Rescues .. and the Impact of Language

I found myself perplexed by the discussion by OSPCA lawyers present when they referred to rescues as “illegal”. This discussion was engendered in part by two issues: the ostensible “theft” of Kincaid (which was dismissed as “under investigation”, therefore not open to discussion) to the reason why the OSPCA has prevented the illegal pit bulls from being allowed to leave for rescues outside Ontario which have been procured for them.

One of the two THS lawyers at the meeting referred to the whole area of “rescues” as “grey’ then consistently said there was an issue because they were “illegal”. I see this as open to interpretation. While obviously NOT a lawyer, I can’t help but speculate that something in a ‘grey area’ is neither legal nor illegal; but using logic, one SHOULD err more on the side of the legality of rescues as by inference, if they were ILLEGAL, the OSPCA as the government-mandated body policing animal welfare would have dealt with the issue LONG before this. As thousands of rescues operate freely, openly and without interference, I believe it is safe to say, the ‘grey’ area is hardly an issue.

In all fairness, whether the 'legality' is general or ONLY under the Dog Owners Liability Act ("DOLA") is confusing and amongst those I spoke with, there was some disagreement as to whether it is GENERALLY illegal for rescues to operate or only under the DOLA.

The grey area according to one volunteer based on her interpretation, referred to the DOLA. She felt they were not saying rescues were a grey area with respect to legality, just that they are not mentioned in DOLA. Apparently the only places you can legally transfer an “illegal” dog to under DOLA are shelters and to an animal research facility. Again, I'll try to seek some clarifcation on this issue.


As the issue of rescues came up in two instances- safe harbour for our illegal pit bulls AND with respect to Kincaid – it is curious that suddenly ‘rescue’ operations are open to legalities that I have never heard cited with respect to them before.

I ask again – IF rescues are in a “grey” area why suddenly does that “grey” area seem to be an issue; that “grey” seems to have only become problematic when the OSPCA has need of a legal stick to challenge Kincaid’s placement and/or safe haven for our pits.

Language and the Medium is the Massage

This was one of the first (but far from the last) instances of what I deem “offensive language use” – in that they consistently – despite being brought up on it several times – and to my mind, deliberately kept linking the term “illegal” (as in pit bulls who had no papers to prove they were grandfathered before the BSL legislation came into effect) with the designation “dangerous”.

The reality is that language is a powerful tool. From Ms. McDonald’s subtle but frequent references to the investigation into the OSPCA and her use of the word “horrors”, “cruelty”, the inclusion of the audience in appreciating the “terrible, heart-breaking conditions found” to the consistent and offensive linking of “dangerous” and “illegal”, to my mind, this is a clever and effective way of influencing listeners to concur with the moral superiority of the OSPCA to conduct business as it sees fit and to agree with the OSPCA personnel that indeed, intervention was not only warranted but necessary.

The reality is that use of such language is at best, inflammatory, at worst, bordering on influence-peddling. The reality is that MANY allegations have yet to be proved in Court and while there is no argument with anyone who has spent any time in the THS over the past several years that there were issues – some quite awful – I, together with many others would certainly challenge the SCOPE of the ‘abuse’ allegations by the OSPCA.

Dangerous Dog Designation

Another designation I found was never clarified. The ‘dangerous dog” designation was used at will by both Ms. McDonald and OSPCA lawyers. However, when challenged, it was not clearly explained (in my opinion) as to who makes that designation. Despite asking several times for elucidation – and in some cases having the individual backtrack on the allegation – I am still unclear as to what the parameters and criteria are for designating a dog “dangerous” AND who in fact has the legal right to so designate!

As they concurred that none of the kennels (including Kincaid’s) had any kind of ‘dangerous’ designation posted, other than to justify their refusal to allow volunteers and some staff access to dogs with whom we have interacted safely and happily with for many months (and sometimes years), the “dangerous” dog designation appears to me to be simply a convenient way to exert control over dogs either THEY found challenging or that they chose to exert their authority over.