It is so disappointing when you think a group ascribes to the same ideals as you, only to find out that hidden somewhere they have an agenda that is dirty, dark and vile.So it seems to be with the Animal Advocates Society of British Columbia - they are an animal advocate organization out there who has been fighting against the British Columbia SPCA and is actually currently being sued by them.They also appear to do a lot of stuff for puppy mills, chained dogs, horse rescue, and have a large section of their website called the "Animal Advocate Watchdog News" - a newsreader that sends out action alerts constantly.But it turns out they'd also like the extinguishment of all bull type breeds for much the same reason that PETA does - in order to save them from suffering, and so that they can't hurt any more children because they're all so dangerous to humans. What a pile of bullshit, eh? And they claim that they love animals?
This is what the president of the Animal Advocates Society Says on these 2 pages -
"Society should have banned all fighting breeds of dogs long ago. It is too late for hundreds of people, mostly little children who died slowly, having their scalps, and faces, and limbs torn off. We can think of only one death worse than that for children, and that is at the hands of a sexual predator.
Any society that does not prevent its children from being killed by dogs bred deliberately to be dangerous, is a sick society.
Defenders of these breeds of dogs accuse AAS of being anti-dog. We are anti-dangerous breeds of dogs, not of individual dogs. For the love of dogs, we don't want so many of them to live short, brutish lives, to be killed by pounds after they have destroyed, or tried to destroy, a human life. We don't want them to be chained, isolated, lonely, depressed, angry, crated, penned or muzzled. We don't want to hear anymore stories of young males picking up their Pit bull by its chain and slamming it into a wall to make it "dangerous". We don't want to have to go photograph a poor Pit bull, chained in yard, and know that we can't rescue it because it might be highly dangerous. We don't want to be told anymore about the fights held on reserves and how the bloody bodies of the users are left to die or thrown in the river. For the love of dogs, we want this abuse to stop.
For the love of children, we want children to be safe from fatal attacks."
Judy Stone, President, AAS
Fear mongering at it's most degrading - because it's being said by people who should KNOW BETTER.
But on that same note, I received in the mail today my first issue of a new magazine that looks absolutely fabulous! It's called "The American Dog Magazine" - I saw it online a few weeks ago and subscribed immediately. It used to be 2 different magazines - the "Chicago Dog" and the "Colorado Dog" - and they've merged both those magazines into one new magazine - and it's super! The topics in this issue are amazing, and the contributors are one's we all recognize - Julia Szabo, Victoria Stilwell, there's even a short article in there by the former Tammy Grimes - presidennt of Dogs Deserve Better.
There's also several articles about dog law and being advocates for animals - and there's several very pro pit-bull articles - which is really interesting considering that the magazine is coming from Colorado - which is the state that houses the much pit-bull killing Denver.
I'm going to take my copy to Atlantic News to see if they'll consider carrying it there because I think it's a magazine a lot of people here in the HRM would really like - and everyone likes a new magazine to read!
Tonight Charlie and Daisy were being just unbelievable cute on my bed doing some mouth wrestling - Charlie does this high pitched whine and Daisy does this growling thing and they can just play and play. It is so cute, and I finally got a minute or so of it on video tonight. It is just to die for it is so - there's no other word for it - it's just 200 hundred pounds of cute.
The little dogs had a good time at Christmas supper - I took a little piece of a bully stick with me for each of them, and they got to each of it without any interference from the big dogs - no one tried to steal them, so they were able to chew to their hearts command, which they did! So everyone had a good time. Enjoy the photos...
A dog barks at the Metro SPCA which was without power on Christmas Day. The animal shelter had no power for at least 30 hours.
Sick puppies and other animals shivered in the cold at the Metro SPCA on Christmas Day after spending about 30 hours without heat at the Burnside animal shelter.
Some rooms had lights but there wasn't enough power getting into the Scarfe Court building to generate heat for the more than 30 dogs and many cats and a handful of bunnies housed inside.
In an interview barely audible over the howling and barking dogs, Sean Kelly, the chairman of the shelter management team, said he'd repeatedly called Nova Scotia Power to get someone to come out to restore power, but got nowhere.
"We had volunteers come in today expecting to clean a few kennels and help a few animals and instead they were hit with a huge amount of work and seeing the dogs like this. Everyone's just demoralized beyond belief," he said.
About a dozen tall laundry baskets piled high with soiled blankets were lined up in front of two industrial laundry machine sets, while the blanket storage area was almost empty.
Kat Horne, a member of the management team, said the shelter is using more blankets to keep the dogs and cats warm. Two thin-coated American Staffordshire Terrier mixes were shivering in the sick room. They wear coats at night to keep warm, but would have to wear them during the day.
The moans of one particular dog — a large husky German Shepherd mix named Reegan — could be heard from the front entry, even though he was tucked away in the last cage in the isolation room at the opposite end of the building. "When they can't see, it freaks them out," making a stressful situation even worse for the animals, Ms. Horne said.
"What we really need is Nova Scotia Power to come and do something like they were supposed to yesterday," she said.
There were no Metro-area outages listed on the the power company's online outage page.
Company spokeswoman Glennie Langille confirmed the shelter's power situation this afternoon.
She said the shelter's outage was a "one off" and that the crews were focused on larger outages.
At 2:30 p.m., she said a crew was on its way to fix the problem.
I found this page on the NS SPCA's website today - "Give Me Shelter" SPCA Says It's Time to Take Your Pets Inside - another press release, this time from November 24, 2008 - and it's all about bringing your pets and other domesticated animals inside when the weather starts getting bad in the wintertime this winter. And it features a dog that was found last winter named Jane.
It shows Jane when she was found in King's County last February when it was -42 celcius and she was completely matted and couldn't keep her front paws on the ground because it was so cold and she was freezing to death and her fur was completely stuck together with balsam fur - and it was a fluke that she was even found before she died because no one had even called in a complaint about her.
It was lucky though that the Special Constable did find her though - because when she was taken to a veterinarian to be assessed these kidney stones were found inside her - it was obvious that she hadn't had any care for a very long time - so she obviously had been in very serious distress for a long time.
And its completely thanks to the Special Constables and cruelty officers of the NS SPCA that Jane now has a great home and is going to live a long and wonderful life - and has a happy ending - which she never would have had otherwise.
Now that is a fabulous story. And its unfortunately sort of buried - it's a press release, but for some reason - it didn't get picked up anywhere - and to me that's a shame. It even has media contacts at the end for who to contact. I seem to remember that the SPCA has a paid PR person now too - so stories like this should be getting out - because this is a great story and one that should be told - people would give money to an organization that does work like this.
Boston's story too, was a great one. Maybe the NS SPCA should start a blog - I think that would be a good idea - I bet there'd be people willing to set that up and maintain it.
But this is a beautiful way to go into Christmas Eve, with this story - of Jane who was saved, isn't it? She looks so beautiful now. I hope she's having a great life. And I hope that there's a lot of other Jane's out there that will be helped too.
NOTE - In looking at these photos after I've published this post - you're going to have to actually click on the pictures to actually SEE the babies - they're at the top of the photos - they're the tiny little orange blobs!
I don't talk about my fish too much - but I am also the proud owner of a 30 gallon tank of mostly platys - and a couple of guppies too, and a couple catfish and one very flashy and large bristle nose pleco that I almost never see. I have in the past had some cichlids that I absconded from my lunch room from my work that were a few hours from dying - but they did nothing but chase each other around so that they could try and fight - so I passed them on to true cichlid afficiandos who could handle their kind of special behaviours. Platys and guppies are much more my style - very laid back and happy and just want to swim around and eat whatever floats by. And they are very beautiful
And in the last 24 hours, someone has had babies - which no one has done in a while - so I hope no one eats them!
Both Jackie and Buttercup felt like playing with their toys today - and they were just SO cute. And Buttercup with her Elmo toy was just - over the top. I made a slide show of them playing with their toys. Unbelieveable. This is why people love little dogs. Charlie and Daisy were feeling pretty mellow today - so they just stayed on the outskirts of the melee.
The slideshow is below for your enjoymentThis is a closeup I was able to catch today of Jackie's good eye - you can not only see me and Charlie in it - but you can also see the scar of the ulcer that formed on it this summer that we were able to catch within about one hour of Jackie scratching his eye ball - it happened that fast and he was in obvious complete agony. It just goes to show how fast it obviously happened up in Cape Breton, how much it obviously hurt, and how serious it quickly became - and this is scar that is left all these months later - but at least he still has some vision in his good eye - he can see food in your hand about a mile away!
Daisy saying - "don't pay any attention to those little dogs - just scratch my ass!"
I made a post in the last couple weeks about Boston - the husky who the Dartmouth SPCA shelter had fallen in love with because of his gentle nature, hard life and special needs - and they were turning over heaven and earth to find a soft place for him to spend his retirement time in - I just got an email saying that he's found his perfect forever home in time for Christmas!
Way to go staff at the Dartmouth SPCA! And way to go Boston and his new forever home! I hope they have the best Christmas ever!
It puzzles me - because I know it would have been written partially by the same people who were at the scene last year when the seizures were done - so they would have witnessed the horror first hand - their lives would have been changed forever by what they found at the kennel and the unoccupied house on animal abusers Zonda MacIsaac's property - having to remove those poor cats from the raw sewage in the basement, and then having to take the dogs out of the shit stacked kennels - and the too small crates in the house - all of the matted and feces filled dogs - they would have looked in their eyes and made a pact with them on that day saying that their suffering wouldn't have happened in vain.
And then here we are almost a year later, and we have a press release from them saying "The Nova Scotia SPCA is pleased to report that two Port Hawkesbury women have pled guilty under the provincial Animal Cruelty Prevention Act for their part in the widely publicized “Celtic Pets” animal cruelty case earlier this year."
the NS SPCA is PLEASED with the way the verdict turned out. I cannot believe that that could be true. I think they should be appalled with the way the verdict turned out. I think the animal abusers MACISAAC'S should be PLEASED with the way the verdict turned out - but the SPCA certainly shouldn't, because they haven't taken animals out of harm's way.
Both animal abusers Zonda and Alice get to continue to abuse animals because they are allowed to keep companion animals. What about their lives has been punitively changed by the verdict? It was even put into the official court records that animal abuser Alice is a "dog whisperer". I wonder what she was whispering into Jack's ear when the ulcer in his eyeball was exploding and his eyeball was disappearing into the socket and he was in unbelievable unbearable pain - while he was living in her house. And now she has 2 dogs to give that kind of attention to - and then when they die - probably prematurely because of the care they're given - she'll be able to go get another one, then another one - until the 20 years are up - and then she can start collecting again until she gets up to the 40 or so that she had when she was raided in February.
Sean Kelly said about the 2 charges that they were charged with federally - "less than 1% of people who are charged under that act ever get found guilty,” - so that's why those charges were dropped. If that's the case - then they have a federal cruelty animal act at all? If 99% of the charges never stick - then why have that Act at all? That is preposterous. Am I the only one who sees that as being ludicrous? There was obvious cruelty going on in those 2 buildings in Port Hastings. There were 127 animals seized - why were only 4 charges laid - 2 of them being federal charges - and those 2 were dropped because only 1% of those types of charges ever lead to a conviction. There is something wrong here.
And please don't think that I am complaining about the Special Constables who went and did the seizure, or the shelter workers, and volunteers who looked after the animals - I consider them to be as much victims of this whole debacle as the animals - there has been no justice in this case for any of the animals, or for the humans who witnessed the horrible abuse.
Another sentence in the press release that has really struck me hard - and something that has heretofore never been said before in such a way by the NS SPCA is this -
"In total, 51 dogs and 79 cats were seized, many of whom later died or had to be euthanized due to illness and/or severe behavioral issues as a result of their neglect."
What are they saying here? How many is "MANY"? We know about the SIX that they killed because they were supposedly too aggressive for the staff to handle - but "MANY" sounds like more than six to me. So how many is "MANY"? I am really worried about that. How MANY did die?
And finally - I can't believe that they would put anything like this is a press release about a verdict such as the MacIsaac verdict - "Mr. Kelly stated further that while this is a celebratory outcome for the Society, “tougher animal cruelty legislation would make that verdict more meaningful.”" - I can tell you that there is nothing to celebrate about this verdict. At least I don't think there is.
I asked a board member tonight about this press release and was told this was not issued as a press release, it was "never actually issued as a press release, just as an update for the website" - even though it's listed in the press release section of the website. So everything about it is weird. Things about it just don't jive. I am so confused about it. I don't know why they would feel the need to comment on the verdict in this way, what are they trying to tell us? I don't know. I don't like to feel confused, I really want my information fed to me, and this didn't do it, it didn't make me feel goood inside - I have more questions than answers. And the questions aren't good ones.
Right now we seem to be getting a blizzard here in Halifax, which is too bad - because earlier today Buttercup was to the beauty parlour and had a pretty close trim - so she is very unhairy at the moment. These are a couple of photos of Jack on the back deck saying - "nope, I don't think I'm going to go down the stairs to have my pee - I'm just going to do it on the garbage can right up here on the deck! When I took Buttercup in for her haircut I also took Charlie in too, and I gave him a bath - something which he always very unhappy about - although I try to make it as easy on him as possible. The Metro Dog Wash has one tub that's at floor level that you can walk the dog right in to - and so the human can also get in as well - and that's the one I always use for Charlie - but he still hates it. But afterwards he immediately went out into the store area and picked this bully stick out of the pile and laid down and started intensely chewing on it as if to say "man, I really deserve this - so I'm going to eat this like I've never eaten a chew stick before" - and he did. These are a couple photos of Buttercup at the end of her groom - isn't it interesting how when a dog is completely stressed out they can look their happiest? She is trembling and going nuts - but since she's so stressed out - that's when she can give her best smiles. She shows her teeth and everything. She's so beautiful - I wish we all this good under severe trauma. This is Charlie tonight still not very happy with me. This is Jackie being pretty cocky - I think he's feeling like he's pretty sure he ducked a pretty big arrow today when the 2 dogs who left came back smelling like that awful place that he goes to sometimes where they cut his nails and mess with his hair - and this time the human didn't take him too! This is Buttercup with her fabulous new face - I don't think her face has ever been cut this short before - and she looks really cute!
There is a new Gail Benoit video on You Tube posted by an unknown individual showing someone thinking about buying a puppy from Gail, and then it goes to a phone call where Gail is trying to sell herself to the prospective buyer. It's a really interesting exchange - because it shows how Gail is trying to minimize what happened last summer when she sold 21 dogs - all of whom died after she bought 27 (here she says she bought 28 dogs) from Chapman kennels - and because of the way she treats dogs - they all got parvo and died. But she says in this video that she is always going to sell puppies and there's nothing anyone can do about - that is the business she is in.
Actually - there is something someone can do about it - and that is the Nova Scotia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty. If they could build a case of cruelty to animals that would stick in a court of law - and if the justice system would believe in the laws that have been written in Nova Scotia to actually get a conviction that includes a lifetime ban on the ownership of animals - that would shut down hers and her partners business. But unfrotunately - we have been shown in 2001 when they were convicted of cruelty then and banned from ownership (which was turned over on appeal because of technicalities) and recently with the MacIsaac's case - that neither the justice system believes in itself - or the NS SPCA seems to be able to build strong enough cases - to actually shut down humans who actually are purposely endangering animals.
All we are left with is SPCA's who seems to joyously kill animals that come into their shelters (ie Cape Breton SPCA) and animal control departments who seize and attempt to destroy animals that aren't actually dangerous to the public - making their owners take serious risks.
This letter was in the Chronicle Herald Community Herald this week - and for some reason I could not find it online anywhere - so I scanned it and am putting it here.
This lady is so completely right - bylaw enforcement seems to be completely inept - not just from the Animal Services component - but right across the board - their enforcement of fines is spotty at best in any aspect of the city's bylaws - that it makes sense that they'd be just as uneven in their relationship with the city's tax paying dog owners. Her mentioning the fact that they've done nothing to increase compliance for dog licencing but spent months and months trying to hammer out cat licencing is pure brilliance - because it's true. And completely pathetic on the part of the city. Someone should send this letter to every newly minted HRM Councillor.
It just seems so stupid the blyaws they do decide to enforce - the dogs who actually are not dangerous - they decide to seize (without any charges being filed) - and destroy. I read some minutes from a November 8, 2008 Chebucto Community Council meeting where they're talking about the merits of insisting on removing a clothesline that goes over municipal property - that had in fact been there for THIRTY YEARS. Why all of a sudden did bylaw enforcement feel the need to issue a violation and demand the clothesline be removed? Deputy Mayor (at the time) Steve Adams and Debbie Hum ordered the enforcement order termporarily stopped they thought Bylaw Enforcement was being so ludicrous.
Today I received one of those obligatory forwarded emails that we all get from time to time - warning us about how we should never trust our dogs because if we do, at some point in their lives they're going to run out the front door and across the street and get hit by some bus that just happens to be coming down the street at the exact moment that the dog is going to say hello to the dog who lives across the way - and it's all because we've taken for granted that our dog never does anything wrong and has always come every time we've called him in the past - and how if we ever have our dog off leash ever ever then we are the worst dog owner to have ever graced this world and we should be put to sleep for ever thinking that we deserved to bring a dog into our home - because we are dooming our canine life companion to a certain death at some point in the next zero to twenty years. It could come today - or it could come when the dog is nineteen years old - but safe to say - it's going to happen. And it's all because we got lazy and trusted our dogs.
I abhor that email when I get it. I think it's a pile of shit. You can read the fear mongering who-haa at http://www.adopt-a-greyhound.org/advice/trust.html if it so moves you. What bothers me about it is the fact that you cannot live your life around all the horrible things that "might" happen to you in some evil moment in the distant future.
I personally figure that I am here for a good time and not a long time and that is how I live my life - and that is how I let my dogs live their life, too. Maybe it's because of all the suffering I've done and all the suffering I've seen - but I am not interested in any more suffering - if one of my dogs want to stick their head out of the car window - I'd let them do it. Daisy liked to do that for awhile - so I let her. She doesn't do it anymore - and that's okay too.
I don't do anything that breaks any laws - and I'm also not stupid - I don't have any of the dogs offleash from my car into the front door of my house because there are a lot of feral cats in my neighbourhood - and you'd see 2 dogs scatter pretty quick when my car door opened - looking for a good chase with a couple of tasty kitties. And Buttercup would go looking to bark at someone who'd say "aren't you cute!" And Jack would just go looking to pee on something - but it would take me a LONG TIME to get in the front door - which I am NOT interested in! So long story short - we are on leash!
But my dogs probably do a lot of stuff that other people would send their dogs directly to the pound for - and I say - they think it's fun - so more power to them. Daisy likes to counter surf a bit - so I leave things in strategic spots for her. Jack sounds like he wants to kill you when he's engaged in play. Charlie is 1/2 sheltie, so there is no wonder that I have so many wonderful shots of him with his mouth wide open in full bark mode. Buttercup is perfect of course. There'd be no reason to send her back - except of course for her titsch of dog aggression :)
My point is - people have got to loosen up in my opinion - in that story - that dog lived for like 7 years - what's 7 x 365 days. That's 2,555 days. I'd rather live 2,555 days that are a ton of fun than 15 years - 5,475 days that are a complete bore. That's what I think - I am here to live, and that's what I'm trying to give to the sentient beings that have somehow made their way onto my ship.
You should try and stick your head out of a car window when the car is moving - it is a ton of fun and feels amazing. Don't stick it out too far though because that can lead to decapitation - you don't need to be stupid. And it also helps if you squint your eyes up a little.
Just in time for Christmas - I've been sent some fabulous new Zeus photos! Yea! We've all been needing a pick-me-up in the wake of the sad decision of the Nova Scotia court system on the Celtic Pets case - so it's wonderful that we are getting this gift of some photos of one of the few bright lights at the end of the horrible tunnel that started at that horrible kennel in Port Hastings.
Here is the report from his super forever home - "He is doing great!!! Such a great dog, has really become a welcome part of the family and is really genuinely appreciative. He is a happy dog that is spoiled absolutely rotten and loving every second of it. There is a wood stove at my parents house which he spend hours just lying beside with each other enjoying each others company."
That sounds pretty much perfect for an old dog who was looking for a retirement home - who could for more than a wood stove to lie beside and some humans around to give you scratches whenever you want them. I hope they all have a happy, and well deserved wonderful holidays!
I emailed him personally and he emailed me back saying that he had "specified no breeds, just vicious dogs" - leading us to believe that he had been misquoted and wasn't actually interested in breed specific legislation.
So next I emailed the author of the article - Rick Howe - and asked him if Mr. Blumenthal had been misquoted - and today I heard back from him - and what he wrote back is even worse than breed specific legislation.
What Mr. Howe said is - that Mr. Blumenthal said "he said he plans to revisit a vicious breeds ban sometime in the new year" - and when Mr. Howe asked which breeds - Blumenthal declined to say which breeds.
The thing about "vicious dogs" legislation - is that its very dirty legislation - just today I was reading an article from down in Mansfield Ohio - one of the least dog friendly States down in the USA - and they have vicious dog legislation - "vicious dogs" are banned in that city. How do you ban vicious dogs?
Well, pit bulls, rottweillers, and dogs like that are automatically considered to be vicious dogs - number 1. And if a dog likes to chase or snap or growl - it's also considered to be vicious - and it's got to be killed. Now THAT is bad legislation. And it sounds like THAT'S the kind of legislation Mr. Blumenthal wants to introduce here in the HRM.
So we need to watch Mr. Blumenthal's actions in Council and City Hall very carefully.
I'm going to paste the article from Mansfield Ohio that I read today to give a flavour of what our most esteemed newly elected Councilour might be wanting to bring here to our fair city. Heads up.
Richland County Dog Warden Dave Jordan said a citation was issued at 416 Fourth St. for having vicious dogs in the city limits. He declined to identify who was cited.
"That's all I can say right now," he said.
Jordan, three deputy dog wardens and five Mansfield Police Department officers were at the home. The officers also looked through the window of the garage behind the house but saw no dogs inside.
As for the fate of the dogs that were placed in waiting cruisers, Jordan said, "We're going to hang on to them and see what happens."
Mansfield's City Code banned "vicious and dangerous" dogs in October 1988. That's when the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire terrier and mixed breeds that have elements of these terriers were specified as illegal within the city limits.
In addition to pit bulls, several dog breeds are considered potentially dangerous, according to research from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Humane Society of the United States. These include the Dalmation, husky, boxer, Prena Canario, Cane Corso, Chow Chow, Doberman pinscher, Alaskan malamute and Rottweiler.
Only pit bulls and related mix-breeds are banned in Mansfield.
Having a banned dog within city limits is a first-degree mesdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Subsequent violations carry a fourth-degree felony charge, punishable by up to 18 months of jail time and a $5,000 fine.
Mansfield Law Director Dave Remy said by state law the dog warden has jurisdiction to make the determination on what breed a dog is. Cincinnati, Youngstown, Reynoldsburg, Wooster, Garfield Heights, Girard and Parma are among other Ohio cities that have banned pit bull ownership.
Under Ohio law, a vicious dog is defined to include pit bulls regardless of their temperament or behavior, but there is no statewide prohibition on owning or keeping these dogs. The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld the state law.
Here is their vicious dog ordinance:
505.03 VICIOUS AND DANGEROUS DOGS. (a) As used in this section: (1)A."Dangerous dog" means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to subsection (a)(l)B. hereof, has chased or attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person, while the dog is off the premises of its owner, keeper or harborer and not under the absolute control of its owner, keeper, harborer or some other responsible adult person. B."Dangerous dog" does not include a police dog that has chased or approached in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack, or has attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person while the police dog is being used to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.
(2)"Menacing fashion" means that a dog would cause any person being chased or approached to reasonably believe that the dog will cause physical injury to that person.
(3)"Police dog" means a dog that has been trained, and may be used, to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.
(4)A."Vicious dog" means a dog that, without provocation and subject to subsection (a)(4)B. hereof: 1.Has killed or caused serious injury to any person, 2.Has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person, or has killed another domesticated animal, 3.Belongs to a breed known as the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Terrier, or any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breeds aforestated so as to be identifiable as partially of any one of such breeds. B."Vicious dog" does not include either of the following: 1.A police dog. 2.A dog that has killed or caused serious injury to any person while a person was committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, keeper or harborer of the dog. (5)"Without provocation" means that a dog was not teased, tormented or abused by any person, or that the dog was not coming to the aid or defense of a person who was not engaged in illegal or criminal activity and who was not using the dog as a means of carrying out such activity. (6)"Confined" means in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure upon the premises of the owner of the dog. The pen or structure shall have secure sides and a secure top attached to the sides. If the pen or structure has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides shall be embedded into the ground no less than one foot. All such pens or structures shall be adequately lighted and kept in a clean and sanitary condition. (b)Vicious dogs are hereby prohibited within the jurisdictional limits of the City. (1)Persons who presently have vicious dogs licensed in the City shall make the dog confined in a locked pen on the premises and shall have liability insurance with coverage in effect, exclusive of interest and costs, of not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for damage or bodily injury to or death of a person caused by the vicious dog for each occurrence. The owner shall provide proof of current insurance coverage with the Chief of Police within thirty days of the effective date of this section. The owner shall not permit the dog to go beyond the premises of the owner unless the dog is properly in leash and the dog is muzzled in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration, but shall prevent it from biting any human or animal.
Further, the owner shall display in a prominent place on his or her premises a clearly visible warning sign indicating that there is a vicious dog on the premises. A similar sign is required to be placed on the pen of the animal.
(2)Persons who presently have vicious dogs shall not acquire another vicious dog once the vicious dog they presently have registered with the County Auditor dies or is sold or otherwise disposed of, (c)Dangerous dogs shall not be permitted to go beyond the premises of the owner, keeper or harborer at any time unless the dog is properly in leash.
"Properly in leash" means secured on a chain no more than three feet in length with at least 300 pounds of tensile strength and under the physical restraint of a responsible adult person.
(d)No owner, keeper or harborer of any dangerous dog shall fail so at any time to keep it either physically confined or restrained upon the premises of the owner, keeper or harborer by a leash, tether, adequate fence, supervision or secure enclosure to prevent escape, or under absolute control of some responsible adult person.
(e)Whoever violates subsection (b) hereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree and the Court may order the dog to be humanely destroyed by a licensed veterinarian, the County Dog Warden, or the County Humane Society. Subsequent offenses shall be a felony of the forth degree and the Court shall order the vicious dog humanely destroyed by a licensed veterinarian, the County Dog Warden or the Humane Society.
Whoever violates subsections (c) or (d) hereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. Subsequent violations shall be misdemeanors of the third degree.
I also looked at their companion animal cruelty to animals ordinance - and that one is pretty funny - they have this written into their cruelty act:
(b)No person shall knowingly torture, torment, needlessly mutilate or maim, cruelly beat, poison, needlessly kill, or commit an act of cruelty against a companion animal.(c)No person who confines or who is the custodian or caretaker of a companion animal shall negligently do any of the following: (1)Torture, torment, needlessly mutilate or maim, cruelly beat, poison, needlessly kill, or commit an act of cruelty against the companion animal; 2)Deprive the companion animal of necessary sustenance, confine the companion animal without supplying it during the confinement with sufficient quantities of good, wholesome food and water, or impound or confine the companion animal without affording it, during the impoundment or confinement, with access to shelter from heat, cold, wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight, if it can reasonably be expected that the companion animal would become sick or suffer in any other way as a result of or due to the deprivation, confinement, or impoundment in any of those specified manners. (d)Subsections (b) and (c) of this section do not apply to any of the following: (3)Dogs being used or intended for use for hunting or field trial purposes, provided that the dogs are being treated in accordance with usual and commonly accepted practices for the care of hunting dogs; (4)The use of common training devices, if the companion animal is being treated in accordance with usual and commonly accepted practices for the training of animals;
So in Mansfield, Ohio - if you are an animal trainer or a hunter - you can do whatever you like to your companion animal - mutilate, torture, tie out, starve - whatever you want - just say that you plan to use the dog for hunting - and you're pretty much scott free. I love Americans.
I got an email from a friend of mine with a really neat idea to follow up on my Christmas card to legislators post - if you don't have the time to actually go out and buy cards, write them out and then mail them - there's a website that will do it for you! Send out Cards .com has come up with the neatest gimmick - you go to their website, pick out the card you want, personalize it, and then they'll print it out for you and send it wherever you want. Isn't that neat? So instead of having to write out 40 different Christmas cards - you just type out one greeting, then type out 40 different addresses - then bing, bong, boom - they'll send them out for you. That is SO neat! Whoever thought that idea up is a genius! And then I'm sure you just keep those addresses on file - so you only ever have to type them out once. Brilliant.
So now we all really have no excuse to not send out Christmas cards this year - except for the fact that we have no money, or we're complete luddites and can't maneouver the sendoutcards.com. In which case - don't try those online card websites where you send people electronic cards - everyone who you send them to just delete them instead of going to the links to look at them anyway - or at least I do - they're just a bunch of home page hijackers and pop up windows. Yuck.
I felt like taking pictures when we went for our walk today, so I've got some good ones of the dogs to post tonight. i don't think the dogs were acting any different than they usually do on our walk, but I just decided to take some photos of them. They of course never disappoint me when the camera comes out and give me lots of opportunities to almost get a good shot of them
It was a nice sunny day today, too - so it was a really good day for a walk.I'd say the dogs had a good time too - but they usually do when the weather's good and the human has a pocket full of liver.
I had an email from a member of the Metro SPCA shelter committee about this dog named Boston who has really touched the hearts of the staff at the Dartmouth shelter and everyone is really trying to save this guy - so he must be a very special dog.
His name is Boston - and I'm going to paste the letter that I got about him, rather than trying to re-interpret what was sent about him, because I think the letter sounds good enough. They hoping most for a foster to adopt - and they're willing to transport him outside of the HRM if it's the right home for him.
I would say this dog has melted a lot of hearts, hopefully it will melt the heart of one more person who will make a lifetime committment to him and love him forever - that's all we can ask for.
Here's the letter -
Boston is a husky mix who is special needs. We would like to get him a foster home ASAP were he can recover and get the best chance at a comfortable life. Even if you don’t have him long, he needs to know that there is someone out there that will show him some love. He is a low energy dog that would just love to curl up on a doggy bed, couch or anywhere and see his new people. Boston was brought into the animal shelter by animal control about 2 weeks ago. When he presented he had a severe ear and eye infection as well as an upper respiratory infection. He has been undergoing treatment for these issues and is responding well. Evidence on physical exam leads us to believe that he had suffered from chronic ear infections in the past so these may require ongoing treatment.
He also suffers from a complete loss of muscle mass on his head and face. This condition is probably linked to a disease called myositis that is an autoimmune disease. He is such a beautiful dog with such an amazing and kind personality we just want to give him a chance. If he does suffer from myositis it may progress and cause active disease in the future, and he could require long term therapy with prednisone or he may even have to be euthanized but right now he is not painful, he can open his mouth completely and eats very well. He is a kind and gentle soul who just loves to be patted and to lean in onto your leg. Our hope is that this disease, if present, has already done its damage, and that he now will live a long and healthy life with someone who loves him but we can not guarantee this. We are desperately seeking a foster home for him so that we can give him a chance. Thank you for your help.
Metro SPCA
To get in contact you can email them at metrospca@ns.aliantzinc.ca , call them at 902-468-7877 or your best bet is to just go over to 9 Scarfe Court in Dartmouth.
Now that the trial of the Celtic Pets animal abusers is over and there's nothing we can do about the outcome, I'm going to talk about what I think Jackie's life was probably like living in a house with 40 other dogs - living in a house where he never got to go outside, never got one on one attention, never got to get his hair cut, never got to eat out of a bowl - food that was meant just for him, never got veterinary care for an ulcer that developed on his left eye that ruptured and caused liquid to drain over his face and mat the hair all around his eye to stick the hair to his face so that it looked like he didn't have any eye at all - and meant that he was probably in a lot of pain for a lot of months day in and day out, and since he never had his hair cut - his bum was completely covered with shit and couldn't really shit it was so hard packed with shit that had come out previously, and he had problems walking - and that was probably really painful too - because his nails had grown all the way around and every one of them had embedded in the pads on his feet.
As well - since he hadn't had a hair cut in almost a year he had mats the size of golf balls under his chin - and on a lot of other spots on his body, so when he layed down it was probably really hard to find a comfortable spot to lay down - and he probably never got to lay down on a bed and snuggle up to a human who loved him - he probably had to try and find some quiet spot - which was rare, because he was living in a house with 40 other dogs - so someone would have been barking most of the time. And since no one ever went outside - that meant that everyone was shitting and pissing inside - so the indoor air quality was really bad - so it's no wonder that he still wheezes - I'm sure his lungs were forever harmed by his time at the animal abusers Alice MacIsaac's house. Also, for some reason - almost a year later - if I go to touch him from his blind side to pet him - he still winces. Isn't that sad? He trusts me almost implicitly now, which is amazing - but he still expects things to drop out of the air and hurt him for some reason.
That is the end of the story for just one of the 40 dogs that lived at animal abuser Alice MacIsaac's house. And what was her punishment for it? A $1,000 fine. And then she was actually rewarded because she was given back 2 dogs and one cat. She was told that the way she treated Jackie was A-Okay - and to continue treating animals that way - because she was given animals back to continue the cycle, and then when those 2 dogs die - she's allowed to get another one. Her lawywer actually called her a "dog whisperer" in court.
For some reason, if my Jackie could talk - I don't think he'd agree with her.
I'm trying to summon the energy this weekend to do my Christmas cards up this weekend. I don't want to spoil the surprise for the people who are getting cards from me this year - so this is the very back panel. These other photos are my xmas cards from other years. Doesn't Buttercup look like a happy model? The reason I'm putting these pictures here is that it's been suggested by others that we all send some of the xmas cards we're sending out to each of our MLA's and City Councillors so that they realize that there are in fact dog owners out there who are paying taxes and are watching what they're doing when they're in office and are interested in what's going on in government. It only takes a minute to send out an extra 15 or so xmas cards - but if we all do it - our representatives in government will really notice that there's a lot of crazy dog owners out there who've taken the time to send them the greetings for the seaon. And it might get them to notice a bit.
I got an email from a friend of mine with a really neat idea too - if you don't have the time to actually go out and buy cards, write them out and then mail them - there's a website that will do it for you! Send out Cards .com has come up with the neatest gimmick - you go to their website, pick out the card you want, personalize it, and then they'll print it out for you and send it wherever you want. Isn't that neat? So instead of having to write out 40 different Christmas cards - you just type out one greeting, then type out 40 different addresses - then bing, bong, boom - they'll send them out for you. That is SO neat! Whoever thought that idea up is a genius! And then I'm sure you just keep those addresses on file - so you only ever have to type them out once. Brilliant.
Here is what the official emails have said if you haven't received one of them -
DOBERMAN PINSCHER CLUB OF AMERICA, AMERICAN ROTTWEILER CLUB CHRISTMAS/HOLIDAY CARD CHALLENGE The point of this Challenge is personal contact between dog owners and legislators. Sure, they hear from us when we fax or email about a piece of legislation but we all know they rarely read those messages, they simply tally pros and cons. A card will be a personal, positive contact.
The aim here is to have each official receive a Christmas/Holiday/ New Year's greeting from their dog (cat) owning constituents. We ask that you send cards to your Premier, district officials as well as your city and county officials. At best this would only involve sending an extra dozen cards which will have you and your dog's (or cat's) photo and a comment such as those listed below. If these officials are people you voted for, state that you have supported them in the past and hope to continue your support. If you did not vote for them let them know that depending on their position on dog related issues, you would certainly consider changing party affiliation to support the candidate most sensitive to the interests of their pet owning constituency.
If you own a dog with performance titles, include a photo of the dog out duck hunting, with the sheep, whatever, and sign the card, "Proud working partner to a (title/event) dog. i.e. "Proud working partner to a Field Trial Champion (breed)".
If you own a dog with a CGC from AKC, include a photo of you, the dog, and the certificate. Sign the card, "Proud owner of a Canine Good Citizen (breed)".
If you own a Therapy Dog, include a photo with you, the dog, a Senior Citizen or hospitalized child. Sign the card, "Active partners bringing joy to shut-ins, Mary and Fluffy".
For friends/family who own dogs obtained from a shelter or rescue, include a photo and sign the card, "Proud Adopter of Charlie, rescue dog from (shelter/rescue group), The Jones Family".
Puppy buyers should send cards stating "sharing our lives with a (breed) purchased from a responsible hobby breeder, The Smith Family".
We think you get the drift here what we are looking for - positive contact from constituents to elected officials. If enough people do this, including friends and family with photos of them, the kids, and the family pet(s) signed "Happily sharing family life with our (breed/mixed) dog(s)", legislators will realize just how many constituents are out there with pets. You could even neatly write at the bottom of the card, "My Dog Votes". Naturally, you would be free to elaborate on your card, but keep it simple, not related to any particular legislation.
The cost of a couple more Christmas/Holiday cards, stamps, and photos is negligible compared to what you will suffer should anti-dog legislation be enacted in your community, county, or state. In the case of state or federal officials, the cards should be sent to their home/district offices - not their State Capital address.
Thank you,Dana M. Johnson Jan Cooper DPCA Legislative Director ARC Legislative Chair It is suggested that kennel clubs post this Challenge on their websites along with the appropriated addresses for state and local officials - making it very easy for members and friendsto participate in this effort.
Note - this post is about a dog attack that happened in Stellarton Nova Scotia this week in which a "Valley bull dog" attacked 2 children and an adult and was shot by a police officer and killed so that paramedics could reach the injured humans - one of the only attacks covered by the news here in Nova Scotia in all of 2008.
So this morning I get an email with an article from Rick Howe which has a quote from HRM Councilor in which he has said - "there are too many of these incidents" and that he’ll push the city to adopt a breed ban.
This article was being sent to 1520 people on the list I was sent it by, and then I got it from another list that has 653 members - so a LOT of people got this email today.
So I did what I always do when I get these kinds of reactive emails from politicians - and I wrote Mr. Blumenthal an email. First off - here is the article that I got by Rick Howe -
Dog attack reignites breed ban debate December 10, 2008 - 5:44 am By: Rick Howe News 95.7
There are calls for a ban on certain dog breeds in Nova Scotia after Monday’s mauling of a young boy and two women in Stellarton.
But opponents say it’s the dog owners who should be targeted, not the dog. An eight-year-old boy suffered serious injuries after the family pet, a Valley bulldog suddenly attacked and a Stellarton police officer was forced to shoot the animal.
Halifax city councillor Jerry Blumenthal says there are too many of these incidents and he’ll push the city to adopt a breed ban.
“There’s certain dogs, there’s certain breeds that should not be allowed in the province of Nova Scotia,” he said.
But Annette Armitage of Animal Rescue says many of these dogs get a bum rap.
“No dog attack is acceptable,” she said. “But there are so many triggers that could have provoked the dog. There’s not enough information that’s out to the general public to see if the dog was at fault.”
Guysborough county already has a ban in place on pit bulls and Rottweilers, and warden Lloyd Hines says it seems to be working.
“We’re not getting any complaints about them and we’re not aware of any dog attacks that have occurred,” he said, adding he’d prefer a provincial law allowing for tougher action against dog owners.
The boy injured in the Stellarton attack will need plastic surgery to repair injuries to his head and face.
It should be noted that police shot a Labrador Retriever in Westville in a similar incident less than a week prior to the Stellarton incident. Article link:
And now, here is the letter I wrote to Mr. Blumenthal -
Dear Ms. Blumenthal,
I am a dog owner in the Halifax Regional Municipality, and I have read Mr. Howe's article which notes that you would like to put forward breed specific legislation in the HRM.
I would like to suggest a couple thoughts to you that perhaps have not occurred to you regarding this topic.
Neither of the dogs that were shot in the last week in Nova Scotia are targetted breeds whenever breed specific legislation is enacted - so those 2 attacks would still have happened. Those 2 attacks were put upon by a labrador retreiver, and a valley bull dog - 2 very popular, and non-targetted breeds. Typical breeds targetted by breed specific legislation include pit bull type dogs, rottweillers, presa canarios, akitas, and dogs like that - so you wish to remove attacks like the ones in the last week would have been fruitless.
Breed specific legislation gives people a false sense of security - and your calling out for it at this time is a perfect example of it. It is not specific breeds of dog that cause attacks - it is only types of OWNER'S dogs who cause attacks. If an owner has not socialized their dog, has not treated their dog well, has kept their dog chained in the back yard the dog's whole life, has allowed the dog to be teased by children, has abused the dog - if the OWNER has done things like this to ANY BREED OF DOG - then you have a dangerous dog - who under very unfortunate circumstances - is going to lead to to a very unfortunate attack.
I am sorry to tell you, Mr. Blumenthal - that breed specific legislation does not work. Extinction of certain breeds does not work. It only makes people feel secure until a labrador retriever, or a german shepherd kills a child - then that breed gets added to the list of banned breeds.
Sincerely, Joan Sinden
Very shortly after I sent that email to Mr. Blumenthal, he emailed me back with the following -
"i specified no breed just vicious dogs"
So, heartened by that response, I emailed him again -
Hi again Mr. Blumenthal - so were you completely mis-quoted by Mr. Howe? Because his exact quote in his article was ""There's certain dogs, there's certain breeds that should not be allowed in the province of Nova Scotia," he said."
And this quote has gone nation wide on dog bsl lists - so you can be expecting to get a lot of feedback about this quote today. The HRM already has a dangerous dog law with A300 - how would you want to change the law? I don't quite understand how you would want to change it to see it be anything different than what it is now - you can't really legislate to catch dogs that might possibly have the possibility of attacking someone on the off-chance some day.
And I am saying that because I understand the difference between a normal dog and a dog who might possibly be vicious - ie has a propsensity to snap and lunge.
Sincerely, Joan Sinden
Unfortunately, I have not heard anything back. So he hasn't cleared up whether or not he was mis-quoted - but it certainly sounds like he was.
When I read the quote, I have to admit I was confused - because it was my understanding that Jerry Blumenthal was actually a dog friendly Councilor - it was him who had Seaview Park set up as an off-leash park - so it would make sense to me that he actually likes dogs. So for him to say now that he wants bsl doesn't make sense.
So I think for a member of the press - albeit it just being someone's blog - misquoting someone - and then for that misquote to go all around North America - is HIGHLY inflammatory. Because I don't imagine me correcting the situation on my blog is going to have the calming effect that it should.
Right now thousands of people think that bsl is basically a done deal in Nova Scotia because of the email sent out by bsl-updates.
I'd also like to clarify that there is in fact NO BSL in all of Guysborough County as stated by Rick Howe - there is only bsl in the district of the Municipality of Guysborough - of which Lloyd Hines is the Warden of. Guysborough County is made up of TWO municipalities - there is also the district of the Municipality of St. Mary's - and I have received many emails from residents of that community when I had my "Skip Guysborough" website telling me that they LOVE ALL BREEDS OF DOG in that municipality and there is bsl in that municipality. That municipality has the historic Village - Sherbrooke Village - which is in fact DOG FRIENDLY. It's only the district of the Municipality of Guysborough that HATES DOGS. That municipality is led by the disgusting Lloyd Hines who is also the head of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities who recently, with Bill 138 tried to bring breed restrictions to all of Nova Scotia - but was summarily unsuccessful this time - luckily for us.
I've been looking at the Pet Abuse website - and it includes cases from Nova Scotia - there's quite a few cases, and a few cases that list people who've been convicted.
I found 4 cases there - which could give us a little idea - #1 of how few people actually get convicted of animal cruelty in this province, because - think of how many people actually do animal cruelty in this province - but of the 4 cases - there is some good conversation that can come from it.
In the last 8 years here in Nova Scotia the court system has been able to achieve a life time ban on owning animals, a 10 year ban on owning animals, and also gave another case the condition allowing SPCA inspectors to go on an abusers property to inspect pets at any time - because the abuser was allowed to keep their animals.
So it would seem that the animal abuser MacIsaac isn't the first abuser allowed to keep her animals - another case in 2000 was also allowed to keep their dogs - but this person was part of a family, so it may have been a bit different of a case.
The different cases for convicted people in Nova Scotia are here -
This is the first Christmas card I`ve received this year - and it`s a good one - the inside of the card says - "Hope youre holidays are a real gas". Get it? Pretty funny.
If you like Christmas, last year I made a video of a montage of Christmas cards that's meant to be funny and cute, it's at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vo_Y-KFaMs if you want to see it.
I am feeling very conflicted. I feel very bad for the NS SPCA right now because I'm pretty sure that they are victims in the Celtic Pets plea deal fiasco. It would seem that the deal was worked out between the Crown, the Judge and the defence - the NS SPCA didn't have any real input into the decision to give animal abuser Alice MacIsaac back 2 dogs and 1 cat. That is what we're being told at this point. And if that's true - that is wrong - when animals are involved - the the NS SPCA should be very involved in the decision. Because obviously the Crown Attorney's office and the Judge did not have any empathy or have any idea that they were dealing with live sentient beings.
In a conversation I had with someone tonight though - this has given us something new to work on - there seems to be no one in the legal system in Nova Scotia who is representing animals in the court room, and there should be - and I think we need to start lobbying the government that the NS SPCA needs to be the voice for the animals in the court room - because this verdict might have been different if that was the case. As least I hope it would have been.
I have an allusion that gives some depth to the decision they made. Say instead of the case being about animal abuser Alice MacIsaac and the dogs she was abusing - say it was about a person who was accused of using his dogs in dog fighting - and he had his dogs - pit bulls, say - seized from him while the case was before the courts. The dogs had to stay in custody while the person waited to go to trial.
The person was found guilty of fighting his dogs - he was found guilty of dog fighting. The dogs - because they were used for dog fighting - could not be adopted out, the only thing that could've happened to them was that they had to be euthanized - so instead of doing that - as part of the guilty plea - the defence negotiated to give the dogs back to the dog fighter.
How is this any different than what the crown, the judge and the defence did with animal abuser Alice MacIsaac? It's exactly the same thing. It shows you that there was absolutely no thought to their decision to give living, sentient beings who have already gone through hell - and that's why they have temperament issues, obviously - and they are now being delivered back into that hell for the rest of their natural lives. It's unconsciounable.
I also have something else to say about this - if they have temperament issues - what are they? Are they aggressive? What kind of dogs are they? Are they dangerous dogs? How is animal abuser Alice MacIsaac going to manage that? Should she even have them? Does she have some special skills that she can manage dangerous dogs?
Will these dogs have to be muzzled or contained in any way? Licences? Microchipped?
Are the people in Alice MacIsaac's community safe with these dogs going back there? Should they be warned that temperamentally unsound dogs are going back there to an animal abusers home? Maybe they should. How can we get the word out.
I wanted to put this article here from February 8, 2008 when Tara Camus went to animal abusers house to try and do an interview - and she had to call the RCMP because Alice was going off on her so bad - it shows how confrontational Mrs MacIsaac can be when she wants to - and it also talks about what the neighbours had been witnessing about the dogs never going outside - yet nothing had been alerted to. Could this scenario happen again? I don't know. I hope not. If you click on the photos it'll come up big enough that you can read the article. Enjoy.
An eight-year-old boy is recovering from facial surgery after a dog mauling in Stellarton that injured two other people.
The boy suffered injuries to his face and head when the Valley bulldog lunged at him, his mother and another woman Monday afternoon.
Stellarton police said the boy and his mother had visited the home before and knew the dog.
This time, however, the dog attacked. Police said it's unclear what provoked it.
When Const. Chris Irving arrived, he could see and hear injured people inside a home but couldn't get out of the police vehicle because of the dog.
"He was growling, showing his teeth, barking. He wouldn't let me open the door. Every time I went to put the window down he was actually lunging at the window several times trying to get in," Irving said.
Irving said the victims were screaming as they leaned out a window. He could see blood on a towel.
Irving shot the dog, which allowed paramedics to get inside the home.
The boy suffered serious injuries to his head and face. He was taken to the IWK Health Centre in Halifax for treatment.
The 32-year-old dog owner suffered head injuries, while the boy's 31-year-old mother was bitten on the scalp. They were both treated at the hospital in New Glasgow.
Stellarton police said they had not received any calls or complaints about the dog.
STELLARTON, N.S. - Smart thinking by an eight-year-old boy prevented his dog from inflicting further damage on a friend the family pet began mauling in a sudden attack.
Police said the two boys were playing Monday with a Valley bulldog outside a Stellarton home when the animal turned on one of them. Hugh Muir, Stellarton's acting police chief, said that while the mothers of the boys were trying to get the dog off the boy, they sent the other boy into the house to call 911.
But Muir said the boy grabbed a piece of meat instead, brought it outside, and threw it to the far side of the lawn.
The dog was distracted by the meat long enough for the mothers to hustle the injured child into the house.
Muir said the first police officer on scene was unable to leave his vehicle because the dog was lunging at the door and window.
"He put the window down enough that the people in the home, they were screaming that the dog would have to be shot," said Muir.
"It distracted the dog enough so that he was able to get the door open. Then it came towards him again and he shot him."
The mauled boy was taken to hospital in Halifax, where it was expected he would need plastic surgery to repair serious injuries to his head and face.
The two mothers were also taken to an area hospital for treatment of injuries.
I had an email today from someone who was in the court room when the animal abusers Alice and Zonda MacIsaac's heard their conviction from the judge on Friday and what they were actually going to have to live with - so it's not as bad as we thought it was -
- Prohibition Order over 20 years: - not allowed to have or work around animals in a commercial or volunteer way - not allowed to have any animals at the “Celtic Pets”-Kennel - only allowed to have the following personal pets: Zonda currently owns 5 dogs. She is allowed to keep these 5 dogs until they die, after that she is only allowed to have one dog - Alice is allowed to have the two dogs “Stuy” & “Missy” and the cat. After they die, she is only allowed to have one dog
The SPCA will take pictures of these personal pets and is allowed, any time, any place, to check & enter any residences and property of animal abusers Alice & Zonda to check on the pets-well-being. If Zonda & Alice do not allow access or interfere, they will lose the permission to keep personal pets.
So that's a little better than we thought yesterday - let's just hope they stay in Nova Scota so that they don't start accumulating pets again so that 40 dogs end up being in one house - because we all know that animal abuser Alice had 40 "pets" in her house previously that she acquired through various means previously - that was the problem.
POOOOOOOOR little Joanie. Better be careful what you say honey!!! I know the law, you don't; I know the facts; you don't; I have seen all the evidence; you didn't; I have seen the SCREW UPS; you didn't and THAT is why you take your tums today. Barf away lovely; puke your fucking, popcorn fart sniffing face off.
Guess what Zonda - I can say whatever I like, just as long as it's true. And everything I've said - is true, so I have no worries. You can try and sue me - but you will only bankrupt yourself in the process. I am so lucky to have good friends who are also animal loving lawyers.
My stomach is churning. I just took 2 tums to try and calm it down, and I'm probably not the only one's whose tummy is upset tonight. As part of animal abusers Alice and Zonda MacIsaac pleading guilty to their one charge of animal cruelty and 20 year ban on doing rescue and submitting to inspections at any time by the NS SPCA the NS SPCA is allowing the return of 2 of animal abusers Alice MacIsaac's dogs and 1 cat.
I had that comment left on my blog today, so I went and asked whether or not it was true, and to my horror I found out that it was.
I have just sat a long time after finishing that sentence and beginning this sentence because I'm not sure what to say next, there's a million things I could say. But first off I have to say that animal abusers Alice and Zonda MacIsaac are laughing at us all right now because they got exactly what they wanted - some of the animals back. They got the Justice system and the Nova Scotia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to tell the world that those two organizations don't truly believe that animal abuser Alice MacIsaac abuses animals.
And do you know how they don't believe animal abuser Alice abuses animals? Because they are willing to return animals to her. If they thought she abused animals - they would never let her have any animals then. That is what makes sense. If she abuses animals she wouldn't be allowed to have animals - let alone GIVE HER SOME OF THE ANIMALS THAT THEY SEIZED FROM HER - BACK TO HER.
The very first email I received confirming the truth even said that they were dogs who'd been returned and basically unadoptable and would've had to be put down anyway - so she might as well have them back. So I guess it's better for them to go to an animal abuser than for them to be killed I guess.
I would also like to say at this point that I do not blame the current Board of Directors of the NS SPCA for this decision. This decision was made by more than them - and in fact the Board seems to have had no idea that this was going on at all because I got an email tonight from a Board member who read my blog posts about this and didn't know that this decision had been made at all - so this is not the current Board's fault.
This decision was made for all the wrong reasons, with no insight - and was made not for any animals interest whatsoever
The reasons I was given for making the decision to give animal abuser Alice MacIsaac 2 dogs and 1 cat back was that the prosecution didn't want to have a trial that went on for 3 weeks - tying up the cruelty inspectors in Port Hawksbury for that long, and then having to risk not even getting a conviction and letting the animal abusers, Zonda and Alice MacIsaac - walk away completely free.
For some reason - the people prosecuting case had no faith in the justice system and were too worried that they wouldn't get a conviction, and even if they did get a conviction - that it wouldn't be punitive enough - so they used letting the animal abuser, Alice MacIsaac getting 2 dogs and 1 cat back as a carrot so they would sign the guilty pleas.
And they then consoled themselves with the fact that they can go and inspect the animal abusers - Zonda and Alice MacIsaac's property's at any time.
But do you know what? The animal abusers - as I said above - Zonda and Alice MacIsaac are laughing at them, and at every responsible dog owner in Nova Scotia right now.
I got some emails tonight from people with some questions...
With some grave concerns:
Who is going to do the inspection of the animal abusers properties?
How often?
Where?
Does it include the kennel? If they stay in Cape Breton the Celtic kennel property is way out in the boon docks, still owned and several weeks ago there WAS a cat visible in a window. All the windows are covered now but a number of people have seen Alice driving toward the place off and on.
Is there a restriction on how many animals the animal abusers Zonda and Alice MacIsaac can own? There is no restriction on the numbers in their municipality as far as I know - so does that mean that Alice can get back up 40 if she chooses to?
What prevents them from owning, breeding and selling?
The inspections done by previous investigators (both still there)were a farce. ALL dwellings owned by them must be checked. They should not be able to refuse certain vets (as they did in the past)from inspecting and it seems fitting that a vet would also be on site.
This was said in an email to me tonight -
"How quick people forget that the ONLY reason the raid finally happened was because the evidence was going to the media"
I really hate to say that this was an absolutely horrible decision to make. I believe these animals have been put in harm's way - these animals are now in danger. How can you seize animals, find the person guilty of animal cruelty - and then give the animals back? What makes sense about that?
Why were they afraid to go ahead with the trial - why did they have so little faith in the court system? They were charged with 4 charges - was the evidence really so weak that they wouldn't have been convicted of anything? Did they do such a horrible job of gathering evidence that they had nothing? If these two ladies were guilty of animal cruelty - then what was the problem?
There has been a great mis-carriage of justice here - and I pray to dog that nothing ever happens like this again. I hope that the people who made the decision to give these 2 dogs and 1 cat back to the animal abusers know what a colossal mis-judgment they have made. That they made the decision for their own convenience and now those animals are going to suffer - and the animal abusers Zonda and Alice MacIsaac can go on their merry way and live their lives however they want to do it. With the full knowledge that the Nova Scotia SPCA and the Justice system have told them that they are not in fact animal abusers.
But do you know what? Every person and dog owner in Canada knows that they are cold hearted animal abusers. This we know for sure.
I am now going to go throw up, the tums don't seem to have worked.
I was in the midst of writing a huge blog post about the Celtic Pets fiasco when something was emailed to me, and it has caused me to question everything I've ever thought about animal abuse, what is the right thing to do, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty.
I have to think about what's happening and decide whether or not I even want to continue on with any kind of advocate work the news has hit me so hard. Its almost too much.
This is some of the post I had been working on when I received some very distressing news - someone had posted a comment on a previous post -
"YES some animals will be returned.
Alice gets dogs Stewie and Missy, because the SPCA determined they couldn't be re-socialized (is that the word i'm looking for?) and recommended they be given to her."
I am not saying whether or not I've had this fact confirmed, but I am saying that I am absolutely sick to my stomach. As part of a plea bargain to get a guilty verdict on one count the Nova Scotia justice system have implicitly said that they don't believe that Alice MacIsaac abused dogs because they are willing to give her back two of her dogs.
They might say they did it because any other verdict might have left them with only a one year ban on ownership and they would have been scott free - but I say - why not let the justice system do it's work and let them be convicted on all FOUR counts and they get their 20 year ban, plus jail time, plus a big fine? And instead they get a plea bargain, a 20 year ban on rescue - and they get to keep their pets? And remember - Alice MacIsaac had FORTY pets! And so what if the NS SPCA can go in and inspect - she can get them out the night before - she did it before.
They got away with it all - and the animals have all suffered in vain - the people involved with the case - and that includes the special constables who went down and seized the animals, the staff at the Dartmouth shelter who took care of the animals, the cat cuddlers who went to the shelter in Burnside, the people who opened their homes to the animals and fostered the animals - EVERYONE - have suffered for nothing. The MacIsaacs got away with it all. And they're down in Cape Breton laughing their asses off today.
Originally I had text all around these photos - these are some of the dogs who were killed who came up from Cape Breton - I was hoping that they didn't die in vain - but I guess now they did. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Here are some of the most shameful dogs, remember him? - this is Jack before he went up to Cape Breton - he went up there with two eyes - and he came back with one. Alice MacIsaac - who's house he lived in while he was in Cape Breton - wants him back now that the court case is over - because she loved him SOOOOOO much. I think these photos are reason enough to not allow that ever to happen - other than the fact that I absolutely and totally LEGALLY OWN HIM, and he is my property and there is no way on DOG'S green earth that I will ever let him go anywhere. He went to Cape Breton a normal looking dog and came back with matts the size of tennis balls under his neck.I am sure that you love a dog that you allow to look like these pictures, don't you? Pathetic.But at least he lived through his experience, and he is so happy now - we love him completely and unconditionally - he follows my Dad everywhere and is the best little dog in the world. I almost think he loves Jack more than he loves Buttercup - maybe the same, just in a different way
This is Zeus - remember him? He lived in a cage for THREE YEARS because of Zonda - she kept him in a cage for THREE YEARS for no good reason whatsoeverBut luckily - he survived, by the skin of his teeth
So here we have it - a conviction of sorts - the ladies have plead guilty on one count each. I'm sure that everyone should be very happy that they have admitted guilt. I wonder what happened today to turn the tide and make them change their pleas from innocent to guilty - the last I heard the elder MacIsaac was going into court today to fight the search warrant that she was issued when they came and seized her animals last February. So I wonder what happened today. They can't help out with any animals for 20 years - but they are allowed to own pets - but the NS SPCA can go in and inspect their property at any time.
There has been some justice in this case. And it seems that - although the news story didn't say it - that they are not going to get any of their animals back - I'm assuming that since the news story didn't mention anything about the animals that were seized - that they aren't getting any back. Which is good - they can all stay in their adoptive homes. Except of course for one lady that I know who has dumped a few cats because she decided to move from a house to an apartment - and even though she professed to be a professional rescuer - she was just the same as a lot of poseurs... and shame on her.
Almost 9 months after charges were laid, two local women have pleaded guilty to causing an animal distress under the Provincial Animal Act.
43 year old Zonda MacIsaac and 64 year old Alice MacIsaac were in Port Hawkesbury Provincial court on Friday.
What was supposed to be a preliminary voir-dire quickly changed direction with the guilty pleas.
The charges stem from a raid at Zonda MacIsaac's Celtic Pets rescue shelter in West Bay Road in February.
More than 90 cats and dogs were seized.
25 more animals were seized from Alice MacIsaac's home about a week later.
The crown and defense presented their joint sentencing recommendation to the judge, which includes a $1000 fine for each woman.
A prohibition order was also recommended and although the order would see both Zonda and Alice MacIsaac banned from operating any type of animal rescue shelter for the next 20 years, Crown Prosecutor Dan MacRury notes that the two can keep their pets.
"I think there was a past history that these people treated animals very fairly, however, it's very clear that they can't look after a large number of animals and that's the facts that I had to make the decision on."
The judge will make a decision on the recommendation Friday afternoon.
The breeder with the purported "substandard conditions" kennel is interviewed by CTV news - see how I'm not calling this a puppy mill? I've been corrected by another breeder recently - so we now all know that there's no such thing as a puppymill anymore - there's only kennels with substandard conditions....
The owner of an alleged puppy mill in B.C.'s Fraser Valley says she's no criminal, and is horrified about the investigation.
"I was totally invaded," Faye Parkinson tells CTV from her Mission home. "And my animals were always taken very good care of."
In total, 46 Chihuahuas and Yorkshire Terriers, both adults and puppies, along with 12 Persian-type cats and kittens, were rescued from Parkinson's property on Nov. 28. Some of the puppies were only a few hours old. One adult Rottweiler was also seized.
The B.C. SPCA says the dogs were kept inside tiny, filthy cages littered with urine and excrement.
"It's heartbreaking. It's really heartbreaking," says animal protection officer Ivanna Ferris. "When we saw these animals come in on Friday, they were soaking wet and filthy."
The neglected animals were suffering ailments including untreated eye and skin infections, gum disease, matted fur and overgrown nails.
Neighbours CTV spoke with are shocked by the allegations.
"For them to say -- reporting more than forty dogs out of there was shocking to say the least and pretty horrifying," says Jay Jones.
Parkinson admits many of the animals are hers, but claims she recently helped someone out by taking in their neglected dogs on a temporary basis.
"She had one litter of pups she brought over and then she had another dog that had puppies the day the raid was on," she says.
Citing her lawyer's requests, Parkinson would not show CTV News where the animals were kept, but she maintains that the animals were not abused.
"I've never abused nothing," she says. "I've never abused anything in my life."
Parkinson insists she does not run a puppy mill, saying she only sells about two litters of kittens each year.
The homeowner admits that people might think that's a lot of animals to have in the home.
"Yes, yes," she says. "But I absolutely love them and what do you do with them? Are you supposed to take them and get rid of them?"
The SPCA is now recommending charges of animal cruelty against Parkinson.
Last year, the BC SPCA investigated 4,600 complaints.
Another puppy mill bust in Canada this week - this time out in British Columbia -
(isn't it heartening to know that there's "no such thing as a puppy mill, only substandard care" - especially when you hear of this type of substandard care - dogs being kept in complete darkness for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.....)
from CTV news: Almost 60 dogs and cats have been rescued from a suspected puppy mill from a residence in Mission by BC SPCA animal protection officers.
Forty-six Chihuahuas and Yorkshire Terriers, both adults and puppies, along with 12 Persian-type cats and kittens, were rescued on Nov. 28. Some of the puppies were only a few hours old. One adult Rottweiler was also seized.
BC SPCA senior animal protection officer Eileen Drever says the dogs were kept inside tiny, filthy cages littered with urine and excrement.
The neglected animals were suffering ailments including untreated eye and skin infections, gum disease, matted fur and overgrown nails.
A number of the dogs exhibited aggressive behavior.
"It's absolutely disgusting that someone would permit an animal to live in such desperate misery like this," says Drever. "It breaks my heart."
The animals are now under veterinary care, where one of the Chihuahuas gave birth to four puppies over the weekend.
Drever said the SPCA will recommend charges of animal cruelty against the breeder. She cautioned those thinking about buying a puppy from a pet store for Christmas to learn more about where it came from.
"Few pet stores deal with reputable breeders and in fact most deal with breeders such as this one," says Drever. "And when we patronize their stores, we are in fact contributing to, causing and perpetuating the pain and suffering of companion animals."
Last year, the BC SPCA investigated 4,600 complaints.
Another 100 dogs and puppies were rescued from another alleged puppy mill in Meaford, Ont., by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal on Monday night.
from CBC News: The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has seized more than 60 animals from a suspected puppy mill in Mission, B.C.
Animal protection officers with the SPCA said Tuesday the 46 dogs and puppies, along with 15 cats and kittens, were living in deplorable conditions.
The animals suffered from a variety of ailments, including untreated eye, skin and genital infections and dental disease, said Eileen Drever, a senior animal protection officer with the SPCA in B.C.
"Some dogs were kept in crates, forced to live in their own feces and urine [and] were kept in complete darkness," she said.
All of the animals are under veterinary care in the custody of the B.C. SPCA.
Drever said the SPCA will recommend charges of animal cruelty against the breeder, who is being accused of running a puppy mill.
A puppy mill refers to an operation where dogs are continually bred to produce as many animals as possible. It is not illegal in B.C., but animals must be kept in good condition, or breeders can face cruelty charges.
Drever said people who think about buying puppies as Christmas presents should consider where the animals came from and purchase them from reputable breeders.
Sorry to the one or two people who read this blog - I've been in a bit of a funk the last few days and haven't been posting anything, even though I've had what I would normally consider interesting stuff to post. I'd sit in front of the computer and be overcome with the feeling of - "what's the point? The world is falling apart, nobody cares anyway, it's all just so much wasted energy". And it probably is. Canada is falling apart politically, India has had a horrible terrorist incident, financially things are going to hell in Canada and internationally - a couple days ago there was the worst crash in the Markets since the early 1980's.
A couple week's ago I came upon an interesting new charity idea - it was called "Fundables" - and it was about a dog named Diesel who's family couldn't pay their mortgage and might lose their home down in the United States - and if they did, they'd probably have to give up their dog. So a lady had started a fund to try and pay the family's mortgage so they could keep their dog. I thought that was a good idea - keep the dog with the family - so I kicked in some money. And they have raised enough money to keep the family together. But what kind of a world are we living in where we have to think up these kinds of fundraisers?
I also subscribe to "google alerts", and one of them is for the term "pit bull" - and everyday I get emails about new city's that are enacting breed specific legislation - it really is creeping in everywhere down in the States. It's quite unbelievable. And some of the news stories that talk about it are quite unbelieveable in their double speak. I read one a few days ago that talked about bsl being passed in Columbia Basin, Washington - and it was all because a child had been mauled by a pit bull type dog - so they decided to regulate pit bulls, rottweillers, and presa canarios. Their town has never had any actual problems with presa canarios, and actually has had quite a few problems with german shepherds - but council members own some german shepherd dogs - so they aren't going to add german shepherds to the list because of that - and it says that in the newspaper article - it really is a piece of work. I'll paste the article at the end of this poste. But that's how pathetic bsl is becoming.
And it seems to me that the organizations we've entrusted to fight bad legislation and bsl just aren't doing their job - I also got an email in the last couple days saying that "The Banned Aid Coalition must raise $100,000.00 within two weeks in order to pay for the outstanding costs to date and to finalize our application to the Supreme Court of Canada - the future of dog ownership, if not all property ownership, is what's at stake"
So in other words - we need to give Clayton Ruby another $100,000 to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to try and launch an appeal when he has lost at absolutely every point in the fight so far. Actually I think it's that we're $100,000 in debt to him and he won't spend another second on the case until we pay him some more money on him - I mean he's not losing this case for free, now is he. I'd say what we need to do is get rid of him and try a new lawyer and a new tactic - obviously the ones that have been tried with Ontario hasn't worked up until now - because the case was lost. Some new tactic is needed. But of course that is just my own very myopic and jaded view. I am also one of those foolish people who happens to believe that pit bulls are like every other kind of dog and deserves to have the same kind of and quality of life as any other dog - which includes off leash sniff and pass parks, multi-dog homes, and tons of socialization. Oh my, isn't that just awful.
So that could bring me to Ingrid Newkirk - who was on CBC News "The Hour" last night - 16 minutes of blather. I of course taped the whole thing - but I put about 3 minutes of it on You Tube for us all to throw up over - her views on "pet ownership". Her double speak is wonderful. She talks about how they gleefully euthanize anything that comes her way - but she especially loves to kill dogs who have been chained out their whole lives - which of course are dogs that I also especially love - not to kill, but to BRING INTO my own home. So of course I am also pretty in a funky about this interview as well - here it is -
On another weird, gross note - I was looking at a Walmart flyer on the weekend, and I found this ad - for $175 you can buy this fake dog. To adopt a dog from the Dartmouth Metro SPCA it only costs $150 - this fake dog costs $25 more! There is something here that doesn't computer. To save a life costs less than to buy a stuffed animal.
Another puppy mill has been raided with over 100 animals found in horrible conditions - this time outside of Toronto - "The OSPCA rescued the small-breed canines, ranging from puppies to elderly dogs, from a home in Meaford, Ont., near Owen Sound on Monday night. The rescue was one of the largest ever made by OSPCA. The organization said it was tipped off by a concerned citizen. The names of the homeowners have not been released and charges are pending in the ongoing investigation - the only good news in the article said that - if convicted, the accused could face up to two years in prison, a $60,000 fine and lifetime ban from pet ownership.
And on the note of legislation - I was reading the hansard about bill 186 - and there's some new interesting stuff that's come online - there's a couple of really interesting things that Diane Whalen said when she was asking to have bill 186 passed - she was talking about how the bill didn't really adequately talk about the problem of pet stores -
"Mr. Speaker, there's nothing in this bill that's speaking to pet stores and that's an issue that has been raised in HRM in the last number of years. A couple of times there has been some attention around the pet stores and the conditions of the animals that are in the store. One in particular that I read a resolution about here in the House had attracted the attention of quite a few people in HRM. They had gone and actually protested outside one of the stores because the animals were not being walked at all. You had little puppies in there for three and four months waiting to find a home and they weren't being moved from the cages that they were in, scarcely ever taken out and walked. In fact one person bought one little puppy that was at the heart of that story that was in the press and found that the legs and hips and so on were not well-developed, that they actually had some medical problems as a result of being so small and being left in one cage for that many weeks, in fact months. So this causes a lot of damage and suffering to the animal and it doesn't socialize the animal and it's not the right condition in which to be selling puppies to become someone's pet. We believe that there should be something further in this Act or in another Act that would address the conditions in which animals are kept for sale.
Mr. Speaker, again there's no mention of puppy mills in this bill. Just for the benefit of the House I have done some research on puppy mills and it's not something we used to hear of in the past. In fact, most of these sorts of operations where people were just breeding animals purely for profit and not taking good care of them - most of them had been centred in the U.S. In 1995, Agriculture Canada began regulating puppy imports from the United States and precisely because of the fact that so many of these animals were sick, had diseases, and were unwell because of the close contact and unhygienic conditions in which they were being kept. So in 1995, Agriculture Canada nationally began to regulate imports from the U.S. and this caused an increase in demand in Canada and led to puppy mills and an increase in the number of puppy mills here in our own country.
We have had cases right here in Nova Scotia that are before the courts even now about conditions that are really inhumane, they are cruel and they are unacceptable in our province. I know that the people who live in my riding and in all of the ridings in this province speak up when they hear of this. It affects them very deeply and they would like to see stronger penalties, I can't stress that enough.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I often wonder why we deal with this particular Act under the Department of Agriculture, really it should be a justice issue. I think there's an argument to be made that it be treated as a justice issue because people feel this is not something about your property - this is something about what is just and what is right. So it's something that we should really be looking at. What's happening, as I say, with these puppy mills is that animals are kept in inhumane conditions. In fact, in the Ontario SPCA, they describe these puppy mills to be a breeding operation in which dogs are repeatedly bred for financial gain and are kept in substandard conditions.
That's very important, Mr. Speaker, it's the substandard conditions that we are looking at. It's even where the female dogs are being bred with no care or concern for their health, bred twice a year and just put down when they can no longer have litters of puppies. That's inhumane and the little puppies are not being kept in proper conditions. So we're not talking here about ethical breeders and about the many dog lovers in this province that take good care of their animals and, as I say, register them with the appropriate bodies and really value them and care for them properly. This is not who we're talking about. We're talking about people who are simply breeding animals for financial gain with no care or concern for their health.
We heard just recently about people buying a puppy over the Internet through the Kijiji site and, in fact, when they had received the animal, within a day that puppy died because it had a disease that it had received, you know, prior to being sold. So there's no control over the health and care and condition of those animals and we believe that there has to be some further reference to that, as I said, either in this bill or perhaps in a companion bill that might come along. It's very important as a province that we take this opportunity with the new bill before us to consider whether or not we want to have these conditions going unmentioned in the legislation that we have as a province because other provinces have taken steps, Mr. Speaker, to directly identify these."
So that's all pretty interesting, eh? At least Diana Whalen has been watching the news - what she's talking about at the beginning was when a bunch of us got together a couple of years ago and protested outside of a Pet's Unlimited Store in Bayer's Lake - I can't remember at the moment the name of a local singer who had bought a beagle who he named "Chance" who had been at the store for like 4 months because he couldn't stand to watch it there any longer - and he was outraged that the poor thing could hardly walk, so he contacted Netta Armitage from Animal Rescue Coalitions and we put up a nice stink right before Christmas to try and tell a few people that it wasn't a good idea to get your animals at Pets Unlimited because of blah. blah. blah. - shit - my mood is coming through again. You can figure out the rest of the story. It`s pretty predictable. But obviously, we did not get Pet`s Unlimited shut down.
Anothere paragraph I liked was this one -
At the same time both agencies, the Department of Agriculture and the SPCA, each one will now be required to have a chief inspector and under that chief inspector, one would hope, an army of other inspectors; I'm sure it will just be a few other inspectors, but we need to make sure that they have a good number of staff to cover the complaints that arise under them. It's very clear that we need that. The question around the chief inspector is really whether or not the powers that person has are going to be extensive enough. "
So does that mean that the NS SPCA is going to have more than one chief inspector and one investigator? That they're actually going to have more than a few? That would be pretty sweet now, wouldn't it.
On a happy note - intrepid Seaview and Long Lake lab owner Marc B showed up on Eastlink television last week talking about pet safety - I taped it and put it on You Tube - it's below, but he was smart enough to ask for it on dvd and put it on Facebook if you actually want to see it in a nice format instead of through my grainy digital camera.
And talking about animal abuse - forget about cropping your dog's ears or docking their tail - try just getting their hair cut when they don't like having it done. That to them is horrible abuse then. Jackie and Buttercup hate having their hair cut - and Jackie especially hates having his nails cut, maybe it's because when he came back from Cape Breton after the Celtic Pets fiasco his nails were completely curled over and embedded in his pads, so he's very sensitive, maybe. My previous dog Teddy had to be medicated and muzzled for his whole groom - it was awful and he was traumatized for a couple days after he time he got his hair cut. At least after a hair cut they can seem to be placated by a bully stick.
Here's the stupid article about Moses Lake Washington regulating any kind of dog - except for ones that are owned by City Council members -
Moses Lake declares hazardous dogs
Candice Boutilier/Columbia Basin Herald Veronica Medina holds her 6-year-old son Alex after giving testimony to the Moses Lake City Council Tuesday night. Her son was mauled by a pit bull in September.
By Candice Boutilier City regulates pit bulls, rottweilers and presa canarios
MOSES LAKE - With a 5-2 vote, the Moses Lake City Council declared pit bulls, rottweilers and presa canarios hazardous dogs Tuesday night.
Council began discussing the issue after a young boy was severely attacked by a pit bull at his family's Moses Lake home in early September.
It took six people to stop a pit bull from mauling 6-year-old Alex Medina. His injuries included head wounds where his skull was exposed. The boy is now recovering at home after several reconstructive surgeries.
The dog was euthanized and owner Tausha R. Klein, 34, Moses Lake, was cited for having a dog at large, no dog license and for keeping a vicious dog. The dog allegedly pushed its way into a closed fence were the boy was playing and attacked him unprovoked.
Since the incident, council held several meetings and a study session to research the issue of whether to ban or place requirements on owning pit bull type dogs.
Councilmembers Richard Pearce, Bill Ecret, Ron Covey, James Liebrecht and Dick Deane all voted to declare pit bulls, rottweilers and presa canarios as hazardous dogs. Councilmembers Brent Reese and Jon Lane voted against the ordinance due to it declaring specific breeds as hazardous.
The council, who voted in favor of the ordinance at the first reading, removed akitas and chows from the list because law enforcement has not had an issue with those types of dogs causing trouble.
When asked if presa canarios caused trouble, Covey said they hadn't but added it to the list because he said it appears to be closely related to the pit bull. Several people in the audience disagreed with the statement advising the presa canarios are a type of bull mastiff, not a pit bull.
The council added the additional dogs after reviewing the Merritt Clifton report on the number of dog maimings and deaths caused by dogs from 1982 to 2006 indicating pit bulls, rottweilers and presa canarios are involved in a high number of attacks.
The report indicates German Shepherds were involved in more incidents than the presa canarios but it was not added to the ordinance.
A hazardous dog is any dog known to be a pit bull breed, rottweiler or presa canario, according to the ordinance. The definition also includes any dog who regularly snarls, growls, snaps or attacks a human or domestic animal in a public place unprovoked.
To own a hazardous dog, the pet owner must be at least 18 years old, obtain a $250,000 insurance policy on the dog in case it attacks someone, spay or neuter it and install a microchip, according to a city document. The dog owner must also keep the animal in a type of kennel that is enclosed on the sides, top and bottom when it is left unattended. If attended, the dog can be allowed in a fenced enclosure with signs stating there is a hazardous dog on the premise.
It costs $150 to register a hazardous dog or any unaltered dog in the city.
Covey said the money from the dog license fees might go toward animal control related costs but he did not have a definite answer.
Hazardous dog owners have until Jan. 1 to register their dogs with the city and become in compliance with the ownership requirements.
Mauling victim Alex Medina's mother, Veronica, came to the meeting as the lone citizen in favor of passing the ordinance.
Her eyes welled with tears as she was attempting to speak. She said she hoped no one endures the pain her son experienced from the mauling.
She held up a poster of a photo timeline for everyone to see. The first picture was a school photo of Alex. The following photos were of him strapped to a gurney, his body bloodied from the attack and his face cringing in pain. The timeline concludes with images of his scars.
Council asked Veronica about the progress of her son. Alex was waiting outside the council chambers before she brought him inside so they could see his recovery.
Bearing several noticeable scars on his head, he smiled when he told the council he is 6 years old and attends Lakeview Elementary. The Medinas left the meeting so the boy could go to bed.
Council continued to take more public testimony on the issue.
Public comments The Grant County chapter of the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Vice President Carol Dawson said pet ownership is a constitutional right. She said there must be a balance between the people's right to own pets on their property and government regulation to protect citizens.
Dawson said she plans to hold a forum to educate pet owners on how to care for their animals to prevent them from becoming dangerous. Meeting information was not provided.
Jay Van Ness questioned the council's use of the Merritt Clifton report. He asked why they are using the study as a guideline if they are not adding German Shepherds to the list since they have been involved in far more attacks than some dogs initially considered. He asked if it was not added to the list because someone on the council might own one or if it's because it's a popular pet. Van Ness asked the council to be fair with their decision making process.
Covey said according to the police department, akitas and chows are only aggressive when provoked and haven't been an issue. He said German Shepherds have not caused a problem for law enforcement leading to the animals being restricted from the ordinance. Covey advised presa canarios are not a problem but added them to the list anyway.
Alissa Starkweather shared several alternative ideas for the council to consider.
"Most people can't afford their own insurance," she said.
Raising the licensing fee and requiring a $250,000 insurance policy on a hazardous dog is unrealistic and unaffordable for many people, she said.
Starkweather said she worried many people would hide and confine their animals to avoid breaking the new law. Confinement leads to aggression, she said.
She suggested requiring all dog owners to put their dogs through obedience school and take a temperance test. If they are not labeled aggressive, they should not be required to have the insurance requirement, she said. If it is aggressive, the dog owner should take the steps to correct the animal's behavior to avoid the required insurance. If the behavior is not corrected, then they should be required to have insurance, she said.
"A lot of us can't afford insurance," Starkweather said. "We would if we could. So please try to help us."
Pit bulls are not for everyone and all dogs must be treated as a member of a family to ensure they are not dangerous, she said.
Danielle Alvarado lives in the county but works in the city. She brings her rottweiler to work often and asked if she would still be able to do so.
Covey said yes. He said it most likely wouldn't be a problem because the dog resides outside the city and someone would have to complain about the animal first.
Rich Archer said he was concerned about calling certain breeds hazardous because more dogs can be added. He asked where the additions would stop.
He questioned if he could sue the city if he is attacked by a dog that is not on the list because the city failed to protect him.
Nancy Banks said he hoped council would not regulate specific breeds. She said the city must focus on enforcing the current laws they have rather than making more laws for law-abiding citizens to adhere to.
Linda Nyberg said she was concerned if certain breeds have more regulations, dog owners would chose different animals to turn aggressive.
"You can take any breed and make it bad," she said.
The council discussed the ordinance further and responded to citizen concerns.
Liebrecht provided information concerning how many pounds of pressure certain animals can apply to a human during an attack and how many pounds of pressure it would take to kill or maim someone. He considered not labeling specific breeds in the ordinance but suggested regulating animals capable of exerting enough pressure to maim or kill someone.
"I need to protect you as a citizen with some kind of law," he said.
Liebrecht said the dog owners must be held liable for any injuries caused to another person.
He asked the audience if the victim should be liable for paying for their medical bills if attacked by someone's dog.
The audience did not respond.
He said the ordinance could help the victim gain victory in a court preceding.
Lane said he didn't think targeting a breed would work toward their goal of public safety.
Pearce said banning breeds does not solve the public safety problem but regulating certain breeds will. He said several cities who have a similar ordinance advised of positive results.
Reese said he did not think specific breeds should be targeted and thought the $150 requirement to register a hazardous or unaltered animal was too much. Otherwise he would vote for the ordinance, he said.
Covey said the citizens asked the council not to ban breeds so they didn't. He said citizens claimed the city should make the dog owner accountable for the dog's action. He said the ordinance allows this.
"We're asking you to be responsible," he said.
He said citizens can expect harsher enforcement with the new laws as well as existing laws related to animal control.
Me, my dogs, my cat, my fish, whatever else I feel like ranting about along with pictures of the aforementioned that I've taken - as well as pictures of various and sundry pieces of rope or buoy booty
Unapologetic
If one person is unkind to an animal, it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last, by otherwise intelligent people.-Ruth Harrison
You can't save every dog, but you can't look a dog in his eyes and not try to save him, that's what I say
If you can, heal others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them. Dalai Lama
If you have a question about this blog, my dogs, or Halifax Nova Scotia - you can contact me at dogkisser@gmail.com
If you want to make a photo larger - ie to read the text in the photo - simply click on the photo, and the picture will open up in a new window. To go back to the blog - click back on your browser.
My blog posts about Gail Benoit have proven to be very popular - people seem to be googling her, and finding my blog - so I want to put some information on the sidebar so that people trying to find information about her can read this information quickly and get the news they need. They are Nova Scotia's most infamous sellers of dogs alongside the road and out of the backs of cars - and the dogs they sell are notorious for being sick, diseased, and dying. It is very sad that people only find out about them AFTER they've spent hundred's of dollars and the animal they've bought has suffered and usually died. The only way Ms. Benoit and Mr. Bailey are going to stop their trade of torture is if people stop buying their product. In the later part of 2008 they have been the news again - I've built a page with information about them at http://gailbenoit.ca/ or http://danabailey.ca/
My videos on You Tube
Loading...
Animal Wise Radio - Nathan Winograd has a show there every Sunday!
Infomonkey.net's got some neat stuff - including this blog!
It is so disappointing when you think a group ascribes to the same ideals as you, only to find out that hidden somewhere they have an agenda that is dirty, dark and vile.
So it seems to be with the Animal Advocates Society of British Columbia - they are an animal advocate organization out there who has been fighting against the British Columbia SPCA and is actually currently being sued by them.
They also appear to do a lot of stuff for puppy mills, chained dogs, horse rescue, and have a large section of their website called the "Animal Advocate Watchdog News" - a newsreader that sends out action alerts constantly.
But it turns out they'd also like the extinguishment of all bull type breeds for much the same reason that PETA does - in order to save them from suffering, and so that they can't hurt any more children because they're all so dangerous to humans. What a pile of bullshit, eh? And they claim that they love animals?
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
Posts
