In a final petty reaction, as the owners refused to back down and fought with publicity, litigation and keeping the spotlight on them, Animal Services said they could ONLY release them if they had signs they were "viscious dogs" (when NEITHER animal had EVER had any complaint and in actual fact, numerous people came forward to talk about their sweet natures) and kept them muzzled - this despite the fact that an outside expert CONFIRMED they were not pit bulls.
Well, I wonder if the FACT that Rambo had broken ribs was ONE reason the City was desperate to hold onto him?
Doesn't look very good for Brampton Animal Services when an animal seized illegally, retained despite all evidence that they had no cause, was seriously injured - and effectively, NOT treated.
An article in the Brampton Guardian today reveals that when Rambo's owners picked him up, they noticed almost immediatley "something sticking out under the skin": But within hours of being released April 19, his owners say they saw something jutting out underneath his fur.
It was sticking out,” Gaspar said.The City of course and Animal Servies has refused to answer any questions.
The injury was so obvious, they immediately suspected a broken rib, they said.
Two days later, on April 21, X-rays were taken that confirmed two of the floating ribs near the end of Rambo’s rib cage were broken, one of them with a 2-3 mm gap.
The Gaspars had the X-rays sent to a certified radiologist in Toronto— an X-ray expert— who reported the bones were already healing and the injury was, at a minimum, two to four weeks old.
What do you think?
Perhaps report them to the OSPCA and get them to investigate - of course then, poor Rambo and Brittany may end up dead.
But SOMEONE's head should roll for this!
I guess now we know why Brampton refused to let the owners or their Vet see the dogs in the shelter. They were trying to cover up their abuse.
ReplyDeleteI heards someone speculate and that is ALL it is - we have no proof - that perhaps they were tormenting him to try to make him bite - thus "justifying" their initial seizure and subsequent retention of this poor dog!
ReplyDelete