Susan Keizer and Crown Prosecutor William Ferguson have become famous for reasons they never wanted to be.
Ms. Keizer has become famous because she drowned the kittens of a stray cat that had been on her property, and because she felt she had no other recourse - she inhumanely killed them rather than trying to find some other way to deal with the problem.
William Fergusons, Crown Prosecutor for the Province of Nova Scotia - has become famous because he thinks it's okay to kill an animal by drowning them, he also thinks it's okay to have a two tiered justice system for people on welfare and for people who work for their living, he thinks that it's okay in animal abuse cases to make his own judgments and conclusions so that plea bargains can be made and he doesn't actually have to do his job and provide justice for the people of Nova Scotia, and he certainly doesn't have to find any justice for the animals who suffered.
William Ferguson, Crown Attorny - also had a problem with stray cats on his property - so he really "feels" for the problem that Susan Keizer went through, and the run around that she must have gotten before she killed the 2 kittens. But a person like him has the ability to take those stray cats that show up on his property to the vet to have them humanely killed. A person like Susan Keizer - who's on welfare, you see - doesn't have the resources to do that - so what else can a person like her do except do something like throw them down on the ground, or hit them over the head with a hammer, or drown them? I mean - WHAT IS A PERSON TO DO? They've got no other choice in Hants County.
That is exactly what William Ferguson's - Crown Attorney in this case - viewpoint was.
And this is the person who is representing US - is saying.
Ms. Keizer did not need a defence attorney I think.
So she pled guilty and all she got was a $5 fine - because she's on welfare, don't you know.
In Hants County - in Windsor, Nova Scotia - there are -
the Hants County SPCA - who have no physical shelter, just foster homes
Animal Control Department - staffed by one person - Gary Lunn
they have several rescues - which could have helped had Ms. Keizer contacted them -
CAPS - Companion Animal Protection Society of Annapolis County
SHAR - Berwick Safe Haven Animal Rescue
HART - Homeless Animals Rescue Team
If any of these rescues would have been contacted by Ms. Keizer - I don't think she would have had to have killed those cats - cats are what these rescues do.
The Annapolis Valley seems to be teeming with private rescues BECAUSE the municipality is SO horrible with their animal control department. I personally think that the Annapolis Valley has the greatest concentration of private rescues in the province - it's amazing the amount of people doing rescue in that area - especially with cats. They are doing some great work up there, and in Kings County, too.
But apparently Ms. Keizer - and also William Ferguson - got the runaround - so they felt they had no other options. Animal Control said they "don't do cats - call the SPCA". And the SPCA said they "don't do strays - call Animal Control"**. So what is a person to do - who lives in a culture where just 10 years ago it was still acceptable to drown cats as a way of population control, and who doesn't have any companion animals themself - so probably doesn't have much empathy for species other than humans to begin with. How many time have all of us animal lovers heard - "I mean - it's just a cat!"
Well this is the ultimate fruition of that.
** NOTE - this is the version that Susan Keizer and William Ferguson will have you believe - but what what the problem is - is that the debacle of stray cats lies with the Municipality. If you have a problem with a stray cat - that is your municipality's problem - and that is who you should contact. SOME municipality's have contracts with their local branch of the NS SPCA to maintain their animal control functions, but that is not across the board in Nova Scotia. In Halifax - our animal control facilities are maintained by the City - but our sheltering facilities are maintained by the SPCA. In Sydney Nova Scotia - their animal control AND shelter are contracted to the SPCA. In Windsor - the municipality takes care of their animal control functions - and THAT is who Susan Keizer should have made contact with about the cats. If the Officer said it wasn't his problem - then he wasn't doing his job and his supervisor should have been contacted.
Dumping your cat on someone else's property - abandoning it - is a criminal offence - THAT is an SPCA responsibility - because that falls under the Animal Cruelty act - and the NS SPCA is mandated to uphold the Animal Cruelty and Prevention Act in Nova Scotia. So if Ms. Keizer knew who dumped the stray cat on her property - the SPCA could have gone after that person - but they have no mandate to rescue the cat that they dumped. Unless of course if she took the cat to their Halifax or Sydney shelter which takes surrendered animals when they have space.
But the NS SPCA's branches and shelters only takes in abused, neglected, and cruelty connected animals - they aren't mandated to take in stray animals (unless they have a contract for animal control with a municipality) - they are not a rescue. That is where the public gets confused. Animal Rescue Coalition, Bide-a-wile, Pick of the Litter Society - they are rescues.
And it's the verdict heard around the world - because every news service and every newspaper around the continent has carried the story - the press release put out by the NS SPCA yesterday. It's amazing - and everyone around North America are as horrified as those in the humane community in Nova Scotia.
Here's some links to articles around North America -
Five-dollar fine for drowning kittens in bucket a travesty, say SPCA — Sault Star
$5 find for woman who drowned Kittens - Times of the Internet
$5 fine for woman who drowned kittens - Marketwatch
N.S. SPCA upset after woman fined $5 for drowning stray kittens - Canadian Press
Woman fined $5 for drowning Kittens - Post Chronicle
$5 fine for drowning kittens - Calgary Sun
This is a good article -
$5 Fine For Woman Who Drowned Kittens - Prosecutor didn't expect to win in a trial
Another Good article -
SPCA not satisfied with sentence - Manitoba National News
This is a great article at the Toronto Sun - there is also a comments section that has some great comments -
$5 fine for drowning kittens - SPCA calls sentence 'travesty of justice'
WINDSOR, N.S. — The Nova Scotia SPCA says a $5 fine handed to a woman for drowning two newborn kittens in a bucket of water is “a travesty of justice.”
The woman from Windsor, N.S., in her 50s, pleaded guilty to cruelty to animals after drowning the pair of two-day-old stray kittens last year.
Sean Kelly, chairman of the investigation committee for the SPCA, said a staff member told him the prosecutor seemed nonchalant about the case in Windsor provincial court because the woman had been unable to get help from the SPCA in taking the kittens’ stray mother — and the prosecutor had also been trying to get the organization to deal with a stray on his property.
“The SPCA is not an animal control group, unless we have a contract with a municipality,” Kelly said. “We do not take in stray cats.” He said it cost the SPCA more than $5 in gas just to drive to the Windsor courthouse for Monday’s proceedings.
He said prosecutor Bill Fergusson agreed with a defence request for the fine.
Kelly said the normal range for cruelty charges is $500 to $1,000 and long-term prohibition from owning animals.
“If they’re unable to pay, we look for lengthy prohibition (from owning animals) and probation,” he said.
He said he’s worried the case could set a precedent for future sentences, and the SPCA is lodging a formal complaint with the Public Prosecution Service.
But Fergusson said he had two options: take the fine and get a conviction, or go to trial and likely lose.
He said in talking with the defence lawyer, it seemed likely that the arguments she would make at trial would lead to an acquittal, so he accepted the woman’s guilty plea in exchange for a minimal fine.
She was charged under Section 11 (2) of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act, which states that “no owner of an animal or person in charge of an animal shall cause or permit the animal to be or to continue to be in distress.”
“I was more concerned with the conviction than a large fine,” Fergusson said, adding that the woman is on welfare and wouldn’t have been able to pay anyway.
He asked for a small fine and the defence lawyer came up with the $5 figure.
Fergusson said a prohibition order would be unnecessary because the woman doesn’t want to own animals and was only feeding the kitten’s mother as a stray.
He said the woman was unable to look after the kittens and had said that they were not doing well before she drowned them in a bucket of water.
He said probation is not a penalty available under the animal cruelty act.
The judge told the woman that pleading guilty would show others that it is not acceptable to drown kittens, Fergusson said.
He said while he does have an issue with the stray cat problem in Windsor and the fact the SPCA doesn’t have mechanisms in place to deal with that, securing the conviction — not a vendetta against the organization — was the primary reason he did not argue the amount of the fine.
The conviction means the woman will have a prior case on her record should she ever be facing a similar charge again, which can lead to an increased penalty.
from the Chronicle Herald yesterday -
Woman fined $5 for drowning kittens
The provincial SPCA says a $5 fine handed to a Windsor woman for drowning two newborn kittens in a bucket of water is "a travesty of justice."
The woman, in her 50s, pleaded guilty to cruelty to animals after drowning the pair of two-day-old stray kittens in Windsor last year.
Sean Kelly, chairman of the investigation committee for the SPCA, said a staff member told him that the prosecutor seemed nonchalant about the case in Windsor provincial court because the woman had been unable to get help from the SPCA in taking the kittens’ stray mother, and the prosecutor had also been trying to get the organization to deal with a stray on his property.
"The SPCA is not an animal control group, unless we have a contract with a municipality," Mr. Kelly said. "We do not take in stray cats."
He said it cost the SPCA more than $5 in gas just to drive to the Windsor courthouse for Monday’s proceedings.
He said prosecutor Bill Fergusson agreed with a defence request for the fine.
Mr. Kelly said the normal range for cruelty charges is $500 to $1,000 and long-term prohibition from owning animals.
"If they’re unable to pay, we look for lengthy prohibition (from owning animals) and probation," he said.
He said he’s worried the case could set a precedent for future sentences, and the SPCA is lodging a formal complaint with the Public Prosecution Service.
But Mr. Fergusson said he had two options: take the fine and get a conviction, or go to trial and likely lose.
He said in talking with the defence lawyer, it seemed likely that the arguments she would make at trial would lead to an acquittal, so he accepted the woman’s guilty plea in exchange for a minimal fine.
She was charged under Section 11 (2) of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act, which states that "no owner of an animal or person in charge of an animal shall cause or permit the animal to be or to continue to be in distress."
"I was more concerned with the conviction than a large fine," Mr. Fergusson said, adding that the woman is on welfare and wouldn’t have been able to pay anyway.
He asked for a small fine and the defence lawyer came up with the $5 figure.
Mr. Fergusson said a prohibition order would be unnecessary because the woman doesn’t want to own animals and was only feeding the kitten’s mother as a stray. He said the woman was unable to look after the kittens and had said that they were not doing well before she drowned them in a bucket of water.
He said probation is not a penalty available under the animal cruelty act.
The judge told the woman that pleading guilty would show others that it is not acceptable to drown kittens, Mr. Fergusson said.
He said while he does have an issue with the stray cat problem in Windsor and the fact the SPCA doesn’t have mechanisms in place to deal with that, securing the conviction, not a vendetta against the organization, was the primary reason he did not argue the amount of the fine.
The conviction means the woman will have a prior case on her record should she ever be facing a similar charge again, which can lead to an increased penalty.
It's good that it is getting a lot of publicity. It's too bad it is too late for the poor kittens.
ReplyDeleteI agree, had she contacted someone from a rescue I bet they would have been there as fast as they could get there.
I don't think if I was the NS SPCA and I told this person that we "don't deal with straw cats " I would want that fact broadcast around the world.If in fact the SPCA was contacted and they did nothing to help then who is really saying "It's just a cat" RG
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, RG - and that's where one of the misconceptions lies - I'll fix that up in my post.
ReplyDeleteJoan
Anyone who thinks drowning is a "humane" way to dispose of an animal should be required to undergo a Bronchoscopy with a saline flush prior to drowning the animal.
ReplyDeleteThere`s even an opportunity to watch(through an eye piece) as the salt water heads down your trachea to your lung but you only watch for a split second as sheer panic overwhelms you.
Thankfully that only lasts for a split second(seems like an eternity though) as they suck the saline(with some cells) out of your lung.
http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/test/bronchoscopy-with-transbronchial-biopsy/overview.html
I`ll guarantee that they`ll never drown another one after that experience.
I don`t imagine the experience is any different just because the eyes haven`t opened yet.(as people often say)
I got the runaround so I killed two kittens. Wow.
ReplyDeletei wonder why the SPCA didn't help put her in contact with some rescue.
ReplyDeletei also wonder what she thought
as she held those kittens underwater....
I had a cat have 3 kittens in my geenhouse. I called every shelter in HRM that I could find on the internet,etc. - must have been 25 or more. Not one of them could take them or help, including bide a while and the spca. The only help I got was from Sonya Higgins (SCARS) in Eastern Passage that lent me a live trap and gave me some advice. So we waited for the kittens to stop feeding off Mama and trapped them all. Luckily my vet clinic helped some, gave us worming meds, tested one of the kittens for feline leukemia and one of the techs took the mama and one of my friends took one of the kittens. I had 2 cats at the time, now I have 4 and a dog. It cost me shots, spay, neuter, etc., and I am not rich (who needs a vacation). How can you expect anyone to take one when they can go to a shelter and get them for $150 all included? Which is a good thing, don't get me wrong.
ReplyDeleteI am in NO WAY condoning what this woman did, it was inhumane and wrong but I think it goes to many bigger problems.
This is sad on so many levels. SPCAs and rescues are just inundated with "cat" calls every day. Not saying that this is what happened in this case, but if she was turned away with no options or advice, then these are the kinds of things that can happen. As frustrating as the calls may be, we should be giving people some sort of help and counsel, sometimes just a sympathetic ear can help. Most people are angry that this problem has been dumped on them to deal with and sometimes just helping them get over that anger makes them more open to the suggestions you may have. We have to remember that while we're thinking, "join the club, lady there have been 10 calls like yours today" that the cats they are dealing with are the only ones that they know or care about. If the woman called around, then at least that showed some intent to try to do the right thing. This is not condoning her actions, but when people feel desperate, angry and all alone they often resort to desperate means.
ReplyDeleteI think much of the misconceptions lie in shows like animal cops etc. that lend the false idea that there are officers out there just waiting for a call to go pick up an animal. That may be true of dogs, but woe if you are a cat. The cat overpopulation problem (I'm sorry I disagree with those who say there is no overpopulation problem just lazy SPCAs and rescues) is a community problem not an SPCA problem. Gov. on all levels need to get involved with some funding for TNR and low cost spay/neuter clinics. Municipalities will spend tens of thousands of dollars on work hours and lawyers drafting ridiculous dangerous dog legislation, but turn a blind eye to this suffering.
As for the prosecuter, I find the legal community, judges etc. across Canada to be in the dark ages about the seriousness of animal cruelty.