Glimpses, precious moments June 3

Taken by somebody passing by, when I was not there. She's finding shade, not a lot of comfort, no company. 

At some point on every visit the same thought goes through my mind: I have to ask, I have to remember to ask them, can't I just live there with her? 

Sorry, but I have a big bone to pick with the SPCA

When I cry, even a little, my cats jump off the bed and vanish. I am crying now, soon after waking up today, because consciousness brought me back to what happened yesterday. 

It may seem like a tempest in a teapot to a lot of people. But something as simple as a bone can mean life or death to a dog. And you can't ever take it for granted that somebody will do what they say. This is what I wrote to friends after my weekly visit to Brindi yesterday:

 At the end of my visits with Brindi, I give her a fresh juicy bone, her favorite treat, to distract her when I leave and give her something to do in her cell. I was bringing Brindi bones on a regular basis for the past 10 months. As I drove away from the shelter without her, crying my head off each time, I could at least console myself that she had a little pleasure, remembering how she could demolish a bone in record time. After the "ban" (imposed only because I asked to see her), a few helpers took over for a while. In December, when I heard about Jeff de la Rosa's dog Stu, whose teeth were in bad shape after three years in a pound, I felt assured this would not happen to my dog, thanks to the bones I brought. I was wrong.

Today at the SPCA I had a big shock. I saw the shelter manager take the fresh beef bone right out of Brindi’s mouth, right in front of me. Of course, Brindi, being the dangerous dog that she is, sat obediently and allowed her to do it, making only one symbolic try to get it back when it was dangled in front of her face - no growling, no threatening, no locking on to it!!!

This happened right after this woman said “No high value items, hun!” What high value?? $1.80 for two bones?? What are you talking about? Why can't she have it? No answer. I asked five times, she ignored me. Then she said, “If you want me to give you an appropriate treat, I’ll give you one.” Appropriate? Excuse me?? I said, this is MY dog, I will and can decide what is appropriate, I own this dog! Then in horror I asked if they had been taking away all the bones I brought in all this time – and not giving her the extras in packs I brought - no answer. Obviously, that is exactly what has been happening. My own eyes told me so, because her teeth are such an atrocity. But they say they love her and I just could not believe they would walk her away with a bone in her mouth, a happy camper, and then take it away when she was out of sight! I could not believe the desk girls would politely accept a whole package of bones, promising to give them to Brindi every day!! Is this what they think is right? Is this how they treat dogs they love?

On my first visit in April I noticed Brindi’s teeth were in bad shape - big encrustations, calcium deposits, black and brown stains, plaque everywhere, even in her bottom front teeth, the tops - black. The first visit, her gums bled after she fetched a plastic frisbee two times. So I doubled the effort to bring more bones, and in May, summoned the courage to ask if her teeth could be cleaned. Apparently they are worried because she has to go her under full anesthesia – a risk to them. The real danger is the release of the bacteria scrapings which can cause organ damage, or get to her heart, cause a staph infection, and kill her. And she could lose teeth to cavities or gum disease. None of this would be a concern now if they had just given her the bones.

Every time I dropped them off (even risking arrest, during the ban) and asked politely if they would give them to Brindi, the staff and volunteers would say yes, okay, fine, no problem. Not once did they say she can’t have them. Whether they ever gave her any bones, or just tossed them, I’ll never know. But I have brought a lot of them, and her teeth should be in much better shape. Forget the wasted money; no money can restore her teeth to their former condition. They are not obviously not giving her any “appropriate” substitute, because they would not be this bad.

The fact is, she does not like artificial bones. And I learned the hard way that rawhide was no good; she threw up and had diarrhea for five days. A raw beef bone does the job very well, and it does not splinter like cooked ones. I confirmed with good sources that raw bones are okay - and 13 months of giving them to her proved it.   

I should have believed my own eyes, back in April, but I could just not believe anybody would lie to me about such a tiny thing, and also deny my dog a bit of pleasure. I so regret that I did not even think to take a photo of her teeth today; I could kick myself. But I was already admonished for taking a few pictures of her, because it is against the “conditions”. I figured since the SPCA staff took video and pictures of Brindi on her “birthday” last month, I have a right to do it. But today I was told I might be refused more visits in the future if I did.



These are the 12 conditions for visits that I understand Sean Kelly, then the head of the “shelter management team”, wrote in April. They apply to me and me only. I was thrilled to be allowed to see Brindi, don't get me wrong!! But I was taken aback, especially by a 13th condition against writing or talking about the visits afterwards. HRM, realizing this goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, got that one dropped. The other conditions prohibit such things as bringing a friend, going inside the shelter, or being late, and one about “no high-value items” that mystified everybody. Who would think it meant bones??

I signed to the conditions under protest. Without a witness (and a lawyer cannot be a witness), they can easily claim I was rude and stop the visits. But I can’t help wondering that an even bigger reason for the conditions is simply to prevent me from documenting my dog’s condition. And yes, I know that by posting this now, I am risking losing the privilege to see her. A bit of blackmail on top of all the rest. I am told that is what can happen in a big institution. I suppose. And who am I to ask for honesty and decency from a public charity?

I am sorry if the shelter staff feel unfairly criticized by me. It is not that I don’t appreciate all their work and care. I really do. They work very hard, handle tons of animals, and the shelter has improved 100% since last July. And I think they know that I am not a physical threat to them, that I would never issue a death threat to anybody. They know that my dog is my world, just like any other dog person. The bottom line is, the SPCA is responsible for her health, not HRM. They were good to alert me to the cysts, and to bathe her again when I asked. Maybe they don’t all agree with these policies. If so, I would hope they’d speak up. And nobody should be asked to lie as part of their job, paid or unpaid.

The shelter manager, who was at least honest about it, tried to fend off my questions about the bones as diplomatically as possible. She said I could talk to Sean Kelly. This must mean the bones are prohibited by the same man who taught Brindi to jump on people. I discovered this to my horror on my first visit ever, in minus zero weather last January. Then, I didn’t have time to bring treats (I used to bake my own, using chicken hearts). Brindi was demanding a treat every other second, wildly jumping on me if I didn't produce one. (Luckily she got the message not to do this, during my first two visits.) When I asked for treats, I received fake bacon strips, among the fattiest, most carcinogenic commercial treats ever, just dripping with red dye. “Appropriate”? For whom?

HRM legal services were a bit confused about the bones themselves, and are going to ask about it. But they cautioned me that they cannot control the SPCA’s actions. I have to wonder that in return for $34,500 a month, $414,000 a year, HRM feels it cannot give any instruction to a private contractor. It seems even odder that this contractor vows it will lose the HRM contract unless it kills any dog deemed dangerous by animal control. It's the only game in town, as far as a pound goes. The SPCA rationale conveyed to me in person before a witness last October by a smiling Sean Kelly went like this: sure, a few dogs may die needlessly, like Brindi, and that’s sad and everything, but gosh, they need the money so they can help a lot more dogs in the province. Yes, they need the money. But, dare I ask, doesn't this make it blood money?

Back then, it was “Sorry, Francesca, we’d really like to help but our hands are tied!”  But already in January, it was “Sorry HRM, we can’t kill this dog - but let’s just not give her back to her owner!”  (This despite the fact that my court case got the law changed so that other owners will have a fighting chance to save their dogs.) Now they are insulted because PETA has taken an interest and asked for reason to prevail. But nobody is forcing them; heck, my dog is not even being held legally, since there is no “disposition” on her, no legal purpose to hold her. (To get a judge to confirm this is the trick, as they are unsure about their jurisdiction, for one thing... I fear I may never get a fair hearing for Brindi. The sole reason HRM charged me in January is to use the charges to get another order to destroy; they are not offering to make up for the lack of an appeal process, which would seem called for under the circumstances.)

If only the false obstacles could be cleared aside, and the SPCA saw the truly ideal position they are in. Instead of circulating press releases about how well Brindi is cared for - not really possible in their short-term care facility - why not take a look at the realities? The SPCA are entitled by provincial law to exercise their right to protect animal welfare for all animals - a monopoly. They need no one's permission to screen dogs declared dangerous, using experts and common sense. If they did this, they would perform an invaluable public service. Dogs’ lives could be spared, humans would not be ruined financially and psychologically, and bad PR could be exchanged for praise, because they would be the heroes. And I would be the first to lead the celebratory parade.

The trouble is, if they can't understand beef bones, I don’t see much hope.  

Suicide

This post may be the end of me, as far as my cause goes, because I know what can happen when you take on the SPCA. However, people have a right to know. Someday it may help somebody else. My life is already ruined, or nearly, and my dog's health is compromised as it is. 

Since January the SPCA has been petitioning HRM behind the scenes to "re-home" my dog. In a recent public statement, they claim that they have made a number of proposals to HRM. According to a reliable HRM source, this is the only kind of proposal they have made.

What is the actual justification for giving my dog away to somebody else in this case? Even the HRM lawyers, and they are pretty sharp talkers, can't come up with one. It seems to me the SPCA favors the idea is because they are angry at me. Why are they mad? Last July I begged them to help stop a non-vicious dog from being put down. They declined, pointing to their contract, which I later learn (confirming my doubts) says nothing that could stop them from helping. They were content to keep her locked up, deny me visits, prevent any dog companionship, not walk her (a dog used to good runs several times a day), and now, I learn, veto her the beef bones I bring. Not to mention being ready to inject her with poison if so ordered. They are mad because I had the audacity to write about this - after my attempt to work with them failed - and because they get hundreds of complaints from people, most who haven't even read my blog, actually (it's too wordy, I know!). But some people do think for themselves and happen to find it wrong that a society dedicated to the welfare of animals is not helping to return a dog to its owner, and also keeping it locked up themselves. But I am to blame. 

In keeping with the SPCA's online statement that it has nothing to do with the outcome of this case, it has not spoken publicly about "re-homing", of course. But SPCA members and fans do it all the time - on Facebook, their own blogs, and anywhere they can. They berate me to get down on my knees and beg the city to give her to somebody else. The logic is a bit weak, since first of all, she is not a dangerous dog, never ripped apart an animal, or tried to, and should never have been seized; secondly, the city is hardline about euthanasia as the only option. Why they would allow a dog they say is dangerous to go to another owner, with the liability that goes with it, is a mystery. I never see them agreeing to this for the (apparently hundreds!!) of other dogs they get owners to sign over every year. Yet these SPCA fans swear to the world that I am selfish and uncaring because I will not bow to this demand - even before a judge has heard any evidence. And I have yet to see an actual justification that does not rest on false premises, exclude pertinent facts, and/or ignore the law. 

At the same time, I am told by dog advocates across the country that "re-homing" dogs in such cases often results in the dog being put down afterwards by a rescue or even the new “home" - because who wants to live with the label of dangerous? Who will take the time and energy to work on training? 

I will. I adopted a dog that was in a shelter for two years after being passed over countless times. She turned out to be a beautiful, smart, fun, and loving girl. No indication of "issues" before or after adoption, until a few months later - AFTER obedience training. With a bit more work, she can be a pretty perfect dog. Whatever mistakes I made were unintentional and rare; not the acts of a reckless, uncaring, unthinking person. If I were, I would not have offered to pay for a vet exam even when their dog has unharmed. Not everybody around here, I learned, would offer to pay even if they hit a dog with their car. I felt terrible. If I were so dismissive of things, I would not have apologized, and I would not have offered the city - over and over since last August -  reasonable and more than sufficient conditions in exchange for her return. 

And aside from all that, there is the inconvenient yet undeniable fact that my dog was illegally seized with no prior investigation; that the muzzle order, used to justify it, resulted from another dog owner's request not to fine me so I could afford all of her vet bill, as promised. Given that, what is the most reasonable response with regard to my ownership? I would not sign over my dog to be killed. To this day, I am devoting everything I have, all the energy and resources I can muster, to get her back safe and sound. What would indicate to an outsider that I do not take dog ownership seriously?? 

The point is: what would it take to bring around an otherwise well-intentioned, dedicated group of animal lovers to see this? Brindi and I are offenders? Well, we are small-time offenders. For which there are fences and training, and plenty of neighbors and friends supporting us. And in terms of the greater good, how would taking her away from me fix the gaps in the system that led to this ordeal? 

If by writing these things, I lose the chance to visit my dog again, and am branded a scoundrel, so be it. Life is short, and you have to say what is in your heart while you have the chance. 

PETA steps forward: the media step back

This is a really wonderful development, and I am very grateful. 

However, it seems the local media has not deemed a letter from the world's biggest animal rights group newsworthy. Hard to believe, but what else is new??

To enlarge the letter, click on it.

Message from Hendsbee

My local councilor, David Hendsbee, was kind enough to forward me a message he wrote to his colleagues at city hall last week.  

I want to thank him most sincerely, and I believe he's already received a few thank-you's from folks around North America. Here's one:

From: Judy Loudin <@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 21:57:02 -0600
To: <david.hendsbee@halifax.ca>
Subject: Brindi needs to go home now!

Dear Sir,
 Thank you so much for your attempts to reach the people who are in charge of this horrific situation.  I hope and pray that sanity will prevail and that Brindi will be released to Francesca post haste.  As you noted, the publicity is circling the globe and not putting Halifax in a very good light as a tourist destination.  Hopefully reason will prevail and you and those who share your wisdom and common sense will work together to overcome this dastardly situation, release this poor dog from her prison, and allow Brindi and Francesca and the people of Halifax, Nova Scotia to get on with the business of living.
 Again, I thank you for your comments to those who have the power to end this travesty of justice posthaste.  Blessings from Wyoming, USA   Judy Loudin  M.Ed   LCMT  LCR

Judy Loudin

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/WY54.html

The Healing Journey Rescue

Burns, WY 82053

"The last stop on their journey home!"

 

I am also glad to report that a few neighbors are signing statements of support to go to the court, and I hope that this may help.

 

Ten months, birthdays, outlook

Ten months to the day. Not much to be said about that; how many adjectives are there for hell?

Friday, a dreaded birthday, sad, but lifted up by a wonderful group e-card full of  heartwarming greetings and pictures from over a hundred well-wishers, some I've met in person, some I've spent many hours with on the phone since last summer...

No plans, just took a walk on the beach, for the first time in months. Trying to find a moment of balance. 

Near impossible, without Brindi, of course; knowing she sees the same square footage every day, the same small area where dozens of dogs poop and pee. No sand and surf and wind. Boggles the mind. 

Yesterday a birthday rally for dogs and human, at the Halifax North Common, with miraculously beautiful weather, with a wonderful group of Humane Halifax members, many people joining in to sign petitions, read the flyers, enjoy a piece of birthday cake, some sharing the special dog cake with th

eir pooches  - and lots of talk about Brindi.

Everybody we talked to had heard about her, but many were stunned to lea

rn that she was not released in January. I hear this often, and believe me, correcting people is no fun. The same reaction of shock, disbelief, and irritation, not infrequently, outright ang

er. One woman, very distinguised-looking and well-dressed, burst out - and I quote - "I swear, this place is just like a communist country!! It's getting worse all the time!!"

Today, cold, rainy, and gray, to match my mood. Very tired. Visit from someone who couldn't make the rally, welcome company, a walk around the field and the beach, but not much more productivity from me today. 

Progress report otherwise? Good news: permission from the authorities to see Brindi 30 minutes a week, noontime Wednesdays. Two visits so far since January. Unlike back then, this time we were allowed to be inside the building, since it was cold and rainy that day-  that was the day after her surgery, which was a very scary time, waiting to find out if she had cancer or not. I didn't write about that because it was simply too much to think about, let alone put into words. 

The next visit, the first of the noon series, I hope, the weather was sunny and warm, so we were allowed to go outside in the graveled pen, the one she sees every single day. She has not been anywhere else outdoors, to my knowledge, since July 2008. Probably sniffed every square inch hundreds of times. She lay down on the gravel for me to rub her belly, and I worried about her stitches popping. 

I can't helping thinking that Brindi has easily served ten times more time behind bars than even the worst animal abuser. My time has been much like prison; I certainly have not been living a real life. Knowing your dog is literally on death row makes that kind of impossible.  

Well outnumbered by positive supporters by the thousands, I have to marvel at the few detractors who want blame me for all of this. To them, I'm practically an animal abuser - yet here I am, trying everything possible to save my own dog, which to my utter disbelief has turned out to be a colossal effort. The alternative? A syringe of poison injected into Brindi's body on August 7, 2008, nobody knowing or caring. If she is being abused now, it certainly is not by my hand. Other people are involved in that decision, not me, just as other people are seeking her death right now. I am staking my entire life on preventing them and will keep on doing so as long as I breathe.

Incredibly, there are even one or two who insist I deliberately misled the public by posting a video of me celebrating the Supreme Court victory on January 16.  Sure, I would lie about the most important thing in my life, for what?? 

Call me naive, but when my own lawyer called and said "We won!!" and that Brindi would be home within a week, how was I to anticipate the devastating disappointment that followed? 

How was I to expect that instead of getting my dog back, I would be charged for the first time ever for violations of a by-law 45 minutes before the expiration of the six-month statute of limitations? 

All I know is, I love my dog more than anybody on the planet. There is nobody who will take better care of her or work harder to keep her safe and sound, with all the necessary aids and precautions. 

When people tell me how much they love Brindi, I think that's really great, because it reassures me that even behind bars, she is being her wonderful, beautiful, smart, attentive, fun, eager to learn, and above all, loving self. Even behind bars, all of that comes through; she is weary, she is lonely, she needs more exercise, her teeth and coat need attention, and Lord knows she needs to come home -but she has not gone crazy, she has not become vicious. Not this dog, people! 

And it gives me a bit of hope. Who in their right mind could kill a dog like Brindi? 

My hope is that maybe, just maybe, people who say they love Brindi will put themselves in my shoes for just a moment. A fraction of a moment. Any amount of time, no matter how brief, would be enough for them to know one thing for certain: nobody loves Brindi as much as I do. And then they would understand exactly why I say that I am not going to stop until she is back home, safe and sound. 

That is all I really want for my birthday: nothing more or less than my own dog, the one who celebrated (quietly) with me, one year ago on May 22. How much longer?

Here's some of the pics - thanks to Valerie S.! And everybody else, two-legged and four-legged, who attended!

Am I a mother?

A few kind and thoughtful people have sent me Mother's Day messages. It's common among animal lovers to think of themselves and others as parents to their pets. I don't have children; actually I never felt the need to identify myself as a mother. I do call Brindi my baby girl, but most of the time, I think of my animals as companions and adults in their own right. Brindi was already four when I adopted her and after a period of clingy-ness she soon gained confidence to become who she is - though she remains somewhat clingy, being a rescue, and being a loving dog!

The idea of being a mother to your pets does make sense in some ways; we care for our animals, nurture them, love them, teach them how to behave, take them with us on our journey through life. They never leave home of course, unless they are taken by illness or get lost or as in Brindi's case, dare I mention, just taken. 

I've noticed a sort of discursive debate among animal advocates out there about the proper designation for people who have pets: guardians vs. owners. I believe it has to do with the question of whether animals should have rights or remain property under the law. There seems to be a certain militancy among pro-guardian advocates, while a professor who teaches animal law at Dalhousie believes it is better to hang on to the concept of animals as property. I imagine that some combination must be derived to create the proper balance for animals to be fully protected from harm.

 

And today I wonder, how does this debate mesh with the notion of being a mother to a pet? Neither "guardian" nor "owner" brings with it the familial relationship or any hint of an emotional bond between human and animal. Why is that? My struggle to get Brindi back home has everything to do with this bond. It is not reflected in the law. My rights as a property owner seem to be so carefully guarded in all levels of law (with some exceptions, like expropriation). Courts tend to balance property rights against the public interest pretty fairly, on the whole, except when it comes to dogs. Then, all bets are off; a presumption of guilt is firmly embedded in the laws and practices. Anybody wondering what I am talking about should read not only By-Law A300, but also the Municipal Government Act, section 177. Anti-breed legislation opponents know this presumption of guilt (in pit bull bans, one-bite laws, and our native laws) does not correspond in any way to the statistics on the prime threats to human life. Nowhere in the law, or in the system built upon it, do I find consideration for all the good that dogs do for people - which is considerable. 

Brindi is a mom, by the way (and so is my cat, Amelia). When Brindi was rescued she had a full litter of puppies with her, in a cardboard box, and was shielding them from the rain with her body. Because she was tied to a stoop she could not get them to a dry place. She must have been so frustrated, then so glad to be helped! She detests water to this day, dislikes baths, won't swim in the ocean. In the photo on the top of the blog, it is no coincidence that she is running alongside a water-loving black lab at a careful distance from the waves.

Happily, Brindi's five pups were all adopted. Most went to the Halifax metropolitan area. 

Here's a few pictures:

So, as I never gave birth myself, this seems more appropriate:

***********Happy Mother's Day, dearest Brindi!***********

***************************************************************

 

Health Reprieve!

I got some welcome news yesterday from my vet - the lab reports were back early from PEI, and they showed no evidence of cancer in the biopsied tissue from Brindi's cysts. 

A big relief! 

Now we just have to make sure that her stitches don't get infected and she should be better.

The vet said the cysts were around hair follicles - I imagine they were blocked up or something... 

It's really the best news in ages!!!

A report on my visit with Brindi

Note: On Tuesday night (May 5, the day of Brindi's surgery) I got an email reply to my faxed request for a visit to the SPCA vice president, Kat Horne, saying I could come the next day, and I responded in time to go at 9:30 am. I was extremely happy to be allowed to see Brindi again. This is only the second visit in over nine months. At the same time a lawyer out of province advised me to sign to the SPCA's 12 conditions regulating the visit only under protest, specifically denying any implied accusations (that I pose a threat to staff). She also advised not to speak to anybody (no photography or other recording was allowed and only a lawyer may accompany me. A lawyer's presence in this instance was simply not feasible - or advisable. I feel it went well despite all that, gladly.

9:30 am to 10: 00 am, May 6, 2009, Metro Shelter, Dartmouth

On the way to the shelter, I managed to get batteries and bones and still arrive exactly on time. Lori Scolero, the animal services supervisor, and Kat Horner, the SPCA VP who replied to my email last night, were in the lobby. I said nothing but just handed them the signed protocol – to which I added Kat’s email with the permission to be inside, and the statement the lawyer wrote for me.

Next to the lobby is a bigger, newly renovated room they call the adoption center, with two couches at one end and stools and a counter at the other. They told me to go into this room and Kathy, a supervisor at the shelter (might be acting director now) brought Brindi in and unleashed her. She came to me right away, full of kisses. Scolero and Kat stayed in the lobby where they could view me through two large windows. Most of the time they didn’t look, so I had some degree of privacy, which was great.

From the surgery yesterday, Brindi’s back has three shaved patches, the biggest about 5 square inches, each centered on the incisions where they removed the cysts. One of the cuts was about two inches long. All three looked clean and uninfected, though the stitches looked a bit tight and I saw she was licking them now and then.

I played with her, hugged her, and gave her a lot of massages and practiced a few of her commands. She was very into the treats, more than before but not as bad as in January. She was still impatient though, but I was glad to see that she remembered the “bang!” command. When she spotted the treats though, she started performing all her moves, sitting, paw, and down, then rolling over, in anticipation. (I don’t give her a treat unless I give a command first, though.) She looked okay, still a bit heavy, very affectionate, lots of kisses. We hugged and talked and sat on the floor, even lay down together for a spell. I so just wanted to take her through the doors to my car. But I looked at Kat Horne and figured she’s much bigger than me and Lori would send the cops after me in a flash; I’d never make the three hour drive to PEI.

As a parting gift to distract Brindi while we separated – the toughest part – I gave her one of the meaty frozen soup bones I brought, not to big to carry in her mouth. It worked: she was a bit uncertain at first if it was really for her (she’s very polite about treats) but with encouragement she picked it up and went off with Kathy. Last time parting from her was heart-wrenching and so upsetting, when Sean Kelly (now the president) took her away. I had tried to sneak off but he walked her right into me to get past, and she strained against him with all her might to stay with me, her face showing her determination and fear.

I did speak briefly to Kathy and to Kat as I left, but only to turn over the treats, the bones, and ask Kathy to put my fuzzy jacket in Brindi’s cell. And I also said thank you to each of them, nothing more. They seemed cheerful and at ease.     

Before leaving my house I called my friend (through Brindi) Bob Riley. He was there when I arrived. I figured he would just  stay parked outside but he walked around and managed to look through the outside window at us for a while, undisturbed by Scolero, and then even went into the lobby where he could see us through a glass door. He stood a few feet from Scolero (animal services) with Kat behind the lobby counter. Neither told him to leave. He didn’t say much to them, just stood quietly and watched until I left Brindi. So I do have a witness of sorts and they did not object.

When I was leaving, Bob remarked for the others to hear, “Doesn’t look like a dangerous dog to me!”

I have not asked for another visit – yet – but I plan to soon, with the hope that they will agree, as this one went smoothly as far as I can tell.

AND I ALMOST FORGOT!

I finally had the chance to put the St. Francis medal on her collar - the one that Linda Koekman had specially engraved for her. It was meant to be blessed and put on her by a minister or a priest, who would accompany me to ask to see her at the shelter. Linda called 16 men of the cloth; I asked the local priest and a retired police chaplain. All declined (though to his credit my local priest did offer to bless the medal, to his credit).

Since last fall I have been wearing Brindi's St. Francis medal on a chain around my neck together with my mustard seed ensconced in a bit of glass (and engraved with the St. Matthew quote). It's now with her and I pray that it will protect her from illness or any harm, always! 

Here's what it looks like. Linda added the "We love you" so that Brindi knows...

The present moment

I am having the life choked out of me. Every muscle and fiber is twisting in pain. I am gripping my  body in agony and uttering cries that I don't even recognize as coming from me, cries of unspeakable grief and terror.

Welcome to my world.

Tomorrow my sweet dog will be taken from her cage, put in the same truck that took her from me so long ago, and driven to Porters Lake to the vet clinic, a place she will recognize. She will not know what to expect. She will be sedated and given an injection in her back for a local anesthetic. And they will cut out the cyst or tumor or whatever it is and stitch up the hole. They will put her back in the truck and take her back to her cage. Nobody will stay with her the rest of the day. 

Because my lawyer did not respond promptly to the city's only offer of a visit since January I did not get to visit her before the vet appointment. And the city lawyer did not put in writing that I could be there during the procedure as he had promised over a week ago. If I want to see her in a few days or the day after I have to plead for another chance and submit to the SPCA's 12 conditions for a visit. Under protest as advised by legal counsel. I want to see my dog but not just once. I want my dog back home with me. 

I am wrenched with pain and it is endless and brutal. I am crying out in pain like a wild animal. I cannot eat or drink. I am just like the animals who have no rights, no legal rights, my own property is being illegally held and that is confirmed by lawyer after lawyer and yet none will go and get her out. 

And the charges filed one hour before deadline are leading to a kangaroo court where I will still not have my day in court because dogs don't really ever get the same treatment as people: there is a strong presumption of guilt and you cannot expect the same rules of evidence to be applied, and the court has full license to kill or send away or anything they like. It is no comfort at all. 

And it will take another two weeks before I can know if the cyst they remove from my dog's spine is malignant or benign. Something else to look forward to. 

Nine Months is Nine Months Too Many!!! FREE BRINDI NOW

A heartfelt message made by Linda Koekman last fall and updated in January a few days before the Supreme Court victory was announced. Little did anybody imagine that the city would choose to lay charges then (the first ever) and hang on to my poor dog. Little did I imagine my lawyer would fail to find a way to stop them. In hindsight and with a lot of hard work I believe I now know several things he could have done before and after that day; the most powerful would have been to insure that release was included in the "form of order" agreed on by the winning and losing party following the court decision. And if the release of the decision had been delayed by just one day, it would have also rendered it impossible for the city to lay any charges, and they would have HAD to send her home!! Who knows, there might have been a way to head off the charges with some kind of action - I begged him to do something. 

These are things that could have happened right then, between Jan. 16 and Jan. 19; there are several other things that could have been done since. 

And to this day. Because it does not appear the city is legally entitled to hold a dog without a specific "purpose": every warrant has to have a purpose. On the day of the seizure (July 24) the justice of the piece who signed the warrant was informed about only one purpose for it to remove a "dangerous dog" from a home (section 176 Municipal Government Act). The law does not go any further than that as far as what is to be done with the dog; it's presumed the rest will be decided in court, because NORMALLY charges are filed, and the owner is either fined or summoned to court, etc.

After a seizure (of anything) that is carried out on a warrant a report must be filed the next day with the same justice of the peace. The report must clearly state where things go from here: what "purpose" or disposition is there in detaining whatever was seized and the legal basis for doing so. In our case this report stated that the purpose was to hold her for two weeks and then euthanize her, period. The report cited as its legal basis the now infamous Section 8.2.d of By-Law A300. This is the section of the law that the supreme court invalidated on Jan. 16. 

As an aside:

1. The euthanization order was issued the very same day as the warrant. So then why was the justice of the peace who issued the warrant not told about this purpose? Perhaps because it was out of sequence? That is, the animal services department makes clear that every seizure is followed by a "thorough investigation" before a decision is made. They were simultaneous in this case. And only 4 days passed between a reported incident and the order/seizure, without any statement taken from the owner (me). Nobody even informed me of the report until the day they took my dog.

2. The information filed with the warrant request is inaccurate: it includes mention that Brindi bit people walking by the house. No such thing ever occurred and no dates or names are mentioned; also other key information is lacking and the grounds for seizure are rather vague.)

To return: the order to euthanize was invalidated by the Supreme Court on Jan. 16 when it quashed section 8.2.d of A300, which illegally made an AC officer cop, prosecutor, and judge. This means:

• at no time was the order to euthanize valid, and
• since euthanasia was the sole stated "purpose" in the report filed to the justice of the peace after the seizure, it follows that the entire period of impoundment was illegal,
• it also follows that the impoundment remains illegal to this day, as no new warrant was issued nor was the existing one extended. 
  

The notion that detaining my dog is covered by section 176 of the Municipal Gov. Act (a provincial law) is dubious for two reasons: 

• First, the stated purpose for holding her was A300; it is not automatically umbrella'd by the reason given the day before.
• Second, as of this year the city has a classification for a dangerous dog and a license to go with it. This must mean that as far as Halifax is concerned, a person is entitled to keep a dangerous dog if it is properly licensed and maintained. Even íf the charges are related to my dog being dangerous (and they do not appear to be), the law does not automatically grant the power to impound her; nor charges alone ever authorize seizure under A300. 
• If the city argues she can't be released pending the trial because she is dangerous, then why has she not been classified as dangerous? We asked about this and the city solicitor stated in writing that she has not been entered into the municipal registry - at the time (late January) there was no registration for a dangerous dog. Now there is. But I just renewed her registration and it was handled as a normal license for a spayed female dog. It would be a bit obvious if on reading this information, the city turned around and changed that license - and if it did, it would be eliminating the reason it says it is holding her!!
• Further: the entire issue of declaring a dog dangerous probably ought to be decided by a judge, not an animal control officer; this is one of two or three other parts of A300 that I asked my lawyer to quash. I do not know why he omitted this, nor can I answer why he did not include the warrant in the original case, as I hired him to get my dog home to me  without penalty or constraints (including the gratuitous muzzle order, if at all possible, grrrrr) other than what I had already offered: to pay fines (meaning charges if laid) and to build a fence.
• No property can be held longer than 3 months unless an ongoing court proceeding requires it, i.e. as evidence. A dog is not evidence for the kind of by-law violations involved here.

The problem is: my ex-lawyer did not put this argument before any judge with a request to get her out attached to it! He attempted to quash the warrant before a provincial judge on Jan. 29 but told me in advance not to expect anything. He didn't try that hard either; just a short statement, no details of the case. He said the judge was not sure she had jurisdiction, and she said so in court, and added that in any case she was not prepared to hear it that day. At the arraignment (for the charges) on Feb. 3 another provincial judge raised the question about the warrant at the start, unbidden; he really seemed ready to rule on it. My lawyer didn't respond other than to hem and haw and move some law books around on his table. The prosecution did not respond much either, other than to mumble a bit. After a minute the judge moved on to the charges and demanded a plea. And so on. 

The trial was then set to begin Feb. 24. My lawyer had quit by then, leaving no time for me to find a new one or for a new one to prepare, even if I found one. So with a lot of trepidation I asked for an adjournment and also asked the judge about the legal basis for holding Brindi. I did not get very far with my question or my explanation, however. This time the judge did not address the warrant, nor did he even ask the prosecutor to present his grounds for holding her. Instead the judge said it was not his jurisdiction to decide on the question! He said if the prosecutor dropped charges she could be released; otherwise the case would have to proceed and depending on the verdict and what followed after that he would rule on her release (yes or no). 

The prosecution stated very plainly in court on Feb. 3 and Feb. 24 that its purpose in prosecuting the charges is to seek a euthanization order from the judge rules guilty or not guilty. There are three charges and all are alleged to have happened on the same day, July 20. They are: owning a dog that runs at large; owning a dog that attacks an animal unprovoked, and failing to obey a muzzle order. The fact they were laid one hour before the legal limit ran out raises a lot of questions as well -but they can't be addressed in court on June 5, unless I contest the charges. While it could be very successful I don't know how long that approach would take. Having said that, it could easily take much longer to continue pleading not guilty and go through witness after witness. I would have a better choice if Brindi were at home in the meantime. Even better, if the city would agree to work out a deal to resolve everything way before that. 

This is the dry and legal side of things. I've been through it over and over and discussed it with legal minds for months, and this is pretty much the result. I don't see any harm in sharing it. It's no big risk if it gets misunderstood or debated. Maybe somebody out there will find something I overlooked, who knows? All I know is, my new lawyer put it to the prosecution as a fair question (not as part of negotiations, since we really never got the chance): please cite a specific legal basis (or better yet give us a piece of paper) for holding my dog in the pound - independent of the charges. The answer was a day late, vague, and even inaccurate; it did not cite the charges as a reason, and it did not mention Section 176, and it did not cite any other section of a law. If it had been a concrete, solid answer, I would not bother to bring it up, there would be no point. 

The dry and legal side of this ordeal thus carries a huge amount of terrible frustration and pain; it doesn't seem to make any sense and yet there doesn't seem a clear avenue to cut through the red tape. As somebody said to me recently, it's right out of Kafka. The Castle, etc. 

Then there is the pain of the every day part, the real-life part, the knowing what is happening every day to my dog, and now to know that she may have developed cancer - only tiny glimpse can be had. Saying that I cannot sleep until 6 am and am never rested when I have to drag out of bed 2 to 3 hours later doesn't even begin to tell about it. There is also my awareness that the telling renders all of this reality into somebody else's pasttime; even a form of entertainment for some people and I do not need to add to that. The facts are impossible to get out into the media - what's left of the media these days. The point of writing anything is to get my dog back. 

A gap too far

I am not sure what or how to blog anymore. 

I stopped blogging in late January. Things were getting too difficult and I would not have believed it then, but they actually became even more difficult since then, in ways that nobody could have predicted, at least not me.

As a way to bridge the gap until I blog some more...  I'll post this letter, which a friend has written to the local newspaper, the Chronicle-Herald in Halifax, sent yesterday; no idea if they will publish it. 

HRM and Brindi: Prosecution or persecution?

Francesca Rogier’s beloved pet Brindi has been in the pound for nine months. The Supreme Court quashed her euthanization order in January, effectively rendering impoundment illegal. HRM then kept hold of her on a technicality, and charged Rogier for the first time ever while it seeks a new court order to kill her dog. But without an order in hand, how can it even hold Brindi? Dogs are property. Can HRM impound your car for months and then ticket you, hoping to prove you broke a parking law? Hardly.
 
Now HRM is outsourcing the case to a fancy law firm. It says its lawyers are too busy. More likely they’re afraid they’ll look bad if they prosecute somebody with one lawsuit filed last August, another on the way, and a supreme court victory. Outsourcing only makes it look worse, in my view.

The trial starts in June. Ms. Rogier is more desperate than ever to get her dog out. She knows private lawyers have no incentive to shorten a case that is already guaranteed to take months longer. All along she’s been willing to negotiate with HRM. In her favor: an assessment opposing euthanization, local and international petitions, affidavits from dog professionals, and a highly-qualified trainer who supports her plan to take Brindi home and retrain her. There she’ll be safely fenced in and well-cared for. Rogier has yet to hear back.
 
Last week she learned Brindi has a potentially serious medical condition: the SPCA vet found a cyst that might be cancerous, and recommends a biopsy. It’s near the spine, and full anesthesia is necessary, so Rogier wants her own vet to do it. HRM will allow this only if she foots the bill. Rather than give her vet a complete health record of nine months, it will only release recent blood test results. And if Rogier (allowed only one visit so far) wants to see her dog now she must submit to no less than 13 rules that, among other things, limit the visit to 30 minutes, force her to stay outdoors regardless of weather, and forbid her to discuss the visit with anyone, especially media.

Is this a democracy?

Clearly HRM prefers being a bully to listening to reason. Even animal control officers elsewhere question its motives. Hiring a high-priced firm to prosecute by-law violations is laughable; to insist on euthanasia for a rescue dog that never bit a human - and may have cancer after nine months in the pound - is in poor taste indeed. If HRM succeeds in putting this woman’s dog down or force her to give it away (as rumor has it), it can expect bad publicity for a long time: win or lose, it will lose.
 
Enough idiocy! HRM must work out a deal so Brindi can go home now. Use our taxes for better things, like cleaning the poop out of the harbour (again) and ridding the gunmen from our neighbourhoods!!

Jenn Richardson, Dartmouth

January 17, 2009 with Brindi

New FREE BRINDI GALLERY

With a good opening response in sales, Caz Weatherill, an energetic and compassionate trainer in Australia, has launched the "FREE BRINDI GALLERY, DEDICATED TO FRANCESCA ROGIER AND BRINDI !!" on a site called Zazzle.com.

She says, "ALL ROYALTIES FROM SALE OF MERCHANDISE WILL GO DIRECTLY TO "LEGAL DEFENSE FUND FOR BRINDI:"

Message

From: brad hayman
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:27:03 -0500
Subject: RE: Reply to your "HELP SAVE BRINDI! THEY TOOK MY DOG AND PLAN TO KILL HER!" Ad on Kijiji

I sent him (the mayor) an email, he better read it! cause you should be able to have Brindi home with you safe and sound, what a beautiful dog! I seen your story on the CTV news the other day and my grandparents and I are behind you 110%! How awful it is for them to do this to you, is it legal for a government-run agency to break the law? NO! its not like Brindi attacked a little boy and severly injured him, I mean theres people here in Westville with pitbulls that hurt like two children and the dog is not aloud to leave the yard, come on! seriously, this is rediculous! Bring Brindi Home!! is what i would be telling them! this makes me so angry that they can do this. I dont know what else to say, but i will tell you this; Don't stop until you get Brindi home! which i know you wouldn't! thank you!
Brad Hayman

Westville NS

In return for the favor

It's been a week since the ruling. While I am proud of it as a good solid victory for the community,in many ways I can't help feeling as though everybody else won, not me, not Brindi. At least for now. 

A very kind person told me tonight on the phone - and we never finished our chat - that they were at the SPCA shelter on Christmas day when the blackout happened. After helping out at the shelter for a while, this person later decided to hold Brindi close and look into her eyes to comfort her. Her beautiful eyes, like almond jewels, expressing such a range of thought and emotion. There's so much she needs to be comforted for. I am sure it was a big comfort, at such a frightening time, after so many months away from home. I was so grateful to hear this, and at the same time, it brought everything back into painful focus, how sensitive Brindi is to all these things and the toll it is taking on her. And the toll it takes on me to know this, and be helpless to do anything about it.

I can't stop sobbing about this now, right now, I cannot stop crying, it is so awful. It was so incredibly kind for them to do that and let me know. But realizing yet again what is like for Brindi, all alone the rest of the time... and here's me, sleeping the whole day on Christmas, so I didn't have to be aware, to feel anything, then finding out about the blackout the next day. 

Words cannot do it justice, how sad this makes me feel. 

Every night is like that for her. She needs love, she needs to be held and comforted. She used to have such nightmares. I can't imagine what they're like now.

I will never be the same, nor will she.
If they kill her... I failed. I already failed; I can't get her out, even though I won. I waited over five months to go to court; I did all I could, I worked so hard to help my lawyer, and I risked everything. Nothing should be preventing her from coming home now. Nothing but unfounded fear and speculation, and whatever else is going on behind closed doors that neither I nor my lawyer can find a way to stop, now, this minute. 

 Tonight, and every night after this one, all dogs living in HRM homes are safe from being seized and killed without warning. Their owners will be able to take their case before a judge, within a month or two at most, without the expense of a lawyer, without need of separation from their loved one.  

But my loved one is not safe, she's not well, and she's not with me, where she belongs, where she wants to be, where I want her so much, to look into her eyes and hold her. 

I don't expect thanks for changing the law. All I ask in return is for Brindi to come back home, so I can stop sobbing at 3 am, and she can feel secure and loved once again. Then I can celebrate a victory in full.

And Linda and Richard can celebrate the Christmas they postponed until Brindi comes home. 

Expert behavioural assessment of Brindi

To read what Silvia Jay reports on her December 8 visit to examine Brindi, please see her assessment.:

Media note

In the news section of today's Chronicle-Herald, Barack Obama got a two-page, full spread photo as the first non-white president of the United States. I got a thumbnail photo over, for the first time, more than five inches of copy written by a seasoned reporter. A big day for both of us! 

History will only record one, of course. But of course, that’s as it should be: he earned it.

Time will tell if Brindi and I get to enjoy the victory we earned. 

As for Deborah Story  - I hope she reads the decision and discovers that actually, it does deal with whether Brindi is a danger. Anything related to the euthanization order is quashed right along with it, and the declaration that she is dangerous is included.

Every single councilor and the mayor received a copy of Silvia Jay's report, and the by-law prosecutions chart. The mayor may be able to ignore hundreds of calls and emails, but I fail to understand how he could ignore these documents.  

The city needs more evidence, it seems to me, if it wishes to prove Brindi is dangerous. It's not plausible to use the same three incidents three times over: for the euthanization order, for the current resistance to release her, and for the charges they just laid on Monday, an hour before deadline.

Her time at the SPCA ought to make that even more difficult. She's not a "favorite" for nothing.

More questions, fewer answers

On January 16, Justice Duncan Beveridge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia quashed section 8 (2)d of By-Law A300 regarding the power of an animal control officer to seize and euthanize a dog on his or her sole discretion, without need of a judge's specific authorization for the euthanization.

The city no longer has any legal authority to hold my dog, as they didn't have any authority to take her in the first place. The judge also ruled that any other actions an HRM employee named Tim Hamm undertook in conjunction with 8 (2) d on that day are also quashed. These include his declaration that Brindi is a dangerous dog. Therefore, Brindi is no longer a dangerous dog. Questions remain about the manner in which the same employee decided to issue Brindi a muzzle order, and hence the validity of such an order. These will be addressed in a separate legal action shortly. 

1. What is stopping me from picking up my dog, Brindi?

Sigh. 

While the city is not opposing the Supreme Court ruling itself (not directly), it refuses to allow this. It raises two objections in a recent letter. One appears to be that I was banned from the facility where they hold her. A second appears to be that they continue to believe she is dangerous, despite all the evidence I provided and despite Silvia Jay's report. They seem to cite a clause in the Municipal Governance Act, against owning a dangerous dog. They do not offer evidence to support the claim that she is dangerous. As I noted before, the ruling threw out the previous designation.

Regardless of the opinion of the city or any of its employees or officials, Brindi is not a dangerous dog worthy of impoundment or killing. She is my property and the city has her. I should be able to go get her. 

Keep in mind something else: I did not go to court to argue about all the incidents, about Brindi's behavior during them, or whether I am or am not a responsible dog owner. 

That was not because I didn't have the evidence to show in detail that her offenses were minor and that she can be trained and will be enclosed in a fence once she comes home. I have plenty of evidence and credibility on that score. However, it might have taken a year or more to get a court date scheduled, and then there would have been further delays. As HRM refused my July request to have Brindi placed in a boarding facility, and  refused my August request to place her in a foster home, this method became out of the question. 

The reason I pursued getting the by-law quashed (I love when I see "squashed" on comments) is because it was FASTER. I thought it would happen in November, in fact. But as I noted earlier, the city found ways to keep delaying me from getting to court sooner. 

The fact that Brindi has been kept in a "temporary" animal care facility for a long period of time as a result of HRM's decisions is cause for my own personal frustration; it ought to be a great concern to the dog community in HRM, because nothing prevents that from happening again. 

Brindi is a seasoned dog when it comes to long-term shelter stays, since she waited two years before I adopted her. In what kind of condition would another dog be after spending six months at the Metro Shelter? What is to prevent that from happening again? 

Brindi knows how to survive, in the material sense, but she suffers all the same, maybe much more deeply (and goodness knows her trust was broken). This, if nothing else, may explain to some people just why I have been knocking myself out to get her released, and why I want her back.

It also this raises another question. In what kind of condition would another dog be, after six months at this shelter? I hate to think.  

2. Why can't I visit Brindi every day until the matter is settled?

I don't know. In December, I requested to see her, five months after she was brought to the SPCA shelter/pound. Within a matter of minutes the SPCA banned me from setting foot on their property. See below.

3. Is the SPCA entitled, as an HRM contractor, to ban the owner of an animal from premises the city pays for to serve as the city pound? Wouldn't HRM have to authorize the ban? 

Essentially, I am being prohibited from accessing a city service, namely, the reception area of the pound. I suppose the contract would have to be analyzed to answer this question. But it surprises me it's possible, since the SPCA was hesitant to make any move without HRM permission prior to this. 

There are many questions that spin out from that, regarding the relationship between the two. Apart from those, I note that the person responsible for the ban, Diana Forrestall, is no longer employed by the SPCA. 

4. Why haven't I been allowed to visit Brindi before?

As insight to this and previous questions, here is something from the Halifax Regional Municipality Animal Control Services Contract Amendment, signed into effect July 2007 (no specific day given), signed by Mayor Peter Kelly and Judith Gass of the SPCA, amending and superceding in parts the full contract from September 2003.

Animal Control Service Contract #02-327
 . . . 

3.1.7   The shelter shall be open for animal redemption from 8:00 am 8:00 pm Monday to Friday, and 8:00 am to 4:00 pm Saturday, Sunday and holidays (as defined in the Interpretation Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 235), during which times the owners of impounded animals, and the general public can view and redeem impounded animals.

I am an owner of an impounded animal. 

Regardless of the opinion of the city or any of its employees or elected officials, Brindi was never legally declared dangerous. If there is any doubt as to whether she is dangerous enough to be put down, a very respected dog behavior expert named Silvia Jay has said that she is not a candidate for "euthanization". Given this, I see no need for any conditions to be placed on her release. She should come home now.