Pages

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Scary bill bodes ill for Ontario animals - CAN Bill 37

Wow ... caught up as I have been with the BSL issue, compounded by some personal issues which have necessitated travel and care for a family member, I just recently was catching up on some reading. 

Anyone reading Tailspin knows I am NOT a fan of the OSPCA.  To clarify, however, I am not a fan of the OSPCA in its current form - and primarily because of its current management who I think are arrogant, misguided and have absolutely no real commitment to true animal husbandry. 

PC MPP Jack MacLaren (Carleton-Mississauga Mills) introduced Bill 37 – Act to Amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act which can be read online here.

My first concern was the suggestion to remove policing powers from the OSPCA and hand them over to the police themselves.  WTF?  Give COPS the power to decide the fate of animals in possible distress?  Animals in situations where individuals with the skill and training to correctly read the situation need to be there to ensure the animal in question receives the best chance of a positive resolution are to be assessed by people with absolutely NO training or skills in the field?  People with GUNS.

Anyone involved with animal welfare is cognizant there is currently a rash of tragic cases across North America where COPS with no training and quick trigger fingers have slaughtered innocent dogs. The reality is that take a tense situation, add into it untrained personnel who aare lready full of adrenalin and angst and then throw a dog into the mix and the dog often ends up dead.

Further, with all respect, cops have more than enough human related issues to deal with.  I cannot imagine that, for instance, reports of a farm animal in distress would warrant any kind of real response.  First, I do not doubt for one second, the farm animal would be low on the list of priorities - secondly, there is NO question in my mind that again, people untrained in the field, would have NO clue what would be considered acceptable in terms of environment for a dairy cow (for example). 

Lawyers for Animal Welfare give a good synopsis of the most outrageous suggestions buried in this bill - PLEASE go to this link and read.

Just a few salient points, however:

  • the current prohibition against animal fighting would be repealed
  • veterinarians would no longer by law be required to report abuse or distress
  • the Bill would strip OSPCA officials of their current power to search premises on reasonable grounds

In short, it would strip the OSPCA Act of any ability to properly protect the animals of Ontario - domestic, farm and wild inclusive.

THIS is unacceptable and this Bill MUST be stopped.

Please take a moment to contact your MPP and voice YOUR concerns about this Bill.  We must ensure it does not make second reading and dies on the floor.

The animals of Ontario deserve more than this Bill purports to offer - in a society which deems itself civilized, this Act promises less protections than countries we currently view as animal hells offer.

STOP THE BILL.

Drivel - Star FAIL

A recent "editorial" in the Toronto Star (and I refuse to even link it, it is so contemptible) gleefully, pompously and erroneously perpetuated the same tired old arguments about why the current legislation banning "pit bulls" in the Province of Ontario should be maintained.  This is in reaction to the all party vote (including three Liberals who voted with their consciences instead of following the party line like my own lily livered, pathetic excuse for an MPP Lorenzo Beranadetti) for Bill 16 (Hershey's Law) calling for a repeal of the legislation.

As a 20 year subscriber to the Toronto Star (now former subscriber), I have always felt the Star was the least biased of the media sources in Toronto.  This outrageous piece of garbage has clearly illustrated that the Liberal puppet masters are flexing their political will and the Star editorial board is bending over and taking it with a smile.

The reality is I am a big girl - I am more than able to debate and argue a difference of opinion - and can even accede that one contrary to my own viewpoint can have valid points.  Rational adults can do that.  Thus, HAD they argued with some solid facts to back up their ascertain the legislation should remain - then that could have provided a good starting point for a rational argument and counter-argument.

Unfortunately, the drivel the Anonymous author spouted has absolutely NO basis in fact.  Instead, the cowardly author vomits the same old myths and misinformation that media in particular has been wont to glorify; after all, pit bull stories make great press while a simple dog bite doesn't warrant the same reaction.  The continued glorification of the "evil pit bull" myth has been in many respects, largely due to the media hype. 

This article in the Boston Review gives a remarkably fair, unbiased overview of the whole pit bull question.

Bottom line?  Pit bulls are NO more dangerous than any other breed.  In actual fact, in many respects,they are probably SAFER and more human friendly than many other dog breeds.

Here, James Schnerch on Facebook has a discussion on the Star article, including a reply from the Star editorial board. With his permission I have linked it and below is an excerpt from the letter he received back:

Dear sir:
The article you are referring to is an editorial. As such it expresses the institutional opinion of the Toronto Star news organization, not the... view any one writer. It was written by a member of the editorial board following debate and discussion of the entire editorial board.
This article expresses an opinion of this controversial issue—it is not a news report.
Best Regards,
Kathy English
Kathy English/Public Editor
Toronto Star/www.thestar.com
416-869-4950
Really?? REALLY Ms. English? 
So, because the story is an "institutional" report - the Star feels no need to actually include any verifiable facts?
Because the story is an editorial "opinion", the Star is really ok with publishing under the guise of "facts" misinformation and myths which can - and HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN - refuted.
What this tells ME, Ms. English that your editorial DISCUSSION clearly illustrates that the Toronto Star's editors - the individuals who spearhead the various departments - are asses - and lousy journalists.
So, I will no longer be subscribing and most likely will no longer be reading - such an ill informed, piece of garbage.
So take your OPINION and shove it where the sun don't shine.
I would truly appreciate everyone who cares about dogs - everyone who cares about keeping newspapers accountable to the public - email, phone or WRITE Ms. English and give her your (polite) editorial opinion as soon as possible.
And make sure to say you won't be reading the Toronto Star anymore!

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Support Bill 16 ... Hershey's Law - Vote coming this Thursday

Social Mange says it here.

Ohio has wised up - see KC Blog here.

It HAS to stop- killing dogs based on their looks.

It HAS to stop - tearing dogs from the loving arms of their owners because media and ignorant assholes have decided that statements like "pit bulls are naturally mean", "their jaws LOCK", "they can't be trusted" - are FACT when every single study - every SINGLE test - EVERY single law banning ONE breed has been a spectacular FAIL and shown to be based on nothing but hysteria.

It really ain't ROCKET science.

"Pit bulls" are JUST dogs.

that's all.

It's crappy owners that are the issue here NOT the dog.

Contact your MPP here and send a message- loud and clear!

Be heard.

STOP canine profiling!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Celeb dogs - here's hoping it doesn't start a trend

The capricious nature of the celebrity-loving public has, in the past, had tragic consequences to entire breeds of dogs.  From the flood of dalmatians abandoned in pounds and shelters (circa.  101 Dalmations), to the neglected and quickly jettisoned huskies (Snow Dogs and Eight Below), Great Danes (Marmaduke)- and then of course, all the celebrities toting poor little toy breeds and treating them as an accessory, there has been an inevitable and usually tragic spike in dogs bought - and quickly abandoned.  This article gives an excellent synopsis of the syndrome and why it is has such tragic consequences to so many animals.

Looks are the VERY worst reason to adopt a dog.

Today's Dogster article on the Golden Collar celebrations is a case in point.

Uggie, the adorable, pint-sized co-star of the movie, The Artist, took top houours... and this scares the hell out of me.

Jack Russels are absolutely delightful, entertaining and adorable dogs; they are also incredibly bright, super energetic, curious and need LOTS of stimulation and exercise in order to keep them occupied - and their owners happy.  They are NOT a dog for everyone. 

Next to my beloved Shepherds (and of course, my always adored pitties), Jacks are probably my favourite dog breed.  But then I know what to expect.  As a wise and knowledgeable dog owner said to me at a mutual training course we were at - "terriers have these HUGE personalities all squished into this TINY body"!

Before I had my Darcy (who had to be euthanized last year and for whom I still mourn terribly)- Doug was really unfamiliar with terriers (the Darcyman was part Jack, part rat terrier, a pinch of Pom and a great big DOLLOP of "Wolf") and was ambivalent about taking in what he perceived as a "small" dog.  A fan of our two GSDs, I think he envisioned a celebrity brand pocket pup with a cringing personality.   Darcy quickly disabused him of his very wrong misconceptions...

Fearless, stubborn, endlessly curious, determined, pig-headed and delightfully entertaining, Doug quickly learned the realities of terriers.

Jacks can make superlative family dogs - IF the proper leadership, training and time is put into it.  They have long life spans - up to and often exceeding 15 years  - and keep their bright, funny, energetic, determined and wilful personalities right to the end.   Without someone willing to commit to extensive daily exercise sessions, someone able to take on the leadership role (give them an inch, and Jacks will take 10 MILES), and someone who is able to keep them occupied and busy, Jacks can turn into a nightmare dog (through no fault of their own).

So again, though it has been said again and again - RESEARCH the BREED and never, EVER buy a dog based only on its looks!

I truly hope that a year from now, our shelters aren't overflowing with abandoned and neglected Jacks.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Starving Puppies - Update - February 9

So the pups are FINALLY channelling their inner "wolf" .. never did I realize how thrilled the sound of crunching bones would be!

For the past three nights, both dogs have been eating their entire meal ... veggies, organ meats, and chicken drumsticks - full servings as of last night and looking for more.

Llyr's cyst continues to drain but remains clean and apparently uninfected.

They still don't want to eat outdoors so the process is rather painstaking. Carpets (there are only small small area ones) come up, dog beds out in the hallway and they get fed in their accustomed place in the dining room.  Mind you, they both seem to prefer to eat their chicken carcasses ON Doug's chair ... but a bit of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide and it's all good. Bleach and hot water take care of the floor so hopefully no nasty botulism is hanging about .. at the rate they now ingest the bone and meat, however, that is unlikely!

My bad child has returned my camera.. so pictures to follow tomorrow in daylight (it's dark by the time I get home and get everyone's meals made - yeah, now adding the dogs' meal to my nightly cooking demands) as have you EVER tried photographing a black dog in low light?  Doesn't work! 

I notice, however, that their coats are shinier and they are both developing "figures".  Always on the thin side (deliberately and achieved through lots of exercise and a healthy diet), they are now getting "cut" as it were ... narrowing in at the hips, deeper dip at the belly  ... why isn't that straightforward for ME when I lose weight?

Now, I did have to talk to them about what is "prey" and what isn't when I saw them eying the cats .....

Monday, February 6, 2012

Rules EVERY shelter (or pound) should live by - from Bad Rap blog

In a story on Olive, a forgotten and neglected pitbull, Bad Rap blog (an incredible spokesblog for bully breeds), came up with 5 rules that ALL progressive shelters should follow.  These are taken (with Bad Rap's permission) from their blog :

The Five Freedoms


Progressive shelters follow the 'Five Freedoms' as a basis for humane care of their animals. It was originally drafted in Britain way back in the 1960's as a best practices guideline for housing farm animals. Zoos refer to it as a guidepost for their operations, as well. The Center for Shelter Dogs promotes the Five Freedoms and explains that understanding a dogs' basic needs "will enable shelter staff and organizations to not only manage the (dogs') stress, but all to improve their welfare by addressing their needs."

Five Freedoms for Captive and Kenneled Animals
  1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.
  2. Freedom from Discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
  3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
  4. Freedom to Express Normal Behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind.
  5. Freedom from Fear and Distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

Freedom to enjoy the company of an animal's own kind gets skipped in most busy shelters. Dogs are highly social creatures who've evolved as a species to depend on relationship for their very survival, not only with other dogs, but with humans. (Recent science tells us that their domestication started as long as 33,ooo years ago. Link) It's not surprising that behaviors will degrade when they're denied opportunities to socialize.

_____________________________________
Since last week, I have thought long and often about Hades - and to a lesser extent - Bandit and the cruel and abusive manner in which they have (were) treated by organizations which purport on other levels to be proponents for animal welfare.  TAS has the ability to investigage cruelty  allegations (as did THS, once upon a  time) ; I know that in ANY other circumstance, if either organization had been told about a dog that was locked up, with no access to proper exercise, no opportunity to engage in "normal" behaviour, no chance to be who that animal was mean to be - we would be reading about how that dog was 'saved' from a horrific life.
Both Bandit and Hades were 'failed' on several levels - Bandit ultimately paying with his life; Hades currently continuing a sad, lonely approximation of existence (becuase I can't call it life).
Rule No. 1 - FAIL - simply feeding and watering isn't enough because a diet to "maintain full health and vigor" requires more than food.  It requires exercise, fresh air and a chance to stretch limbs and work off excess energy.
Rule No. 2 - FAIL - there is absolutely NO way that any animal could have a degree of comfort by being enclosed by steel walls for day after dreary day.  It is mentioned he has "toys" but without someone with whom to interact, toys are useless.  Physically, Hades' muscles must, at this juncture, be almost atrophed - and I have no doubt he is probably stiff and sore.
Rule No. 3 - PASS - I guess - but I wonder how many times he was vetted in the past year? How many times was his health monitored?  Certaintly his emotional and spiritual health were neglected.
Rule No. 4 - CATASTRPHIC FAIL - This dog has been isolated, ignored and forgotten.  I don't know what his capability was before his incarceration to interact with other dogs - but some effort to allow him some kind of emotional interaction - to even have interaction removed from direct contact - could only have helped.  Dogs are pack animals.  He has been denied not only interaction and the comfort of his own kind, but even a substitute pack (which is common when dogs and humans interact) would have at least have allowed him a measure of "normality".
Rule No. 5 - CATASTROPIC FAIL - Mentally, this dog must be the most painful emotional morass.  Neglected, forlorn, without a positive word or person with whom to bond, he must feel bewildered, angry and depressed. 
I don't know Hades story.
I don't know if he could have been rehabiliated - or will ever have the opportunity to try.
I have read that he has failed to interact positively with anyone with whom he has been in contact - even those who reguarly feed and water him - but frankly, I don't know how he was approached, whether those who have dealt with him did so with preconceived fears and dislike, whether they did so in an effort to engage him positively, whether there were those who sought to establish some kind of bond.. none of these questions have I answers for.
I just know that knowng this dog is living this awful life is keeping me awake at night.
And this is not how I believe ANY dog (or animal) deserves to be treated, Court orders be damned.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Starving Puppies Diary - Update February 4

So, we are now a full week (and just past) the introduction of a new regime for the dogs.  I won't say it has been an unqualified success....

Finn continues to exercise her Princess ways and remains, largely, on a hunger strike. She noses through her delectable mixture of organ meat, mixed veggies (which i cooked in ground beef, damnit - spent another 4 hours last night cooking bloody veggies for these dogs!  AND in the process almost cut the bloody thumb of myself) and meat on the bone.

Llyr is starting to "get it' - which doesn't altogether surprise me. Deprived of sustenance in his first three years, he is less picky than the Princess and more inclined to take what's put in front of him.  We learned early on ijji  jh that he was partial to raw meat - having stolen at various times in his first 6 months with us (and ingested), 8 raw chicken breasts, 9 frozen hamburgers and a thick slab of steak .... he is also, thankfully, starting to actually keep it DOWN - as his sensitive stomach initially was rejecting all this raw food and no sooner did it go down than UP it came.

Remarkably, despite the fact that they are still either not eating an entire meal (in Finn's case and partially true for Llyr), I am seeing some changes.

There is NO question, Llyr's coat is looking very obviously healthier. I have been concerned for some time about his coat, finding it dry and dull.  It looks, even in this short period of time, thicker and there is NO question it is far shinier.  Finn's coat seems more defined in terms of colour - and while the coarseness of her coat which ranges from smooth to curly is a little less obviously different - the black and tan markings seem sharper.

The other odd thing which I can only speculate is linked to the regime is to do with Llyr's cysts.  Since I got Llyr he has tended to develop lumps; glutenous, loose lumps, sometimes along his flanks, but primarily along his spine.  I have had several checked out and they are simply liquid cysts.  In each case, my veg said we could either drain them, or let them do their own thing (i.e. burst or go away)- in EVERY single case, they would grow to a certain point, then one day, simply disappear. Until now... I found one on his flank earlier in the week and with as all of them, monitored it. Yesterday it suddenly burst (I know, gross)- but this has NEVER happened before.  So I cut away the fur and cleaned it out - and will continue to clean it twice a day but it it looks clean and uninfected and the swelling is minimal.  i can't help but speculate that this is in fact, toxins leaving his body?  Or am I reading too much into this?

I know my dear friend and mentor for this diet, Souha, said I would see changes in them as the toxins left - and the first few days I noticed they both scratched far more than normal.  She said they would go through a period of adjustment as the toxins from all the unhealthy food they had been eating were excreted by their body.

Anyways, interesting.

They continue to get supplements, 2 kelp tablets twice a day, 1 cod liver oil tablet, bloodroot for both (for spleen health) and for Llyr, HA-180, a natural palliative for his joint pain.  I still have to give them the bone meal which I've been unable to find but have on order.

There is no question they miss their kibble... and Finn worries me (a little) although she doesn't seem that much skinnier .... so I assume she will eat when she is truly hungry.

I'm hanging tough on this new regime; it is MORE work, and definitely costing me more - but not exorbitantly more.  i truly believe in the big picture both my dogs can only benefit.


(pictures to follow, having thought i was losing my mind as i distinctly remembered putting my camera on the table - I just discovered a bad child has taken it)

Thursday, February 2, 2012

and the spin starts on TAS's poor HADES- updated

A story surfaced in the Toronto Sun yesterday that revealed (to my mind) a horrific story of abuse - and even more shocking - it was Toronto Animal Services that were the abusers.  It defies explanation to me that ANYone or any organization - and certainly not one that purports to deal humanely with animals - would allow ANY dog to be incarcerated in a cage and dog run (yes, he has a dog run but that is NOT adequate) for an ENTIRE year with minimal human contact, no chance to properly exercise or interact with other dogs or people, no opportunity to feel the wind, feel earth beneath his feet and simply to engage his mind in smelling new smells and exploring new venues.

Don't we descry this same type of behaviour in puppy mills?

Don't we - including TAS (who often RESCUES animals that are in similar situations for everything but the REASON they are trapped in a cage every moment of every day) - talk about how CRUEL this is?

[Note to Readers: Fred took me to task for my comment about the 'spin' and in musing on it, I stand myself corrected.  He is an honest writer and entitled to his opinion. It upset me the way he presented Hades as aggressive and potentially viscious based simply on what in many dogs is simplistic territoriality and not necessarily a sign of the dog's innate nature which would make him immpossible to rehabilitate.  However, that is Fred's honest opinion and as such, he is of course entitled to it.  I am not removing the sentence but crossing it out, as it was a low blow and unwarranted. I stand by my assertions that TAS was - and is - negligent and abusive to keep a dog in that situation UNLESS i hear from someone that conerted efforst have been made over the past year to rectify the situation and it was NOT a case of letting that dog rot, neglected and forlorn.  As for my OWN opinion, I think without active intervention and efforts to over-turn the Court sanctions and have the dog moved to someone capable of properly assessing him and rehabilitating him - he would have been better off being euthanied.]

Fred, blogger of note with Pound Dogs, and someone I normally respect greatly, writes about it here and I admit I'm disappointed in the spin he puts on it.  Not that it is entirely unexpected - after reading the article, I have been waiting for the TAS organization and individuals with whom it is associated to spin a story about why this was an acceptable (and no doubt will claim, inescapable) manner of dealing with this dog.

Memories are certainly short; less than two years ago the entire city - newspapers, OSPCA, animal rescue organizations and everyone else associated with animals in any way - lambasted Tim Trow (and rightly so) for keeping pit bull mix Bandit relegated to the top floor of the THS for several years (again due to a Court order as is the case with Hades).  It WAS awful - but oddly, less awful than what has happened to Hades. Bandit at least had companionship - he spent a lot of time with Tim and other staff members, often wandered the floor and was brought in and out into fresh air in the open air roof.  He had limited freedom but lots of affection and access if not to grass, at least to the outdoors.

I know nothing about Hades.  I know that he bit someone when he got loose.  I know that the deadbeat owner who had probably encouraged Hades' innate guardian nature to blossom into territoriality and aggression screwed off and left him to his fate.  I know that bull mastiffs are normally quite wonderful breeds - affectionate, loyal and wonderfully courageous:

From Canada's Guide to Dogs:

The Bullmastiff comes from a cross between the Bulldog and the Mastiff. Developed for the purpose of having a dog who could guard like a Mastiff, have the courage of a Bulldog, and be faster and more agile than the Mastiff. He was mostly used by gamekeepers in Britain to warn them of the presence of poachers and help them in a fight. Known as the "gamekeeper's nightdog", he was a silent, agile dog that could attack on command, knock down a man and hold him without mauling or biting. He has also been used as a police and army dog and as a guard dog by diamond companies in South Africa.
The Bullmastiff has an aristocratic, attentive and intelligent appearance. Powerful, active, alert, fearless and courageous, he is however, docile and laid back with those he knows. The Bullmastiff is extremely devoted, loyal, and affectionate to his family. Today, the breed is primarily a companion dog who is an excellent guard dog. With his natural guarding abilities and a somewhat stubborn nature, the Bullmastiff is not for everyone and early socialization and training is very important for this breed.
One would assume this boy was vastly under-socialized to begin with and  no doubt encouraged to be aggressive.  It is incontrovertible that a YEAR in solitary confinement with minimal contact with people, relegated to a small space has only increased his fear, and encouraged territoriality.  Territoriality in a dog - particularly in ancestral guard breeds like the mastiff - are encouraged and exacerbated by the dog being confined to a small area and given no leadership.

Pet-place.com point out:
With territorial aggression, the resources guarded are those within certain physical boundaries – the territory – and the objects of the aggression are unwelcome visitors to that territory. The shelter and food that the territory provides and the incumbent society, the pack, must be defended against infiltrators and usurpers. In the wild, responsibility for this function rests squarely with more dominant members of the pack. It is their duty to alert the others and repel interlopers, as the need arises.
and NOW they are going to test him?
and NOW they are going to see if he can be rehabilitated?
Let me look in my Crystal Ball: TAS will administer a half-assed temperament test which Hades will fail abysmally. A needle will be stuck in him. He dies and there you are, problem solved.
First and foremost, most of the temperament tests which organizations use like bibles are crap- they are often if not always administered incorrectly and conclusions are drawn from flawed data.  Dogs - even aggressive ones with territorial issues, can be rehabbed.  Maybe Hades can't - maybe he is beyond help- but I am praying he is at least given the chance.
My own Llyr was a chained dog with territoriality and aggression issues stemming from spending his first three years chained in a backyard.  When I got him, he would bark and lunge and growl.  For many long months, I worked hard to teach Llyr that he no longer had to "guard" his space - that I was the leader now and would take care of HIM.  There was, I would point out, almost an IMMEDIATE change in his demeanour once he was released from his confined space where he was made to feel defensive.   He bonded quickly with his "family" and it just took a longer period of time before he became stable enough to be easily introduced to strangers (he is a Pet Smart favourite now and gets mobbed when I bring him there to pick up toys). 
I encourage EVERYONE to look at this video as it is a VERY good example of what chaining (or in Hades case, confining - same difference) to a small area does to a dog - and how they can be COMPLETELY different when they feel less defensive:
Fred says at one point "Hades is in limbo".
You're wrong, Fred, Hades is in HELL.

And while the paperwork is the Court's, the responsibility for maintaining this hell lies with TAS.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Love is not enough

CLOSNG COMMENTS  ... I'm tired of the visciousness of the tone of what should be a debate or a rational rebuttal. And I am also hiding all comments to date.  This is a forum for rational discussion, not childish tantrums.

There is an innate passion which infuse those who advocate on the part of animals in a society which seldom provides them with a voice.  The poignancy of creatures which are left victims of circumstance and the capriciousness of fate, brings with it an inevitable fervour which can often escalate into fanaticism and even obsession. People who advocate for animals, who despite the vagaries of a legal system which labels them property and a "justice" system which consistently undervalues their lives, are inevitably vocal and ardent about protecting those who cannot speak for themselves. 

In most cases (one can hope), the fervour,the passion and the honest devotion in the end, benefits those at whom it is directed. Animals are rescued. Animals find homes. Animals in horrific situations of neglect find succor and hope in new situations.  Animals who have never known a kind word, a soft voice or care discover that not all human beings are uncaring bastards.

But by the very nature of that passion, there are also those who like parasites, exploit and deceive genuine individuals who simply want to do what they can to assuage animals in need.  It is an unfortunate reality of life that immoral people can be found in every venue - from the animal advocacy world to cancer victims in the human world.

Having myself been involved (in a very non-professional capacity) in rescue and/or fostering to a greater or lesser extent my entire life - and in a more involved way for the past 10 years - I have seen the entire gamut of the human spirit's capacity to care, to soar and to crash. 

Like many in the animal advocacy field, I have been deceived and betrayed by those I trusted; the sad thing being that in many of these situations, it was not an overt decision to deceive but a case of someone getting in over their heads.  A group I myself was involved with - and during my tenure there - personally witnessed many fine rescues and happy endings - ended in tragedy when an individual who had in the past been an amazing advocate, through a series of unfortunate circumstances, found themselves in a situation where for all intents and purposes they ended up a hoarder - and animals suffered.   It left me reeling and suffering from a confusing glut of emotions from anger to remorse to self recrimination and was exacerbated by the reality of the concurrent crash and burn at the Toronto Humane Society where I volunteered at the EXACT same time (yet another case of good intentions gone awry - to this day, I see that Tim Trow had the best of intentions but allowed ego and obsession to over-rule common sense and the reality of what he could handle).

There are, however, fairly straightforward ways to thwart those who would take a genuine offer and in nefarious ways, twist into something which personally enriches them and leaves the animal for whom it was intended, out in the cold.  The latest storm of controversy over the treatment (or from all reports, lack thereof) of the dogs that were ostensibly rescued from a house in foreclosure in Peterborough is a case in point.

The reality is I don't give a good goddam about the egos, the assertions, the claims of ANYONE involved with this - I just want to bloody know, ARE THE DOGS ALL RIGHT??

From personal experience, I don't trust "chip in" funds - there is simply no way to ensure the money donated is directed towards its ostensible goal.   Even well-intentioned funds can go astray if a more urgent case (in the eyes of the holder) suddenly arises - yet the funds were supposed to be ear-marked for a SPECIFIC case.  This is particularly true if the self-designated charity is a NON-registered charity and simply calls itself that. 

Paying the vet directly with specific instructions for a certain animal is almost foolproof.  And from the perspective of an animal rescuer, is a win-win situation.  The rescuer gets the funds needed to vet the animal, the animal receives the medical care it requires and the vet gets their money.
To give people the benefit of the doubt, there are self-styled "rescuers' who go in with the right intentions and somewhere along the way, lose sight of reality.

There is NO rescue if the animals you 'rescue' remain in a situation where their physical, mental and/or emotional stability is compromised.  It's that simple.  Good intentions don't treat animals in pain or distress.  Soft hearts don't give you the expertise to rehabilitate an animal that needs remedial behaviour modification. 

People being people, egos get in the way. People get an inflated sense of what they can handle and a heightened sense of their own expertise.

I admit to being a cynical bitch and that the storm of justifications, counter-arguments, contradictions and outright lies (revealed through their own words) has given me a less than sanguine opinion of either Storm or Melitta et al. - but I'm really comfortable with parking my own ego and asking, again, ARE THE DOGS ALL RIGHT?

When people act as a society to save an animal, it is customary and 'normal' to seek answers and assurances about the status and health of the animal saved. When people CARE it is not gossip or simple curiousity that lead them to ask for reassurance, it is a genuine sense of compassion.

The Peterborough dogs remain shrouded in mystery and misinformation.  No updated pictures. No proof of vetting. Two rather awful pictures of 2 of them with no explanation of where the other two are - including the little chi.   Myself and several others continue to pursue various avenues to actually confirm the existence of these dogs - and verify the story as given in the Peterborough Examiner.

But when all is said and done, IF these dogs do exist, IF they did indeed suffer through the horror as described, then simply put, ARE THEY ALL RIGHT?

It's not rocket science but a simple question.