawyer. Many people say this, as if it would change my feelings, or the wrongness of the euthanization order. It's akin to others who said - not to me, thankfully, but friends: "It's just a dog."
Well, all I can say in response is, "It is death, you know. Senseless, needless killing that we are talking about." Just because she's a dog does not make it okay for a city to kill her, when a fence and training will take care of the problem. It is not okay to kill. Brindi is a dog, not vermin. I love her. She hears, smells, and loves me better than any human I know. She is irreplaceable. I will not simply go to the SPCA and "get another one," as one of the other dog owners suggested.
It is simply wrong to kill this dog. I cannot let something this wrong happen to an animal in my care. And I have to ask: with all the gifts I have been given, and the support coming from out there, if I can't save a dog, what good am I?
If we cannot honor these helpless creatures who love, give, and forgive us without a thought for themselves, what good are we?
It is hard to be detached about things today. My disbelief and shock and anger and sadness and grief and horror and fear and terror conspire against such a feat. I hope nobody out there has to go through this. There may be worse things indeed, but in my life, with all the ups and downs I have had, this is by far the worst, for its senselessness and frustration and duration. Among other things.
I cannot hold onto any other thought for very long.
"It is a dog, you know," says a lawyer. Many people say this, as if it would change my feelings, or the wrongness of the euthanization order. It's akin to others who said - not to me, thankfully, but friends: "It's just a dog."
Well, all I can say in response is, "It is death, you know. Senseless, needless killing that we are talking about." Just because she's a dog does not make it okay for a city to kill her, when a fence and training will take care of the problem. It is not okay to kill. Brindi is a dog, not vermin. I love her. She hears, smells, and loves me better than any human I know. She is irreplaceable. I will not simply go to the SPCA and "get another one," as one of the other dog owners suggested.
It is simply wrong to kill this dog. I cannot let something this wrong happen to an animal in my care. And I have to ask: with all the gifts I have been given, and the support coming from out there, if I can't save a dog, what good am I?
If we cannot honor these helpless creatures who love, give, and forgive us without a thought for themselves, what good are we?
Permit me
to preach just a bit (or a bit more, depending on your opinion).As I wait for my precious old banged-up laptop to be repaired, and have the use of a friend's machine for the duration (luckily!), I have to deal with life a bit differently. My brain is gone, or part of it, without the laptop.
In any case, I was reading Granny's blog today, searching for words of wisdom. In my mind, the word Granny always conjures up the Beverly Hillbillies character, but today's grandmothers sure don't look like her. Not unlike them, though, she certainly had strong opinions and was nobody's fool.
Granny lays out her goals for the legislative situation and calls for animal law reform, pointing out measures that cost now but will save money in the long term.
A wise argument, and it struck me that it just begins to tell the story, in economic terms alone. If you add the extra dollar value that animals, such as dogs, represent in terms of savings on human health, including anti-depressants, psychotherapy, physical therapy, diet pills, and any number of other health-related costs, you would realize that they save the government a great deal of money, and not only the government, but all of us. It is time to rethink dogs and start connecting some dots. If you bring one dog into a male prison, the entire mood lightens and becomes friendlier, researchers say. Dogs kept as pets in prisons would save a lot on mood stabilizers and anti-depressants and other medications commonly to control the prisoners... not to mention extra security measures.
Many other areas of life benefit similarly from the presence of dogs. Clearly we should think of them as more than just pets or something to be controlled in urban areas. They are an infinite resource for the good of mankind that has gone unexamined far too long. We all know what dogs and other pets do for people, even those among us who do not love them recognize this. Let that irrefutable knowledge shape our policies and laws and practices.
Any way you look at it, multiplied across the lands, benefits to people offered by dogs are enormous, and true bargains in a time of increasing hardship. I would bet that if the real values were added up when it comes to dogs, we would be amazed. And I would like to see how they compare to the risks, bad as they might be at times. All dogs really want is to be with, work with people, whether that is through love and affection or sniffing out cancer. What other amazing things can they do? How will we ever know if we insist on killing them off by the tens of thousands, like plants in the rainforest?
In a civil society, that increasingly utopian place, no city should routinely kill dogs and cats. There is nothing routine about killing a dog or a cat. Anyone who has ever witnessed a euthanization knows just how true this is.
And in a civil society, the greatest protections should be extended to our greatest treasures. Before that happens, we must first recognize exactly what those treasures are, take a careful inventory. Dogs belong right up there alongside corporations. Goodness knows, they are a lot less exploitative.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Responsible Dog Ownership Week?
Well, yesterday's Meet/Treat/Educeet had a modest turnout, but pretty nice results all the same!
I borrowed Ella, a friend's chocolate lab and a stauch supporter of Brindi. Ella chose to lie down right in the middle of the base of the City Hall steps, greeting all comers with a friendly wag of her tail, cleverly giving me a chance to speak to them. Thank you , dear Ella!
We did meet a handful of city councillors, and it was good to speak to them one on one. They were very cooperative, and why not, with three beautiful pooches at my back, and three dedicated humans, plus some delicious cookies (I had big chocolate chip cookies on reserve in the car, in case they were needed)? And of course, I had handouts with Barking Points, all about Brindi and A300, to give them.
I also spoke to reporters from the Herald and News 95.7. It pays to get out there! So everybody is invited to next week's Meet and Treat, 5 pm, Grand Parade. I have more signs, more cookies, and more handouts, and I really hope we get a great big turnout. It's a special occasion, because Mayor Kelly, in his infinite wisdom, has declared Sept. 20-27 "Responsible Dog Ownership Week" in Halifax, apparently with the Canadian Kennel Club's support.
Great idea!
Maybe as part of the festivities, Mayor Kelly will make good on the offer to help save Brindi he sent in an email emailed to one of Brindi's Angels last week. After all, he owns a dog - who happens to be known to bolt out his front door rather often. A good reason for him to take a critical look at A300, since running at large is an offence, isn't it?
Of course, the bolting story may be hearsay. Then again, my lawyer says hearsay is routinely admitted in court when it comes to dog crimes. Something to think about, I guess.
I was interviewed by CKDU radio on Monday for a news report by Debbie Johnson, a hardworking student journalist. It was aired yesterday. Nice to have some media coverage again. And a good story, thanks Debbie! One or two small glitches - Brindi has not been in the pound three months, but two, although it may as well be three...
Also, the city's spokesperson, Deborah Story, again spoke a bit less than accurately about the situation. I realize she has a job to do, but it should not be about killing dogs, should it? Story said the city could kill Brindi anytime, but is being nice not to. Actually, they cannot kill her as long as any court case is pending or filed, or they would be breaking the law. I guess they are nice not to be breaking the law, then. Also, she said that they are waiting to hear from my lawyer, when the opposite is true. The city's lawyer was supposed to file a reply to our statement of claim within 20 days, before we can apply for a court date. He has not done this. We are considering several options, including applying for a default judgment, in our favor, as well as an injunction.
Meanwhile, the Care2 petition is well over 1,000 and we are going to be sending it to the Regional Council along with the iPetition documents, with 785 names.
Don't forget, the entire Council and the mayor are all up for re-election. This is their chance to clean up the situation to insure votes from pet-owners by getting Brindi out, AND changing A300, before the election. Then they would be worth voting for.
I borrowed Ella, a friend's chocolate lab and a stauch supporter of Brindi. Ella chose to lie down right in the middle of the base of the City Hall steps, greeting all comers with a friendly wag of her tail, cleverly giving me a chance to speak to them. Thank you , dear Ella!
We did meet a handful of city councillors, and it was good to speak to them one on one. They were very cooperative, and why not, with three beautiful pooches at my back, and three dedicated humans, plus some delicious cookies (I had big chocolate chip cookies on reserve in the car, in case they were needed)? And of course, I had handouts with Barking Points, all about Brindi and A300, to give them.
I also spoke to reporters from the Herald and News 95.7. It pays to get out there! So everybody is invited to next week's Meet and Treat, 5 pm, Grand Parade. I have more signs, more cookies, and more handouts, and I really hope we get a great big turnout. It's a special occasion, because Mayor Kelly, in his infinite wisdom, has declared Sept. 20-27 "Responsible Dog Ownership Week" in Halifax, apparently with the Canadian Kennel Club's support.
Great idea!
Maybe as part of the festivities, Mayor Kelly will make good on the offer to help save Brindi he sent in an email emailed to one of Brindi's Angels last week. After all, he owns a dog - who happens to be known to bolt out his front door rather often. A good reason for him to take a critical look at A300, since running at large is an offence, isn't it?
Of course, the bolting story may be hearsay. Then again, my lawyer says hearsay is routinely admitted in court when it comes to dog crimes. Something to think about, I guess.
I was interviewed by CKDU radio on Monday for a news report by Debbie Johnson, a hardworking student journalist. It was aired yesterday. Nice to have some media coverage again. And a good story, thanks Debbie! One or two small glitches - Brindi has not been in the pound three months, but two, although it may as well be three...
Also, the city's spokesperson, Deborah Story, again spoke a bit less than accurately about the situation. I realize she has a job to do, but it should not be about killing dogs, should it? Story said the city could kill Brindi anytime, but is being nice not to. Actually, they cannot kill her as long as any court case is pending or filed, or they would be breaking the law. I guess they are nice not to be breaking the law, then. Also, she said that they are waiting to hear from my lawyer, when the opposite is true. The city's lawyer was supposed to file a reply to our statement of claim within 20 days, before we can apply for a court date. He has not done this. We are considering several options, including applying for a default judgment, in our favor, as well as an injunction.
Meanwhile, the Care2 petition is well over 1,000 and we are going to be sending it to the Regional Council along with the iPetition documents, with 785 names.
Don't forget, the entire Council and the mayor are all up for re-election. This is their chance to clean up the situation to insure votes from pet-owners by getting Brindi out, AND changing A300, before the election. Then they would be worth voting for.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
MEET, TREAT, AND EDUCEET! Tomorrow 5:30 PM
MEET regional councillors before session.
TREAT them to a cookie!
EDUCEET them about our proposals to change animal control - and to FREE BRINDI!
Please come to the Grand Parade in front of City Hall this Tuesday at 5:30 PM, September 16. We will greet HRM councillors as they arrive for the 6 pm, and peacefully call for them to reform A-300 before the Oct. 14 election - and release Brindi now.
Meet at 5:30 at Grand Parade--dogs (and angels) are welcome! We will have free COOKIES; and handouts about our cause, and we will give both to the councillors. Many of them are actually unaware of how bad By-Law A300 really is.
They do know, however, that they have the power to change it at any time. And, court cases notwithstanding, they also have the power to retroactively suspend A300 where Brindi's offences/seizure are concerned, which will make it possible to release Brindi right away, so that she does not have to suffer through months, even a year, of confinement while a court deliberates!
It's election time! Half of HRM owns pets. Pet owners must come together to make themselves heard - promise your vote on the condition that this matter is taken care of before the election. If not - there are other candidates out there!
Let's MEET, TREAT, and EDUCEET every Tuesday until we succeed!
Hope to see you there!
TREAT them to a cookie!
EDUCEET them about our proposals to change animal control - and to FREE BRINDI!
Please come to the Grand Parade in front of City Hall this Tuesday at 5:30 PM, September 16. We will greet HRM councillors as they arrive for the 6 pm, and peacefully call for them to reform A-300 before the Oct. 14 election - and release Brindi now.
Meet at 5:30 at Grand Parade--dogs (and angels) are welcome! We will have free COOKIES; and handouts about our cause, and we will give both to the councillors. Many of them are actually unaware of how bad By-Law A300 really is.
They do know, however, that they have the power to change it at any time. And, court cases notwithstanding, they also have the power to retroactively suspend A300 where Brindi's offences/seizure are concerned, which will make it possible to release Brindi right away, so that she does not have to suffer through months, even a year, of confinement while a court deliberates!
It's election time! Half of HRM owns pets. Pet owners must come together to make themselves heard - promise your vote on the condition that this matter is taken care of before the election. If not - there are other candidates out there!
Let's MEET, TREAT, and EDUCEET every Tuesday until we succeed!
Hope to see you there!
Information on how to help with legal costs
Many people have asked how they can contribute to the mounting costs of Brindi's defense, as well as the cost of boarding her at the SPCA pound for $25 a day, since July 24. The total is already into the thousands.
In addition to the bank account posted on Save Brindi at Facebook, there is a Paypal account to donate to the Legal Defense Fund for Brindi. Just click on the button!
Any amount is welcome, and all contributions are gratefully accepted!
If you are unable to make a financial donation, your prayers and thoughts are very welcome too, because I know that they are priceless, and sometimes more powerful than money.
Anything that will help bring Brindi home to me is welcome! And thank you.
(PS: please leave a comment if the button link does not work!)
In addition to the bank account posted on Save Brindi at Facebook, there is a Paypal account to donate to the Legal Defense Fund for Brindi. Just click on the button!
Any amount is welcome, and all contributions are gratefully accepted!
If you are unable to make a financial donation, your prayers and thoughts are very welcome too, because I know that they are priceless, and sometimes more powerful than money.
Anything that will help bring Brindi home to me is welcome! And thank you.
(PS: please leave a comment if the button link does not work!)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
"Shame, shame, shame."
One of the 924 signatures on the Care2 petition:
# 908: 6:51 pm PDT, Sep 9, Patricia Howarth, Rhode Island
I am the Animal Control Officer in Scituate, Rhode Island and am appalled that you would give the death sentence for such minor infractions. We have vicious dog laws in our state also but let the punishment fit the crime. I don't know what government agency or group came up with your rules, but, Shame shame shame. I'm sure glad I live here.
Thank you, Patricia! I wonder if your colleagues here feel the same about the law.
# 908: 6:51 pm PDT, Sep 9, Patricia Howarth, Rhode Island
I am the Animal Control Officer in Scituate, Rhode Island and am appalled that you would give the death sentence for such minor infractions. We have vicious dog laws in our state also but let the punishment fit the crime. I don't know what government agency or group came up with your rules, but, Shame shame shame. I'm sure glad I live here.
Thank you, Patricia! I wonder if your colleagues here feel the same about the law.
Walk this way!
From last Saturday's march through downtown. The first of many?
You can see what I mean about the dogs behaving so well!
I am so proud of everybody.
Meanwhile, sources tell me that the manager of the Metro SPCA Shelter (the one who had my friend arrested for criminal harassment), quit last week. However, this week, with the support of the new NS SPCA president, Jim Kochanoff, she's back at work—albeit under the supervision of a new shelter committee. Perhaps she quit in response to criticism that the place is brimming with dogs and has some 70 dogs in foster care, while few if any are listed on Petfinder.com. How will these dogs ever be adopted? Hopefully the new committee will see to that.
In answer to a recurring question, Brindi is not kept where people can see her; she is not one of the dogs that one can volunteer to walk, as with the others. I don't know if she is now being allowed out in the backyard pens. I sincerely hope so, because we have been having a beautiful week of weather here, and even though the pens are graveled, she needs fresh air. I love her so much. Watching the video when I miss her only makes me miss her more.
Never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Facts?
With the welcome news from my lawyer that we will likely filing a court action soon, I am wondering which threads to follow up on in the meantime.
A visit to my doctor today, to report the stress I've been under and its various effects on my sleep, my back, my skin, and my nerves; I hardly got through the list. Not much he can do for me; therapy? He rolled his eyes at the thought. "What you need is support," he said, "and you seem to have some, at least." And because he happens to own six dogs himself, my situation worries him because they do occasionally get loose off his property. Nobody has called the cops though. Nor has anybody called him a moron, as far as I know. Even the odd petition signer thinks I am. Well, I would like to meet the dog owner whose pooch always obeys every command. Let he whose dog is perfect throw the first bone! Death is an awfully heavy penalty for a few minor misdeeds. Dogs are not some kind of rodent plaguing the city; they are contributing members of society.
A neighbor at the mailboxes said he heard that six dogs were put down by the city since my dog was seized. This would be news to me! I'd appreciate knowing if this is true. I sure hope not.
A call from a journalist today, asking if I'd come into the city to do a short interview, for CKDU's Tuesday 5 pm news program. I plan to see her on Friday morning. I don't know if anybody picked up the story about the dog walk, but we certainly did our best.
Meanwhile: the Care2 petition stands at 899! The goal of 1,000 signatures is within reach. Good timing: we can deliver it to the regional council and the HRM clerk in time for the new sessions.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Posting away... looking around.
Yesterday, Sunday, this blog got the highest number of hits ever! Something like 236 page loads. Today dropped to about 180, the second highest number of hits.
Together, the petitions topped 1500 signatures over the weekend.
Emails have been circling the globe by the thousands, thanks to animal welfare advocate networks.
The Legal Defense Fund for Brindi has been posted on Facebook. The money is going toward legal costs as well as the daily fees for the pound, which are currently at $1300, including the $100 impounding fee (but not including HST - will they add the 13% tax?). The estimated cost for legal representation is about $6000 to $8000. Plus court fees, no idea what they are like.
Any and all contributions are welcome, no matter how small. In exchange for the help to get my dog back, I promise I will continue to work to help animals, starting with the laws. I was supporting WSPA and the Humane Society before this happened; I will become more active in those groups.
Together, the petitions topped 1500 signatures over the weekend.
Emails have been circling the globe by the thousands, thanks to animal welfare advocate networks.
The Legal Defense Fund for Brindi has been posted on Facebook. The money is going toward legal costs as well as the daily fees for the pound, which are currently at $1300, including the $100 impounding fee (but not including HST - will they add the 13% tax?). The estimated cost for legal representation is about $6000 to $8000. Plus court fees, no idea what they are like.
Any and all contributions are welcome, no matter how small. In exchange for the help to get my dog back, I promise I will continue to work to help animals, starting with the laws. I was supporting WSPA and the Humane Society before this happened; I will become more active in those groups.
I spoke with Jean Hanlon today, the owner of Ducky, the 17-year old cat who was wrongly euthanized. (Isn't it interesting that "euthanized" sounds so much like euphemized"?)
She sounded a little better, but still recovering from the shock. And from the comments of well-meaning friends who say unfeeling things, like "Well, it was time for the cat to be put down anyway." As if that should be a comfort??
After all, we are talking about a life that was taken, swiftly and permanently, a life that was part of a family for nearly two decades and still a ways to go, possibly years. I am still amazed the city has not apologized to her, let alone conducted an investigation.
As for me, I am waiting to hear from my long lost lawyer, and I am hoping to learn that things are moving ahead. I have many questions to ask him before decisions can be made. An injunction, and a lawsuit? We shall see.
Meanwhile, I'd better get to a yoga class, the best way to deal with life. For me.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Taking it to the streets
Dogs meet with their folks at City Hall: no euthanization without representation!
Thanks to all who attended! What good dogs they were.
The six weeks without three daily walks mean my butt is now a little sore from walking the hills to Spring Garden Road, but it was worth it!
What an experience to arrive at the Citadel lawn and see this terrifically dedicated group all ready to go, with signs and a huge banner! I confess, I choked back tears as I got out of my car, realizing I was about to meet these angels for the first time - and then realizing why. I really missed Brindi when I saw all those sweet dogs. I had her leash around my neck as we walked, wearing my new T-shirt, which good old Kinkos managed to make in record time along with the posters. The children provided extra backup, and were not afraid to hand out cards and stickers to people on the street, even people in cars and cafes! One of my friends got off work at 5 am, drove home to Chezzetcook to sleep a few hours, then drove all the way back just in time to join us at noon.
I felt so lucky to have such a dedicated group. My advice to anybody organizing a walk like this: be sure to include at least four girls aged around 11 to 12, because they are fearless and committed when it comes to animals. These pros never stopped chanting things like "Free Brindi! Free Brindi! Dogs forgive, why don't we?"
As curious people approached, many of us took the chance to explain what we were about. There was a lot of disbelief about the law. Many of them, mostly pet owners, were eager to give me encouragement, and express concern for their own pets. We heard a lot of stories about dogs and the law—about how dogs are expected to behave better than humans, without enjoying any of the same rights.
I never dreamt I'd be out protesting on the streets of Halifax for such a thing; never imagined it would become necessary. And in case anyone wonders why I chose this instead of suing the city, let me be clear: there is no instead. I have not dropped the case; I can't anyway, they'd kill my dog right away. However, I cannot get a court date until my lawyer receives a reply to our claim. And that court date may be well in the future. I am confident our case will win, but it is totally unacceptable for any dog to be kept in the pound a year or more, as I am now told will happen.
To that sharply dressed gentleman who blithely said "I'm okay with it" if the city kills Brindi, I must ask: who raised you? Did they forget to teach you to be kind to animals, and to respect all life? Pardon me, but I do happen to respect all life, even yours, though I may have felt otherwise at the time.
Spot quiz: Class, what does it say in the Bible, and in all religious texts, about being good to all God's creatures? (I can guarantee you won't find anything about muzzle order violations.)
Why is it that this never comes up in the conversation most commonly held among Christians? Not that I want to preach to anybody, don't me wrong. I just want to get my dog, who never bothered anybody remotely like that guy, back home. To me, that fact should be enough to get her back. But no. I so often find myself having to justify at length, as I notice others seem to regard the matter as an academic exercise, or a question of law and order. Fine, I don't mind doing that; but you are certainly not seeing the whole elephant. One should reject the premise that the dog is merely a potential pubic nuisance. Sorry to say, even some animal lovers' first impulse seem to be to say publicly that the owner must be at fault, not the law or the system enforcing it. Such law-abiding people—when it comes to animals, at least; bring up HST and trees, everybody's a rebel. In this province of renegade fishermen and hunters, This Ordnung muss sein reaction to dogs is puzzling. What have people really got against dogs—or against other people's dogs? Spillover from the pit bull controversy? Or there a Dog Explosion? Too many showings of Kujo at the Cineplex?
A dog, aside from being man's (not "The Man's") best friend, is the same produce-detecting working dog that greets you at the border crossing, doing what a human can't do, yet is slaughtered thoughtlessly on a regular basis. The same dog that is taken around to patients in hospitals to aid healing. The same being, that when brought into a large prison, will shift the tension-filled atmosphere into relaxation and good feeling within minutes. I don't know about you, but it seems to me we ought to rethink our priorities just a smidge, if simply by walking into a building, one single dog can do what millions of dollars of high-security devices, medications, and rehabilitation methods can't.
I happen to think that if a particular kind of creature can contribute to our enjoyment and overall welfare the way a dog can, and it does in multiple ways, the "animal" and the beneficial human bonds it supplies ought to be treated well indeed.
Aren't dogs as public goods ever balanced properly against animal control? Is the value of such a tremendously effective and extremely inexpensive public health benefit reflected in the law? Why not?
With thanks to Joan Sinden, blogger and video maven, here is a taste of the event:
PS remind me to mention that Animal Services replied to my last letter!
Friday, September 5, 2008
CALLING ALL DOGS!
WHAT: 100 DOG MARCH TO FREE BRINDI
WHO: All dogs and their owners
WHERE: meet at the base of Citadel opposite Gottingen; walk to waterfront.
WHEN: 12 noon Saturday, September 6
BRING: signs, cameras, treats, water, and your enthusiasm!
GOAL: Return Brindi to her owner now, then change the law!
Stop HRM from using By-Law A300 to euthanize dogs that never bite humans or seriously hurt other dogs!
For more info, call (902) 827-3716
At some point, my friend asked if they used a muzzle to walk Brindi. She said they don't need a muzzle, because Brindi is not allowed near any other dogs. I was eager to tell them this wasn't necessary; she gets along fine with other dogs, it's just when they are on the property line. And, thinking out loud, so now she is not getting any dog contact, and getting precious little human contact. Is that good for her? Then I learned they use a rabies pole to walk her. A rabies pole is a long rod with a noose-like loop of thin cord at one end to tighten around a dog's neck. It's meant for the most vicious dogs, usually ones that bite people. But the city does not consider Brindi dangerous to humans; a lawyer told me himself. So WHY then does the SPCA walk my dog with a rabies pole - for over six weeks now?? My poor baby girl.
We went to dinner, despite stabbing pains plaguing my lower abdomen. Few places were open, and darkness fell by the time we made our way back to the lot for my car. I spotted the shelter manager, Diana, through the window, and waved, hoping she would know if they had vaccinated Brindi and she was now being allowed time in the pens. After a few circular replies, it turned out she wasn't. Why? Because Diana wanted my signature after all. So, why didn't they contact me?? Oh, Diana said, she just got back from vacation. SO? Oh, they are not allowed to contact me directly, but must "go through Animal Services." Then why hadn't she gone through them? "Well, I guess I should have."
Is this credible? I found out about the vaccination hitch on August 22. The supervisor on duty said no when I asked if she wanted me to sign something. And now it was September 1. Ten more days on top of five weeks, my dog stuck indoors all day, barring 15 minutes on the rabies pole. Why nobody brought up vaccinations well before August 22, or noticed her HRM tag, remains a mystery. How large are the letters on my forehead that spelling SUCKER? If I had finished my doctorate, would they have seized my dog? I wonder.
My friend advised me not to "make her an adversary" when Diana went inside briefly to copy my statement (by hand - no form for this). Frustrated already, my patience grew thinner, as each new fact proved more alarming than the last. A month and a half of "she's fine", then the the rabies pole! She had learned to walk on the leash so well. Now what? If I had not gone to the SPCA myself, Brindi would never get outside. If she does now. So at this point, can anyone expect me to remain content with vague assurances? I am desperate to see my dog, and "animal services" won't let me. By not supporting my request, the SPCA is no longer protecting animals. This is what so deeply bothered my friend.
Which is why, after Diana returned with the photocopy, he forgot his own advice and lost his cool, trying in vain to make a point unlikely to be kindly received: "The sad thing is," he said, "when you know a dog is not aggressive, but you keep her in a cage, and treat her—" "I never said she was not aggressive, or that she was aggressive," Diana countered, and continued to counter with each attempt he made to continue. Whereupon this otherwise mild-mannered man insisted, "You do too know!" "I do not!" My head bopped to and fro like a tennis ball. Seconds later, the manager spun around and shut the door, saying, "That's it, I'm calling the cops!" Cops??! Before I knew it, my friend had already stormed back to his car and soon sped off towards town. I made my way home, unable to grasp what happened.
But that wasn't the end of it. He called me an hour and a half later, out of his mind: "They pulled me over!" And so they did, on Windmill Road, two squad cars in a daring "high takedown". One behind him, lights flashing, a second sharply cutting off his car in front. They arrested him for criminal harassment. A felony! He narrowly escaped a night in jail. I cannot imagine what the manager said to them; was there some mistake? Criminal harassment means serious threats. She had never even asked us to leave. She wasn't physically threatened. My friend did get a bit carried away over a difference of opinion. But he is passionate about animals, and last I looked, it's not against the law to disagree. Of course, I was a bit peeved at him myself for risking good terms with my dog's wardens, and before I knew about the arrest, I wanted him to make amends. He sent an apology right away, made sure to fax it as well. Whatever its effect, the charges were dropped early the next day, as I was sure they would be. There was simply no evidence.
WHO: All dogs and their owners
WHERE: meet at the base of Citadel opposite Gottingen; walk to waterfront.
WHEN: 12 noon Saturday, September 6
BRING: signs, cameras, treats, water, and your enthusiasm!
GOAL: Return Brindi to her owner now, then change the law!
Stop HRM from using By-Law A300 to euthanize dogs that never bite humans or seriously hurt other dogs!
For more info, call (902) 827-3716
WELL, folks... This got posted a bit late - the week started out rather eventfully, and I lost track of it after that. You'll see why in a second.
On Labor day afternoon, I met a friend at the Metro Shelter to go check on Brindi. No chance of seeing her, of course. A volunteer and a supervisor came to the door. The latter was extremely cautious, reluctant to answer questions, how many dogs the pound holds. I tried to remain polite, find common ground. I was met with the response that the SPCA has nothing to do with the pound. So far, nearly everyone there was quick to say this. My friend, on his first visit, somewhat impatiently, perhaps unwisely, likened this attitude to the Nuremburg defense. Are they really unaware the SPCA carries out orders from the city?
At some point, my friend asked if they used a muzzle to walk Brindi. She said they don't need a muzzle, because Brindi is not allowed near any other dogs. I was eager to tell them this wasn't necessary; she gets along fine with other dogs, it's just when they are on the property line. And, thinking out loud, so now she is not getting any dog contact, and getting precious little human contact. Is that good for her? Then I learned they use a rabies pole to walk her. A rabies pole is a long rod with a noose-like loop of thin cord at one end to tighten around a dog's neck. It's meant for the most vicious dogs, usually ones that bite people. But the city does not consider Brindi dangerous to humans; a lawyer told me himself. So WHY then does the SPCA walk my dog with a rabies pole - for over six weeks now?? My poor baby girl.
We went to dinner, despite stabbing pains plaguing my lower abdomen. Few places were open, and darkness fell by the time we made our way back to the lot for my car. I spotted the shelter manager, Diana, through the window, and waved, hoping she would know if they had vaccinated Brindi and she was now being allowed time in the pens. After a few circular replies, it turned out she wasn't. Why? Because Diana wanted my signature after all. So, why didn't they contact me?? Oh, Diana said, she just got back from vacation. SO? Oh, they are not allowed to contact me directly, but must "go through Animal Services." Then why hadn't she gone through them? "Well, I guess I should have."
Is this credible? I found out about the vaccination hitch on August 22. The supervisor on duty said no when I asked if she wanted me to sign something. And now it was September 1. Ten more days on top of five weeks, my dog stuck indoors all day, barring 15 minutes on the rabies pole. Why nobody brought up vaccinations well before August 22, or noticed her HRM tag, remains a mystery. How large are the letters on my forehead that spelling SUCKER? If I had finished my doctorate, would they have seized my dog? I wonder.
My friend advised me not to "make her an adversary" when Diana went inside briefly to copy my statement (by hand - no form for this). Frustrated already, my patience grew thinner, as each new fact proved more alarming than the last. A month and a half of "she's fine", then the the rabies pole! She had learned to walk on the leash so well. Now what? If I had not gone to the SPCA myself, Brindi would never get outside. If she does now. So at this point, can anyone expect me to remain content with vague assurances? I am desperate to see my dog, and "animal services" won't let me. By not supporting my request, the SPCA is no longer protecting animals. This is what so deeply bothered my friend.
Which is why, after Diana returned with the photocopy, he forgot his own advice and lost his cool, trying in vain to make a point unlikely to be kindly received: "The sad thing is," he said, "when you know a dog is not aggressive, but you keep her in a cage, and treat her—" "I never said she was not aggressive, or that she was aggressive," Diana countered, and continued to counter with each attempt he made to continue. Whereupon this otherwise mild-mannered man insisted, "You do too know!" "I do not!" My head bopped to and fro like a tennis ball. Seconds later, the manager spun around and shut the door, saying, "That's it, I'm calling the cops!" Cops??! Before I knew it, my friend had already stormed back to his car and soon sped off towards town. I made my way home, unable to grasp what happened.
But that wasn't the end of it. He called me an hour and a half later, out of his mind: "They pulled me over!" And so they did, on Windmill Road, two squad cars in a daring "high takedown". One behind him, lights flashing, a second sharply cutting off his car in front. They arrested him for criminal harassment. A felony! He narrowly escaped a night in jail. I cannot imagine what the manager said to them; was there some mistake? Criminal harassment means serious threats. She had never even asked us to leave. She wasn't physically threatened. My friend did get a bit carried away over a difference of opinion. But he is passionate about animals, and last I looked, it's not against the law to disagree. Of course, I was a bit peeved at him myself for risking good terms with my dog's wardens, and before I knew about the arrest, I wanted him to make amends. He sent an apology right away, made sure to fax it as well. Whatever its effect, the charges were dropped early the next day, as I was sure they would be. There was simply no evidence.
Still, it took days for my friend to calm down. His lawyer praised his apology, and advised him to stay away from the shelter. He's not decided yet whether to file a complaint against the SPCA and the police for false arrest, though it would be justified. After all, the high takedown put his health and safety at risk, and the arrest could have jeopardized his career. No wonder misleading the police into a false arrest is itself a felony. I wonder if the SPCA realizes this?
Why wasn't I arrested? Because I wasn't in his car? I'm sure I was getting on her nerves, though I knew not to argue. Perhaps she didn't want me arrested; they surely would have found me.
I'll never forget what my friend said that night about what he was arrested for: "It's the same thing they accused Brindi of: being aggressive! But at least I'll get a day in court. She doesn't!"
No wonder I'm so tired. But not too tired to march.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
SAY IT AGAIN: Halt the euthanizations ASAP!
Referencing two recent posts on Granny's Journal and Me and My Dogs in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The very best thing that can be done right now is to put an immediate stop to all HRM-ordered euthanization. No more killing until the city cleans up its act.
A publicly-elected government should be held accountable for such a terrible mistake as ending the life of a family's beloved cat in less than two hours flat. Passing off responsibility to an unsuspecting vet at an all-night clinic is just not good enough. With all due respect, procedural flaws and, frankly, a lack of basic common sense must have factored significantly. Enough to suggest a very close examination of HRM operations, and, I repeat, an immediate moratorium. That is the best and only way to insure that no pet is wrongly killed (or seized!) from now on, until things are vastly improved.
If they have any doubt about an HRM euthanization order, HRM veterinarians may be wise to refuse services, citing their code of conduct. Their leadership is pivotal. No other qualified animal professionals are involved in the system. Take away their cooperation, there are no more euthanizations.
Then what? Well, start over. Get a real law and grown-up procedures with checks and balances. To that end, a bit of knowledge and experience of animals among AS employees wouldn't hurt either.
Until then, when Granny asks, "What time is it?" I say, "It's SIX WEEKS later! Time to let my Brindi go!"
AS/NSSPCA Blues
I have written to Animal Services requesting to see Brindi on more than one occasion, and I will continue to do so until I receive a positive reply. To date, none of these requests, or any of my letters, have been answered.
September 3, 2008
Dear Sgt. McNeil, Ms. Macdonald, and Ms. Scolero:
I hereby request permission to see my dog Brindi, impounded by you on July 24, 2008, and housed since then at the SPCA facility.
On a visit this past Monday, I discovered my dog was still not being allowed any time in outdoor pens. This, despite the fact that over ten days ago, I assured a SPCA shelter supervisor that she had the necessary vaccinations. I even gave consent for them to be updated. My offer to sign for this was declined. Nearly two weeks afterwards, I learned nothing changed. While other dogs are put out to the pens in the hot weather, Brindi remains inside, apparently because the shelter manager had since decided she did indeed want written consent. And no one bothered to inform me of this, either directly or through Animal Services.
Please be aware that for HRM and a contracted shelter to leave my dog’s health up to chance, let alone deprive her of fresh air, is not acceptable.
I also learned recently that during her few daily minutes outside, Brindi is not walked on a leash. Instead, volunteers use a pole with a thin wire at one end that encloses like a noose around her neck, an implement normally reserved for the most vicious dogs. I learned she is not being allowed near other dogs anyway, so there is no justified concern about attacks, and therefore, no need to use the pole. To sum up, during nearly six weeks of HRM custody, Brindi has been deprived of fresh air and daylight, contact with other dogs, contact with her owner, and most of the time, other humans, as well as a humane means of exercising her. Only the lack of air and sunlight will change once her shot is given. The others should also change.
As Brindi’s lawful owner, I have the legal right and the moral responsibility to insure my dog is in good health and receives proper care at all times. I urge you to grant my request. To claim it would not be good for my dog is hardly credible under the circumstances.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
I have also written to the NS SPCA on more than one occasion regarding their role as my dog's wardens vs. their mission to protect her. My letters have not received a reply.
However, this was recently posted on the NS SPCA website:
August 30, 2008:
Public Statement on the Case of Brindi the Dog and HRM Animal Services
The Nova Scotia SPCA wishes to inform the public that its role in the case of Brindi the dog is related solely to the Metro Shelter holding the contract for animal care services for the Halifax Regional Municipality. In that capacity, the Metro Shelter cares for dogs that are seized by HRM or picked up by animal control. However, the Nova Scotia SPCA and the Metro Shelter have no control over the outcome of Brindi’s case. The matter is between the legal counsel for Brindi’s owner and HRM. Therefore, the Society encourages the public to address their concerns to HRM Animal Services.
Setting aside for the moment the misleading notion that only the lawyers may decide such matters, everyone should understand at least one thing.
Under current law, the NS SPCA and Metro Shelter have no LEGAL say in the outcome of Brindi's case, whether or not they hold an HRM contract. All they can do, all they should do, in either case is conduct their own investigation and advise the city and its constituents accordingly. A contract to operate a pound is not a gag order, a "license to kill" with eyes, ears, and mouth closed.
If a lot of calls are coming in, maybe the public understands what the SPCA cannot or will not. I hope the calls keep coming until they finally get it.
Dear Sgt. McNeil, Ms. Macdonald, and Ms. Scolero:
I hereby request permission to see my dog Brindi, impounded by you on July 24, 2008, and housed since then at the SPCA facility.
On a visit this past Monday, I discovered my dog was still not being allowed any time in outdoor pens. This, despite the fact that over ten days ago, I assured a SPCA shelter supervisor that she had the necessary vaccinations. I even gave consent for them to be updated. My offer to sign for this was declined. Nearly two weeks afterwards, I learned nothing changed. While other dogs are put out to the pens in the hot weather, Brindi remains inside, apparently because the shelter manager had since decided she did indeed want written consent. And no one bothered to inform me of this, either directly or through Animal Services.
Please be aware that for HRM and a contracted shelter to leave my dog’s health up to chance, let alone deprive her of fresh air, is not acceptable.
I also learned recently that during her few daily minutes outside, Brindi is not walked on a leash. Instead, volunteers use a pole with a thin wire at one end that encloses like a noose around her neck, an implement normally reserved for the most vicious dogs. I learned she is not being allowed near other dogs anyway, so there is no justified concern about attacks, and therefore, no need to use the pole. To sum up, during nearly six weeks of HRM custody, Brindi has been deprived of fresh air and daylight, contact with other dogs, contact with her owner, and most of the time, other humans, as well as a humane means of exercising her. Only the lack of air and sunlight will change once her shot is given. The others should also change.
As Brindi’s lawful owner, I have the legal right and the moral responsibility to insure my dog is in good health and receives proper care at all times. I urge you to grant my request. To claim it would not be good for my dog is hardly credible under the circumstances.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
I have also written to the NS SPCA on more than one occasion regarding their role as my dog's wardens vs. their mission to protect her. My letters have not received a reply.
However, this was recently posted on the NS SPCA website:
August 30, 2008:
Public Statement on the Case of Brindi the Dog and HRM Animal Services
The Nova Scotia SPCA wishes to inform the public that its role in the case of Brindi the dog is related solely to the Metro Shelter holding the contract for animal care services for the Halifax Regional Municipality. In that capacity, the Metro Shelter cares for dogs that are seized by HRM or picked up by animal control. However, the Nova Scotia SPCA and the Metro Shelter have no control over the outcome of Brindi’s case. The matter is between the legal counsel for Brindi’s owner and HRM. Therefore, the Society encourages the public to address their concerns to HRM Animal Services.
Setting aside for the moment the misleading notion that only the lawyers may decide such matters, everyone should understand at least one thing.
Under current law, the NS SPCA and Metro Shelter have no LEGAL say in the outcome of Brindi's case, whether or not they hold an HRM contract. All they can do, all they should do, in either case is conduct their own investigation and advise the city and its constituents accordingly. A contract to operate a pound is not a gag order, a "license to kill" with eyes, ears, and mouth closed.
If a lot of calls are coming in, maybe the public understands what the SPCA cannot or will not. I hope the calls keep coming until they finally get it.
The public expects the SPCA to intervene. It has a right to expect this. Under A300, euthanization orders issued by HRM animal control officers are not subject to review, internal or external. At present, only the SPCA is qualified and well-positioned to provide such a review. Should its findings contrast those of the city, it has a clear mandate to withhold its services and cooperation. Anything less compromises its core principles.
The SPCA may not wish to, but it would be far wiser to demand a say in Brindi's case, and in every case like hers. Because when the SPCA abdicates its mission, it negates her rights, and mine. If it refuses to be an advocate for Brindi's welfare, who is there? What other non-governmental group is authorized to fill the vacuum?
******************************************************************************
In closing, it would be very nice to receive a reply from the SPCA, and from Animal Services. When it comes to humans, I don't bite. Neither does my dog.
******************************************************************************
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Guest Post: Jon Stone on the sudden death of Ducky, a 17-year old family cat
I am writing this in an email so you may post it to your blog as another example of what is so desperately wrong with the animal control by-law and the incompetence of those who are enforcing the law. Jean would love to talk to you.
A long time resident of North Dartmouth, Jean Hanlon is yet another victim of the reckless enforcement actions of HRM's animal control officers and the inhumane law which they claim to be dutifully applying.
Recently Jean had her elderly cat to the vet for treatment of an ear infection. After receiving treatment and a prescription for medication, Jean returned home with her cat, fully confident that the animal would recover. She was called away to take care of some other business for a few hours. When she returned home, she could find no trace of the cat. She and her husband Paul hunted high and low. When she asked her neighbour about the cat, he had said he had not seen it which later turned out to be a lie.
Finally they called animal control and found out that they had received a complaint from someone in the neighbourhood and had taken a cat into custody. (if only other by-laws would be so vigourously enforced!) They took the cat to the pound - again this is the facility operated by the heretical NS SPCA - where the cat had been euthanized virtually immediately. The most troubling and frightening fact here is that again, animal control officers seem to carry the power of God because even though the animal control law states that seized animals must be kept for three days before being euthanized or otherwise adopted, animal control officers can waive that "right" for the animals and order immediate euthanasia as was the case with Jean's cat. HAD THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES WHICH THEY LOVE TO QUOTE LIKE MINDLESS AUTOMATONS JEAN'S CAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED!
They say they believed that the cat was in bad shape. The only problem with the poor animal was that it was recovering from an ear infection and was of course a little wobbly. The animal control officer, as they are apparently inclined to do in their so-called investigations, embellished his report saying that the cat had been dragging its hind quarters. When pressed, he actually admitted that he exaggerated. So why is he still carrying a badge? Where is the recourse for this sort of incompetence?
Jean went to the animal impoundment centre in Burnside after finding out her cat had been euthanized without ANY serious investigation OF ANY KIND done by animal control. After beating against the locked door, they finally let her in. According to Jean the vet who administered the euthanasia was absolutely enraged at having been misled by animal control.
Needless to say, Jean has been devastated by this tragedy. Especially when her neighbour denied to the animal control officer that he knew the cat and signed a paper to that effect. As with most of the results of this kangaroo court animal justice, lives of people who love and cherish their pets are being devastated because of the callous, heartless and mindless actions of animal control officers.
What adds the ultimate insult to this is that this is all happpening under the nose of the NS SPCA which should be waving the flag of righteous indignation for HRM to immediately cease and desist in the poor enforcement of this even poorer by law. By their silence and the fact this takes place on their own premises the organization which bills itself as the protector of animals is in fact condoning these blatant acts of inhumanity on animals such as Brindi and Jean Hanlon's cat and no doubt countless other similar cases.
How many Brindis have their been as a result of this bylaw? How many cases like Jean Hanlon's cat have there been? How many more broken hearts will there be before some common sense and supportable legal principles win out over the heartless bureaucracy?
-
A long time resident of North Dartmouth, Jean Hanlon is yet another victim of the reckless enforcement actions of HRM's animal control officers and the inhumane law which they claim to be dutifully applying.
Recently Jean had her elderly cat to the vet for treatment of an ear infection. After receiving treatment and a prescription for medication, Jean returned home with her cat, fully confident that the animal would recover. She was called away to take care of some other business for a few hours. When she returned home, she could find no trace of the cat. She and her husband Paul hunted high and low. When she asked her neighbour about the cat, he had said he had not seen it which later turned out to be a lie.
Finally they called animal control and found out that they had received a complaint from someone in the neighbourhood and had taken a cat into custody. (if only other by-laws would be so vigourously enforced!) They took the cat to the pound - again this is the facility operated by the heretical NS SPCA - where the cat had been euthanized virtually immediately. The most troubling and frightening fact here is that again, animal control officers seem to carry the power of God because even though the animal control law states that seized animals must be kept for three days before being euthanized or otherwise adopted, animal control officers can waive that "right" for the animals and order immediate euthanasia as was the case with Jean's cat. HAD THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES WHICH THEY LOVE TO QUOTE LIKE MINDLESS AUTOMATONS JEAN'S CAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED!
They say they believed that the cat was in bad shape. The only problem with the poor animal was that it was recovering from an ear infection and was of course a little wobbly. The animal control officer, as they are apparently inclined to do in their so-called investigations, embellished his report saying that the cat had been dragging its hind quarters. When pressed, he actually admitted that he exaggerated. So why is he still carrying a badge? Where is the recourse for this sort of incompetence?
Jean went to the animal impoundment centre in Burnside after finding out her cat had been euthanized without ANY serious investigation OF ANY KIND done by animal control. After beating against the locked door, they finally let her in. According to Jean the vet who administered the euthanasia was absolutely enraged at having been misled by animal control.
Needless to say, Jean has been devastated by this tragedy. Especially when her neighbour denied to the animal control officer that he knew the cat and signed a paper to that effect. As with most of the results of this kangaroo court animal justice, lives of people who love and cherish their pets are being devastated because of the callous, heartless and mindless actions of animal control officers.
What adds the ultimate insult to this is that this is all happpening under the nose of the NS SPCA which should be waving the flag of righteous indignation for HRM to immediately cease and desist in the poor enforcement of this even poorer by law. By their silence and the fact this takes place on their own premises the organization which bills itself as the protector of animals is in fact condoning these blatant acts of inhumanity on animals such as Brindi and Jean Hanlon's cat and no doubt countless other similar cases.
How many Brindis have their been as a result of this bylaw? How many cases like Jean Hanlon's cat have there been? How many more broken hearts will there be before some common sense and supportable legal principles win out over the heartless bureaucracy?
-
URGENT: CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON ALL EUTHANIZATIONS
I received the following news today:
A cat belonging to a Dartmouth family was seized and put down at the Burnside Emergency Animal Clinic within less than two hours after neighbors reported it as a stray, claiming it was “dragging its hind legs.”
Ducky, a 17-year old Angora cat belonging to Paul and Jean Hanlon of Fernhill Drive, went missing on the evening of August 16. Her frantic owners searched in vain with the help of a neighbor. Finally at around 10 pm they called HRM Animal Control, who informed them one of their officers had taken it into custody a few hours earlier. The officer, acting on a call from an elderly couple in the neighborhood about a cat seen on a lawn, mistakenly concluded Ducky was in bad shape.
On learning the news, Jean Hanlon immediately drove to the Burnside clinic and, as she says “went berserk”: “I banged on the door and said, ‘You killed my cat! Let me in!’” A vet came out and explained to Hanlon she had euthanized Ducky after receiving an order from Animal Control. This happened probably sometime between 8 and 9 pm, before the owners were able to track it down. Explanations vary as to why the procedure was done so quickly, nor is it clear why Ducky was taken to the clinic rather than to the SPCA. Ducky was being treated with antibiotics for an ear infection, but was otherwise in good health, according to the family vet. The family is devastated by the sudden loss of a well-cared for, longtime companion. The vet told Hanlon she felt misled by animal control, who in turn claimed they did not know.
Animal Services has claimed it is not allowed to inform pet owners of the names of callers who report their animals. So its officer, who did not actually see the cat dragging its hindlegs, did not attempt to contact the owners. Nor did he search for someone to corroborate the information filled out on an “Animal Relinquishment Form” by Hanlon’s next-door neighbor. To date Jean Hanlon has not been sent a copy of this form, which includes a 72-hour waiver of the time required to hold an animal before euthanization. On it, the officer told her, the neighbor indicated that the cat was a stray, which Hanlon finds odd, as he had clearly known what her cat looks like. Also, since in the past, he had delivered strays to her door, she does not understand why he chose to call police this time.
My friend Jon Stone, who made me aware of Ducky's fate, wonders whether the actual rules were really followed, as Animal Services claims is the case.
A cat belonging to a Dartmouth family was seized and put down at the Burnside Emergency Animal Clinic within less than two hours after neighbors reported it as a stray, claiming it was “dragging its hind legs.”
Ducky, a 17-year old Angora cat belonging to Paul and Jean Hanlon of Fernhill Drive, went missing on the evening of August 16. Her frantic owners searched in vain with the help of a neighbor. Finally at around 10 pm they called HRM Animal Control, who informed them one of their officers had taken it into custody a few hours earlier. The officer, acting on a call from an elderly couple in the neighborhood about a cat seen on a lawn, mistakenly concluded Ducky was in bad shape.
On learning the news, Jean Hanlon immediately drove to the Burnside clinic and, as she says “went berserk”: “I banged on the door and said, ‘You killed my cat! Let me in!’” A vet came out and explained to Hanlon she had euthanized Ducky after receiving an order from Animal Control. This happened probably sometime between 8 and 9 pm, before the owners were able to track it down. Explanations vary as to why the procedure was done so quickly, nor is it clear why Ducky was taken to the clinic rather than to the SPCA. Ducky was being treated with antibiotics for an ear infection, but was otherwise in good health, according to the family vet. The family is devastated by the sudden loss of a well-cared for, longtime companion. The vet told Hanlon she felt misled by animal control, who in turn claimed they did not know.
Animal Services has claimed it is not allowed to inform pet owners of the names of callers who report their animals. So its officer, who did not actually see the cat dragging its hindlegs, did not attempt to contact the owners. Nor did he search for someone to corroborate the information filled out on an “Animal Relinquishment Form” by Hanlon’s next-door neighbor. To date Jean Hanlon has not been sent a copy of this form, which includes a 72-hour waiver of the time required to hold an animal before euthanization. On it, the officer told her, the neighbor indicated that the cat was a stray, which Hanlon finds odd, as he had clearly known what her cat looks like. Also, since in the past, he had delivered strays to her door, she does not understand why he chose to call police this time.
My friend Jon Stone, who made me aware of Ducky's fate, wonders whether the actual rules were really followed, as Animal Services claims is the case.
He asks, "How many Brindis have there been as a result of this bylaw? How many cases like Jean Hanlon's cat have there been? How many more broken hearts will there be, before some common sense and supportable legal principles win out over a heartless bureaucracy?"
My answer: TOO MANY. Killing innocent animals is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of how many or how few.
My answer: TOO MANY. Killing innocent animals is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of how many or how few.
Therefore, until enforcement procedures are reviewed and the law is improved–and this is not likely to happen until after the October election–I propose an immediate indefinite moratorium on all euthanization orders in HRM.
I call upon all HRM vets to refuse to carry out an HRM order to euthanize an animal unless and until they are absolutely convinced it is justified by the animal's condition, i.e., visible signs of agony or a severe injury from which it will not recover.
Please join me in making this demand by contacting your elected officials and anyone else who will listen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
