Addendum: Interesting editorial in the April 6th Toronto Star. In keeping with the following, the last line of the editorial is, "But new faces are needed if this once-respected organization is to regain public trust."
From Dictionary.com.
Trust: reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence. certainty, belief, faith. Trust, assurance, confidence imply a feeling of security. Trust implies instinctive unquestioning belief in and reliance upon something: to have trust in one's parents. Confidence implies conscious trust because of good reasons, definite evidence, or past experience: to have confidence in the outcome of events. Assurance implies absolute confidence and certainty: to feel an assurance of victory.
The Toronto Humane Society debacle of the last few months is not the first. As Justice D.M. Brown pointed out in his reasons for decision of April 1st, 2010, this is the third time in less than 25 years that issues concerning THS have come before the courts. This is not the first time that the behaviour of the THS board and management have come under public scrutiny.
Some points for people to consider.
1. The current board and management of THS have developed and approved a plan that includes (a) shutting down the shelter for two months and (b) bringing in the Humane Society of the United States, a well-funded U.S. lobbying group that does not operate a single shelter, gives less than 1% of its donations to animal welfare groups and has been caught using animals it was trying to have killed to raise money for itself.
2. The current board, while submitting to the courts that most intend to resign and will not run for re-election, approved the above plan and gave the new Executive Director a two-year contract. In an April 1, 2010 press release, Bob Hambley, President of the THS is quoted, "Mr. Jerome has a two-year contract...".
3. There is to me evidence of profound animal neglect in the shelter. I have personal experiences with THS animal neglect. For decades there have been allegations of animal neglect by THS board and management, many of whom remain on the board or in management.
4. THS has never been transparent about whether Bob Hambley continues to be Secretary and Treasurer in addition to becoming the new President.
5. In November 2009, the Globe and Mail disclosed that the THS board and management had spent almost half a million dollars on litigation in one year. The THS board and management have lawsuits still ongoing against (at least) the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Hamilton Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Lee Oliver. The THS board and management have paid lawyers to send threatening letters to (at least) the Association for the Reform of Toronto Humane Society, former employee Anthony DeMelo and the Toronto Cat Rescue. I'd like to know what the legal bill stands at now, and whether the $400,000 given to a lawyer was returned to THS on March 5, 2010. The board and management of THS must be made to explain how these lawsuits and threatening letters benefit the animals entrusted to THS' care.
6. In November 2009 five of the top THS staff including the president and chief veterinarian were arrested and charged with animal cruelty. The entire board of directors of THS were charged with animal cruelty. A former THS supervisor was subsequently charged with animal cruelty. Subsequently, an OSPCA officer was fired and charged for giving advance notice of an OSPCA raid and a THS agent was arrested and charged with impersonating a peace officer. To the best of my knowledge all of those charges remain outstanding, they have not been withdrawn.
7. The senior management and representatives of THS could not or would not answer simple, straightforward questions about finances and corporate governance at the September 2009 AGM.
8. Without any public notice or explanation, the THS shut down the membership portion of its website in August 2009 (first date it was noticed) and applications submitted are not being processed. People who call about their applications do not receive the courtesy of a return call.
9. The Association for Reform of the Toronto Humane Society has two timelines - the first here and the second here - summarizing THS historical events since 1972.
To me, it all boils down to one simple question: In light of current and historical events and behaviours, do I trust the current board and management of the Toronto Humane Society?
It's a question every member of THS must ask him or herself before completing the absentee ballot or attending the THS special meeting on May 30th to vote in person.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
A break from our regular programming....
Curtis and Leroy saw an ad in the Kentville Advertiser Newspaper in Kentville, N.S. And bought a mule for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day.
The next morning the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, fellers, I have some bad news, the mule died last night." Curtis & Leroy replied, "Well, then just give us our money back.." The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already." They said, "OK then, just bring us the dead mule." The farmer asked, "What in the world ya'll gonna do with a dead mule?"
Curtis said, "We gonna raffle him off." The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead mule!" Leroy said, "We shore can! Heck, we don't hafta tell nobody he's dead!"
A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Curtis & Leroy at the Co-Op grocery store and asked: "What'd you fellers ever do with that dead mule?" They said, "We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do." Leroy said,"Shucks, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $898."
The farmer said,"My Lord, didn't anyone complain?" Curtis said, "Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back."
Curtis and Leroy now work for the government.
They're overseeing McGuinty's Harmonization Sales Tax Plan.
The next morning the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, fellers, I have some bad news, the mule died last night." Curtis & Leroy replied, "Well, then just give us our money back.." The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already." They said, "OK then, just bring us the dead mule." The farmer asked, "What in the world ya'll gonna do with a dead mule?"
Curtis said, "We gonna raffle him off." The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead mule!" Leroy said, "We shore can! Heck, we don't hafta tell nobody he's dead!"
A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Curtis & Leroy at the Co-Op grocery store and asked: "What'd you fellers ever do with that dead mule?" They said, "We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do." Leroy said,"Shucks, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $898."
The farmer said,"My Lord, didn't anyone complain?" Curtis said, "Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back."
Curtis and Leroy now work for the government.
They're overseeing McGuinty's Harmonization Sales Tax Plan.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The game just took a 100 degree turn.
Well, there I was, writing a rational, objective post about working together....
I took a break to read Garth Jerome's affidavit about the plan to close down Toronto Humane Society for a death-dealing reboot (available on many sites)....
And felt physically ill.
It scared the $#!@ out of me.
If you haven't read it, you'd better. Fast.
I could nitpick like crazy, but I'm going to restrict myself to the high points.
First, never once does Mr. Jerome refer to the objects contained in the Letters Patent of THS. Mission statement, policies, blah blah. What do the objects in the THS Letters Patent allow Toronto Humane Society to be?
Next, Mr. Jerome consulted with the Edmonton Humane Society, among others. According to paragraph 5 of Mr. Jerome's affidavit, it appears that Edmonton Humane Society has a 50% kill rate (intake 10,000; adoptions 5,000). If Edmonton Humane wishes to provide detail that refutes the appearance, I'd really like to see it.
In all the talk about mission statements, policies, procedures, retraining, trips to Edmonton/Toronto, laptop computers....not one word about how much this will cost and where the money is coming from for all these plans.
Now, paragraph 18 of the affidavit. Mr. Jerome wants to invite a "consultation/assessment team" from the Humane Society of the United States to "spend a week at the shelter and conduct a wholesale review of our operations".
The Humane Society of the United States ("HSUS") is a lobby group. It does not operate a single shelter.
According to people who can do math (not me), in 2008 HSUS spent $28 million of their $125 million budget on fundraising -- $28 million on political campaigns and $12 million on "strategic communications'.
HSUS gave less than 1% of donations to shelters.
Want to know how much money HSUS has in the bank? In 2008 - $204, 868,764. Yes, that's millions.
HSUS was lobbying for the deaths of the Vick dogs while using them in fundraising campaigns. HSUS has called for the deaths of dogs and puppies seized in fight busts, never once allowing for temperament assessment and rehoming. HSUS never had care of the Vick dogs.
HSUS used a picture of Fay, a severely injured "pit bull", in a fundraising campaign. HSUS never had care of Fay. HSUS didn't even get the dog's name right. After some serious screaming worldwide, HSUS gave a lousy $5 grand to the rescue actually caring for Fay (which would have been a drop in the bucket for HSUS, and a pittance towards Fay's vet costs).
HSUS supports mandatory spay/neuter. Mandatory spay/neuter can eradicate a domesticated species in one generation.
HSUS opposed feral cat trap/spay/neuter/release programs.
HSUS does not support no-kill.
HSUS apparently has crossleadership with PETA. PETA wants to end animal ownership, including pets. PETA killed almost 100% of the animals entrusted to it in 2009..and 2008....and 2007....
Nathan Winograd has covered HSUS, as has Pet Connection blog and KC Dog Blog.
HSUS states in its IRS filing that it wants a representative in every state in the U.S.
Is HSUS looking for a foothold in Canada?
I'm worried.
Very worried.
===============================================
This is the objective post that got waylaid...
Keep your eyes on the prize.
There's a minor flurry going on between what I call the "puppies and kitties" crowd (read: the ones controlled by their emotions) and those who can see the long-term, who have their eyes on the goal of rebuilding the Toronto Humane Society.
Dissension serves no one, especially not the animals.
Focusing on the short term obscures and detracts from the historical issues at THS - institutionalized hoarding, inhumane treatment of terminally injured or ill animals by allowing them to die in their cages, squandering donor funds on lawsuits (detailed in the mainstream media - are the THS lawsuits against the OSPCA, Hamilton HS and a former employee still ongoing?), the lack of control, transparency and accountability. Read the affidavit for the search warrant against THS if you need a reminder about its animal care.
Garth Jerome, the new Executive Director of THS (N.B. an Executive Director is a paid employee, not a member of the board of directors), has issued a statement that the board of THS has approved a plan to shut the shelter for six to eight weeks. Mr. Jerome's affidavit sets out a whole bunch'a stuff.
Why did the THS lawyers call a reduced animal population a "death spiral" on March 2, 2010 but aren't calling emptying and closing the shelter a "death spiral"?
I do not think that THS should be emptied "...by means of adoption, fostering, transfers to rescue groups, and euthanasia...". Rescue groups are overburdened as it is, most run by volunteers who pay much out of their pockets without the $9M in revenue THS had in 2008 (wonder what the legal fees are to date for all the to-ing and fro-ing?). Fostering had been shut down at THS, last I heard? That leaves adoption and euthanasia. How many of the animals left at THS have medical or behavioural issues that make them unlikely candidates for adoption?
Neither the board nor Mr. Jerome appear to have made concrete plans for all the kittens that will be born very shortly.
Nor has anyone addressed where the money is coming from. Were the independent animal-care experts paid? Who would pay for an Edmonton animal are trainer to stay in Toronto and train THS staff, or for THS shelter supervisors to go to Edmonton? The THS proposal includes deep cleaning, staff retraining, a new computer system for tracking animal intake and care, cosmetic changes to the public areas of the facility, and a "new infrastructure for the conduct of future operations".
Hey, Board of Directors, why wasn't this done BEFORE the OSPCA bust?
There should also be a savage structural check of the building, particularly its wiring, in light of the rodent infestation it's had for years.
Where is the money coming from? THS hasn't allowed new memberships since August 2009. I know several people with applications and cheques sitting in a pile on someone's desk. The board had time to decide to close the shelter, why didn't they deal with the backlog of membership applications? Aren't members important? Who is going to donate to a shelter where they can't be a member and have a vote, or to a closed shelter?
Brian Shiller of the OSPCA is quoted in the March 30, 2010 Globe & Mail article stating, "Most of the members of the board of directors have “indicated an intention to resign shortly". Hey, enquiring minds want to know - who hasn't said they'll resign? If most of the board is going to resign, then why should that board be allowed to decide to close the shelter?
Cool heads are needed now. Fact, not opinion, is needed now. The goal needs to be kept uppermost.
The shelter needs to be kept open, particularly in light of coming kitten season. Kittens need feeding every 2 hours round the clock if Mama is dead or can't be found.
BUT the board who sat for years, either overtly or tacitly endorsing the behaviour of management (the sin of omission is as grave as the sin of commission), cannot be allowed to remain.
A shelter cannot be no-kill unless it turns animals away. The goal should be humane low-kill. Allowing terminally ill animals to die in their cages is not humane.
Only by regrouping, coalescing, sticking together and keeping our eyes on the goal - the removal of the current board and management of Toronto Humane and the rejuvenation of the Toronto Humane Society and replacement with a board committed to animal welfare (not rights), transparency and accountability - can those goals be achieved.
I took a break to read Garth Jerome's affidavit about the plan to close down Toronto Humane Society for a death-dealing reboot (available on many sites)....
And felt physically ill.
It scared the $#!@ out of me.
If you haven't read it, you'd better. Fast.
I could nitpick like crazy, but I'm going to restrict myself to the high points.
First, never once does Mr. Jerome refer to the objects contained in the Letters Patent of THS. Mission statement, policies, blah blah. What do the objects in the THS Letters Patent allow Toronto Humane Society to be?
Next, Mr. Jerome consulted with the Edmonton Humane Society, among others. According to paragraph 5 of Mr. Jerome's affidavit, it appears that Edmonton Humane Society has a 50% kill rate (intake 10,000; adoptions 5,000). If Edmonton Humane wishes to provide detail that refutes the appearance, I'd really like to see it.
In all the talk about mission statements, policies, procedures, retraining, trips to Edmonton/Toronto, laptop computers....not one word about how much this will cost and where the money is coming from for all these plans.
Now, paragraph 18 of the affidavit. Mr. Jerome wants to invite a "consultation/assessment team" from the Humane Society of the United States to "spend a week at the shelter and conduct a wholesale review of our operations".
The Humane Society of the United States ("HSUS") is a lobby group. It does not operate a single shelter.
According to people who can do math (not me), in 2008 HSUS spent $28 million of their $125 million budget on fundraising -- $28 million on political campaigns and $12 million on "strategic communications'.
HSUS gave less than 1% of donations to shelters.
Want to know how much money HSUS has in the bank? In 2008 - $204, 868,764. Yes, that's millions.
HSUS was lobbying for the deaths of the Vick dogs while using them in fundraising campaigns. HSUS has called for the deaths of dogs and puppies seized in fight busts, never once allowing for temperament assessment and rehoming. HSUS never had care of the Vick dogs.
HSUS used a picture of Fay, a severely injured "pit bull", in a fundraising campaign. HSUS never had care of Fay. HSUS didn't even get the dog's name right. After some serious screaming worldwide, HSUS gave a lousy $5 grand to the rescue actually caring for Fay (which would have been a drop in the bucket for HSUS, and a pittance towards Fay's vet costs).
HSUS supports mandatory spay/neuter. Mandatory spay/neuter can eradicate a domesticated species in one generation.
HSUS opposed feral cat trap/spay/neuter/release programs.
HSUS does not support no-kill.
HSUS apparently has crossleadership with PETA. PETA wants to end animal ownership, including pets. PETA killed almost 100% of the animals entrusted to it in 2009..and 2008....and 2007....
Nathan Winograd has covered HSUS, as has Pet Connection blog and KC Dog Blog.
HSUS states in its IRS filing that it wants a representative in every state in the U.S.
Is HSUS looking for a foothold in Canada?
I'm worried.
Very worried.
===============================================
This is the objective post that got waylaid...
Keep your eyes on the prize.
There's a minor flurry going on between what I call the "puppies and kitties" crowd (read: the ones controlled by their emotions) and those who can see the long-term, who have their eyes on the goal of rebuilding the Toronto Humane Society.
Dissension serves no one, especially not the animals.
Focusing on the short term obscures and detracts from the historical issues at THS - institutionalized hoarding, inhumane treatment of terminally injured or ill animals by allowing them to die in their cages, squandering donor funds on lawsuits (detailed in the mainstream media - are the THS lawsuits against the OSPCA, Hamilton HS and a former employee still ongoing?), the lack of control, transparency and accountability. Read the affidavit for the search warrant against THS if you need a reminder about its animal care.
Garth Jerome, the new Executive Director of THS (N.B. an Executive Director is a paid employee, not a member of the board of directors), has issued a statement that the board of THS has approved a plan to shut the shelter for six to eight weeks. Mr. Jerome's affidavit sets out a whole bunch'a stuff.
Why did the THS lawyers call a reduced animal population a "death spiral" on March 2, 2010 but aren't calling emptying and closing the shelter a "death spiral"?
I do not think that THS should be emptied "...by means of adoption, fostering, transfers to rescue groups, and euthanasia...". Rescue groups are overburdened as it is, most run by volunteers who pay much out of their pockets without the $9M in revenue THS had in 2008 (wonder what the legal fees are to date for all the to-ing and fro-ing?). Fostering had been shut down at THS, last I heard? That leaves adoption and euthanasia. How many of the animals left at THS have medical or behavioural issues that make them unlikely candidates for adoption?
Neither the board nor Mr. Jerome appear to have made concrete plans for all the kittens that will be born very shortly.
Nor has anyone addressed where the money is coming from. Were the independent animal-care experts paid? Who would pay for an Edmonton animal are trainer to stay in Toronto and train THS staff, or for THS shelter supervisors to go to Edmonton? The THS proposal includes deep cleaning, staff retraining, a new computer system for tracking animal intake and care, cosmetic changes to the public areas of the facility, and a "new infrastructure for the conduct of future operations".
Hey, Board of Directors, why wasn't this done BEFORE the OSPCA bust?
There should also be a savage structural check of the building, particularly its wiring, in light of the rodent infestation it's had for years.
Where is the money coming from? THS hasn't allowed new memberships since August 2009. I know several people with applications and cheques sitting in a pile on someone's desk. The board had time to decide to close the shelter, why didn't they deal with the backlog of membership applications? Aren't members important? Who is going to donate to a shelter where they can't be a member and have a vote, or to a closed shelter?
Brian Shiller of the OSPCA is quoted in the March 30, 2010 Globe & Mail article stating, "Most of the members of the board of directors have “indicated an intention to resign shortly". Hey, enquiring minds want to know - who hasn't said they'll resign? If most of the board is going to resign, then why should that board be allowed to decide to close the shelter?
Cool heads are needed now. Fact, not opinion, is needed now. The goal needs to be kept uppermost.
The shelter needs to be kept open, particularly in light of coming kitten season. Kittens need feeding every 2 hours round the clock if Mama is dead or can't be found.
BUT the board who sat for years, either overtly or tacitly endorsing the behaviour of management (the sin of omission is as grave as the sin of commission), cannot be allowed to remain.
A shelter cannot be no-kill unless it turns animals away. The goal should be humane low-kill. Allowing terminally ill animals to die in their cages is not humane.
Only by regrouping, coalescing, sticking together and keeping our eyes on the goal - the removal of the current board and management of Toronto Humane and the rejuvenation of the Toronto Humane Society and replacement with a board committed to animal welfare (not rights), transparency and accountability - can those goals be achieved.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
There are so many games afoot, and animals are the pawns.
Worldwide, there are games afoot with various factions pushing their agendas, redirecting unwelcome attention or protecting their turf...and animals have no voice in this game, they're only the pawns.
1. Past decade if not more - PETA, HSUS and the rest of the "kill 'em" groups - trying to eliminate specific types of animals or domestic animals wholesale, particularly pets. PETA and HSUS are nothing more than well-funded lobby groups pushing anti-animal agendas. Any unthinking dope who spouts "guardian" in reference to their animals is aiding the PETA goal (the game) of having animals removed from the category of property and therefore removing any legislative or common-law right to own property (a pet animal).
2. 2005 - The provincial Liberal government passed an unfounded, unjust, inhumane, vague, shoddy, ineffective and fiscally irresponsible breed ban. This was at a time when the Liberals' public approval rating was very low. The Liberals ignored all the dog experts. The Liberals refused to institute a centralized dog bite registry - gee, I wonder why. One of the Liberals' so-called experts was a dweeb who can't even get the names of dog breeds right. This game was rigged from the start. Couldn't get a word printed in mainstream media to refute the Fibs' rhetoric. The Liberals had absolutely no intention of listening to the people who testified at the committee hearings. McSquinty whipped the Fibs into showing up and voting for the breed ban. This was a done deal before we even heard about it.
3. 2004 and 2005 - The way I read the returns, it appears the Ontario Liberals gave two whacking great hunks of money to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("OSPCA") - which, being the enforcement body for animal law in the province, would probably be involved in dog fight investigations and dog seizures resulting from the investigations. However, we haven't seen any media trumpeting about any dog fight busts. What's the game here? Was this money from the Ontario government? Why was the money given? What was done with it? And why another great lump in 2008?
N.B. Snipped from OSPCA returns filed with the Canada Revenue Agency
Revenue from provincial/territorial governments
2002 - $ 685,500
2003 - 216,294
2004 - 1,154,760
2005 - 1,268,609
2006 - 285,755
2007 - 653,482
2008 - 2,845,810
4. November 2009 - OSPCA makes animal cruelty busts at Toronto Humane Society ("THS"). Long story well-covered in mainstream media. Current board of directors is charged, cruelty investigator charged, former office worker charged...hard to know who hasn't been charged. The game here consisted of idly wondering about who would turn on whom to save their skin.
5. March 2010 - THS does a public 180 on its euthanasia "policy" and posts on its website that it has killed six dogs (five "pit bulls") and 19 cats. Now, what's this game? Apparently the five "pit bulls" all had no temperament or health issues and had places ready in rescues outside the province; the only issue was the logistics of transporting them through the province (because of the stupid provincial breed ban and even stupider patchwork of municipal breed ban laws). What's the game here? Why the sudden rush to kill the dogs and the cats? Especially since THS had repeatedly refused to work with rescues and allow the dogs to leave the province, preferring to keep them incarcerated for years? (Keep in mind that these dogs would be alive if THS had moved them out of the province.) Was the killing required by the OSPCA? Was it a decision of THS and if so, who made the decision? Don't give me the nameless, faceless "committee" answer. Someone ultimately had to say, "they're toast". Who was it? Why were these dogs and cats killed? Will we ever get a straight answer?
6. Guess the game in #5 eliminates the game in #4.
Y'ever get the feeling that you'd like to leave for an island with no government and no politics?
Take your animals with you.
And go without anyone else. As soon as there are two or more people, there's politics.
1. Past decade if not more - PETA, HSUS and the rest of the "kill 'em" groups - trying to eliminate specific types of animals or domestic animals wholesale, particularly pets. PETA and HSUS are nothing more than well-funded lobby groups pushing anti-animal agendas. Any unthinking dope who spouts "guardian" in reference to their animals is aiding the PETA goal (the game) of having animals removed from the category of property and therefore removing any legislative or common-law right to own property (a pet animal).
2. 2005 - The provincial Liberal government passed an unfounded, unjust, inhumane, vague, shoddy, ineffective and fiscally irresponsible breed ban. This was at a time when the Liberals' public approval rating was very low. The Liberals ignored all the dog experts. The Liberals refused to institute a centralized dog bite registry - gee, I wonder why. One of the Liberals' so-called experts was a dweeb who can't even get the names of dog breeds right. This game was rigged from the start. Couldn't get a word printed in mainstream media to refute the Fibs' rhetoric. The Liberals had absolutely no intention of listening to the people who testified at the committee hearings. McSquinty whipped the Fibs into showing up and voting for the breed ban. This was a done deal before we even heard about it.
3. 2004 and 2005 - The way I read the returns, it appears the Ontario Liberals gave two whacking great hunks of money to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("OSPCA") - which, being the enforcement body for animal law in the province, would probably be involved in dog fight investigations and dog seizures resulting from the investigations. However, we haven't seen any media trumpeting about any dog fight busts. What's the game here? Was this money from the Ontario government? Why was the money given? What was done with it? And why another great lump in 2008?
N.B. Snipped from OSPCA returns filed with the Canada Revenue Agency
Revenue from provincial/territorial governments
2002 - $ 685,500
2003 - 216,294
2004 - 1,154,760
2005 - 1,268,609
2006 - 285,755
2007 - 653,482
2008 - 2,845,810
4. November 2009 - OSPCA makes animal cruelty busts at Toronto Humane Society ("THS"). Long story well-covered in mainstream media. Current board of directors is charged, cruelty investigator charged, former office worker charged...hard to know who hasn't been charged. The game here consisted of idly wondering about who would turn on whom to save their skin.
5. March 2010 - THS does a public 180 on its euthanasia "policy" and posts on its website that it has killed six dogs (five "pit bulls") and 19 cats. Now, what's this game? Apparently the five "pit bulls" all had no temperament or health issues and had places ready in rescues outside the province; the only issue was the logistics of transporting them through the province (because of the stupid provincial breed ban and even stupider patchwork of municipal breed ban laws). What's the game here? Why the sudden rush to kill the dogs and the cats? Especially since THS had repeatedly refused to work with rescues and allow the dogs to leave the province, preferring to keep them incarcerated for years? (Keep in mind that these dogs would be alive if THS had moved them out of the province.) Was the killing required by the OSPCA? Was it a decision of THS and if so, who made the decision? Don't give me the nameless, faceless "committee" answer. Someone ultimately had to say, "they're toast". Who was it? Why were these dogs and cats killed? Will we ever get a straight answer?
6. Guess the game in #5 eliminates the game in #4.
Y'ever get the feeling that you'd like to leave for an island with no government and no politics?
Take your animals with you.
And go without anyone else. As soon as there are two or more people, there's politics.
Dogsbite.org exposed
The post on KC Dog Blog about the truth behind dogsbite.org is a must-read. It's a very thoughtful, objective analysis (unlike this blog *grin*).
As commenters mention, it's frightening that a group gets quoted without having any credentials, solely to provide "both sides". How can you justify promoting the opinions of a group with absolutely no credentials, who want to kill animals solely because of appearance?
Dog owners are a visually identifiable group. Does pushing a personal agenda of vengeance qualify dogsbite.org as a hate group?
As commenters mention, it's frightening that a group gets quoted without having any credentials, solely to provide "both sides". How can you justify promoting the opinions of a group with absolutely no credentials, who want to kill animals solely because of appearance?
Dog owners are a visually identifiable group. Does pushing a personal agenda of vengeance qualify dogsbite.org as a hate group?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)