Monday, December 22, 2008

SPCA Press Release about Celtic Pets Verdict

The NS SPCA has put out their spin on the animal abusers MacIsaac's verdict in the Celtic Pets case in a press release on their website.

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.


  1. Anonymous11:19 AM

    I hate to say it but it seems to me that prosecuting anyone for animal abuse is a waste of time and money for the SPCA. Unless laws and penalties are changed why spend all that time and accomplish next to nothing. Maybe the money would be better spent on a campaign to stiffen these laws and the associated penalties. The SPCA should under the present circumstances get all the animals out of harms way and rehab and rehome as many as possible and forget about prosecutions until enough public outcry causes the politicians to make the necessary changes.The "P" in SPCA stands for "Protection" not "Prosecution. Sometimes revenge gets in the way of what's best for the animals. RG

  2. Anonymous1:41 PM

    Protection RG, exactly! But to protect animals against abuse requires successful prosecution of the abusers!

    The animals that will be (or have been) returned to the double uglies now have no protection from abuse or neglect! The only way for them to be protected was for a successful prosecution that included the MacIssaacs being prohibited from ever owning, caring for or even looking at animals again. This was NOT a successful prosecution despite the guilty verdict.

    Jail time was a long shot but was a lifetime prohibition from owning or working with animals too much to ask? I really do not think so. Animal cruelty legislation should be amended to include lifetime prohibition automatically in the event of a guilty plea or verdict.


  3. Anonymous2:17 PM

    This is another case where we really need everyone to keep the pressure on MPs about bill c-373 (c-229). Time and time again, these people will keep getting nothing. If the law isn't there to back it up and if there aren't prosecutors willing to charge than it's all for naught. We have to remember that those in charge of trying these cases may not give a rats ass about animals, and if they can, they will dump these cases or bury them if there is not adequate law to require them to do something.

  4. I too am very confused over the SPCA press release. I'm confused over the whole thing! I just had to send an email to the Webmaster at the SPCA to ask them to remove Zonda MacIsaacs name from appearing every time you google the NS SPCA. It's almost as if nothing has happened! I was volunteering at the SPCA when all those animals were seized from the "double uglies" and no one was even aloud to go and see them because there was so much evidence that needed to be collected. .Yeah, that paid off didn’t it. It is horrifying to think about how many animals actually got put to sleep but we'll never know will we...I don’t believe for a second that these animals couldn't have been saved. One night while at the SPCA, I snuck in where some of these dogs were and got in each and very kennel with each dog (this probably wasn’t the smartest move I could have made but I couldn't help myself). Every one of them was happy to be hugged and kissed at least for a few minutes. It was very heart breaking and unfortunately, I haven’t been able to go back to the SPCA since. I will continue to be a member and bring food supplies to the animals but the whole thing has left thee most awful taste in my month…...

  5. Anonymous1:34 PM

    What does the SPCA have to hide? Why can't it say precisely how many animals were put down?
    It is not a very reassuring statement.
    Who is responsible?