Saturday, November 28, 2009

Now is the time for people to rally behind Toronto Humane Society. For the animals.

As said time and time again, the Toronto Humane Society needs new leadership. The current board and executives need to resign and a new, clean slate elected.

The new board will have one heck of a hard road to travel - trust in the Toronto Humane Society has been badly eroded, if not eradicated - but with hard work, good communications and proof of improved animal welfare, they can restore the lustre to THS's reputation.

Now is the time for people to rally to save THS, whether it's by volunteering or by donating. The ship hasn't sunk, it just needs a new crew.

I think (someone with charities knowledge, please check and advise) that if you mark your donation cheque "For animal care only", the money can't be used for the legal defense of the directors and officials, but that would have to be checked. I'm sickened that the honchos were so complacent they didn't have D&O liability insurance in place, and public money donated for animals will be spent defending Trow & Co.

It is essential to hold a members' meeting as quickly as possible, vote out the existing board and vote in people who actually care about the animals, will act as true directors, true fiduciaries, who will use the public's donations for the animals and restore the lustre to THS's reputation.

This should not be about reputations, egos or tempers. This should be about the animals.
For the animals.
Isn't that what Toronto Humane Society is supposed to be?

Donors' money to pay THS officials' defenses

This is absurd.

The Toronto Star has an article that donors' money will be used to pay the defense costs for Tim Trow and company.

I have no problem with the employees being paid; they are employees and entitled to their paycheques regardless of the legal issues right now.

Did the Toronto Humane Society not purchase directors' and officers' liability insurance, to cover costs in the event of a legal issue? Bob Hambley, the Secretary-Treasurer of THS and therefore responsible for corporate governance, should have known of D&O insurance and had it in place. There's also executive liability insurance, which would have covered the non-directorial personnel charged.

What happened to Ian McConachie, the THS communications person? Why is Hambley suddenly the source of quotes?

Friday, November 27, 2009

Stomach-turning find at Toronto Humane

A mummified cat was found in a live trap in the ceiling at THS.

According to the National Post, this cat was named Casper.

This poor creature died of starvation or thirst, probably calling and calling with a weaker and weaker voice. Until he died alone in the dark.

If you go to slide 5 of the Globe and Mail photo essay on THS, you'll see a statement that "cat colonies have invaded the ceilings, radiators, basement and even the Society's offices."

Who is the person who put a live trap in a ceiling and never checked it???? Or recorded the presence of the trap so someone would check it???? If I understand the writing in the National Post article correctly, the THS communications person Ian McConachie said, "“It should have been checked on a regular basis, I don’t know who was in charge of that or if that was a trap that was just forgotten about up there”. Just FORGOTTEN??? At an institution that is supposedly about animal welfare???? Go ahead, McConachie, keep digging that hole deeper. I won't need a reminder not to hire McConachie for crisis communications management.

I hope the THS bank accounts have been frozen so the officials and directors can't access the public donations for their defense costs.

Note: The OSPCA euthanized four animals on November 26th. Tim Trow is quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, "...a similar number of animals were euthanized on a daily basis while he was in charge of the society."

The numbers don't add up. Four euths a day X 365 days = 1,460 animals dead in a year. Give THS the benefit of the doubt and make it three euths a day. Three euths a day X 365 days = 1,095. How does that reconcile with the claim on the THS website that it euth'd 500 animals, apparently dogs and cats only? Was THS euth'ing tremendous numbers of wildlife? Or are the numbers on the THS website wrong? There is a real disconnect here.

Is this why THS squandered donors' dollars on a frivolous lawsuit against the OSPCA? To try to get a ruling that THS could operate without any oversight of its practices?

Where is the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee? As I recall, under McGuinty & Co. the OPG was accused of failing to take proper care of monies entrusted to its custody. The OPG has been told for at least three years of the problems at THS, and has sat on its freaking hands. A lawyer for the OSPCA hopes a supervisor will be appointed from the OPG. Not in my lifetime, boyo.

THS should have tried spending some of the money squandered on lawsuits on its actual purpose - animal welfare.

Including saving agonized Casper in the ceiling. Who died by inches.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Toronto Humane Society officials and directors charged with cruelty to animals

Read the Globe and Mail's article on it all....and let's hope that none of the THS directors and officials are allowed to use publicly-donated money for their defense.

Complete change of direction....Barbara Amiel has an excellent article on entitled "Dogs are victims in a scary war". Well worth reading, Ms. Amiel is intelligent, thoughtful and makes very sharp points.

Tip of the hat to Brindle Stick for the Amiel article.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Collections and reflections

I was at Wednesday's event supporting Cheri DiNovo's bill to remove breed-specific language from the Ontario Dog Owners' Act. It was wonderful to meet all the lovely and loving bully dogs demonized by ulterior-motive politicians and media, and all their owners.

Contrary to propaganda, many, many of them are intelligent, sensible, responsible women.

These women have been called unprintable names, been harassed and assaulted, and had their lives made miserable by the Ontario McGuinty Liberals.

The article about the Bill on carries a remark of Ms. DiNovo's that really resonated with me. The Fibs' legislation encompasses animals with a broad snout, muscular, short chest and short coat and long tail. This definition is similar to 40 per cent of all dogs.

"If you took away the tail, you'd be describing most of the politicians at Queen's Park," quipped DiNovo.

Antonia Zerbisias has a great post on her Broadsides blog entitled Bully for Cheri DiNovo, with a link to Laura's story about moving to Ontario from the U.S. with no knowledge of the Liberals' "pit bull" ban. Be sure to read it.

One Bark At A Time has some lovely photos from the event. Be sure to scroll through the comments and read Fran's comment about the older lady and her "pit bull", it will bring tears to your eyes.

KC Dog Blog reports that Puerto Rico is the latest jurisdiction to repeal breed-specific legislation, and many others are following suit.

Dalton McGuinty is, of course, dancing around on this. He said the Fibs consulted dog experts. What he doesn't say is that the Fibs ignored the dog experts' advice. I believe the word to describe that is prevarication. He's fudging it.

I am profoundly disappointed by the responses from Liberal MPPs Laurel Broten and Kathleen Wynne. They're issuing goose-stepping form response letters. I expected better from both of them.

Ms. Broten owns a dog that under the Liberals' BSL is a definition (e) "pit bull". I can't see any specific exemption in the legislation or the regulations for a purebred dog. As I understand it, you must obey the law if you're not specifically exempted. Ms. Broten's dog is walked unmuzzled and in the past ran offleash. Does Ms. Broten not understand that under her own party's law, she should be obeying the law and always muzzling and leashing her dog?

Ms. Wynne, the Minister of Education, apparently believes that it is just fine to discriminate on the basis of appearance. That's rather frightening. Is this what will be taught in schools, that it's all right in Liberal-Land to discriminate because of the way something or someone looks? That does not strike me as an intelligent or informed opinion.

It is past time to repeal the Ontario Liberals' unfounded, unjust, inhumane, vague, shoddy and fiscally irresponsible breed-specific legislation. It's definitely BS L.