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.