What is man without the beasts?
If all the beasts were gone, men would die from great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beasts also happens to man. All things are connected.
Chief Seattle
Saturday, February 20, 2010
A letter to the editor that made it
Thank you, Ms. Bridgewater, for this letter, and to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for printing it Feb. 19.
HRM exceeding its power
Brindi’s case is an example of how HRM’s order to euthanize the dog exceeds the power of the municipality as stated by Supreme Court Justice Duncan Beveridge in January 2009. HRM should have dropped the charges against Francesca Rogier and Brindi at that time, but instead reinstated the charges.
Ms. Rogier obviously loves Brindi and has spent over $30,000 fighting to have her dog, free of charges, back in her home from the SPCA, where Brindi was ordered placed by HRM in July 2008. Ms. Rogier has not been allowed to visit Brindi since January 2009.
Recently, the executive director of Nova Scotia SPCA, Kristin Williams, has said that the SPCA will not euthanize (kill) Brindi, nor will euthanization take place on SPCA property.
Brindi’s fate will be decided on Feb. 23, and I am praying the dog will not be killed, but released to go home.
HRM needs to pay Ms. Rogier for her legal bills because of all the injustice which has needlessly been done to her.
Hope Bridgewater, Wentworth
There is another fat bill pending, regardless of the outcome here, and that is the bill the SPCA plans to charge me: a whopping $25 a day for boarding Brindi at an inadequate facility where she contracted a chronic illness: something like $13,500 to date.
HRM exceeding its power
Brindi’s case is an example of how HRM’s order to euthanize the dog exceeds the power of the municipality as stated by Supreme Court Justice Duncan Beveridge in January 2009. HRM should have dropped the charges against Francesca Rogier and Brindi at that time, but instead reinstated the charges.
Ms. Rogier obviously loves Brindi and has spent over $30,000 fighting to have her dog, free of charges, back in her home from the SPCA, where Brindi was ordered placed by HRM in July 2008. Ms. Rogier has not been allowed to visit Brindi since January 2009.
Recently, the executive director of Nova Scotia SPCA, Kristin Williams, has said that the SPCA will not euthanize (kill) Brindi, nor will euthanization take place on SPCA property.
Brindi’s fate will be decided on Feb. 23, and I am praying the dog will not be killed, but released to go home.
HRM needs to pay Ms. Rogier for her legal bills because of all the injustice which has needlessly been done to her.
Hope Bridgewater, Wentworth
There is another fat bill pending, regardless of the outcome here, and that is the bill the SPCA plans to charge me: a whopping $25 a day for boarding Brindi at an inadequate facility where she contracted a chronic illness: something like $13,500 to date.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Voice of the people ??
Who is this about, anyway??
Decision not SPCA’s
One would have thought that the main point of the story was about Brindi and me, not the SPCA. Apparently, the Chronicle-Herald didn't think so. But the SPCA was mentioned in the story only in passing.
And people wonder why things are so bad here.
Needless to say there are doubts about the veracity of the statement above. For one thing, it simply cannot be true that all of my dog's needs are met; she has been kept in a short-term facility designed for a maximum of 30 days, and it's been eighteen months. Who are they kidding?
It is the SOLE task of the NS SPCA to protect the welfare of animals in this province. They are not obligated to do anything that might be harmful to an animal. They are the last ones who can or should, even for half a million dollars a year.
And as for sympathy, there's a nice one; just to name a few sympathetic gestures: a ban, a false arrest of a friend, and lying straight to my face while secretly refusing to give my dog bones I bought for her to keep her teeth health, then refusing to give her a teeth cleaning - not to mention the most fascist restrictions on visits imaginable - I've met more sympathetic border guards at Checkpoint Charlie in the old days.
As far as the contract goes, it gives the SPCA the task of carrying out euthanasia orders. I can send it to anybody who wants it. I did send it to the Coast, but they were not interested.
All I know is, I wouldn't mind making $80,000 a year for writing letters to the paper and to threatening single women whose animals were taken unfairly.
Sent today:
Dear Editor:
Over a week ago, on Feb. 4, I sent you a letter regarding the same article to which Kristin Williams replied. You chose to print her letter over mine. It seems to me that in the interest of fair coverage, you should also print my letter. It strove mainly to correct significant errors in the original article, and also to point out some too often overlooked facts. It did not attack the SPCA or anyone.
I do not understand why the Herald restricts information and coverage about my dog Brindi and myself, let alone has refrained from asking key questions about our situation for well over a year. That cannot be in anyone's interest.
If you claim to be fair and objective in any way, you will seek to cover both sides - or as many sides as there are - of this issue.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
------ Forwarded Message
From: Francesca Rogier <rogier@eastlink.ca>Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:34:53 -0400To: <letters@herald.ca>, <sbruce@herald.ca>Cc: "Humane_Halifax@yahoogroups.ca" <Humane_Halifax@yahoogroups.ca>Subject: CORRECTION and comment on Brindi story
Dear Editor:
Steve Bruce’s account of the conclusion of the trial yesterday (“Brindi the dog saga still not over”) was a welcome sight. I am glad that the Herald allowed a reporter to return to the story. However, please correct two points: first, the judge confirmed no evidence exists of any wounds to the dog in question, contrary to Mr. Newton’s claims. Second, there were two, not three complaints from other dog owners prior to Brindi’s seizure. The first led to a warning; the AC officer Hamm informed me he would lay a fine after the second. But, as he testified, a week later he changed it to a muzzle, only because (unbeknownst to me) the other dog owner involved asked him not to fine me.
The question of what actually led to the seizure has never been answered. We do know that Hamm never conducted a required investigation beforehand. And to get a seizure warrant, he used false reports that my dog Brindi attacked people. He also falsely claimed that he had to seize any muzzled dog after any complaint was received, an action unauthorized by any law in Canada. To this day he appears not to comprehend A300’s statutes, let alone the gravity of his actions.
Once again, Brindi never killed a chicken or badly harmed any other animal; her offenses cannot be termed serious. Yet Brindi and I have been seriously harmed. Thanks to the SPCA’s care, she now has diseased gums and bad teeth, plus chronic pancreatitis. No reasonable person could deny that this is about animal cruelty on top of serious infringement of a human's rights. The fact is, my property has been held illegally the entire time, given the Supreme Court decision and the law limiting the detention of property to three months.
Is HRM really acting to insure public safety? Few people know that between 2007 and late 2009, HRM obtained convictions on no less than 67 dog attacks on animals and/or people. Four owners have multiple convictions; their dogs are at home. Only one dog was seized or euthanized. Yet By-law A300 clearly defines each and every one of those 67 dogs as a "dangerous dog". It’s no wonder Mr. Newton didn’t want the court to admit a record of by-law prosecutions. But regardless of the outcome on February 23, people in HRM deserve to know the truth.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
Judge reserves decision in Brindi case
Seized dog a safety hazard, says HRM
I didn't "take her"; she got loose. And there were no neck wounds; no treatment, no photos, not even a mention to HRM Animal Services. Newton deliberately distorted and misrepresented the facts.
Decision not SPCA’s
Re: the Feb. 5 article "Judge reserves decision in Brindi case: Seized dog a safety hazard, says HRM."
As part of the HRM animal control contract, the SPCA is obligated to house animal control dogs and cats that are retained for court cases. Brindi has become a high-profile, long-term resident at the SPCA, but remains under the control of HRM.
The SPCA is not involved in the determinations made by the court and has no influence on the final decision.
Over the course of Brindi’s residence, the SPCA has advocated for and provided for exceptional care. We have kept an open dialogue with HRM regarding Brindi’s health and well-being and we have ensured that all of her needs are met, including medical, behavioural and social.
This is a very sensitive matter and we have great sympathy for all parties involved. The SPCA is never in favour of euthanasia where a viable alternative exists; however, the court will ultimately decide what is right for the community. If the judge rules that Brindi is to be euthanized, it will not be carried out by the SPCA, nor will it occur on SPCA property.
Kristin Williams, Executive Director,
Nova Scotia SPCAOne would have thought that the main point of the story was about Brindi and me, not the SPCA. Apparently, the Chronicle-Herald didn't think so. But the SPCA was mentioned in the story only in passing.
And people wonder why things are so bad here.
Needless to say there are doubts about the veracity of the statement above. For one thing, it simply cannot be true that all of my dog's needs are met; she has been kept in a short-term facility designed for a maximum of 30 days, and it's been eighteen months. Who are they kidding?
It is the SOLE task of the NS SPCA to protect the welfare of animals in this province. They are not obligated to do anything that might be harmful to an animal. They are the last ones who can or should, even for half a million dollars a year.
And as for sympathy, there's a nice one; just to name a few sympathetic gestures: a ban, a false arrest of a friend, and lying straight to my face while secretly refusing to give my dog bones I bought for her to keep her teeth health, then refusing to give her a teeth cleaning - not to mention the most fascist restrictions on visits imaginable - I've met more sympathetic border guards at Checkpoint Charlie in the old days.
As far as the contract goes, it gives the SPCA the task of carrying out euthanasia orders. I can send it to anybody who wants it. I did send it to the Coast, but they were not interested.
All I know is, I wouldn't mind making $80,000 a year for writing letters to the paper and to threatening single women whose animals were taken unfairly.
Sent today:
Dear Editor:
Over a week ago, on Feb. 4, I sent you a letter regarding the same article to which Kristin Williams replied. You chose to print her letter over mine. It seems to me that in the interest of fair coverage, you should also print my letter. It strove mainly to correct significant errors in the original article, and also to point out some too often overlooked facts. It did not attack the SPCA or anyone.
I do not understand why the Herald restricts information and coverage about my dog Brindi and myself, let alone has refrained from asking key questions about our situation for well over a year. That cannot be in anyone's interest.
If you claim to be fair and objective in any way, you will seek to cover both sides - or as many sides as there are - of this issue.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
------ Forwarded Message
From: Francesca Rogier <rogier@eastlink.ca>Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:34:53 -0400To: <letters@herald.ca>, <sbruce@herald.ca>Cc: "Humane_Halifax@yahoogroups.ca" <Humane_Halifax@yahoogroups.ca>Subject: CORRECTION and comment on Brindi story
Dear Editor:
Steve Bruce’s account of the conclusion of the trial yesterday (“Brindi the dog saga still not over”) was a welcome sight. I am glad that the Herald allowed a reporter to return to the story. However, please correct two points: first, the judge confirmed no evidence exists of any wounds to the dog in question, contrary to Mr. Newton’s claims. Second, there were two, not three complaints from other dog owners prior to Brindi’s seizure. The first led to a warning; the AC officer Hamm informed me he would lay a fine after the second. But, as he testified, a week later he changed it to a muzzle, only because (unbeknownst to me) the other dog owner involved asked him not to fine me.
The question of what actually led to the seizure has never been answered. We do know that Hamm never conducted a required investigation beforehand. And to get a seizure warrant, he used false reports that my dog Brindi attacked people. He also falsely claimed that he had to seize any muzzled dog after any complaint was received, an action unauthorized by any law in Canada. To this day he appears not to comprehend A300’s statutes, let alone the gravity of his actions.
Once again, Brindi never killed a chicken or badly harmed any other animal; her offenses cannot be termed serious. Yet Brindi and I have been seriously harmed. Thanks to the SPCA’s care, she now has diseased gums and bad teeth, plus chronic pancreatitis. No reasonable person could deny that this is about animal cruelty on top of serious infringement of a human's rights. The fact is, my property has been held illegally the entire time, given the Supreme Court decision and the law limiting the detention of property to three months.
Is HRM really acting to insure public safety? Few people know that between 2007 and late 2009, HRM obtained convictions on no less than 67 dog attacks on animals and/or people. Four owners have multiple convictions; their dogs are at home. Only one dog was seized or euthanized. Yet By-law A300 clearly defines each and every one of those 67 dogs as a "dangerous dog". It’s no wonder Mr. Newton didn’t want the court to admit a record of by-law prosecutions. But regardless of the outcome on February 23, people in HRM deserve to know the truth.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
Judge reserves decision in Brindi case
Seized dog a safety hazard, says HRM
An East Chezzetcook woman says Halifax Regional Munici pality only charged her with vio lating its animal control bylaw because it wants to destroy her dog, Brindi.
“HRM is seeking to accept nothing short of murdering my dog," Francesca Rogier said Wednesday at her trial in Dart mouth provincial court.
“They believe my dog is dan gerous and should be put down. . . . The issue isn’t whether or not I broke bylaws.
“I’m very unhappy with the fact it was handled this way."
Ms. Rogier is charged with be ing the owner of a dog that was running at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failing to comply with a muz zle order.
Judge Alanna Murphy, who is presiding over the trial, reserved her decision until Feb. 23 after hearing final arguments Wednesday.
Animal control officers, acting on a complaint from another pet owner, seized Brindi in July 2008 and ordered the mixed-breed dog euthaniz ed.
But a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled last January that the bylaw that authorized the killing of Brindi exceeded the power of the municipality. Justice Duncan Beveridge also said Ms. Rogier was never given a chance to oppose the decision to seize and destroy her dog.
Three days later, and one day before the six-month limitation period would have expired, the municipality laid the charges against Ms. Rogier.
If Ms. Rogier is convicted, the municipality will seek to have Brindi euthanized.
Brindi has been kept at the SPCA shelter in Dartmouth since she was seized.
Judge Murphy heard three days of evidence and arguments. The trial got underway Oct. 13 and also sat last Friday.
Dartmouth lawyer Geoff New ton is prosecuting the case for the municipality. Ms. Rogier,who has spent more than $30,000 on lawyers since her dog was seized, ended up representing herself at trial.
Fifteen people, including Ms. Rogier, testified at the hearing.
Brindi was under a muzzle or der in July 2008 because of earlier complaints about her behaviour. On July 20, she allegedly ran off Ms. Rogier’s property and attacked a dog that was being walked along the road.
Ms. Rogier told the court that Brindi got away from her as she was putting on the muzzle.
“I can’t be sure what was going through her mind when she es caped my double-handed grip," she said.
In her closing submission, Ms. Rogier said she had rescued the dog from a shelter where it had been locked up for two years. Brindi needed more training, she said, but was making progress, despite “understandable lapses."
Ms. Rogier said she showed due diligence on the day in ques tion by trying to muzzle the dog. Mr. Newton, in his closing com ments, said the dog allegedly at tacked by Brindi suffered punc ture wounds to its neck area.
He said “if that’s not a public safety issue, I don’t know what is."
“She took Brindi outside the house without a leash and a muz zle," Mr. Newton said of Ms. Ro gier. “She’s guilty of all three counts on the information and I seek convictions on all three counts."
(sbruce@herald.ca)
------ End of Forwarded Message “HRM is seeking to accept nothing short of murdering my dog," Francesca Rogier said Wednesday at her trial in Dart mouth provincial court.
“They believe my dog is dan gerous and should be put down. . . . The issue isn’t whether or not I broke bylaws.
“I’m very unhappy with the fact it was handled this way."
Ms. Rogier is charged with be ing the owner of a dog that was running at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failing to comply with a muz zle order.
Judge Alanna Murphy, who is presiding over the trial, reserved her decision until Feb. 23 after hearing final arguments Wednesday.
Animal control officers, acting on a complaint from another pet owner, seized Brindi in July 2008 and ordered the mixed-breed dog euthaniz ed.
But a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled last January that the bylaw that authorized the killing of Brindi exceeded the power of the municipality. Justice Duncan Beveridge also said Ms. Rogier was never given a chance to oppose the decision to seize and destroy her dog.
Three days later, and one day before the six-month limitation period would have expired, the municipality laid the charges against Ms. Rogier.
If Ms. Rogier is convicted, the municipality will seek to have Brindi euthanized.
Brindi has been kept at the SPCA shelter in Dartmouth since she was seized.
Judge Murphy heard three days of evidence and arguments. The trial got underway Oct. 13 and also sat last Friday.
Dartmouth lawyer Geoff New ton is prosecuting the case for the municipality. Ms. Rogier,who has spent more than $30,000 on lawyers since her dog was seized, ended up representing herself at trial.
Fifteen people, including Ms. Rogier, testified at the hearing.
Brindi was under a muzzle or der in July 2008 because of earlier complaints about her behaviour. On July 20, she allegedly ran off Ms. Rogier’s property and attacked a dog that was being walked along the road.
Ms. Rogier told the court that Brindi got away from her as she was putting on the muzzle.
“I can’t be sure what was going through her mind when she es caped my double-handed grip," she said.
In her closing submission, Ms. Rogier said she had rescued the dog from a shelter where it had been locked up for two years. Brindi needed more training, she said, but was making progress, despite “understandable lapses."
Ms. Rogier said she showed due diligence on the day in ques tion by trying to muzzle the dog. Mr. Newton, in his closing com ments, said the dog allegedly at tacked by Brindi suffered punc ture wounds to its neck area.
He said “if that’s not a public safety issue, I don’t know what is."
“She took Brindi outside the house without a leash and a muz zle," Mr. Newton said of Ms. Ro gier. “She’s guilty of all three counts on the information and I seek convictions on all three counts."
(sbruce@herald.ca)
I didn't "take her"; she got loose. And there were no neck wounds; no treatment, no photos, not even a mention to HRM Animal Services. Newton deliberately distorted and misrepresented the facts.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The (next) Day After, and another three weeks, and then?
First thing yesterday morning, dumping my files in the fast-food seats anchored to the floor of the lobby, I was a bit astonished to see the AC officer approaching in the most friendly way possible, not to offer help but to ask for a preview of what questions I might ask him on the stand (for the second time). Trying to organize the unruly mass of papers plaguing my files, I was not quite up to a conversation with the man responsible for this entire ordeal. I was very grateful that Jenn Richardson was with me, as Brindi's most faithful supporter, Bob Riley, was in the hospital for surgery last Friday, and couldn't make it again yesterday due to medical appointments. Looks like he may not even be able to attend court on the 23, when the judge will be announcing her decision. Turns out that the officer, Tim Hamm, went to school with Bob's sons, though he didn't mention it till a few weeks ago.
Representing yourself in court is something most people would never want to do. It certainly was the very last thing I wanted to do. Even though the search went on and on, I never expected that it would prove so difficult to find a good lawyer. Even then, I felt it was preferable to having to confront the indecipherable maze of the legal system by myself. Being in court on your own feels like trying to dance to foreign music while surfing (which I don't know how to do). Preparing for this last day was worse than cramming for an exam for a course I skipped all semester. On the one hand, by yesterday at least I had some idea of what was supposed to happen, but the short interval of time since last Friday didn't allow much time for rest and re-organization. There was barely time to write up and obtain subpoenas and then serve them, which I had to do after learning last week that the prosecution was not going to accept affidavits at all. As it is, I didn't have the heart to subpoena all six people who had signed affidavits exactly a year ago.
Oddly enough, a year ago to the day, I was arraigned on charges that dated from events nearly seven months earlier - Feb. 3, 2009. January 29, 2009 was the day that Judge Murphy, who is now hearing the trial, declined to hear an application to quash the warrant that was used to seize Brindi the previous July, stating that she didn't feel she had the authority to do it. Her colleague said the same thing when I asked him in February and May to consider releasing Brindi, and she repeated it in December when I asked her to allow me to resume visits and to transfer Brindi to a kennel suited for long-term stays.
My last lawyer somehow never bothered to give me the files, as the judge had ordered him to. I faxed this information to the court a few days ahead, and phoned to see if the fax was received, but nobody returned the call and I never heard back. In the confusion on Friday, I forgot to even bring this up before the judge. I didn't think about it again until the end of yesterday's session. It brought a look of concern to the judge's face, and she asked if I was missing anything important, but how would I know?
After last Friday's session I slept for nearly three days straight, first of all, and tried to overcome disappointment about the affidavits - which my previous lawyers had not only advised me to solicit, but asked me to write and organize, which I dutifully did, with the kind help of people willing to sign them. Most had already supplied letters soon after Brindi was taken. I had no indication from my lawyers that affidavits are not commonly used for this kind of case, no indication from the prosecution - present or previous - that they would be flatly rejected. Having imposed on them a few times already, I was really loathe to subpoena people who weren't expressly willing to be there in person. Yet I had no choice, and as it was, about half of them didn't make it for one reason or another. It was one thing to set up live testimony, another to prepare for it, and I didn't even have time to re-read the transcripts from October, let alone the application for the "abuse of process" claim that was supposed to be presented simultaneously in this proceeding.
In fact, defending this case was a three-layered affair: the charges, euthanization, and abuse of process... Not being anything close to a lawyer, I could only hope to tackle one of the layers with any effectiveness. Ignorant about the process and argumentation for the abuse of process, unsure exactly how and when to fight a possible euthanasia order. Another sleepless night was a given; the weather again cold, my car was crystalized, my toes and fingers numb, and my mind wishing I were almost anywhere else but on the cold road to Dartmouth Provincial Court.
A long day in that grey building, juggling papers, facts, conversations, and emotions. No way to eat anything, let alone finish an apple juice. Time going by and each segment scarier than the last. Glancing backward during the day, I saw the brand-new courtroom #5 gradually went from empty to full, with staring faces I recognized from the SPCA and HRM. No sign of media. I didn't take time to send out a press release myself. After a long year of a virtual media blackout, there was no point anyway.
A long day in that grey building, juggling papers, facts, conversations, and emotions. No way to eat anything, let alone finish an apple juice. Time going by and each segment scarier than the last. Glancing backward during the day, I saw the brand-new courtroom #5 gradually went from empty to full, with staring faces I recognized from the SPCA and HRM. No sign of media. I didn't take time to send out a press release myself. After a long year of a virtual media blackout, there was no point anyway.
That's about all I can put down for now, as I'm about to pass out again...
Friday, January 29, 2010
"Just a Dog"
From time to time, people tell me, "lighten up, it's just a dog," or, "that's a lot of money for just a dog."
They don't understand the distance traveled, the time spent, or the costs involved for "just a dog."
Some of my proudest moments have come about with "just a dog."
Many hours have passed and my only company was "just a dog," but I did not once feel slighted.
Some of my saddest moments have been brought about by "just a dog," and in those days of darkness, the gentle touch of "just a dog" gave me comfort and reason to overcome the day.
If you, too, think it's "just a dog," then you will probably understand phrases like "just a friend," "just a sunrise," or "just a promise."
"Just a dog" brings into my life the very essence of friendship, trust, and pure unbridled joy.
"Just a dog" brings out the compassion and patience that make me a better person.
Because of "just a dog", I will rise early, take long walks and look longingly to the future.
So for me and folks like me, it's not "just a dog" but an embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of the future, the fond memories of the past, and the pure joy of the moment.
"Just a dog" brings out what's good in me and diverts my thoughts away from myself and the worries of the day.
I hope that someday they can understand that it's not "just a dog", but the thing that gives me humanity and keeps me from being "just a man or woman."
So the next time you hear the phrase "just a dog", just smile... because they "just don't understand."
by Richard A. Biby
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
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.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
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
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
Vidya Wang
Mike Asuncion
Laurie Brewer
Linda Brenner
Linda Dennis
Mary West
Chris Cooper
Ted Efthymiadis
Mary Rogier
Sandra Janoski
Michelle Steen
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
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
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
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
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.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
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).
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
