UPDATE: and some people REALLY think that this piece of garbage deserves to have people forgot what he did?? Check out this story. So I already had heard about the electocuting, the beatings, the fightings, drownings ... but had missed out that he also threw family PETS into the pit of fighting dogs and found it amusing to watch them be torn to pieces... and that he and his friends took one dog that didn't mee their "exacting" standars and seized the poor wee dog and repeatedly slammed it into the pavement until its back, neck and legs were broken...
I reiterate - this is not straying from the light side to the dark side. This is a deeply disturbed, psychotic, sadistic sack of shit that NEVER deserved to get his goddam life back.
________________________________
Anyone who cares about animals is pretty familiar not just with the atrocities vested on innocent dogs by Vicks et al but the subsequent efforts to whitewash, excuse and deny the absolute ATROCITIES vested on dogs they deemed "useless" - from hanging to electricuting to using already injured, frightened and abused dogs as target practice, what occurred at the horror house of the Vicks Estate was not negligible. It was not "ignorance". It was not "acting out" or "youthful follies". It was and is and will always be pathologically sick behaviour of an evil, disturbed man who is CELEBRATED for acting out his violent tendencies.
And you, Mr. president - you think that we should FORGIVE him?
We're not talking about some kid kicking a dog. We're not talking about dog owners who are "ignorant" in the true sense of the word and think tethering and tying out their dogs is accetable. We're not talking about people who don't understand the needs of dogs and fail to meet them deliberately.
We're talking about an intelligent, ambitious, canny athlete who systematically, happily, with enjoyment (they were LAUGHING in some videos as dogs were tortured) , and with impunity tortured, killed, maimed and destroyed the poor pathetic lives of a lot of innocent animals.
No, you do NOT get to say "sorry" and all is forgiven - or you shouldn't be ALLOWED to.
Perhaps most indicative of the rot that infests our society is society's willingness to overlook evil in their slavish adoration of the gladiators of today. Again and again you read about "stars" beating up their wives or girlfriends, hurting animals, cheating, fighting, and yes, torturing animals and even people and again and AGAIN society 'forgives' them as if somehow athletic, acting or some other form of prowess exonerates them from decency and responsibility.
Why?
Can someone explain to me why money chumps morality? Why the ability to generate revenue excuses sadism? Why having a star next to your name releases you from societal imperatives which have been created, agreed to and legislated to make this world habitable for us all?
And it is not just the piece of shit team owner that took that disgusting, sadistic, piece of shit BACK but every single person who supports the team, every single person who turns on the NFL and watches a game when they are playing, every single fan, individual and supporter is equally guilty.
The public was given the chance to make their will known.
They were provided with the opportunity to boycott, reject and say NO to Vicks coming back but they did NOT.
Our society truly is a sad one.
Forgive Michael Vicks? NEVER - any more than I would forgive, exonerate or overlook the other sick psychotic "stars" out there (hear me, Charlie Sheen? Sound familiar Mel Gibson?) yeah and all the others who think (and unfortunately seem to BE) above the law, above society's level of tolerance.
You'll never find me watching you. You'll never see me supporting you nor anyone who in your business career supports you.
I just hope there are a lot more of us out there.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
anxious dogs...
I wonder sometimes whether dogs, like people, differ in personalities to the extent that some are "naturally" anxious and others are not?
I know that certain characteristics, while not the exclusive purvue, are often breed-specific. For instance, talking to a terrier owner this summer, doug found the perfect description of a terrier - ALL that HUGE personality SQUISHED down into that tiny body ... sure describes the Darcy man!
Each of my three dogs come with their own set of issues. All rescues, it is inevitable that previous life experiences have left some scars. While I realize some people assert dogs live for the present and simply accept - there are just too many dogs who reflect the experiences they had in their early days to make me entirely agree. While I believe that they do not dwell on past experiences (negative in particular) in the same manner as humans - the experiences nonetheless leave an indelible impression that is not easily remedied.
Llyr was a backyard dog. From early puppyhood he was denied the social interaction that ALL dogs crave and need so badly. Ostensibly "well taken care of"- he had one of those fancy dancy igloos dog houses, adequate (if not very high quality food) and water... what he lacked was interaction.
He was 2 and a half when we got him more than 2 years ago now. Highly anxious, no manners to speak off, prone to throwing his 92 lbs + into your arms, he was also a thief, unsure how to comport himself in the house and highly aggressive with strangers. He was and remains an inveterate barker - I assume a result of trying to get some attention and fear because he was relegated to the back and incapable of perceiving what was going on in "his" house.
Llyr is terrified of being locked out again; he has huge issues staying out for any length of time in the backyard. He has improved - now he will stay out and happily play (to the best of his ability - we have spent the past two years teaching him how to "play" - and he still has some distance to go to completely understand the concept) if he has one of his people WITH him. This is a vast improvement over his first year when he would run out at top speed, pee and then frantically try to come back in.
If left by himself or even with the other dogs, he still reflects huge anxiety and between barking and whining at the door, is pathetically eager to get back into to the safety of the house. At times this summer we saw glimmers of self-sufficiency when he would actually stay fairly quiet and hang out in the garden without immediatley demanding re-entrance.
Inside the house he exemplifies Kealin's nickname for him "Mr. Destruco Pants" ... from stealing and consuming 9 frozen chicken breasts, inevitably destroying and strewing garbage everywhere... chasing cats, obsessing on the guinea pig and sticking his big nose into EVERYTHING (inevitably knocking it down, over or off), he is a great big lunk with a shell of "tough dog" which doesn't really work (how can you be Mr. Macho when you trip over your own feet and your tail sweeps everything in sight off the table?). He is like a little boy trying to assert dominance - somehow it rings false - although outside the house people seem to take him seriously ....
Llyr out of all my dogs can irritate me to no end - he just does not LEARN ... yet I know that he WANTS to do what is right, he wants to please and most of all, he desperately, passionately WANTS to be a "lap dog" .... He will crawl up on my lap and roll around (and usually off) with little twitterings and whines, begging to pets and love.
A dog's place is in the home.
A dog's place is with its people
A dog does NOT belong in a backyard, ignored and rejected - no matter how benign the neglect.
2 years later we're still trying to convince this boy that he will never again be locked out.
I know that certain characteristics, while not the exclusive purvue, are often breed-specific. For instance, talking to a terrier owner this summer, doug found the perfect description of a terrier - ALL that HUGE personality SQUISHED down into that tiny body ... sure describes the Darcy man!
Each of my three dogs come with their own set of issues. All rescues, it is inevitable that previous life experiences have left some scars. While I realize some people assert dogs live for the present and simply accept - there are just too many dogs who reflect the experiences they had in their early days to make me entirely agree. While I believe that they do not dwell on past experiences (negative in particular) in the same manner as humans - the experiences nonetheless leave an indelible impression that is not easily remedied.
Llyr was a backyard dog. From early puppyhood he was denied the social interaction that ALL dogs crave and need so badly. Ostensibly "well taken care of"- he had one of those fancy dancy igloos dog houses, adequate (if not very high quality food) and water... what he lacked was interaction.
He was 2 and a half when we got him more than 2 years ago now. Highly anxious, no manners to speak off, prone to throwing his 92 lbs + into your arms, he was also a thief, unsure how to comport himself in the house and highly aggressive with strangers. He was and remains an inveterate barker - I assume a result of trying to get some attention and fear because he was relegated to the back and incapable of perceiving what was going on in "his" house.
Llyr is terrified of being locked out again; he has huge issues staying out for any length of time in the backyard. He has improved - now he will stay out and happily play (to the best of his ability - we have spent the past two years teaching him how to "play" - and he still has some distance to go to completely understand the concept) if he has one of his people WITH him. This is a vast improvement over his first year when he would run out at top speed, pee and then frantically try to come back in.
If left by himself or even with the other dogs, he still reflects huge anxiety and between barking and whining at the door, is pathetically eager to get back into to the safety of the house. At times this summer we saw glimmers of self-sufficiency when he would actually stay fairly quiet and hang out in the garden without immediatley demanding re-entrance.
Inside the house he exemplifies Kealin's nickname for him "Mr. Destruco Pants" ... from stealing and consuming 9 frozen chicken breasts, inevitably destroying and strewing garbage everywhere... chasing cats, obsessing on the guinea pig and sticking his big nose into EVERYTHING (inevitably knocking it down, over or off), he is a great big lunk with a shell of "tough dog" which doesn't really work (how can you be Mr. Macho when you trip over your own feet and your tail sweeps everything in sight off the table?). He is like a little boy trying to assert dominance - somehow it rings false - although outside the house people seem to take him seriously ....
Llyr out of all my dogs can irritate me to no end - he just does not LEARN ... yet I know that he WANTS to do what is right, he wants to please and most of all, he desperately, passionately WANTS to be a "lap dog" .... He will crawl up on my lap and roll around (and usually off) with little twitterings and whines, begging to pets and love.
A dog's place is in the home.
A dog's place is with its people
A dog does NOT belong in a backyard, ignored and rejected - no matter how benign the neglect.
2 years later we're still trying to convince this boy that he will never again be locked out.
Monday, November 8, 2010
BSL IS BS
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION..... LET'S SAVE THIS DOG!!
For a very long time, I have been following the tragic case of Ginger, a sweet dog who has the misfortune to "look" a certain way in a province (Ontario) with misplaced, pointless, unfounded and shrill horror of a breed of dog that TRADITIONALLY was considered one of the best family pets ever - and at points in their history, were revered for their traits of affection, loyalty, protectiveness and yes, goofiness.
Brindle Stick says it best so read here.
That the Courts and the Province continue to perpetuate outright lies and misinformation is atrocious; that hundreds (thousands over the years) of innocent, loving dogs have been slaughtered because of their appearance is a travesty of justice.
I hope this current government goes down in FLAMES... between the G20 debacle to the slaughter of innocents they have made Ontario a far worse place than when they took over the reins.
For a very long time, I have been following the tragic case of Ginger, a sweet dog who has the misfortune to "look" a certain way in a province (Ontario) with misplaced, pointless, unfounded and shrill horror of a breed of dog that TRADITIONALLY was considered one of the best family pets ever - and at points in their history, were revered for their traits of affection, loyalty, protectiveness and yes, goofiness.
Brindle Stick says it best so read here.
That the Courts and the Province continue to perpetuate outright lies and misinformation is atrocious; that hundreds (thousands over the years) of innocent, loving dogs have been slaughtered because of their appearance is a travesty of justice.
I hope this current government goes down in FLAMES... between the G20 debacle to the slaughter of innocents they have made Ontario a far worse place than when they took over the reins.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
In a perfect world...
no animal would be without a home. No cat, no dog, no rabbit or other living, breathing creature with love to give, with feelings and wants and needs and a right to live a good life would suffer because of neglect, deliberate cruelty or the as heartless, lack of compassion or knowledge.
The ugly reality is that there is no such thing as a perfect world. So we have to work with what we have - with the legions of individuals who DO care, who DO understand, who bring passion and dedication and a belief in jousting at the slow thwup thwup of windmills...
The Toronto Humane Society is metamorphasizing ... it is 'becoming' - and while the final product remains yet to be seen, there are some very positive indications that the direction in which it is heading is a positive, animal-friendly, caring one. Slowly but surely the cages and pens are filling, the building itself expanding into animal-friendly environments, the staff learning, trying, training and caring.
It is inevitable that there are those who will compare the "new" THS to the "old" one; it is human nature to look behind and to colour with softness the memories of yesterday. I have said and say again, not everything was as horrendous as claimed by the OSPCA and bolstered by the yellow journalism of the Globe. Was there cruelty? Irrefutably, keeping animals from a humane and kind death due to a misplaced sense of authority was horrific. There were times the cages were dirty, the animals neglected although with respect to the dogs, NEVER to the extent claimed (in my opinion) - and usually short-term. I also always passionately embraced the THS' willingness to take all comers - dogs and cats and other creatures no one else - not individuals, not organizations, not groups - would touch.
Yet the "new" THS appears to me to be embracing many of the 'good' things from the past management, while rejecting the 'bad' ones.
It is inevitable, however, that controversy has, will and most likely, will continue to raise its head in terms of perceived injustices, decisions and policies.
Euthanasia is one of those subjects that create an outpouring of belief and passion, a subject almost impossible to reconcile between individuals and guaranteed to create dissension, controversy and anger whenever policy arises. At the moment, the current arrangement at the THS requires a medical person (veterinarian), management and an animal expert (i.e. canine expert Shas vis-a-vis dogs) to concur on the need for euthanizing a particular animal. While I reserve the right to retain some reservations until I see this policy actively working, I believe it is an excellent response to an arbitrary and sometimes arrogant decision on the part of one individual or one group of individuals retaining the sole right to make these kind of decisions.
With stated policy reflecting a concerted and determined movement toward a 'no kill' shelter (and I say again, that does not mean 'NEVER' kill), I believe the team making the decisions on who lives and dies are doing their best to keep compassion, reality and the best interests of the animal in question to the forefront. The balance of decision-makers, by their very nature, provide a relatively sane mixture that will confront and deal with all arguments for and against - medical, quality of life, adoptability and the emotional and mental stability of the animal.
I have been assured - and believe - that every chance will be given to each and every animal from both medical and behavioural standpoints, that rehabilitation, behaviourial modification and medical intervention will all be provided in order to give an animal a viable and real chance at finding a home.
Sadly, reality can and does intrude and there are times that the issues which face an animal are beyond fixing - either from a medical standpoint but also from a behavioural and emotional one. What happens then? What if everything possible has been done to redeem an animal who through no fault of its own, has medical issues that cannot be addressed, or behaviour problems that make it inevitable that it will never ever be in a position to be found a home?
IF every avenue has been explored, if serious and extended efforts have been made to rehabilitate the animal, if experts have concurred on courses of actions which are subsequently followed, if in fact, that animal has been given every chance and yet remains unable to be rehabilitated, what then?
Languishing in a cage in a back hall is not an answer - not to me anyway.
It is not that I am against long-term placement at certain types of shelters - given the animal has adjusted (and many do) and has a rich, caring environment, I think it entirely humane to keep any animal long-term and wait for that perfect home. But that is given the animal is simply hard to adopt - not impossible to adopt due to medical or behavioural issues that make it impossible to even put them up for adoption.
And then, yes, then, hard decisions sometimes have to be made.
I do not for one moment believe that each individual making that decision does so lightly - but rather, with a heavy heart but the inevitability of reality intruding, must make that choice. The balance of individuals who must concur provides a reasonable certitude that the decision made will be a balanced one. Until I see otherwise, I will continue to hope and put my trust in those individuals I DO know who are involved at the THS - for while I don't know all of them, I have enough knowledge of several that I have full certainty that the decisions they make will only be made as a last resort.
The ugly reality is that there is no such thing as a perfect world. So we have to work with what we have - with the legions of individuals who DO care, who DO understand, who bring passion and dedication and a belief in jousting at the slow thwup thwup of windmills...
The Toronto Humane Society is metamorphasizing ... it is 'becoming' - and while the final product remains yet to be seen, there are some very positive indications that the direction in which it is heading is a positive, animal-friendly, caring one. Slowly but surely the cages and pens are filling, the building itself expanding into animal-friendly environments, the staff learning, trying, training and caring.
It is inevitable that there are those who will compare the "new" THS to the "old" one; it is human nature to look behind and to colour with softness the memories of yesterday. I have said and say again, not everything was as horrendous as claimed by the OSPCA and bolstered by the yellow journalism of the Globe. Was there cruelty? Irrefutably, keeping animals from a humane and kind death due to a misplaced sense of authority was horrific. There were times the cages were dirty, the animals neglected although with respect to the dogs, NEVER to the extent claimed (in my opinion) - and usually short-term. I also always passionately embraced the THS' willingness to take all comers - dogs and cats and other creatures no one else - not individuals, not organizations, not groups - would touch.
Yet the "new" THS appears to me to be embracing many of the 'good' things from the past management, while rejecting the 'bad' ones.
It is inevitable, however, that controversy has, will and most likely, will continue to raise its head in terms of perceived injustices, decisions and policies.
Euthanasia is one of those subjects that create an outpouring of belief and passion, a subject almost impossible to reconcile between individuals and guaranteed to create dissension, controversy and anger whenever policy arises. At the moment, the current arrangement at the THS requires a medical person (veterinarian), management and an animal expert (i.e. canine expert Shas vis-a-vis dogs) to concur on the need for euthanizing a particular animal. While I reserve the right to retain some reservations until I see this policy actively working, I believe it is an excellent response to an arbitrary and sometimes arrogant decision on the part of one individual or one group of individuals retaining the sole right to make these kind of decisions.
With stated policy reflecting a concerted and determined movement toward a 'no kill' shelter (and I say again, that does not mean 'NEVER' kill), I believe the team making the decisions on who lives and dies are doing their best to keep compassion, reality and the best interests of the animal in question to the forefront. The balance of decision-makers, by their very nature, provide a relatively sane mixture that will confront and deal with all arguments for and against - medical, quality of life, adoptability and the emotional and mental stability of the animal.
I have been assured - and believe - that every chance will be given to each and every animal from both medical and behavioural standpoints, that rehabilitation, behaviourial modification and medical intervention will all be provided in order to give an animal a viable and real chance at finding a home.
Sadly, reality can and does intrude and there are times that the issues which face an animal are beyond fixing - either from a medical standpoint but also from a behavioural and emotional one. What happens then? What if everything possible has been done to redeem an animal who through no fault of its own, has medical issues that cannot be addressed, or behaviour problems that make it inevitable that it will never ever be in a position to be found a home?
IF every avenue has been explored, if serious and extended efforts have been made to rehabilitate the animal, if experts have concurred on courses of actions which are subsequently followed, if in fact, that animal has been given every chance and yet remains unable to be rehabilitated, what then?
Languishing in a cage in a back hall is not an answer - not to me anyway.
It is not that I am against long-term placement at certain types of shelters - given the animal has adjusted (and many do) and has a rich, caring environment, I think it entirely humane to keep any animal long-term and wait for that perfect home. But that is given the animal is simply hard to adopt - not impossible to adopt due to medical or behavioural issues that make it impossible to even put them up for adoption.
And then, yes, then, hard decisions sometimes have to be made.
I do not for one moment believe that each individual making that decision does so lightly - but rather, with a heavy heart but the inevitability of reality intruding, must make that choice. The balance of individuals who must concur provides a reasonable certitude that the decision made will be a balanced one. Until I see otherwise, I will continue to hope and put my trust in those individuals I DO know who are involved at the THS - for while I don't know all of them, I have enough knowledge of several that I have full certainty that the decisions they make will only be made as a last resort.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Interesting Friday 'stuff'
I really enjoy reading certain blogs that often round up animal-related information from news and internet sources - giving a good overview of what issues are paramount, what atrocities are being perpetuated and what gains are being made. So I'm going to aim for something similar on my own blog (although will decide the frequency as I move along).
Want some great deals? A fan of yard sales? Scratch your itch AND benefit the animals. R.A.I.N. is hosting a yard sale TOMORROW, Saturday, September 18 at RAIN FUNDRAISER/YARD SALE REMINDER: This Saturday September 18th from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. 75 Lawton Blvd. (St. Clair/Yonge St. area). Household goods, odds and ends, curios, antiques, books, baking and of course petitions! Drop by if you are in the neighbourhood. Rain date is Sunday Sept. 19th.
TORONTO HUMANE SOCIETY news ... at a volunteer dog-walking meeting a couple of weeks ago, Canine guy Shas reported that the NEW policy on euthanasia in the THS will be based on a decision made by three people; canine person (or cat/small animal person), management and medical expert (as in vet) - a MUCH welcome decision and one I, among many others, will be watching with interest. There is a definite movement within the THS to continue striving for a 'no-kill' shelter. Negotiations are continuing with Toronto Animal Services and other organizations towards the resumption of the THS' authority to take in strays. Since the OSPCA debacle, the THS has legally been banned from accepting anything other than owner surrenders. As this is hardly the extent of what the THS envisions for itself - this is ongoing and I for one will be watching hopefully for a resumption of their role as a saviour and refuge for the lost, abused and discarded animals of Toronto.
Yes Biscuit has an excellent discussion on PETA's much reported exposure of the research industry: to wit, while it is all well and fine that PETA exposed the atrocities, as per their usual hysterical trumpeting of their wonderfulness, they ah, sorta forgot to you KNOW, actually RESCUE the animals....
Dovetailing into the PETA party is excellent news from Animal Alliance.. not only have all the latest batch of University of Guelph beagles and cats found homes, but NO MORE lost pets will be taken from pounds and shelters to be used for research by the University of Guelph, including the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC). This is particularly close to my own heart as my Lass - the BEST, the MOST wonderful dog that ever trod the earth was a research rescue. A flat coated retriever/shepherd mix, her sweet, submissive, affectionate nature and her size and overall temperment made her "perfect" for the research labs - but we snatched her first. She was 29 lbs at 2 and a half when we got her (her proper weight turned out to be 80 lbs), emaciated, frightened and so pathetically grateful to have been rescued she spent the next 13 years proving that some dogs are simply just perfect. Four years gone and I still cry.
K.C. Dog Blog always has terrific insights as well as pithy and balanced comments respecting a wide variety of articles to and about dogs and the issues which affect them. I was particularly interested to read his take on media bias in reporting dog bite and attack stats - which confirms what I have asserted for a long time - that half the issues we face today with the bias against pit bulls and other breeds can be dirctly attributable to the kangaroo courts and fear mongering by media of a credulous public which is ready to believe the lies. Today's entry was fascinating as it exposes a conundrum for Denver (which really isn't as the law IS the law) as council grapples with innate and created prejudices and tries to maintain a ban on certain breeds of service dogs.
Want some great deals? A fan of yard sales? Scratch your itch AND benefit the animals. R.A.I.N. is hosting a yard sale TOMORROW, Saturday, September 18 at RAIN FUNDRAISER/YARD SALE REMINDER: This Saturday September 18th from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. 75 Lawton Blvd. (St. Clair/Yonge St. area). Household goods, odds and ends, curios, antiques, books, baking and of course petitions! Drop by if you are in the neighbourhood. Rain date is Sunday Sept. 19th.
TORONTO HUMANE SOCIETY news ... at a volunteer dog-walking meeting a couple of weeks ago, Canine guy Shas reported that the NEW policy on euthanasia in the THS will be based on a decision made by three people; canine person (or cat/small animal person), management and medical expert (as in vet) - a MUCH welcome decision and one I, among many others, will be watching with interest. There is a definite movement within the THS to continue striving for a 'no-kill' shelter. Negotiations are continuing with Toronto Animal Services and other organizations towards the resumption of the THS' authority to take in strays. Since the OSPCA debacle, the THS has legally been banned from accepting anything other than owner surrenders. As this is hardly the extent of what the THS envisions for itself - this is ongoing and I for one will be watching hopefully for a resumption of their role as a saviour and refuge for the lost, abused and discarded animals of Toronto.
Yes Biscuit has an excellent discussion on PETA's much reported exposure of the research industry: to wit, while it is all well and fine that PETA exposed the atrocities, as per their usual hysterical trumpeting of their wonderfulness, they ah, sorta forgot to you KNOW, actually RESCUE the animals....
Dovetailing into the PETA party is excellent news from Animal Alliance.. not only have all the latest batch of University of Guelph beagles and cats found homes, but NO MORE lost pets will be taken from pounds and shelters to be used for research by the University of Guelph, including the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC). This is particularly close to my own heart as my Lass - the BEST, the MOST wonderful dog that ever trod the earth was a research rescue. A flat coated retriever/shepherd mix, her sweet, submissive, affectionate nature and her size and overall temperment made her "perfect" for the research labs - but we snatched her first. She was 29 lbs at 2 and a half when we got her (her proper weight turned out to be 80 lbs), emaciated, frightened and so pathetically grateful to have been rescued she spent the next 13 years proving that some dogs are simply just perfect. Four years gone and I still cry.
K.C. Dog Blog always has terrific insights as well as pithy and balanced comments respecting a wide variety of articles to and about dogs and the issues which affect them. I was particularly interested to read his take on media bias in reporting dog bite and attack stats - which confirms what I have asserted for a long time - that half the issues we face today with the bias against pit bulls and other breeds can be dirctly attributable to the kangaroo courts and fear mongering by media of a credulous public which is ready to believe the lies. Today's entry was fascinating as it exposes a conundrum for Denver (which really isn't as the law IS the law) as council grapples with innate and created prejudices and tries to maintain a ban on certain breeds of service dogs.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Good things shaking down at 11 River Street with the THS
As noted in the blog preceding this, I am cognizant that there is lots GOOD happening at the THS and Red Star Cafe does her usual awesome job summing it up.
I am not out to "get" the THS; rather, I yearn for what many animal lovers yearn for, I ache for what I KNOW many Board members passionately believe in, I BELIEVE it can happen with the dedication, the drive, the desire and the good will of staff, management, vets, board members and most of all, the PEOPLE in this City who for so many years have BELIEVED that every animal has a chance.
To that end, SUPPORT the new Toronto Humane Society in becoming the BEST it can be - a beacon and an example for a humane society that exemplies Nathon Winograd's no-kill movement.
As Red Star relates below in her always articulate words....
The Toronto Humane Society invites you to a lively evening of Cuban music, dancing, snacks and mojitos at the Boulevard Club on the lakeshore. The event takes place on Monday, September 13.
Please come out and support THS as it moves forward with projects to help the animals, including the building of a high-volume spay/neuter clinic for the urban Toronto community at River Street, alliance with Toronto Animal Services and cat rescues for trap/neuter/return of feral cats, re-opening of the kitten nursery, and improved socialization and training of dogs to help them get adopted into loving homes. THS is also consulting with Bill Bruce, director of Calgary Animal Services, to learn about the successful Calgary model of no-kill sheltering. Bill attended Hershey’s Rally to oppose breed-specific legislation this past weekend with THS volunteers and members of the board.
THS is funded entirely by members and donors, but donations are down this year. These good people need your help to continue to work for the animals and the community.
If you aren’t able to make it to the Cuban Dance Party, please consider donating online or by snail mail to THS. If you are specifically interested in supporting the spay/neuter clinic, just indicate on your cheque that the donation is “for spay/neuter clinic only” and your funds will be earmarked.
I am not out to "get" the THS; rather, I yearn for what many animal lovers yearn for, I ache for what I KNOW many Board members passionately believe in, I BELIEVE it can happen with the dedication, the drive, the desire and the good will of staff, management, vets, board members and most of all, the PEOPLE in this City who for so many years have BELIEVED that every animal has a chance.
To that end, SUPPORT the new Toronto Humane Society in becoming the BEST it can be - a beacon and an example for a humane society that exemplies Nathon Winograd's no-kill movement.
As Red Star relates below in her always articulate words....
The Toronto Humane Society invites you to a lively evening of Cuban music, dancing, snacks and mojitos at the Boulevard Club on the lakeshore. The event takes place on Monday, September 13.
Please come out and support THS as it moves forward with projects to help the animals, including the building of a high-volume spay/neuter clinic for the urban Toronto community at River Street, alliance with Toronto Animal Services and cat rescues for trap/neuter/return of feral cats, re-opening of the kitten nursery, and improved socialization and training of dogs to help them get adopted into loving homes. THS is also consulting with Bill Bruce, director of Calgary Animal Services, to learn about the successful Calgary model of no-kill sheltering. Bill attended Hershey’s Rally to oppose breed-specific legislation this past weekend with THS volunteers and members of the board.
THS is funded entirely by members and donors, but donations are down this year. These good people need your help to continue to work for the animals and the community.
If you aren’t able to make it to the Cuban Dance Party, please consider donating online or by snail mail to THS. If you are specifically interested in supporting the spay/neuter clinic, just indicate on your cheque that the donation is “for spay/neuter clinic only” and your funds will be earmarked.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Anatomy of a Death: Why did Icy Die?
The issue of euthanasia is fraught with controversy and passion and inevitably gets mired in personal beliefs and subjective notions on when and why an animal should die. The College of Veterinarians of Ontario (the “CVO”) recognizes to a limited extent (my emphasis) the dilemma faced by many vets and published Guidelines on Veterinary Euthanasia (the “Guidelines”) in October 2008 (on its website).
Under the Law
A spokesperson for CVO (“Fischer”) recently indicated to me in response to an email I sent with a number of questions respecting the practice of euthanasia a number of helpful links and with specific reference to vets employed by humane societies or shelters .
The unique position of a veterinarian employed by a humane society or shelter is addressed through a provision of the OSPCA Act, and more specifically in the Veterinarians Act/Loi sur les veterinaries R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 1093 (the “Act”):
I want to point out here the words in the proviso “health of the subject animals” – so this provision does not deal directly with the reasons for euthanasia but rather could be construed to refer to (in the CONTEXT of euthanasia), the health of the animal.
Further, the Act states in Section 43:
Again, to me, when exploring the rationale behind euthanizing an animal, Subsection 43(4)(e) again refers to the member being responsible for “all decisions relating to the quality and promotion of the member’s professional services and the health of the subject animals”. No doubt there are those that can read that provision as encompassing almost autonomous powers to the vet, but again, to me, it more clearly refers to “health” of the subject animals which does not rationalize the euthanasia of a healthy dog or cat!
So those provisions deal with the legalities. Specifically, it clearly states that while the shelter is the veterinarian’s employer, said employer cannot under the law interfere with the vet’s decision with respect to the health of the animal. I do NOT believe it necessarily codifies the vet`s complete and utter right to make unilateral decisions about anything OTHER than the medical condition and health of the animal. Specifically, it does not as far as I can see give any vet the unilateral right to euthanize an animal based on behavior, age (given the animal is healthy) or other factors apart from and separate from HEALTH issues.
The employer/member conflict which this law was designed to avoid is alleged to have occurred under the auspices of the previous Board and President Tim Trow. I do have to ask, if indeed that WAS the case where WAS the CVO during the MANY years Mr. Trow spearheaded the organization and ostensibly dictated to Shelter vets how do to do their job?
Medical versus Subjective Reasons for Euthanasia
But while those provisions deal with the legalities, they do NOT address specifically what set of factors determine an animal SHOULD be euthanized. Because the reality is, it is not a straightforward.
I think it inarguable that a vet can and SHOULD have the final say if there are clear cut and solid medical reasons why the animal should be euthanized. Inoperable tumors, degenerative diseases that have or are reaching a critical stage, continuing pain which cannot be alleviated, animals who have had accidents where it is impossible to provide a reasonable guarantee of quality of life.
BUT, and this is a HUGE caveat – euthanasia is not always about putting an animal out of pain or humanely assisting it to die.
The reality is that medical issues are FAR from the only reason an animal is euthanized. In actual fact, it is highly likely that in our society among the many shelters, humane societies, pounds and other organizations that deal with the sad reality of abandoned, neglected and abused pets – it is probably the LEAST likely reason in those settings.
In exploring the issue of euthanasia in a shelter setting, I continually came across well-meaning individuals who harbour an unrealistic and unsubstantiated belief that vets are vets because of their deep and enduring love of animals.
As in any profession, I think the actualities are far different. I believe some vets do take up the profession because of their love of animals; equally I believe there are as many that enter it due to the lucrative nature of the practice. Add to that the vast differences in philosophy, outlook and viewpoints among vets (who are all individuals after all) - and what is considered a “legitimate” reason for euthanasia becomes problematic and impossible to agree upon.
CVO Guidelines
I have provided a link to these Guidelines but there are a few pertinent points I want to make. As noted before, these guidelines take into account the unique relationship between a veterinarian who is employed by a humane society or shelter.
However, having noted that, the Guidelines can and do apply to that scenario as well. Under the sub-heading “Client Preparation”, the CVO clearly urges a dialogue between the shelter and/or humane society (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Client”) and the veterinarian to minimize “the chance that the owner’s values will diverge from the veterinarian’s when a decision needs to be reached regarding an animal’s situation.”
That clearly indicates that a decision on euthanasia is not a unilateral one but one that requires communication and discussion between all parties who are at law and morally, responsible for the animal in question.
Also noteworthy is the Guidelines’ advice respecting Client Support- something that was sadly and tragically absent from the Toronto Humane Society during the past several months. Animals, some of them long-term members of the THS, much beloved and cosseted by staff and volunteers were summarily executed with NO chance for goodbyes or intervention and absolutely no sympathy for the resultant agony of mind and spirit on the part of those who loved them.
But, in the context of who decides whether an animal lives or dies, the Guidelines clearly favour:
Which leads us rather elegantly to the next consideration .
The THS in Flux
Under the former management of the THS, euthanasia was not only a last resort but misguided “compassion” resulted (alleged but more than likely true) in the cruel and unnecessary suffering of animals that should have been provided a dignified and kind way out of their pain and suffering. To date, under the auspices of executive director Garth Jerome, the new “THS” describes itself as “low-kill”. The current Board appears to concur, however, that a change in policy to a “no-kill” is hopefully in the offing. (I would also point out that from Mr. Jerome’s email and his willingness to work with the new Board, he appears to be open to change).
However, as things stand at the moment there is no appreciable movement toward a no-kill policy in the THS. More worrisome is the continued lack of transparency as to the policies, decisions and procedures actually implemented at the time.
In early July, two Siberian huskies – a bonded pair – were surrendered to the THS. Due to extenuating circumstances and the last minute failure of a foster home, their owner Steve N. had no choice but to surrender them – and in the full belief they would be safe – he did so to the THS. Within HOURS of their arrival, Icy was euthanized. To date there has been NO explanation as to why nor have the THS staff, Board or management owned up as to who made the decision.
I know there is a tremendous amount going on behind the scenes at the THS. The reality is that there are contracts, legalities and no doubt, a jockeying of position as individuals and groups seek to come to terms with a radically different reality within the walls of 11 River Street.
I also know that NO ONE has admitted to making the decision to kill Icy (and other animals) – yet someone DID kill her – and while no one is saying whom, it did happen. I do not believe – and feel that most rational people would concur – that any ONE individual (or collective group of individuals such as vets, management, staff etc) has the right, the rationality, the expertise or the perspective to decide which animal lives or dies when the issue of euthanasia is NOT related to an unequivocal medical issue.
Veterinarians are medically trained. Ethically speaking, however, they are as individualistic and subjective as any other human being, with their own set of internal guidelines, morals and imperatives. Nor are veterinarians necessarily behaviouralists. Animal behaviorists are highly trained and competent in assessing behavioral issues in animals and the potential of those animals to be rehabilitated.
Ageism is another issue in many shelters, many of which operate on the premise that only young, healthy animals have the possibility of being adopted, and as such, older (even if relatively healthy) animals should be refused or if surrendered regardless, euthanized as being “unadoptable.
The reality of course is far different.
As Nathan Winograd has successfully proven again and again, there is a home for every animal.
In my three years of volunteer work with the dogs at the THS, I have been astonished, humbled and ecstatic at people and the compassion and genuine love they can show to even the oldest, most fragile – and yes, smelliest! dogs that have come in and are subsequently (often quickly) adopted out.
As I have noted before, Icy was a healthy, well-behaved if older dog that SHOULD have been given a chance to enjoy her twilight years as a cosseted and loved member of a family. What she did NOT deserve was to be labeled a “problem” or “unadoptable” (my surmise only) and summarily executed.
If the “new” THS is to find its feet, it MUST start showing the people of Toronto that in rejecting the negative aspects of the old regime, it also embraces some of the positive reasons why Tim Trow was successful in running a shelter where the public KNEW the old, the infirm, the sick, the abused, the neglected and the unwanted at least had a chance.
While there is no question that there were MANY thing wrong with the “old” THS, Icy would be alive under that regime.
Death is final. Making that decision requires more than a medical degree. It requires compassion, balance and a willingness to do whatever can be done to rehabilitate, treat (medically or otherwise), and give an animal TIME to adjust and make changes.
For decisions OTHER than clear-cut medical ones – I implicitly believe that decisions on euthanasia at the “new” THS must and should require a balance of perspective. A veterinarian, absolutely, an animal behaviourist (of which there are several on staff) as well as input from management. As a group, based on clearly delineated policies (hopefully soon to reflect the no-kill mindset), decisions can be made.
The THS has as its new Board some wonderful people with a solid background in animal rights and care - further, some excellent strategies are planned - such as this week`s brainstorming with Calgary`s very impressive Bill Bruce who has done wonders within that city for the no kill movement and the reopening of the kitten nursery.
For more 100 year, the THS represented the best in animal welfare to the people of Toronto. It has stood as the beacon for animal rights, the voice that speaks up for those who cannot speak for themselves, a haven for those rejected and abused by those who should cherish them. It has, above all, epitomized “sanctuary”.
If the THS is to survive, let them show the people of Toronto they continue to be a place where future Icy’s will find solace and safe haven.
[UPDATE: This has been edited to remove material that might be potentially legally contentious- nothing of import is changed however]
Under the Law
A spokesperson for CVO (“Fischer”) recently indicated to me in response to an email I sent with a number of questions respecting the practice of euthanasia a number of helpful links and with specific reference to vets employed by humane societies or shelters .
The unique position of a veterinarian employed by a humane society or shelter is addressed through a provision of the OSPCA Act, and more specifically in the Veterinarians Act/Loi sur les veterinaries R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 1093 (the “Act”):
43(2) (4) A member may practice veterinary medicine as,
(a) …
(e) an employee of a humane society operated in accordance with the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act if, in the course of the employment, the member provides professional services under a written contract that provides that the member is responsible for all decisions relating to the quality and promotion of the member’s professional services and the health of the subject animals;
(my emphasis)
I want to point out here the words in the proviso “health of the subject animals” – so this provision does not deal directly with the reasons for euthanasia but rather could be construed to refer to (in the CONTEXT of euthanasia), the health of the animal.
Further, the Act states in Section 43:
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) …
(b) a member employed by a humane society operated in accordance with the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act or by a pound operated under the Animals for Research Act who performs a veterinary service for an animal seized by, or irrevocably surrendered to, the society or pound shall be deemed to perform the service to his or her employer. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093, s. 43 (3).
(4) A member may practice veterinary medicine as,
(a) …
(e) an employee of a humane society operated in accordance with the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act if, in the course of the employment, the member provides professional services under a written contract that provides that the member is responsible for all decisions relating to the quality and promotion of the member’s professional services and the health of the subject animals;
(my emphasis)
Again, to me, when exploring the rationale behind euthanizing an animal, Subsection 43(4)(e) again refers to the member being responsible for “all decisions relating to the quality and promotion of the member’s professional services and the health of the subject animals”. No doubt there are those that can read that provision as encompassing almost autonomous powers to the vet, but again, to me, it more clearly refers to “health” of the subject animals which does not rationalize the euthanasia of a healthy dog or cat!
So those provisions deal with the legalities. Specifically, it clearly states that while the shelter is the veterinarian’s employer, said employer cannot under the law interfere with the vet’s decision with respect to the health of the animal. I do NOT believe it necessarily codifies the vet`s complete and utter right to make unilateral decisions about anything OTHER than the medical condition and health of the animal. Specifically, it does not as far as I can see give any vet the unilateral right to euthanize an animal based on behavior, age (given the animal is healthy) or other factors apart from and separate from HEALTH issues.
The employer/member conflict which this law was designed to avoid is alleged to have occurred under the auspices of the previous Board and President Tim Trow. I do have to ask, if indeed that WAS the case where WAS the CVO during the MANY years Mr. Trow spearheaded the organization and ostensibly dictated to Shelter vets how do to do their job?
Medical versus Subjective Reasons for Euthanasia
But while those provisions deal with the legalities, they do NOT address specifically what set of factors determine an animal SHOULD be euthanized. Because the reality is, it is not a straightforward.
I think it inarguable that a vet can and SHOULD have the final say if there are clear cut and solid medical reasons why the animal should be euthanized. Inoperable tumors, degenerative diseases that have or are reaching a critical stage, continuing pain which cannot be alleviated, animals who have had accidents where it is impossible to provide a reasonable guarantee of quality of life.
BUT, and this is a HUGE caveat – euthanasia is not always about putting an animal out of pain or humanely assisting it to die.
The reality is that medical issues are FAR from the only reason an animal is euthanized. In actual fact, it is highly likely that in our society among the many shelters, humane societies, pounds and other organizations that deal with the sad reality of abandoned, neglected and abused pets – it is probably the LEAST likely reason in those settings.
In exploring the issue of euthanasia in a shelter setting, I continually came across well-meaning individuals who harbour an unrealistic and unsubstantiated belief that vets are vets because of their deep and enduring love of animals.
As in any profession, I think the actualities are far different. I believe some vets do take up the profession because of their love of animals; equally I believe there are as many that enter it due to the lucrative nature of the practice. Add to that the vast differences in philosophy, outlook and viewpoints among vets (who are all individuals after all) - and what is considered a “legitimate” reason for euthanasia becomes problematic and impossible to agree upon.
CVO Guidelines
I have provided a link to these Guidelines but there are a few pertinent points I want to make. As noted before, these guidelines take into account the unique relationship between a veterinarian who is employed by a humane society or shelter.
However, having noted that, the Guidelines can and do apply to that scenario as well. Under the sub-heading “Client Preparation”, the CVO clearly urges a dialogue between the shelter and/or humane society (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Client”) and the veterinarian to minimize “the chance that the owner’s values will diverge from the veterinarian’s when a decision needs to be reached regarding an animal’s situation.”
That clearly indicates that a decision on euthanasia is not a unilateral one but one that requires communication and discussion between all parties who are at law and morally, responsible for the animal in question.
Also noteworthy is the Guidelines’ advice respecting Client Support- something that was sadly and tragically absent from the Toronto Humane Society during the past several months. Animals, some of them long-term members of the THS, much beloved and cosseted by staff and volunteers were summarily executed with NO chance for goodbyes or intervention and absolutely no sympathy for the resultant agony of mind and spirit on the part of those who loved them.
But, in the context of who decides whether an animal lives or dies, the Guidelines clearly favour:
Communication between and among veterinarians and staff…. to ensure that the veterinary team is clear on its policies and procedures, so that consistent information is given to clients. Practitioners should maintain a euthanasia policy within their practices that clearly outlines the position of the practice and/or the veterinarians who work there. This policy should be developed and periodically reviewed with staff and made available to all clients at an $appropriate point in the VCPR.
Which leads us rather elegantly to the next consideration .
The THS in Flux
Under the former management of the THS, euthanasia was not only a last resort but misguided “compassion” resulted (alleged but more than likely true) in the cruel and unnecessary suffering of animals that should have been provided a dignified and kind way out of their pain and suffering. To date, under the auspices of executive director Garth Jerome, the new “THS” describes itself as “low-kill”. The current Board appears to concur, however, that a change in policy to a “no-kill” is hopefully in the offing. (I would also point out that from Mr. Jerome’s email and his willingness to work with the new Board, he appears to be open to change).
However, as things stand at the moment there is no appreciable movement toward a no-kill policy in the THS. More worrisome is the continued lack of transparency as to the policies, decisions and procedures actually implemented at the time.
In early July, two Siberian huskies – a bonded pair – were surrendered to the THS. Due to extenuating circumstances and the last minute failure of a foster home, their owner Steve N. had no choice but to surrender them – and in the full belief they would be safe – he did so to the THS. Within HOURS of their arrival, Icy was euthanized. To date there has been NO explanation as to why nor have the THS staff, Board or management owned up as to who made the decision.
I know there is a tremendous amount going on behind the scenes at the THS. The reality is that there are contracts, legalities and no doubt, a jockeying of position as individuals and groups seek to come to terms with a radically different reality within the walls of 11 River Street.
I also know that NO ONE has admitted to making the decision to kill Icy (and other animals) – yet someone DID kill her – and while no one is saying whom, it did happen. I do not believe – and feel that most rational people would concur – that any ONE individual (or collective group of individuals such as vets, management, staff etc) has the right, the rationality, the expertise or the perspective to decide which animal lives or dies when the issue of euthanasia is NOT related to an unequivocal medical issue.
Veterinarians are medically trained. Ethically speaking, however, they are as individualistic and subjective as any other human being, with their own set of internal guidelines, morals and imperatives. Nor are veterinarians necessarily behaviouralists. Animal behaviorists are highly trained and competent in assessing behavioral issues in animals and the potential of those animals to be rehabilitated.
Ageism is another issue in many shelters, many of which operate on the premise that only young, healthy animals have the possibility of being adopted, and as such, older (even if relatively healthy) animals should be refused or if surrendered regardless, euthanized as being “unadoptable.
The reality of course is far different.
As Nathan Winograd has successfully proven again and again, there is a home for every animal.
In my three years of volunteer work with the dogs at the THS, I have been astonished, humbled and ecstatic at people and the compassion and genuine love they can show to even the oldest, most fragile – and yes, smelliest! dogs that have come in and are subsequently (often quickly) adopted out.
As I have noted before, Icy was a healthy, well-behaved if older dog that SHOULD have been given a chance to enjoy her twilight years as a cosseted and loved member of a family. What she did NOT deserve was to be labeled a “problem” or “unadoptable” (my surmise only) and summarily executed.
If the “new” THS is to find its feet, it MUST start showing the people of Toronto that in rejecting the negative aspects of the old regime, it also embraces some of the positive reasons why Tim Trow was successful in running a shelter where the public KNEW the old, the infirm, the sick, the abused, the neglected and the unwanted at least had a chance.
While there is no question that there were MANY thing wrong with the “old” THS, Icy would be alive under that regime.
Death is final. Making that decision requires more than a medical degree. It requires compassion, balance and a willingness to do whatever can be done to rehabilitate, treat (medically or otherwise), and give an animal TIME to adjust and make changes.
For decisions OTHER than clear-cut medical ones – I implicitly believe that decisions on euthanasia at the “new” THS must and should require a balance of perspective. A veterinarian, absolutely, an animal behaviourist (of which there are several on staff) as well as input from management. As a group, based on clearly delineated policies (hopefully soon to reflect the no-kill mindset), decisions can be made.
The THS has as its new Board some wonderful people with a solid background in animal rights and care - further, some excellent strategies are planned - such as this week`s brainstorming with Calgary`s very impressive Bill Bruce who has done wonders within that city for the no kill movement and the reopening of the kitten nursery.
For more 100 year, the THS represented the best in animal welfare to the people of Toronto. It has stood as the beacon for animal rights, the voice that speaks up for those who cannot speak for themselves, a haven for those rejected and abused by those who should cherish them. It has, above all, epitomized “sanctuary”.
If the THS is to survive, let them show the people of Toronto they continue to be a place where future Icy’s will find solace and safe haven.
[UPDATE: This has been edited to remove material that might be potentially legally contentious- nothing of import is changed however]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)