SPCA: "Whatever you do, don't mention the war!"

I received this letter a few days ago. (I understand that Janice Bingley, whose dogs were seized by SPCA special constables in October, received an identical one.)

Here's my response:

First, I am not aware of ever having made any false statements about the SPCA. If I did so, it was certainly not intentional. Should the SPCA be willing to identify any statements of mine that they believe to be untrue, I'd be more than happy to remove them, if I am able to.

Otherwise, I respectfully reserve the right to express my opinion. As for "malicious", I suppose that's a matter of opinion. It also works both ways.

Finally, I would be extremely happy to stop commenting on the SPCA completely, and forever and ever, if they would be so kind as to give me my dog back.

Perhaps now that they have apparently lost the pound contract, they might wish to sit down and rethink their role in the matter, such as keeping my dog for over a year and half at a short-term care facility. Not to mention their initial decision to decline my request for  help me get her out at the very start, rather than deciding that one dead dog is an acceptable casualty in exchange for $414,000 a year. Having been told this by a board member in person, in plain language, in October 2008, I believe that this is an accurate representation of the position of the board of directors; if not, I apologize.

Contracts, conflations, confusion

It was surprising to learn that the SPCA lost a bid to renew its pound contract with HRM.

This is a very lucrative contract, with an enormous profit margin. That it goes unremarked in public discussion is perplexing, as half a million dollars a year seems awfully high for the cost of operating a few cages - the actual number is not made known - that occupy a part of the small shelter in Dartmouth.

The SPCA's pound contract had built-in annual fee increases, so from 2004 to 2009, the total grew in leaps and bounds, from about $200,000 to $414,000, sans any corresponding increase in services. If all of HRM's contractors enjoyed such generous increases, the city would be broke, surely! And people are willing to do all sorts of things to hang on to that money. It amounts to a bit less than half of the NS SPCA's annual income. The pressure to keep the contract is widely acknowledged as a reason why the SPCA cooperated with HRM all this time, and did not help me get Brindi out of the pound. I am not speculating here; in October 2008 I was told in plain language by the now president of the organization. They could not speak out or do anything about Brindi, because it would interfere with the contract, and they need the money to save other dogs. Aside from the dubiousness of the claim that a charity mandated to prevent cruelty would lose a contract for acting to save Brindi, it is ironic and, to me, a double loss, that they are now losing it anyway, as of the end of March.

I don't know exactly what has transpired between HRM and the SPCA to cause this to happen. As far as I could tell, the SPCA did everything it was asked to do. And a further irony, a very sad one, is that HRM pointed to a lack of adequate long-term care as a shortcoming of the SPCA. It was always aware that the Metro Shelter is not designed to keep animals for longer than 30 days. I tried several times to get Brindi transferred to a suitable kennel. Each time, HRM refused, claiming that the conditions were fine; they would not transfer her without a court order. Then it claimed the provincial court did not have the authority to issue an order to transfer her. Apparently, an order to move a dog to a proper kennel requires a Supreme Court application, which could take over six months to be heard.

So for HRM to use the long-term care issue as a reason not to renew the SPCA's contract seems just a tad disingenuous to me.

With the contract's huge pricetag, close to half a million now, it's no wonder it was very attractive to other bidders. Hope Swinimer, director of the Hope for Wildlife Society, formed a special company for this very purpose. Her bid was accepted by the HRM staff and will be voted on today in the HRM council meeting. The contract will go a long way towards supporting the Wildlife Society's operations, just as it currently helps support the SPCA's provincial operations. It is interesting to consider that the keeping of impounded dogs will fund rescues of bobcats, racoons, eagle, and deer, to name a few of the many species that Hope and her volunteers care for on a regular basis. (I feel it's a shame that there is no source of direct funding for the wildlife rehab center.)

In essence, this change in contractor does little to help Brindi, or, for that mater, Mercedes, a pitbull that has been impounded for over six months, after it attacked two cyclists. The contract has no exclusion clause preventing HRM from sending dogs in such predicaments to more suitable kennels, but it seems that the city is not prepared to sort out what is needed in order to do that. Nor is there any talk of amending the law to set limits on the length of impoundments. That of course would require a few changes in the by-laws to create procedures that would make such limits possible. I understand that the council is putting off changing A300 until my case is over, which is interesting, as they created the law that helped bring the case about, but refrain from acting to help resolve it.

CONFUSION

Fortunately, without the quashed section 8(2)d of A300, there should not be another case like Brindi's, where the animal control officer ordered euthanasia (without investigation), and there was and is no due process for the owner, which essentially led to such a long impoundment (that, plus the city's refusal to give her back after the supreme court ruled in my favor). Nevertheless, there is a serious backlog of cases in the courts so that  Mercedes' case has already been delayed six months.

Perhaps then, with time and clarity in mind, it would be a good idea for HRM to proceed on two levels in such cases: prosecute the owners in the courts, and review the issue of "dangerous dog" in a separate process. After all, under the current version of A300, euthanasia is not a penalty; it only stipulates fines. A provincial law currently allows a judge to order a dog to be put down, namely section 177 of the Municipal Government Act.  (The law still provides for a dog to be put down on the spot by AC officers in situations of extreme danger.) Section 177 is called "Additional Penalty", a term which raises the same issue of separation.

It seems to me that penalties imposed on humans should not involve killing an animal, for many reasons, legal and otherwise. If and when an animal is properly assessed and found to be "incorrigible", i.e., has severely injured or killed a human or another animal, many communities call for euthanasia; some allow the owner to remove the animal from the jurisdiction (Boston, for example).

I would prefer the latter, of course, but the point is, there is currently no such separate process in place here. Instead, the dog and owner are thrown into the legal system with its "glacial" pace of movement, while the system is employed by HRM to seek a euthanasia order in a very roundabout way, with no requirement for anyone, judge or prosecutor, to obtain and consider an expert assessment of the animal's behavior proving that it is indeed too dangerous to be allowed to live. At best, it is a hit and miss affair, when it comes to evidence and judgments.

By the way, Brindi's behavior assessment (conducted at the pound at the five-month point, by court order at my request and expense) was not reviewed by the supreme court, and it has been ignored - or worse, given a negative spin - by HRM for over a year.

There are very few cases that end in euthanasia. Nevetheless, HRM Animal Services does succeed in putting down a fair number of dogs deemed "dangerous". How? They simply get the owners to turn them over, evading any court proceeding. The owners are likely told that fighting a euthanasia order will be costly to them, and cause their dog to be impounded for a long time, and surely they wouldn't want to inflict that on their pet. So, in 2007, for example, something like ten dogs were signed over by their owners to be destroyed as "dangerous" dogs (according to a chart I received from HRM last year; if I can find it, I will post it!) That's kind of a lot of dangerous dogs, for a city this size.

I note here (again) that if one applied the law evenly, far more dogs would be put down; in fact, under section 2 of A300, any time an owner is declared guilty of owning a dog that threatened or attacked an animal or a person, and there are many (see here), their dog is automatically defined as "dangerous"; ditto for any dog with a muzzle order.

Here's another odd thing: declaring a dog dangerous does not require the city to euthanize it. In fact, there is a special licensing category with a fee of $100 for dangerous dogs. But Brindi was never put into this category; I was asked to renew her license last spring for $15.

Anniversary of Horrors upon Horrors

"He is your friend, your partner, your defender,

your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader.

He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last

beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy

of such devotion."

-      Unknown

Today is the day, one year ago, and two days after the Supreme Court ruled against it, that the city of Halifax Animal Services decided not to return Brindi to me. Then, less than two hours after that dire, gut-wrenching news, they sent two officers to my house accompanied by a squad car. They were there to charge me for an incident that occurred six months earlier, the one that led to my dog's seizure. What they couldn't achieve with an unconstitutional by-law, they decided to do another way, using the charges to leapfrog to another death sentence.

It was a Monday I'll never forget, and it came after an equally unforgettable grueling weekend of disbelief, horror, and disappointment. On the previous Friday, the Supreme Court justice finally released a ruling voiding the euthanasia order. But while people all over celebrated, I enjoyed just a few hours of elation. By the next day, when I was finally allowed to see Brindi after six months of begging, it had already became clear that something sinister was afoot. Animal Services manager Andrea Macdonald scoffed when I objected to the restrictions on visits and all but told me they were not releasing Brindi. She and her staff were sitting in the office then and there, on a weekend, scouring the by-law for some way to hang on to Brindi. They never actually found anything legal but that didn't seem to matter. Horrified, I begged my lawyer to do something, to no avail. I found out a month or so later that in fact he could have done a few things, both before and after that day. Brindi would have been right back where she belonged, but there was no way for me to know at the time: I also was foolish enough to trust him. Needless to say - and I won't, not right now, anyway - that man turned out to be far less of a lawyer than he ought to be. Far less than anyone would want to know, certainly not me.

Now, rather than getting a fair hearing on whether my dog is dangerous or can go home, I face a court trial for those charges. It's been a terrible year of let-downs and frustrations with the legal system and a number of lawyers. I don't know if I can honestly say that I am confident the proceedings will be fair - why would I expect fairness, after all the unfair treatment my dog and I have received?

Just last week I was in court to witness yet another case. The dog's behavior makes Brindi's pale in comparison. But neither the dog nor the owner was penalized by seizure and euthanasia; heck, not even fines. This dog, part lab, caused severe injuries to dogs requiring major surgery, and was reported again after attacking a person causing a cut to the lip. After the last report, Animal Services issued a muzzle order, but no charges were ever laid (hence, no fines). No mention of euthanization. The owner was able to even get the city to agree that the dog does not have to be muzzled on his property, by virtue of the length of his driveway and the fact that the by-law makes no mention of locations. It was astounding how forthcoming and cooperative both Animal Services and HRM lawyer Kishan Persaud were. Persaud unsuccessfully defended the city at the supreme court (to be fair, nobody could have succeeded in his place). Since then he has told me all sorts of things, many of them not true, including how dangerous my dog is, and how I deny responsibility for anything - both easily disproven. He sometimes adds very hurtful remarks. Last week, he bragged with a laugh, "We have had Brindi longer than you have!"

A month or so ago I witnessed a ruling on a case where an unlicensed dog (unlicensed for ten years) killed a kitten in a neighbor's yard. The dog's owner was the wife of the man who appeared in court; the wife was not there. Nor did he have a lawyer present (rarely ever is that the case).

How astonished was I to hear the same HRM lawyer Kishan Persaud tell the judge that HRM was seeking only a $300 fine plus court costs, totalling $500? The man pled guilty, as Persaud told him to do, and the judge gave him several months to pay the money and return with a license. NO mention of euthanasia, muzzle, or even a fence. This dog attacked and killed an animal, a proven killer. I waited to talk to Persaud about afterwards, but he scooted off very quickly. Humane Halifax sent out news releases; no press covered the story.

Now, in court Persaud used the idea that it was the first offense  - or at least, no prior incidents were reported - as an argument to mitigate the charges. However, these charges are known as "strict liability offenses". That means the offense either happened or it did not; if it happened, the law is supposed to be enforced, i.e., a fine for every violation. There are no mitigations; prior record has no bearing. It is not a discussion about a human offender. It is supposed to be about public safety. By-law A300 is very clear about the definition of dangerous dogs, and any dog that kills another animal or causes serious injuries definitely falls into the definition. The by-law makes no distinctions for prior offenses - no animal control by-law anywhere does!

Lest anybody misunderstand, I am against euthanizing dogs unless they are near death's door and cannot be treated successfully. So I am certainly not arguing that either of these dogs should be put down. However, if there was ever a case for ordering a muzzle or a fence, this was it. And I am saying that things are not right when my dog is incarcerated for over a year and a half and these others are not even considered for seizure!!! And these are just two cases. Others can be compared here, thanks to the expert help of Holly Ellis.

HRM's ruthless handling of my case does not even begin to compare to these cases. To the public, they seem to stress things like the number of incidents, but by-law offenses are meant to be charged and fined. When it comes to the question of euthanization, a few brushes with dogs here or there are not the issue; the issue is (or ought to be) whether a dog is too "dangerous" to own and "incorrigible" - unable to be trained. Is Brindi incorrigible? Hardly!!

Such cases also expose the myth that the issue about liability is a concern of HRM, since they involved serious damage and/or killing, unlike Brindi's "offenses". Even though Mayor Kelly may have said so, in all this time, HRM and Animal Services have never raised the issue of a lawsuit ensuing from a dog's behavior. In fact, Persaud shrugged off the idea of a lawsuit more than once in speaking to me. Other HRM lawyers show equal indifference, so it cannot be a genuine worry.

Persaud's answer to why he was so flexible and lenient with the other cases? Because the owners pleaded guilty. !!! I actually had to remind him that HRM is trying to kill my dog, not to simply enforce the law. He knows very well if I were to plead guilty, I would be signing her death sentence. They didn't seek to kill these other animals. In fact they only seem to have one euthanization in the last two years; of course that does not count the many times they intimidated owners into signing over their dogs, doubtless by telling them that it would be expensive to fight them in court, and the dog would suffer in the pound. That's why I sought the fastest method possible in court - the quashing of the law and the death sentence AND the release of my dog.

Too bad I could not count on HRM's goodwill response (to concede the problem is in the system, for one thing; the lack of an appeal process for starters), nor could I count on the local lights of the legal profession to do their job properly. It's up to me now, and I can tell you, I am not excited about the prospect of representing myself. I did everything I could to avoid it.

Meanwhile, try as I might, I cannot even get a judge to order that Brindi be transferred to a real kennel able to give her adequate exercise and care. I am told over and over that the provincial court has no "authority" to issue such an order. Even if it did, said the last judge, she "wouldn't want to", because she wanted to get on with the trial. I don't mean to challenge a judge, but that idea seems to sidestep a whole host of issues, not to mention legalities from the animal cruelty act to the property laws. It also begs the question: if the provincial judge has no authority over a municipality, who does?

Jurisdiction of provincial court judges

106. A provincial court judge has, with respect to matters arising under this Act, jurisdiction over the whole county, union of counties or judicial district in which the city, town or other place for which he is appointed or in which he has jurisdiction under provincial laws is situated.

Yet suppose, as an owner, I was not giving Brindi proper care. The Nova Scotia SPCA could come and take her away forever on the strength of a simple phone call, even an anonymous one. And Janice Bingley's ongoing horror story with the seizure of 22 dogs (including 11 newborn Great Dane puppies) is a disturbing reminder that the SPCA has the authority to do all sorts of things, even to adopt (sell) her dogs without ever laying charges. So a charity has more authority (power) than a provincial court judge. Interesting, isn't it?

This lack of due process and overstepping of authority is of course just as unconstitutional as the A300 by-law clause that allowed animal control officers to order euthanasia without a court ruling - the clause that one year ago, I asked the court to quash. It was declared void with retroactive effect -i.e., it was effectively never a law.

There is a lot more I would love to say about the legal process and profession. It would certainly explain a lot of questions that I know people have. But I don't dare say more.

All I can say is, I went to court over a year ago to get my dog back. There was never any doubt of that. I have the papers and the cancelled checks to show it.

But today, thanks to my "victory" in court, costing me countless hours of my time, and over $30,000 I could ill afford to spend, every dog in HRM is now protected, except for my dog. Today, we are still living with the horrors resulting from wrongful seizure and lack of due process. Today, my dog is not safe, and my life is upside down. My dog is still facing a death sentence. My poor, loving, smart, faithful funny girl Brindi, who waited two years to be adopted and only had one year together with me, a real family in a real home, is still languishing in the pound run by the SPCA, and her robust health and fit condition are gone, her teeth are bad, gums are diseased, and she has pancreatitis. I hope the municipal employees and others who love to say that they are just doing their jobs can sleep at night. I sure can't. 

Special people

This is a list that I have been wanting to post for weeks. Didn't get it up in time for the holidays, as intended; the cold and the allure of sleep got in the way. The order is more or less random, but any list has to begin with Bob Riley, without fail. It's definitely not yet complete. I'll never get there, perhaps, but I will keep trying. Stand by!

Bob Riley

Jean Myers 

Heather Anderson

Lana Horan

Holly Ellis

Lisa Lindsay and Reggie

Jenn Richardson and her mother
Mary Cooke

Peggy Macintyre

Valerie Slaunwhite

Rose Pelrine 

John Buchanan

Margo Ross and family

Jean Hanlon

Carrie Elisius

Carol Waterman 

Monika Court

Kris Murdock

Olive Pastor

Dorothy and Preston Andrews

Karen Duffy

Carl Robicheau

Diane Nielsen

Katherine Chaisson

Jeff de la Rosa

Athena Bane 

Roxanne Oliver 
Vidya Wang

Mike Asuncion

Laurie Brewer

Linda Brenner

Linda Dennis

Mary West

Chris Cooper

Ted Efthymiadis

Mary Rogier 

Sandra Janoski
Michelle Steen

Rosemary Gould

Sharon Holmes

Darrel and Juanita Frail

Debbie Chalus

Susan Ito

Kelsey Rae de Coste

Ed Mulrenin

Carol Anne Hutchinson 

Lorne Pike 

Maureen Hurly

Brucefur Fader

Margaret Guercio

Marise Richardson

Diane Ahe
Linda and Richard Koekman
Maxine Waddy
Jay Veinot
Dr. Anthony Jones
David Hendsbee
Scott Brown

Paul and Cathy Jakobsen 

Caz Weatherill

Lori Drummond
Wendy Shaw
Amy Scott
Lindsay Goodfellow
Don and Bernadette Murphy
Kelly Gray

Bruce Stewart
Andrea Somers
Hope Swinimer
Jon Stone
Phil Gallant
Dr. Hamm Rotermund

Marina Findlay

Dr. Robert Merritt

Perry and Mel Clark and family

Herman Gagnon and Teddy

Margie and Charles Wade

Linda and Jerry Melvin

Kirk Slade

Carol Henderson

Gordon Durant

Shari Harrison

Teresa Turner

Pami Pantigoso
Sissy MacNeil
Edda Bataan
Mary St. Amand
Bill Bruce
Tracy Root
Margit Rønsholt
Doug Bethune

These are folks who have been especially kind, generous, and giving of so many things; time, money, phone, letter and email campaigns; encouraging words, companionship. I will never forget them, even if I haven't been in constant contact with them, for which I apologize (needless to say, no cards were sent out from this address). Most I did not know two years ago, with some important exceptions; some I have yet to meet in person but I feel I've known them for ages. Many have been fighting for Brindi in ways too numerous to mention, putting in countless hours.

All of these people-and more-kept me going through countless ups and downs and continue to support my goal of getting my poor neglected girl back home. It's very humbling, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for walking with us on this difficult journey, and send them all my love.

Another Christmas

DAISY Chain of Vigils, Coast to Coast, for International Animal Rights Day

From Halifax to British Columbia, Dec. 10-13, 2009.

Halifax: Vigil at Metro Shelter on Dec. 10, International Animal Rights Day.

With Jessie and Admiral DeWolfe assisting.

Moka, a friend of Carol Waterman in Montreal, joined in on Dec. 12, 2009.

Calgary, Alberta

Members of DAISY Foundation

Heather Anderson, founder and director.

To the other end of the continent, British Columbia:

Vigil indoors on a stormy night.

Warm thanks to Lana Horan (lower right).

An apology to a kind person and my frustration at being shut into a room

Today at the SPCA was a very low and frustrating moment. 

The weather was beautiful. But midday passed and the 4 pm visit was again restricted to indoors. In a ten by (guessing) fifteen room, with windows overlooking the street and french doors overlooking the busy lobby, it is psychological torture for woman and dog. 

The SPCA placed a number of conditions on these visits which they invented just for us last April. They originally prohibited me from being inside the shelter building for any length of time. (An impossibility of course since I had to walk through it to get to the pen in the rear.) They also forbade me from talking to anybody, and from taking photos of my own dog. Etc.

Now the SPCA is ordering me to stay inside the building and forbidding me from being with Brindi outside, from now on, period. How repugnant is it to be accused of bringing "contraband" to my dog (I am forbidden from giving my dog a bone), and then to be accused of causing her pancreatitis, which is a lifelong condition and doubtless due to the conditions of her confinement there, and on that questionable premise, to be denied outdoor time with my dog. Yes, the winter is coming and it will be cold. But for a half hour, who cares? Last January the SPCA forced me to stay outside with Brindi in sub-zero temperatures on the first visit I had with her in six months. Lori Scolero ended up cutting the outdoor time short after about 20 minutes because she was too cold. After I got about five minutes in an unheated 4x4 building entrance with Brindi, that visit was over.

Now, it so happens that the last few visit days were gorgeous. And I always walked Brindi outdoors, rain or shine, snow or ice, several times a day. She does not get walked at all now. They let her out in the pen during the day, no idea how long or often. 

Half an hour outside with me is possible now - but no, they have to "monitor" me. Outdoors, these women would sit and gab in lawn chairs in the next pen. They did not exactly monitor anything. But apparently they now prefer to shut us up in a room and be done with it. 

Any effort to discuss these new rules is pointless, because within seconds, I am threatened with the prospect of having visits ended altogether. Yes, I do ask, why is this necessary? That already going too far. When I protested, I was told, "Francesca, there are members of the public here!" and "You're wasting your time with Brindi," which was soon followed by the threat to cut off visits. I do not appreciate being treated like a suspect and I cannot believe the gall to blame me for her illness - and now, denied outdoor space, on the unmistakable claim that I would deliberately give my dog something that might make her sick. Incredible. As if the torture of getting only a half hour a week with my beloved dog isn't bad enough. 

When I spoke with them afterwards about the indoor visits, the medical reports, and the legal authority, it was not much different. 

Who knows, I could find out next week that visits have been ended permanently because of my interaction with them today - the shelter manager, Sandra, who claims she was the "decider" about going indoors - and Lori Scolero, of Animal Services, who watches by standing out in the lobby. She claims she has no idea what legal authority HRM has to hold Brindi and doesn't care to know. It's the legal department's problem, she says. 

I asked again for Brindi's latest medical records, from about three weeks ago now, which include important blood tests. They were not on hand, but a fax was promised. 

Brindi was fine most of the time, but she was naturally distracted by the comings and goings in front of the glass doors and outside the windows to the street. She quickly emptied a kong that was given to her at the beginning. I was not allowed to give her milkbones or any treats, but was supplied with "kibble" for her. So, we cuddle, I put her through the few tricks I managed to teach her, and I watch her nose at the doors and windows, hoping to be let out. Thirty minutes in a room.

Am I alienating the SPCA by posting this? Not posting it would not alter the situation, because cooperation and subservience is expected, not rewarded. Sorry to be so harsh - but Christmas is on its way and I am facing a SECOND Christmas without Brindi. It's just incredible. We cannot get HRM to cooperate by moving up the trial date- even after they complained to the judge about the delays (caused by needing to find counsel). A judge also said she didn't believe she had the authority (power) to order that Brindi go to a better facility with long-term care status. If she doesn't have it, the question is, who does? And HRM seems to think she does, as they insist they would not permit a transfer without a court order. More frustration, while my dog is kept at a 30 day facility.

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

My apology for today however goes to a well-meaning volunteer who dared break the standing order not to talk to me. In the parking lot, as I was leaving, she came over to say how much she loves Brindi. I apologize for bursting out at the seams at her with "I love my dog, and she's mine!" 

I have never had such a moment of breakdown there, let alone in front of a volunteer who was kind enough to speak to me. I also regret it because wanted to speak with her; I believe she was truly a kind woman. But after my frustrating attempt to reason with two recalcitrant women, it was honestly too much to bear to hear what a great dog I have. It is a nice thing to say on the face of it, and it is not that I don't appreciate it - I do. But frankly, it rips my insides out. I KNOW she is lovable and wonderful and smart; that is why she should not be on death row as a "dangerous dog". And that is also why I want her home for Christmas. Who is going to help me?

This woman will know who she is, and since the SPCA folks read this blog (sometimes within minutes of posting) I am confident she'll see my apology. She was probably scolded for approaching me, since the manager, who must have been watching from the door, shooed her into the building within seconds. I'm sorry about that too. I hope she'll understand and forgive me. 

To defend what I love

 

Happy is he who dares courageously to defend what he loves.

- Ovid

The SPCA and Animal Services have decided to change the time and location of my brief weekly visits with Brindi. Last Wednesday when I arrived at 1 pm, I was asked, "Didn't you hear?" It turned out that the two parties decided that we could no longer spend time outdoors at 1 pm; instead we would be inside and the visit would start at 4 pm. This was not something I had agreed on, for two reasons. First, Brindi needs all the outdoor exercise she can get. Or at least fresh air. She doesn't really get much exercise in the pen.

Second, in the room they allow us to use, which is a newly refurbished waiting room to the left of the lobby, Brindi can see out the windows to the street. And boy does she know it's the outside world and boy does she WANT TO BE FREE. It was torture for us both, frankly, as I posted last week. 

She was the best girl throughout but she could not resist jumping on the couch and sitting prettily while gazing out those windows with longing. I tried once to get her down and she obeyed, but I didn't have the heart to do it again, and I ended up just sitting next to her on the couch. By the end of the time, I was hugging her close and praying and weeping all at once, with my head resting on her back. It was awful.

Yesterday my lawyer reminded me - inadvertently, really - about this change. He had tried to no avail to talk the SPCA out of the the change. They claim they have to watch me during the visit, more closely than they do outside, so that I don't give Brindi "contraband" treats. As if I would deliberately make my dog sick. In the event, nobody watched me anyhow, and it was moot. The person from Animal Services assigned to watch me spent the time out in the lobby deep in conversation with an SPCA investigator.

By today my lawyer was supposed to have worked out with HRM to get the agreement back to where it was before. But that hasn't happened. So I dread another tortuous time with Brindi in that room with those windows, a single pane of glass the only thing separating her from the freedom we both long for.  

Sympathetic pain

I have this thing that happens to my body when somebody close to me is seriously ill. I seem to suddenly develop a symptom that mimics their condition. 

For instance, when my beloved uncle lost the ability to swallow food safely without aspirating, for instance, I found myself suddenly having trouble swallowing, feeling my esophagus and epiglottis choking up. I had a similar experience when a friend had kidney problems. 

Now, since Monday, when I learned about Brindi being hospitalized, I've been having some gripping, sharp pains in my abdomen, kind of central, not high or low, and it's not going away just yet. Don't have any chronic heartburn or even infrequent heartburn (thankfully); it suddenly came on and it's been just maddening. 

Facebook 

Teresa wrote on November 18, 2009 at 3:28 pm

What is pancreatitis?
Pancreatitis is inflammation of the pancreas. The pancreas is a large gland behind the stomach and close to the duodenum—the first part of the small intestine. The pancreas secretes digestive juices, or enzymes, into the duodenum through a tube called the pancreatic duct. Pancreatic enzymes join with bile—a liquid produced in the liver and stored in the gallbladder—to digest food. The pancreas also releases the hormones insulin and glucagon into the bloodstream. These hormones help the body regulate the glucose it takes from food for energy.

Normally, digestive enzymes secreted by the pancreas do not become active until they reach the small intestine. But when the pancreas is inflamed, the enzymes inside it attack and damage the tissues that produce them.

Pancreatitis can be acute or chronic. Either form is serious and can lead to complications. In severe cases, bleeding, infection, and permanent tissue damage may occur.

Post #2 Teresa wrote on November 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm

I just wanted to share some information on what Brindi is dealing with health wise, how the pancreas works. Prayers for your quick recovery Brindi and your freedom ♥ 

Post #3 Francesca wrote on November 19, 2009 at 1:11am

Thank you so, so much Teresa!!

I learned in a chat with the shelter manager that they confirmed the diagnosis last Friday with a blood test. Apparently they wanted to insure she was looked after so they kept her in the hospital over the weekend rather than the shelter, where staff is either low and/or non-existent on Sundays. 

That was great. I am not so pleased about HRM's Animal Services and legal beagles' attempt to make me the culprit for a condition that takes a lot of time to come about - not something anybody could accomplish in one half-hour a week, for the few months I've been permitted these visits. Being deprived throughout of sufficient exercise, and the added weight (reflecting a rich diet; before January there were lots of fatty treats around), are likely factors; also, the vet told me that certain bacteria can trigger it. Having poor dental hygiene and gum disease is a great recipe for that. 

Brindi was peppy and very affectionate and ready for action, as usual. Her forearms had been shaved for IV's but she was not shedding much and her coat was in good condition. they are also clearly working on her teeth, which are still bad but slowly improving. That made me feel better. 

There is a dispute about the visit location and time: they want to change it to indoors at 4 pm. I do not. I arrived at 1 pm today to discover the new terms and was told they were sent to my lawyer. He did not receive anything and in his call to HRM he learned the other lawyer was in court - but five minutes later, he received an email from him announcing the chage. 

I really hope they will change their minds - today was very difficult for Brindi, and hard as hell for me. In that room, she sees the outside world through the window, just a single pane of glass away, a world she hasn't visited for a year and a half and which she doesn't see in the back pen because it is far from the road. So she was really suffering today, jumped on the couch and sat prettily staring outside. She kept glancing back at me with the same pleading eyes in this photo, asking me to take her out of there. She really really wants SO MUCH to be free. It pains me, as it would anyone, to be so utterly helpless to fulfill her wishes, to just open that door for her, when I know she once trusted me totally and I love her so much.

I just held her very close next to me, putting my head down on hers, and prayed very hard.

I sobbed a few times, with the waves of pain pushing through. 

 I'm sure it pains the staff as well that she is not allowed to even go for a walk - HRM's call and they obey it. But for me, it's the most unbearable feeling in the world, and my stomach cramping up every 30 seconds is a mirror of that pain.

She's out of the hospital??

So my lawyer calls the SPCA shelter seeking information. They now say Brindi is back in the shelter but will not tell him anything more, because he has to go through their lawyer. 

Do they have a lawyer?? Apparently not. What they are talking about is the HRM lawyer. They seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief that the HRM lawyer represents the SPCA. Not true at all; and in fact, HRM is freed of all liability through their contract for the pound services. The SPCA is totally exposed. But they don't seem to get that. 

And the issue of Brindi's health remains shrouded in mystery thanks to that. 

No two cases of canine pancreatitis are alike and the exact cause is uncertain, but overweight dogs with a high fat diet are believed to be more at risk, therefore it is best to avoid table scraps and keep your dog on foods with a lower fat content. Stress is also thought to be a contributing factor, so keep your canine as stress-free as possible. Viral or bacterial infections and trauma or injury to the abdomen are other possible contributors to pancreatitis.

Brindi has pancreatitis and is/was in the hospital?

After ringing my lawyer at 3:25 pm, I learn that he heard from HRM's Kishan Persaud, that Brindi has been in the hospital since Friday with pancreatitis. 

And rather than give more information about Brindi and what they are doing, Persaud says to tell me I cannot give her treats and that the SPCA wants to search me before each visit. My lawyer of course said they cannot do that, it is illegal. Persaud replied that he knew that. So why even pass it along??  He also passed along the threat that if I continued to give her treats that my visits would be cut off. 

In addition, Persaud said that they won't be asking me to pay for this treatment "at this time". !!! As if!! The cost of this treatment must be covered by the authorities responsible for her care, and that would be Animal Services.  Me giving her a few healthy treats once a week for the short time I've been allowed visits is NOT why she has this condition; according to my vet it has more to do with a serious lack of proper exercise and too many rich foods - like the chewy treats, "Beggin' Strips", that she is given at the shelter. In order words, this condition is directly attributable to poor care: keeping her in a temporary facility that is known to be inadequate for long-term care, let alone short term care; and Animal Services' total refusal to allow Brindi to be walked regularly. 

Not to mention that my requests to move her to a better facility have been met with a response telling me to go get a court order first, and that the court itself tells me that it doesn't know if it has the "authority" to order a transfer. 

For the SPCA and HRM to be going on the offensive as a defensive action at a time when my dog is ill is not a very honorable position to take (not to say shameless). From what my vet tells me, pancreatitis is a condition that will bring recurring episodes for the rest of her life and will require IV fluids and antibiotic treatment and withdrawal of foods for several days, each time. This adds to the permanent damage to her teeth and chronic gum disease as a result of the SPCA's refusal to allow her bones - or to give her something else as a substitute - or to give her a teethcleaning at the proper times. 

So it's bad enough hearing this news, but to cloak it in blame and a threat is just too damn much.  Never mind that my dog is in ill the hospital or telling us how they are treating her - whether she is getting fluids and anti-biotics. Never mind passing on the blood test results!

And never mind the main question: HOW DID SHE GET PANCREATITIS?? 

Now I am waiting for my lawyer to contact the SPCA directly and get some questions answered. 

Health worries

Well, for the second time in what - a month? - I arrive to visit Brindi on a beautiful sunny afternoon, and am confronted with the news that she has been throwing up. 

Weeks ago, I was told she threw up every day for a week. 

Today, I hear she was throwing up for the last two days. 

They did bloodwork last time, and again now; last time, apparently, she was throwing up longer because of anti-nausea medication they gave her. And the vet report that came days after my visit was too much for me to even read. I had a friend read it and give me the gist. It was no comfort - talk of pancreatitis. Evidently something that doesn't go away; it's there for life. 

I have not received the latest blood test results. I appreciate that this time I was not made to phone up Kishan Persaud, the HRM prosecutor, to learn the bad news; the shelter manager was nice enough to tell me herself. 

But I don't get this. Brindi was in absolutely perfect health when she was taken. In January, when they finally let me see her after six months, she had gained at least 10 to 15 pounds and was in terrible condition. She lost a few pounds but is overweight still. And her teeth - well, I've mentioned this before and it's no better now. But what is happening??Why is she throwing up? I tried to get my vet to discuss this with me and was shut down - literally.  

Brindi seemed tired today. They had her out most of the morning, it seems. She was thirsty, and I asked for a dish of water. She gets winded easily - so do I. Neither one of us is getting enough exercise. We need each other for that. 

In the meantime, I haven't had the strength to look up pancreatitis or even vomiting in dogs. My cat Rudy has a heart murmur and renal failure; that's already been a big concern and he's on a medication. But if something happens to Brindi... 

Required reading:

Do Animal Control Authorities (dog catchers) have to be nincompoops?

 “Tyranny” in animal control enforcement

from the Canada Free Press

By Dean A. Ayers  Thursday, August 20, 2009

Do Animal Control Services (sometimes misnamed as a “Humane Society)” enforce animal control duties thru tyranny without “due process” or justice or even a nuisance complaint? Do Animal Control Authorities (dog catchers) have to be “nincompoops” to work for Animal Control Services (sometimes misnamed as a “Humane Society)” in their communities, or does just being a “nincompoop” in enforcing animal control duties just help tyranny without “due process” or justice prevail in animal care, control, and license laws?

Some “Nincompoop” Animal Control examples:

• In March 2009, Animal Control in Providence, Utah allegedly was going door to door to check on dog licenses. Yeah, let’s spend our time going after people whose dogs haven’t actually caused a problem. Mayor Randy Simmons put a stop to it. 
• A few months ago, Animal Control in South Salt Lake, Utah allegedly left a skunk trap out in the hot sun for an entire weekend, then tried to prosecute the guy who moved the trap out of the sun. 
• Last year, Sandy Animal Control allegedly picked up a 17 year old deaf cat on a sidewalk near its house and, unable to tell the difference between an old deaf cat and a sick cat, immediately killed it. (NOTE: familiar story for Halifax - remember Jean Hanlon's cat?)
• A couple of years ago, Animal Control in Tooele, Utah allegedly was doing even worse: They were going door to door and ordering people to get rid of any pets over their “technical number” limit, regardless of whether there had been any problem or any neighbors had complained. The city council put a stop to it.
• Recently, West Jordan, Utah Animal Control allegedly cited a woman whose dog got out while she was visiting her mother. That was fine, but they also cited her for not having her dog licensed in West Jordan, Utah. It wasn’t good enough that it was already and legally licensed inSandy, Utah where she lives.
• A while back, another Animal Control department in Salt Lake County, Utah allegedly cited a woman for having her gate open under animal control laws, even though her dog was still inside the yard.
• Last year, West Valley, Utah allegedly was planning to use an inhumane gas chamber to euthanize pets. Still no word on the outcome of this alleged “Nazi-like” animal death camp procedure.

These are just recent examples of “tyranny” in animal control enforcement in one state alone, when in fact there are many other various and numerous cases of pet owner ‘civil rights” abuse by animal control “rogue” power and authority that can be found in all 50 states of this family animal filled nation. Many other “true” horror tales of tyranny animal law experiences with Animal Control Authorities are found in virtually every community; these being just a few examples of “nincompoops”, to verify what pet owners all across the nation have been publicly reporting as an “abuse of power” – “tyranny enforcement” by animal control authorities against pet owners who’s pets and animals are not a nuisance, nor being complained about (by anyone), or causing any problem in their locale with their pets and animals. 

What “We the People” can’t figure out is whether Animal Control workers are told to be jerky, or does it just come naturally being an Animal Control “nincompoop” when they exercise “tyranny” enforcement by going door to door, or going to rural private property to rural private property intimidating, threatening, and coercing dog, cat, pet, or animal owners. Demanding unpaid “TAXES” on licenses for pets to be paid (on the spot) or face immediate confiscation of their pets to be enforced, and also the demanding to know if owners are over arbitrary set pet “number limits”, etc?

The ultimate perversion of “petty” animal complaint’s truth at its deepest core in society.

Many of our fellow citizens, no longer have the tolerant souls and morals of free men and women towards animal ownership. They have the souls and morals of a now “perverted” mentality of busy-bodies and petty “tyrants” who want to ruin their neighbors’ lives, kill their dogs, cats, or other pets and end their neighbor’s pet ownership rights. All in the name of an animal’s right not to be owned by its master, but rather only be parented or controlled only by a ‘parent-guardian’ designation, which can be revoked by the “state” at any time with the “stroke” of a pen, called an animal law.

This is the ultimate perversion of truth at it’s deepest core in society, by not cherishing family values with pet ownership “intrinsic value” in private property freedom, as well as, having pets being accepted as a lawful and protected member of the ‘extended family’ with the human beings in that family. In simple terms, the acceptance of socialism in the dogma of a dog hating, animal destroying neighborhood and society has taken root in America. Maybe even next door to your dog, cat, or other pet animal.

Our dogs, cats, pets and animals are, in fact, an integral part of our loving family units, having purpose, attention, affection, interaction, respect, family interaction and happiness for both humans and the pet animals on an “intrinsic value’ level, not that of meager chattel. However, the “animal rights activists” and legislative body members (local city, state and federal), who follow the animal rights activist’s agenda to intentionally pervert the idea of a loving family with pet ownership interactions, has gone astray, from a logical and common sense way of thinking. These animal activist legal proposals are being implemented with intent of “malice” to the pet owners, as well as the pet animals themselves.

These animal rights intolerant people have become “tyrants” thru the use of our various legal systems and its “manipulated” proposal of animal care, animal license taxation, and controlling laws, destroying the very freedoms “We as People” seek and have a right to possess in a free society. This is a ‘realistic’ and ‘common sense’ brief documentary of the multitude of insanely ‘perverted’ proposal of violations of “pet ownership” rights and freedoms by none other than “nincompoops” wearing a badge or shoulder patch representing an animal control authority, implying they are a “Humane Society.”

The animal control and “taxation” laws by necessity of the written laws are not the highest obligation for the pet owner.

There are people so addicted to exaggeration they can’t tell the truth without lying. ~Josh Billings

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self- preservation, of saving our country and our people, to include our extended family of dog, pets, and animals when in danger, are of higher obligation. Pets and animals morally, legally, and rightfully belong to you, the pet owner, not the government. Any “tyrant” can write a law taxing and controlling virtually anything or any animal, but this does not make the law constitutional or valid in the spirit or execution of law enforcement. Animal laws need to be legally “challenged” at every turn of the animal control screw by the “nincompoops” who extend enforcement to people not creating or causing any animal nuisance or problem on private property. Their alleged “nincompoop” sole goal is to create more “taxes” for their locale thru fees, fines, confiscations, seizures, or threats of criminal citations, fines, fees, or euthanasia of their animals if the pet owner does not comply. 

In a majority of animal care and control laws, there is “NO” legitimate and “NO” constitutional “due process” written in the animal law to enforce any lawful confiscation, seizure, or euthanasia of the pet owner’s animals. In a majority of cases the counties, or municipalities, essentially just “plagiarize” the writing of their own animal care and control laws from a neighboring county or municipality, never even considering or caring whether lawful “due process” is included in the newly “copied” law for their locale.

To lose our beloved pet animals, our family units and structure, and ultimately our freedom in this country by a unscrupulous adherence to written “anti-pet” ordinances and laws would be to lose the spirit of the lawful intent in law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us being dissolved as we speak in every state of the union. This is absolute absurdity sacrificing the end to the means in “tyranny” of animal care, animal license taxation, and control law enforcement.

Many dog owners in recent years have faced the unthinkable

A knock at their door that has heralded the arrival of an Animal Control officer with a complaint about your dog(s). In some cases that visit has been concluded satisfactorily to both the dog owner and the animal control officer; in others it has meant the heartache of either seizure of the owner’s dog(s) or facing stiff fines for various reasons in citation.

With animal ownership laws undergoing evolving changes throughout the country, these ‘perverted’ evolving animal control laws are being actively used by ‘animal rights extremists’ some of which are in fact, animal control officers, and others in animal rights groups to enforce animal law tyranny as a means of dog owner ‘harassment.’ The possibility of a visit at your door on private property from Animal Control becomes ever more of a specter to haunt every dog owner.

Laws that ‘limit the number’ of dogs, cats. pets, and animals and also demand “license fees” for pets that never leave the home on their private property in a household are intended to make it easier to prosecute individuals who are thought to have “too many,” or “not enough animal tax paid” according to an arbitrary standard, but is also applied even to those people who are not in violation of health, nuisance and humane laws. 

Pets and animals belong to YOU, not the government. The “number limit” laws and animal “tax” licensing laws are as different as ‘night is to day’ in all the various jurisdictions. None of these dog ‘limit laws’ or “animal tax license laws” are fair, balanced or lawful under the constitution with a proper established ‘due process’ to defend themselves and their animals “PRIOR”to confiscation or euthanasia of the animals belonging to the dog or pet owner documented in the ordinance itself.

ALWAYS, Always, always:

Remember that it is paramount that all pet owners educate themselves and learn their animal care and control laws in their area and have a plan, decision, and potential legal counsel known, documented (phone number) and at hand, in order for the pet owner to know how far they are willing and able to’stand your ground’ in knowing your ‘rights’ in responsible dog, pet and animal ownership if and when a “nincompoop” animal control authority comes knocking on your door, demanding to “steal” your dog, cat, pet, or animal from you, when you have “not’ been a nuisance on your own private property.

Remember when it comes to freely owning your dogs, cats, pets and animals in an area frequented by Animal Rights “Activists” or Animal Control Authorities, or “Nincompoops”, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Donation link: being fixed

To the person who alerted me about the donation button:

It should work, I checked from another computer. Try logging into your paypal account if it does not go directly to the right page. There is no way for a search to work on paypal; it's not set up for that. 

Another option: the Free Brindi fashion statement! All the rage (pun intended) in the regional metropolis and the eastern shore! Bob Riley made it a fixture of his fall wardrobe! 

It comes in lots of colors and styles, men's and women's and dogs' sizes, and long sleeves for the winter!

Click on the shirt to go to cafepress.com and see other items as well.

Please give me a treat: let me go home!!!

Compare and Contrast, part 10...

How does Brindi compare to other cases in HRM ? Do they kill all dogs with the same charges? 

Here's a site to check out with a chart of prosecutions compiled from halifax.ca charts. It gives information about dog-related by-law prosecutions from January 2007 to July 2009, focusing only on cases involving attacks of one kind or another. It's excerpted and expanded from a larger compilation of all dog-related matters. It will be updated as the info becomes available. 

 With thanks and gratitude to Beni for editing and refining the chart. And yes, Joan Sinden, you first alerted me to the information, I did thank you for that a long time ago, but I have no problem crediting you again (though I'm surprised you want me to).

A lot of work went into the first charts I compiled, and again into this one; the city posts separate info for each month and the dog cases are mixed in with all by-law offenses.

 Too bad the city hasn't paid any attention to them. Neither has the press. I wonder if the judge will?

I suggest everybody read Beni's comment below. And check out the listing for one Sandra Coleman, who seems to have had serious problems with not one but two dogs. Neither muzzled or seized.

Thoughts to contemplate on this day

"Approximately one person in 18 million dies as a result of a dogbite in this country [US] in an average year.2,3,4 One in 167,000 deaths overall is attributable to this cause.5 Most mortality modalities this rare are not regularly counted; however, a few other rare fatalities are studied occasionally. 

Statistics show that dog-bite deaths occur at approximately one-fifth the rate of lightning fatalities [ed. - even lower in Canada: one-sixteenth the rate in 2007], one-third the rate of forklift fatalities, and one-third the rate of cattle-related fatalities. (The cattle figure is probably low, since the only counts available are for work-related injuries).6,7,8,9 

Children under 10 are twice as likely to drown in a five-gallon bucket and 1.5 times more likely to die on playground equipment than from a dog bite.10,11,12 

This is not to say that these deaths are unimportant, but in considering allocating public resources [and presumably, legislation] to prevent such deaths, one must first establish that the same resources could not be used to save more lives at risk from other causes. For
example, an intervention that reduced automobile-accident mortality by 0.009 percent would save twice as many lives as one that eliminated dog-bite fatalities."

. . .

Many dangerous dog laws try not only to control dogs who have already injured people, but to predict which ones will do so in the future and attempt to prevent this. Typical legal descriptions of “dangerous” dog behavior include “approaches in a vicious or terrorizing manner,” “in a menacing fashion,” having “a known disposition, tendency, or propensity to attack,” or “engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury.” 36,37 Aside from the subjectivity of these descriptions, the main difficulty with such an approach is that

the best research to date indicates the likelihood that a majority of dogs engage in such behavior without necessarily hurting anyone. One groundbreaking study found that 41 percent of the dogs studied had growled, snarled or snapped at a familiar person at some time, but that only 15 percent had actually bitten, and only 10 percent of the 15 percent of the bites had injured.38 This means that a hypothetical net cast to identify the 1.5 percent of dogs who will injure based on whether they had behaved aggressively would actually capture at least 41 percent of the dog population. 

And since this study only included behavior toward family members and other people well known to the dog, and only included guardians responsible and caring enough to provide veterinary care for their companions, the percentage of potential problems within the entire dog population must certainly be considerably higher."

p. 5 and 17-18 respectively, from: "Dog Bites: Problems and Solutions," policy paper, Animals and Society Institute, by Janis Bradley, 2006

AT THE VERY LEAST, one line that should be alarming to everybody who loves dogs is the one that says
“a hypothetical net cast to identify the 1.5 percent of dogs who will injure based on whether they had behaved aggressively would actually capture at least 41 percent of the dog population.”

The “hypothetical net” being the kind of dangerous dog laws mentioned, which happen to closely resemble the definition in A300. Based on this study, one might assume that 41% of the dogs in HRM would be deemed dangerous if the law were applied consistently. And what good is a law if it isn't applied consistently?

 

More thoughts:

"The supposed epidemic numbers of dog bites splashed across the media are absurdly inflated by dubious research and by counting bites that don’t actually hurt anyone. Even when dogs do injure people, the vast majority of injuries are at the Band-Aid level.

Dogs enhance the lives of millions more people than even the most inflated estimates of dog-bite victims. Infants who live with dogs have fewer allergies. People with dogs have less cardiovascular disease, better heart attack survival, and fewer backaches, headaches, and flu symptoms. Petting your dog lowers stress and people who live with dogs just plain feel better than people who don’t.

Yet lawmakers, litigators and insurers press for less dog ownership. This must stop. We must maintain perspective. Yes, dogs bite. But even party balloons and bedroom slippers are more dangerous."

from Dogs Bite (But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous)  by Janis Bradley, 2005

(for a brief review of this book: click here)