The more facts people get about this case, and the situation in Halifax, the more they will come to realize that what is happening to Brindi and me is not about a "dangerous dog" or an "irresponsible owner" or about protecting the public. Not at all. It is about bad legislation and arbitrary law enforcement. And, in the place of accountability for both, a coordinated attack to silence unlucky victims - not unlike the way the NSA treats whistleblowers.
It's a mistake for laws to apply a human yardstick to dogs. The latest consensus in canine science is that a dog that kills at the first opportunity is a far greater danger than a dog that has many opportunities but refrains from inflicting severe injuries. It's called "bite inhibition". As Dr. Ian Dunbar puts it, A dog that gets into lots of scuffles, and the other dog comes away without a mark or a wound, has good bite inhibition. That's Brindi.
There is only one photo of an injury from a scuffle with Brindi, and it isn't remotely like the photo of this poor dog. She has excellent bite inhibition, according to her trainer Susan Jordan. Her behavior is about sending a message in the way dogs communicate to other dogs. It's not about attacking to maim or kill.
Brindi waited two years in a no-kill shelter for my adoption. She knows how to cope in a kennel, but she is not her full self there, and knowing she's got a real home and a human who loves her has to make her depressed. I often hear from kind supporters - who have since become friends - who care so much, they shed tears nightly over Brindi. It's terrible, and though I am deeply touched and humbled by it, I so wish they didn't - I feel like I am suffering enough for everybody.
THIS YEAR: RIGHT NOW
The trial began in March with shock and disappointment, so then the verdicts on May 10 were not all that surprising, although the month delay in between was unexpected and personally devastating.
See the court docs here.
Right now, the sentencing scheme is underway. It's very unorthodox, to say the least: there will be no public sentencing hearing in court. Instead, per the judge's scheduling arrangement, the city had three weeks to file its "submissions" (also with court docs) to request killing Brindi. That left me two weeks to prepare my submission for the June 22 deadline. The judge will announce her decision June 26.
June 22 is a Friday. That means the judge gave herself just one day to read my submissions. One day. After nearly two years of waiting for a trial with my dog locked up in isolation, my dog, who never should have been seized, and was seized twice instead.
The materials submitted by the city include reports of incidents dating as far back as 2007 - minor incidents involving little or no injury, which were not charged. They make no mention of the subsequent hours of training we did. And as before, no behavioral assessment by a professional to back up their claim that Brindi is a public threat. The city is relying on a very twisted argument that blames me for being irresponsible and then concludes from that that Brindi is dangerous and must be put down.
The latest development:
The prosecutor spoke on radio for the first time last week on News 95.7 on the Rick Howe show. Rick, for reasons known only to him, chose not to offer me the chance to defend myself, let alone correct four key things she said that were untrue. After I contacted him to ask what the deal was, he gave me about 5 minutes on air today. Unfortunately he interrupted them with an comment from a caller (unannounced) who ignored everything that had just been said in order to trash me.
More important, the city is currently blocking me from getting an updated assessment of Brindi done by a trainer in time for my June 22 deadline. Normally a trainer would see a dog in its living environment; what else? But HRM is claiming the proprietors (contracted by the city) aren't comfortable with having the assessment there. It insists on wrenching Brindi out of the kennel and trucking her back to the pound, muzzled, in a locked box in a dogcatcher's truck and giving the trainer a small room indoors. That's the same place it kept her for two months in 2010, with an outdoor area consisting of two parking spaces, screened off. Brindi would doubtless freak out going back there, because she'll assume she's being taken there to stay. Great way to set up an assessment.
Clearly, the city has very little idea about behavioral assessments, or Brindi. Secrecy - paranoia, I'd say - is more important than fairness or a living being's right to life. Some say they do things to make her fierce, but frankly, nothing HRM has orchestrated to date served to change Brindi's temperament. But they have certainly hurt her emotional state and isolated her from a lot of love and companionship that she deserves - as well as constant care for her now chronic illnesses brought on by years of confinement and neglect (insufficient exercise, bad food, fatty treats) at the pound.
That's how it is.
Posts
April 19th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I am glad you are finally coming to this issue, though it’s not surprising that your points have been put forward so many times in the last two years. Frankly, you are adding little to the debate, and like many others, you are not only woefully uninformed (and misinformed) about the facts. You have also overlooked the fundamental legal issues at the bottom of this, including the fact that seizures that violate Charter rights to private property and the right to due process. Why is it that this fundamental issue is constantly glossed over - why does no one even ask the question?
No one even asks what exactly transpired in the incidents as reported - or bothered to notice that not one photo of a dog alleged to be injured by Brindi has ever turned up. Why is that? Because there was no injury worth photographing!!!
You, like so many, don't want any details. That takes too much of your time, I guess. You are simply content to recite the list of charges - belated charges - without knowing what lies behind them. How "at large" is "running at large", for instance? In this case, it's a matter of maybe two or three feet past the property line.
You also seem unaware, Andrew, that at the very start that I - choosing to overlook the fact that the seizure was wrongful and unlawful in the hopes of getting my beloved companion back - offered to pay whatever fines HRM wished. This is important, because fines are what the by-law actually calls for (in such cases), not seizure and not destruction. I also offered to hire a private trainer, build a property fence, and any other reasonable measures HRM required, in order to get Brindi back.
Not only did HRM ignore these offers. They did not even charge me with an offense or violation - not one - until six months after Brindi was (illegally) seized using an unconstitutional law. Charges were laid two days after the court ruled to quash that law - an hour before the six-month time limit ran out.
Why didn’t they lay a charge earlier, say, at the time they seized my dog? I can think of one reason: any charge would have brought me to a judge within weeks, and I could have gotten my dog back right then, instead of waiting years. Instead, by conveniently withholding any charge, HRM forced me to hire a lawyer at great expense while "warehousing" Brindi, to borrow your word, for 21 months!!!
You have no idea of all this and more. Yet you feel entitled to be dismissive and rude about what is for us a terrible injustice and, I assure you, highly debilitating trauma of separation and isolation for human and canine. Even worse, though you belittle the entire matter, claiming you don't want to worry about it - you go ahead and take a hard-line position on it anyway. You want my dog to be killed - and clearly, not because of what she did, but rather, just so you don't have to hear anything about the matter anymore. And then you end your diatribe with a glib expression of sympathy for her! How shallow can you be?
And it so happens - you would know if you did some reading, or just looked at the photo of her at the SPCA; surrounded by women and an infant, all smiling - that my dog Brindi is not a threat to people, never was, and never will be. Halifax likes to kill dogs: 31 since 2007, all but two without a judge’s order (no charges laid). Of the over sixty-nine dogs at large that have attacked people or animals since 2007 whose owners were charged and went before a judge, HRM has only asked for a precious few to be put down - overlooking many dogs that attacked people multiple times. None of those cases compare in severity to Brindi, who never bit a human or seriously injured a dog. She is not a case that begs the question of whether she is "reclaimable"; she is rated as "extremely trainable". So why is Brindi on death row, then? Maybe because not enough people know enough about her - maybe because the media are unwilling to cover the story adequately?
Instead, there is little more than superficial coverage, too many false assumptions, and a disproportionate worry about safety. In the scheme of things, we all know that nothing in life can be “guaranteed”, don't we? So it is patently unfair to apply such a rigid standard to dogs. Society abounds with multiple offenders: drug dealers, rapists, child molesters, drunk drivers. All have stood before a judge at one time and promised they would not do it again, and when they do it, they are not executed, but given due process and their rights are protected. But not dogs. Dogs have no rights, and their owners' rights are customarily violated, but nobody notices.
The fact is that the city of Halifax made a terrible mistake, and it refuses to admit it. Maybe that is why we are still talking about Brindi: if she is killed, it would set a dangerous precedent, because it means any dog can be destroyed for any reason. The many people out there with dogs with similar or worse behavior know this, and that is why they are so concerned about this case.
Still, perhaps you don’t care about these things, and that’s fine. But consider this: society is very hypocritical when it comes to dogs. They are belittled as “just dogs” when somebody wants to save one, yet depicted as a savage threat that must be eliminated when it comes to a dog that scuffles with another dogs - as dogs are wont to do, being animals that communicate with their bodies.
The disapproval and disdain on the part of some is not in sync with the culture. Need one remind you of the enormous value dogs freely give to human health, safety and welfare, not to mention that they provide Hollywood with billions of box-office profits? When you talk about dogs, you are not talking about loaded guns. When you put down people who love dogs, you are not talking about a lunatic fringe. The New York Times recently noted that over 70% of dog owners are more attached to their dogs than to their romantic partners. It is wrong and unfair to conclude, however, that their love for their pets precludes them from liking people. That’s just another way to marginalize and dismiss what is in fact a majority of people who love their dogs - a pretty sizable chunk of the population, nearly half of HRM, in fact.
Krystal says, "Collective rights and collective responsibility toward them trumps personal grievance. The dog owner in question dealt with due process by abrogating it – failing the system. She was warned, edicts were placed on the animal owner, and rules were broken." Yes, and when rules are broken, the law calls for fines. Period.
You may choose to look down your nose at people with dogs, be intolerant of mistakes, accuse them of being uncaring about people, even try to guilt them into being responsible for racism or the neglect of the aged, but you have nothing to base it on, do you? It's just a cheap and shallow jab; begs the question not only of proof, but whether you truly believe people are one-dimensional, incapable of caring about more than one cause or one being. Insulting or ignorant, either way, your disapproval and disdain comes across loud and clear in your statements. But as I pointed out above, it's not very well-grounded.
To be frank, though, it matters little whether you like people who like dogs. The fact is, they are certainly not responsible for solving all the world's problems. Nevertheless, they often help solve them through their dogs. It's your loss, in my opinion, to be so disapproving that you set up false oppositions at such a scale. Unlike you, I am not willing to miss out on a universe of unconditional love that spreads outward, a source that keeps so many people going, especially people who are hurting, discriminated against, in need of healing. The very people you worry about and claim that dog owners neglect - many of them own dogs and turn to them for solace. Ever think about that? And they are very frightened at the prospect of having their dogs taken without warning.
In cities like Vancouver and Boston, a dangerous dog is roughly defined as a dog that seriously injured or killed a human or another animal, and is untrainable; many laws seem to follow that with "any dog that an officer has reasonable grounds to believe is dangerous," etc. Boston does not seek euthanization, ever; at worst, an owner is forced to remove their dog from the city, but before that, there is an option to undergo training.
In Halifax, the definition of "dangerous" is extremely broad (s. 2(1)(g) of A-300), and almost any dog can be classified as such.
(g) “dangerous dog” means any dog which:
And when it comes to socializing with people? Please! We spent New Year's Eve 2008 with a friend and her family, sat at the kitchen table with the matriarch, who insisted she was deathly afraid of dogs. Within a short time, Brindi was calmly laying at her feet, where she stayed put the rest of the evening. The woman felt secure and safe. Kids would run up and throw their arms around Brindi to hug her, and she never budged an inch, never even licked them. She was gentle and not easily spooked, even during excavation work on my house.
HRM's high kill rate is puzzling, given that under A-300, it is legal to own a dog that was deemed dangerous and even registered as such. Is that just a front? To date, Halifax has not registered Brindi in that category, though I renewed her license twice since the seizure. Even more puzzling, during his testimony, the animal services officer denied he ever deemed Brindi dangerous. Why? And why seize her, then?)
The fact is, my dog is very well-behaved and well-liked by those caring for her. See for yourself in the video; read the affidavits. I worked hard on her behavior to make her a great dog to have around, obedient and affectionate, and she was/is. Her unwelcome behavior occurred infrequently and was short-lived. It requires specialized training, and unfortunately, I received different advice from the trainer on how to deal with it. Why believe me? Read the letters.
Whether you credit me for having done my best and made a few mistakes that did not lead to great harm, you cannot say that Brindi is a dangerous dog, which is the issue at hand. That is indeed HRM's chief concern, public safety, not whether I am guilty of anything. Apples and oranges. In fact, the city took her without ever having laid charges, and until the supreme court said no, it was prepared to kill her without ever charging me, which is proof of the split within the law. The truth is, and HRM made this plain to a judge, they only charged me because their goal was to euthanize, and the only available means of euthanizing her was to parlay guilty charges into a court order. This was now necessary because the supreme court quashed section 8(2)d of A300. ("Euthanize" is the wrong word, of course; "destroy" is more accurate.)
As a case unfolds, the system blurs the distinction between penalty and public safety, thanks to a provincial law that links one to the other, section 177 of the Municipal Government Act, which is titled, "Additional Penalty."
Furthermore, the city is handling this case unlike the way it has the majority of dog attack cases, many involving attacks on humans. These are documented and compiled for your perusal. They were extracted from HRM online records. If you want to see prosecutions of all dog-related offenses since 2007 to compare, you can see them here. These ought to raise your eyebrow, at least halfway. If not, I can tell you a few hair-raising stories, I promise.
That is, if you are willing to see more than black and white when it comes to dogs. It would be a shame if you weren't. If your goal is simply to stir up controversy - well, you're a bit late, Andrew, don't you think?
Facebook response to Andrew Krystal from a Calgary resident:
Maureen Hurly
"Inane”? Stories about sports teams and celebrities are “inane”; not matters of life and death.
Compassionate people care about all life and all suffering. Ever since I can remember, as a very young child, I cared a lot about animals. I couldn’t understand why so many other people really did not. After all it was obvious to me that they had feelings and could suffer greatly.
I do care about Brindi and her owner as I feel this case has been handled in an unjust manner. Brindi has been evaluated by three different animal trainers, none of whom thought she was aggressive and all of whom believed she was trainable. The SPCA staff, where Brindi was held for most of the past 21 months, became attached to her and let her walk around the SPCA property and sleep under their desks. They do not believe she is dangerous, and did not muzzle her. In fact, I saw a photograph where they even held a birthday party for Brindi. In the photo she is surrounded by people including a toddler, and she is not wearing a muzzle.
The incidents which got Brindi into trouble occurred along her property line where she showed territorial behaviour towards passing dogs. This is behaviour that should be rectified, and apparently it is correctable with training. In the various scuffles between Brindi and passing dogs, no other dog was seriously hurt. To my understanding, one dog received a small tooth puncture mark, but that was it for injuries. Brindi is just not a killer dog. She has never attacked a person, and there is zero reason to believe she ever would (well, no more reason than believing any other dog would; contrary to your question about “guarantees”, nothing in life is ever guaranteed. Even though I have never hurt anyone before, no-one else can “guarantee” I won’t go on a homicidal killing spree tomorrow. And what of the known criminals who are released from prison daily with no guarantee that they will not re-offend?) Contrast Brindi’s case - scuffles with other dogs, no serious injuries, no threats to humans ever- with other cases in Halifax where dogs who have actually bitten people or killed other animals have not been siezed by bylaw, and the owners have merely been fined, and you can surely see the injustice. In Brindi’s case, HRM actually hired a private law firm at a cost (I’m guessing) of tens of thousands of dollars to kill a much loved dog who no-one really believes is dangerous!
I discussed this case with a bylaw officer in my own city (which incidentally is a city with a reputation for having a very low rate of dog attacks). He had already heard of this case, and was extremely perplexed by the way a “dog bites dog” case (his description) has been handled by Halifax.
At the very least, people who do not like animals but claim to care about people, should consider the hell Ms Rogier has been through the past 21 months and feel compassion for her. It may be hard for people who do not care about animals to understand, but to her Brindi is her family member and she loves her and is committed to her. She has offered all along to do whatever it takes to get Brindi back - from the beginnning she has offered to pay fines, get training, build a fence etc. The City of Halifax has been rigid in their refusal to negotiate. I, along with thousands of others who are following this case, and who do not regard it as “inane”, hope that the judge sees that a death sentence for Brindi is not appropriate in this case, and that Brindi gets another chance at life.