Before people from other places complain about the treatment of animals in our shelters, best check their own backyard.
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-dog-rescue-shoot,0,6036194.story
I had to watch and read this twice.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Every Dog Should Matter to a dog lover, NOT just your own.
I was going back doing a little reading and I began to wonder..Why is it that Fran can put so much importance on her dog and her health and well-being, and so little importance on the other dogs in her community? She keeps stressing that no dogs were hurt in the attacks by Brindi, even the ones she knows went to a vet. The ones that she claims left her area immediately after an attack (and she had no chance to see the wounds) she claims they were fine with no wounds. Not sure how she can possibly know that.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
LETS TALK ABOUT STALKING AND OR THREATS:
A certain dog owner,keeps ranting how she is being threatened,and quite proudly sort of brags about it in her blog,now its my turn.
Several authors of this blog have been threatened myself included,that is fine and we can deal with it and trust me we will;however since threatening us has had no effect the focus has turned on to our family members;to the extent a police investigation has started. At this point I want to make it clear that I am pointing the finger at no one in particular,however having said that it all stems back to the untruths told by a certain dog owner. Its also my understanding that several commplaints have been made to the Police about some of "us" about the stalking. Well anyone with a half a clue can turn on the computer and do a google search on any subject and get all the information available since it now is public knowledge. ITS NOT AN OFFENCE TO QUOTE OR QUESTION ANY TOPIC ON THE INTERNET. The person filing the complaints has been advised of that.
I fully realize that a few mis informed people are a bit upset with HRM and the SPCA and agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there,which is the main reason of this blog ;to speak the truth. In earlier topics and comments you can read the truth so at this point I will not repeat it.
The best we all can do now is hope that this particular dog is re homed and that the owner moves on with her life, because if the stalking of our family members continues by un named persons the shit will hit the fan in more ways than enough. Now you can attack me all you want and I shall reply with facts I can state lots of facts now however its all over the internet and as I said just do a google search and come to your own conclusion.
Cheers
Several authors of this blog have been threatened myself included,that is fine and we can deal with it and trust me we will;however since threatening us has had no effect the focus has turned on to our family members;to the extent a police investigation has started. At this point I want to make it clear that I am pointing the finger at no one in particular,however having said that it all stems back to the untruths told by a certain dog owner. Its also my understanding that several commplaints have been made to the Police about some of "us" about the stalking. Well anyone with a half a clue can turn on the computer and do a google search on any subject and get all the information available since it now is public knowledge. ITS NOT AN OFFENCE TO QUOTE OR QUESTION ANY TOPIC ON THE INTERNET. The person filing the complaints has been advised of that.
I fully realize that a few mis informed people are a bit upset with HRM and the SPCA and agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there,which is the main reason of this blog ;to speak the truth. In earlier topics and comments you can read the truth so at this point I will not repeat it.
The best we all can do now is hope that this particular dog is re homed and that the owner moves on with her life, because if the stalking of our family members continues by un named persons the shit will hit the fan in more ways than enough. Now you can attack me all you want and I shall reply with facts I can state lots of facts now however its all over the internet and as I said just do a google search and come to your own conclusion.
Cheers
Friday, March 19, 2010
Fran hit the radio
Fran hit the radio today with her " own" talk show ( I hope just for today ). It was bacially a rant, mostly lies and with a phone call ( skype I guess) with the oh so moral law biding citizen of South Africa. Anyone with any real knowledge of what happened will really get a charge as to how the story of the facts are once again changed.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
NASTY PEOPLE,HIDE BEHIND THEIR COMPUTERS
Well I see that Fran on her Blog has posted what she thinks is threats,well I have read them all and I would have to disagree with her. Someone may or may not have reported her to NSPC for unsafe electrical hookup. Is that a threat I think not. However the one thing she probably doesn't realize is the person who reads her meter is required to report unsafe conditions. Therefore she can go blow smoke elsewhere.
Now the following was sent to me in my inbox,do I consider it a threat,Hell no. However I do consider the writer a bit more than unstable.
""""""MegaMinimouse has posted a comment on your profile:
What a pathetic excuse for a human being you are. The world would be a more pleasant place without mean spirited people like yourself - I hope you rot in hell for your nasty nature."""""""
Now guess what???? I did a profile search and it took me right to a picture of Fran herself. I will allow you all to come to your own conclusions.
Now the following was sent to me in my inbox,do I consider it a threat,Hell no. However I do consider the writer a bit more than unstable.
""""""MegaMinimouse has posted a comment on your profile:
What a pathetic excuse for a human being you are. The world would be a more pleasant place without mean spirited people like yourself - I hope you rot in hell for your nasty nature."""""""
Now guess what???? I did a profile search and it took me right to a picture of Fran herself. I will allow you all to come to your own conclusions.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Talk about SPIN !!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Um, what were they saying about "irresponsible"?
Today, a man was attacked by a dog in the pound so severely that he had to be hospitalized.
Published: 2010-03-16
Man bitten at Metro SPCA
Pest control technician treated at hospital after attack
By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter
A man was taken to hospital after he was bitten by a dog at the Metro SPCA shelter.
Police and paramedics were called to the animal shelter at 5 Scarfe Ct. in Dartmouth at about 11:40 a.m. Monday after a reported dog bite.
The shelter is closed to the public on Mondays, but staff and volunteers are there to care for the animals.
"We had a technician come in, a pest control technician," said Kristin Williams, executive director of the Nova Scotia SPCA.
"Unfortunately, he entered a back area without an escort and he encountered one of our dogs and was bitten in the hand and taken to hospital."
Krista Beck, a spokeswoman for Emergency Health Services, said later Monday that the man was taken to the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax with injuries to his hand and possibly his leg. The injuries were not life-threatening, Beck said.
Halifax Regional Police were called to the shelter because it was believed the dog was not secure, which turned out to be untrue, said spokesman Const. Brian Palmeter.
At the time of the attack, the female mixed-breed dog "was getting some R&R social time (outside of its kennel), but it was still a restricted area," Williams said.
The dog, described as a young adult canine, has been at the shelter since August, when it was seized by order of Halifax Regional Municipality, Williams said. It was not part of any cruelty investigation, she said.
She didn’t know whether the dog had bitten anyone prior to arriving at the shelter last summer but said it hadn’t bitten anyone at the shelter before this.
"This was an isolated incident and we obviously feel very sorry for the individual and hope that he has a quick recovery," Williams said.
The Metro SPCA, which had the municipal animal control contract, has a handful of dogs at the shelter that are awaiting proceedings to determine their fate, including Brindi, a dog that has been the subject of court proceedings and in the headlines for some time.
Williams said Brindi was not the dog involved in Monday’s incident.
Although the shelter has asked the municipality to allow the dogs to have "socializing time outside of the shelter, such as walks outside of the shelter, we’ve been told we’re not permitted to do that," Williams said.
"It’s a very difficult situation for us."
The dog involved in Monday’s incident is "back in quarantine . . . but we haven’t received further direction from HRM other than to return her to kennel, which we’ve done," Williams said.
The municipality’s animal services division is investigating.
( pbrooks@herald.ca)
© 2008 The Halifax Herald Limited
We don't want to seem overly critical, but we have to ask: who's irresponsible now, Kristin Williams? HRM? Whether or not it's an "isolated incident" matters little to the man, and even less under the law. The fact is that it happened, and there was no "due diligence". If they were ever charged, this attack would likely earn the SPCA staff a guilty conviction in provincial court (and a euthanization order for the dog).
The SPCA runs the HRM pound within the confines of the Metro Shelter, a modestly sized building. We have been led to believe the pound is kept separate from the rest of the shelter. So it's hard to understand how a dog could be walking around loose, especially when they know the place is going to be sprayed for bugs? And why wasn't anybody accompanying the man, or at least watching the dog?
However, if the dog is loose, we can easily understand how such an attack could happen. The SPCA pretty much admits these dogs are not given enough exercise, though they blame that on HRM. So the dog is bound to be a bit wired up, and react to a strange man approaching - possibly with some equipment, or a mask, or whatever. But this should not have happened. And somebody was indeed irresponsible.
Meanwhile, if what is said about Brindi is true, we are thrilled to note that in a year and a half of her illegal incarceration, Brindi has never bitten anybody, staff or stranger, at the pound. They say she is allowed to walk around too and obeys all the obedience commands her owner taught her. It's possible she was even loose at the time of this other attack, who knows? Such a dangerous dog!
Still, the SPCA says her owner is too irresponsible to have her back. The newspaper talks about the plan to find Brindi a "suitable home". We think they all ought to sit down and give that position a little more thought. The rest of us can draw our own conclusions.
However, for the sake of Brindi's health, and the health of all of the animals there, what about the pest control being done? Exactly what kind of poisonous chemicals are these dogs being exposed to?? And what kinds of pests have infested the building?
Posted by nobody important at 9:47 PM 0 comments
Um, what were they saying about "irresponsible"?
Today, a man was attacked by a dog in the pound so severely that he had to be hospitalized.
Published: 2010-03-16
Man bitten at Metro SPCA
Pest control technician treated at hospital after attack
By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter
A man was taken to hospital after he was bitten by a dog at the Metro SPCA shelter.
Police and paramedics were called to the animal shelter at 5 Scarfe Ct. in Dartmouth at about 11:40 a.m. Monday after a reported dog bite.
The shelter is closed to the public on Mondays, but staff and volunteers are there to care for the animals.
"We had a technician come in, a pest control technician," said Kristin Williams, executive director of the Nova Scotia SPCA.
"Unfortunately, he entered a back area without an escort and he encountered one of our dogs and was bitten in the hand and taken to hospital."
Krista Beck, a spokeswoman for Emergency Health Services, said later Monday that the man was taken to the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax with injuries to his hand and possibly his leg. The injuries were not life-threatening, Beck said.
Halifax Regional Police were called to the shelter because it was believed the dog was not secure, which turned out to be untrue, said spokesman Const. Brian Palmeter.
At the time of the attack, the female mixed-breed dog "was getting some R&R social time (outside of its kennel), but it was still a restricted area," Williams said.
The dog, described as a young adult canine, has been at the shelter since August, when it was seized by order of Halifax Regional Municipality, Williams said. It was not part of any cruelty investigation, she said.
She didn’t know whether the dog had bitten anyone prior to arriving at the shelter last summer but said it hadn’t bitten anyone at the shelter before this.
"This was an isolated incident and we obviously feel very sorry for the individual and hope that he has a quick recovery," Williams said.
The Metro SPCA, which had the municipal animal control contract, has a handful of dogs at the shelter that are awaiting proceedings to determine their fate, including Brindi, a dog that has been the subject of court proceedings and in the headlines for some time.
Williams said Brindi was not the dog involved in Monday’s incident.
Although the shelter has asked the municipality to allow the dogs to have "socializing time outside of the shelter, such as walks outside of the shelter, we’ve been told we’re not permitted to do that," Williams said.
"It’s a very difficult situation for us."
The dog involved in Monday’s incident is "back in quarantine . . . but we haven’t received further direction from HRM other than to return her to kennel, which we’ve done," Williams said.
The municipality’s animal services division is investigating.
( pbrooks@herald.ca)
© 2008 The Halifax Herald Limited
We don't want to seem overly critical, but we have to ask: who's irresponsible now, Kristin Williams? HRM? Whether or not it's an "isolated incident" matters little to the man, and even less under the law. The fact is that it happened, and there was no "due diligence". If they were ever charged, this attack would likely earn the SPCA staff a guilty conviction in provincial court (and a euthanization order for the dog).
The SPCA runs the HRM pound within the confines of the Metro Shelter, a modestly sized building. We have been led to believe the pound is kept separate from the rest of the shelter. So it's hard to understand how a dog could be walking around loose, especially when they know the place is going to be sprayed for bugs? And why wasn't anybody accompanying the man, or at least watching the dog?
However, if the dog is loose, we can easily understand how such an attack could happen. The SPCA pretty much admits these dogs are not given enough exercise, though they blame that on HRM. So the dog is bound to be a bit wired up, and react to a strange man approaching - possibly with some equipment, or a mask, or whatever. But this should not have happened. And somebody was indeed irresponsible.
Meanwhile, if what is said about Brindi is true, we are thrilled to note that in a year and a half of her illegal incarceration, Brindi has never bitten anybody, staff or stranger, at the pound. They say she is allowed to walk around too and obeys all the obedience commands her owner taught her. It's possible she was even loose at the time of this other attack, who knows? Such a dangerous dog!
Still, the SPCA says her owner is too irresponsible to have her back. The newspaper talks about the plan to find Brindi a "suitable home". We think they all ought to sit down and give that position a little more thought. The rest of us can draw our own conclusions.
However, for the sake of Brindi's health, and the health of all of the animals there, what about the pest control being done? Exactly what kind of poisonous chemicals are these dogs being exposed to?? And what kinds of pests have infested the building?
Posted by nobody important at 9:47 PM 0 comments
Sunday, March 14, 2010
WHAT DO YA"LL THINK OF THIS???
Copied to us from a friend in Humane Halifax...
From: Humane Halifax [mailto:humanehalifax@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Sat 13/03/2010 5:14 PM
To: (the local media and HRM councilors)
Cc: humane_halifax@yahoo.groups.ca
Subject: Personal bias should not be part of Herald's news coverage of Brindi
March 13, 2010
To the HRM council, the Chronicle-Herald, and the local media of Halifax:
We have learned that community writer Pat Lee of the Chronicle-Herald (March 10, "Advocates Offer Option for Brindi" ), is personally connected to the "advocates" in question. This group includes members of the SPCA, and though it is a matter before the courts, it has been relentlessly campaigning for nearly a year for this dog to be "re-homed", i.e., taken away from the person who saved her from the needle in 2008.
Pat Lee's facebook friends include the following, all of whom are associated with or belong to this "advocacy" group:
Joan Sinden, blogger
Annette-Netta Armitage
Heather Morrison
Janet Chernin, who has been prosecuted by the city for running an illegal dog care facility
Kat Horne, VP of the Nova Scotia SPCA
LeeAnne Poirier Tibbo, of the dog legislation council, who has circulated false information about Francesca Rogier
Silvia Jay, trainer
among others
These people also belong to a group called ARPO that has been attacking Francesca Rogier for a long time. None of these people know Ms. Rogier personally. Last spring, ARPO published a defamatory and misleading letter about Ms. Rogier in The Coast. Mr. Bob Ottenbrite is also a member of ARPO, and is involved in litigation with Ms. Rogier. Therefore his position cannot be seen as objective. The Herald's web editor, Rick Conrad, is friendly with Joan Sinden. Sinden has been personally attacking Rogier in her blog with a series of libelous remarks. Conrad was also seen at the recent dog expo associating with Gail Gallant, who has been publicly harassing and cyberstalking Francesca Rogier for over a year.
We deplore ARPO and its associates for singling out Ms. Rogier as an "irresponsible owner". We call upon the Herald to exercise a greater amount of professional objectivity and cease giving such people a public forum in which to push their agenda without scrutiny. Has anyone asked, for instance, what ARPO is doing about the numerous owners in this city whose dogs are genuine threats to public safety?
Any 'advocation' for re-homing in this case is inappropriate. Brindi is not a dangerous dog. She should not have been seized. She should be returned as soon as possible to her own home with her loving and responsible owner, where she belongs.
Sincerely,
Humane Halifax for Better Animal Control
humanehalifax@yahoo.com
From: Humane Halifax [mailto:humanehalifax@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Sat 13/03/2010 5:14 PM
To: (the local media and HRM councilors)
Cc: humane_halifax@yahoo.groups.ca
Subject: Personal bias should not be part of Herald's news coverage of Brindi
March 13, 2010
To the HRM council, the Chronicle-Herald, and the local media of Halifax:
We have learned that community writer Pat Lee of the Chronicle-Herald (March 10, "Advocates Offer Option for Brindi" ), is personally connected to the "advocates" in question. This group includes members of the SPCA, and though it is a matter before the courts, it has been relentlessly campaigning for nearly a year for this dog to be "re-homed", i.e., taken away from the person who saved her from the needle in 2008.
Pat Lee's facebook friends include the following, all of whom are associated with or belong to this "advocacy" group:
Joan Sinden, blogger
Annette-Netta Armitage
Heather Morrison
Janet Chernin, who has been prosecuted by the city for running an illegal dog care facility
Kat Horne, VP of the Nova Scotia SPCA
LeeAnne Poirier Tibbo, of the dog legislation council, who has circulated false information about Francesca Rogier
Silvia Jay, trainer
among others
These people also belong to a group called ARPO that has been attacking Francesca Rogier for a long time. None of these people know Ms. Rogier personally. Last spring, ARPO published a defamatory and misleading letter about Ms. Rogier in The Coast. Mr. Bob Ottenbrite is also a member of ARPO, and is involved in litigation with Ms. Rogier. Therefore his position cannot be seen as objective. The Herald's web editor, Rick Conrad, is friendly with Joan Sinden. Sinden has been personally attacking Rogier in her blog with a series of libelous remarks. Conrad was also seen at the recent dog expo associating with Gail Gallant, who has been publicly harassing and cyberstalking Francesca Rogier for over a year.
We deplore ARPO and its associates for singling out Ms. Rogier as an "irresponsible owner". We call upon the Herald to exercise a greater amount of professional objectivity and cease giving such people a public forum in which to push their agenda without scrutiny. Has anyone asked, for instance, what ARPO is doing about the numerous owners in this city whose dogs are genuine threats to public safety?
Any 'advocation' for re-homing in this case is inappropriate. Brindi is not a dangerous dog. She should not have been seized. She should be returned as soon as possible to her own home with her loving and responsible owner, where she belongs.
Sincerely,
Humane Halifax for Better Animal Control
humanehalifax@yahoo.com
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Desperate or Crazy or Both?
Funniest post on Dogkisser, a must read. Laughing is good for the soul and just about anything else you can think of.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Much better to talk about your vajayjay than to talk about Brindi
On Twitter this week - the author of this weekly column had been thinking about doing her column about the ongoing Brindi saga - we hear that a grandparent of hers had owned Francesca's "heritage" home at one point - and a previous generation to that had even run a post office out of the house - her columns always tend to be humourous - we don't know how she could have found humour in any part of this story though.
We're very happy that she chose to write about Jennifer Love Hewitt's vajayay instead - the world needs more talk about that - and less talk of matters that are discussed in blogs like this one.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The answer to the question is in section 22
"22. Counsel for the applicant also laid great stress on typed notations made by
ACO Hamm following his attendance at Ms. Rogier’s residence and service on her
of a “Notice to Muzzle” Brandi. Hamm’s notes record that Ms. Rogier stated she
understood the repercussions of not having her dog muzzled, but felt it was
unnecessary due to her belief that her dog is very friendly and the April 20, 2008
incident was an isolated one. His notes are “I informed her that I was not deeming
her dog as ‘dangerous’ as this would include additional safeguards.” He wrote that
Ms. Rogier was happy to hear this, but felt that Animal Control Services would
never take someone’s dog because it had bitten another dog. Hamm recorded that
he informed her they had done so in the past."
This is how the city is able to kill Brindi if they want. At this point - Animal Control could have deemed Brindi dangerous, but they did not. Instead they issued a muzzle order. Any other infraction that Francesca incurred would result in Brindi's seizure - and certain death.
Dangerous dogs are allowed to live in the Halifax Regional Municipality - you just have to keep them under certain conditions - they have to be muzzled, blah blah blah - you can read about that on the HRM's website at http://www.halifax.ca/AnimalControl/DangerousDogs.html - but by just issuing a muzzle order for Brindi - they were in essence - giving Brindi a death sentence - 2ith no way to appeal, and no way to fight.
She should have WISHED that Brindi could have been deemed dangerous at that point instead of being HAPPY to hear that she wasn't, we think - but hindsight is 20/20 - who would know that to be declared dangerous keeps your dog alive - and a muzzle order KILLS your dog if you have no plans of keeping the muzzle on your dog.
Animal Control are very crafty, you've got to give them that. They know what they're doing, don't they? That's smart. Further proof that if you're a responsible dog owner - it's best when you never have to deal with them.
http://www.courts.ns.ca/decisions_recent/documents/2009nssc14_000.pdf
"not much going on in her life"
Yesterday we posted a letter that Ms. Rogier has written to the Editor and Chief of the Chronicle Herald - demanding a full retraction and public apology for the superb, wonderful, and finally accurate reporting that was done by the Herald reporter Pat Lee in her piece that was published yesterday.
Today in the Chronicle Herald - there's an article that we thought we'd post here as a counterpoint to Ms. Rogier's article. We wonder how Ms. Rogier would feel if some of the things said about Ms. Arenburg had been said about her - ie that Ms. Arenburg has "a dismal history of complying with reasonable conditions." or that Ms. Arenburg has " she has no job, (or) income " or that Ms. Arenburg ""She doesn’t have a lot going for her at this point," Tancock said as Arenburg, who was wearing a Harley Davidson T-shirt, wept. Tancock also told Judge Bill MacDonald that Arenburg is at an "extremely high risk to re-offend.""
Can you imagine if a newspaper article said any of these things about Ms. Rogier?
Compared to this article - Pat Lee's article was tame, tame, tame. Poor Ms. Arenburg. I think that compared to Ms. Rogier - well, you can see what I mean.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
LETS SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT
I just got a super heated e-mail from who I suspect is a Fran supporter, the language leaves a bit to be desired,therefore it went directly to the trash bin.
Now there seems to be some confusion as to who the administrator of this blog is in the e-mail I was called Joan,Gail,well now I will clarify who Dog Lover is.......Drum roll.....Wayne Croft.....Now if you want to attack fill your boots,most comments will be put up for all to see.I believe in freedom of speech.
If you wish to contact me via e-mail its...oldtrout03@msn.com...I will get back to anyone within 48 hours.....unlike a certain leach on society I have to work.
I'm sorry that I had to respond to the e-mail this way however I wanted to clarify who the administrator is.
I stand by my actions.
Now there seems to be some confusion as to who the administrator of this blog is in the e-mail I was called Joan,Gail,well now I will clarify who Dog Lover is.......Drum roll.....Wayne Croft.....Now if you want to attack fill your boots,most comments will be put up for all to see.I believe in freedom of speech.
If you wish to contact me via e-mail its...oldtrout03@msn.com...I will get back to anyone within 48 hours.....unlike a certain leach on society I have to work.
I'm sorry that I had to respond to the e-mail this way however I wanted to clarify who the administrator is.
I stand by my actions.
There is a WHOLE LOT of crazy in here
Do we need to say more than the title of this post? We don't think so...
March 10, 2010
To:
I am extremely offended and distressed by Ms. Pat Lee’s article of March 9, misleadingly titled “N.S. court to rule on Brindi's fate after assessment”. I am compelled by its content to demand an immediate public retraction of its negative insinuations and implications. It is difficult not to believe they are intended to defame my character in order to convince your readers that I somehow do not have the right or responsibility to have my own dog Brindi returned to me. If the article was intended as a news story, at the very least, Ms. Lee was remiss in not getting my response to Mr. Ottenbrite’s statement: indeed, she did not tell me of it at all, so I have to wonder when and where he made it. Was it before or after I saw Ms. Lee at the courthouse that morning?? And why the Herald was the only media outlet to cover it?
The most disturbing aspect of the article is the implication throughout that I am irresponsible, as if it is a given: “Rogier continues to insist that Brindi be returned to her.” Of course I do; she is my dog! Then there’s Mr. Ottenbrite’s vague claim, indirectly quoted, that “many people support an option other than killing the dog or returning her to Rogier.” No need to indicate how many is “many”, or why they feel this way; the damage is done without it. Then there is the obvious falsehood in the statement, “Ottenbrite said he and other local animal trainers have tried to work with Rogier in the past.” As I have never met Silvia Jay, it cannot be said she ever tried to work with me; nor has any other trainer, simply because I have not had Brindi with me for them to work with. Can this be a news article?
Ms. Lee then presents Kristin Williams’ comments about re-homing Brindi as significant, although the SPCA is not comprised of behavioral experts and Ms. Williams is a marketing specialist. Lee neglects to ask: having kept Brindi in the pound 20 times longer than recommended for that facility–can the SPCA really say anything meaningful about Brindi’s welfare, let alone her behavior with regard to her issues in the past? Lee fails to note that I am the only person on earth that can say with certainty how well Brindi “can live peacefully” in a home – I wrote about it in numerous blog posts; I published letters from people who had first-hand experience of her in that environment and others. Whereas, at the pound, Brindi is never to be allowed around dogs, and they have never seen her in anybody’s home, least of all mine. Ms. Lee fails to note these things entirely, apparently hoping to dupe readers into believing there is merit in what Ms. Williams says and proposes.
The irony is just too much to endure, given that the SPCA turned a deaf ear to me month after month when I tried to convince them what a great dog Brindi is – now they rave about how much they love her and say I shouldn’t get her back!?! And yet, there is no comment about this to be found.
The guilty charges notwithstanding, Ms. Lee should realize Mr. Ottenbrite also cannot say anything about Brindi in a home or how she behaved in mine. None of these people know me personally, yet they do know that I worked with Brindi to pass Mr. Ottebrite’s class (we were not just in the class!); that I succeeded in saving Brindi’s life twice already (once from the Celtic Pets seizure, then from the euthanasia order); and that by publicizing our plight, I convinced the world singlehandedly of what the SPCA didn’t want anybody to know a year and a half ago: that Brindi is a loving and lovable dog, and should not be put down. Thousands are now in love with Brindi - the dog nobody wanted to adopt for two years. They love her not just at the SPCA but all over the world, because I portrayed her with my love. And I made sure to tell the truth, including my mistakes, to show that I am serious about keeping her out of trouble in the future. The sad part is that nobody with authority listened very much, and even sadder, the Herald never asks them why. Why not?
It’s no surprise that Lee’s article also fails to note that I have been fighting to get Brindi back all this time with no assistance whatever from the SPCA or Mr. Ottenbrite, or indeed, the unnamed “hundreds” who believe she should not come home. Nor does it mention the documented hundreds in the area who signed petitions for Brindi to come home ASAP, let alone the thousands joining them, here and all over the world – including PETA and numerous other animal rescue groups and advocates. The article also never mentions the fact that Mr. Ottenbrite is a past president of the SPCA, the same group that not only neglected to speak up for Brindi when it really counted, but would have gone further and killed her, had I not acted to stop them. I notice that the Herald has said little or nothing about the fact that Brindi, a healthy, fit dog in July 2008, developed chronic pancreatitis at the pound, or the treatment I have received at the hands of the SPCA for having the audacity to wish to visit her.
These thinly veiled attempts at preventing the return of my dog by questioning my character without basis are highly irresponsible, third-rate journalism, and unworthy of your readers. What they most wanted to hear about Brindi at the time was the outcome of a court hearing, and perhpas what I said to reporters afterwards. I spoke about the contrast to other cases of euthanization, how HRM compares to Hants County (far more killed), about my dream to settle in Nova Scotia, and how I am willing to sacrifice it for Brindi’s sake, and more. Readers might have appreciated a reminder that my supreme court case, done at my expense, quashed a dangerous section of the by-law that was passed two years ago. They also might have liked to know that a new group named Humane Halifax formed last April to help HRM fix the rest of the law. How odd that the Herald would cover Mr. Ottenbrite’s “statement” today, yet has never published a word (that I know of) about Humane Halifax, ignoring many press notices about the group’s actions.
Last year, the Herald published a similarly defamatory story about “death threats” implicating me and/or Brindi supporters without any evidence whatsoever. It is not hard to prove it caused me harm. I will not tolerate this latest effort, especially one that includes Mr. Ottenbrite’s nonsensical and unsupportable claim that Brindi supporters threatened him “and his dog training business and he feared for Brindi’s safety.” Brindi supporters threatening Brindi’s safety- by stealing her? First, can Ms. Lee or Mr. Ottenbrite furnish some proof? If so, surely she would have included it, no? Second – if anybody is threatening Brindi’s safety by seeking to steal her – it’s Mr. Ottenbrite and his associates, since she is my lawful property, which happens to have been held without any legal authority since the first night in the pound. (Has the Herald asked why?)
Nevertheless, the absence of anything to back up such statements doesn’t make them any less harmful to me, nor any less deserving of an apology. I feel it is a disgrace that, instead of serving your readers by covering today’s real news, or providing critical information about animal control practices that may affect them, the Herald seems to have cooperated in a cleverly timed plant to put across a deceptive message to the public. I assure you, it backed by people who never had my dog’s best interest at heart and are angry at me because I always have. They were willing to let her die without a word for the sake of protecting monetary interests – so much so that the SPCA ended up losing the very contract it sought to protect. So they are are far more interested in hurting me now than they were in saving Brindi in the past. This sad fact makes the attempts to defame me in this article even more of a disgrace.
Therefore, I must demand a retraction and an apology to me and the thinking dog owners of this city. Toward that end, I would hope that you see fit to publish this letter.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
March 10, 2010
To:
I am extremely offended and distressed by Ms. Pat Lee’s article of March 9, misleadingly titled “N.S. court to rule on Brindi's fate after assessment”. I am compelled by its content to demand an immediate public retraction of its negative insinuations and implications. It is difficult not to believe they are intended to defame my character in order to convince your readers that I somehow do not have the right or responsibility to have my own dog Brindi returned to me. If the article was intended as a news story, at the very least, Ms. Lee was remiss in not getting my response to Mr. Ottenbrite’s statement: indeed, she did not tell me of it at all, so I have to wonder when and where he made it. Was it before or after I saw Ms. Lee at the courthouse that morning?? And why the Herald was the only media outlet to cover it?
The most disturbing aspect of the article is the implication throughout that I am irresponsible, as if it is a given: “Rogier continues to insist that Brindi be returned to her.” Of course I do; she is my dog! Then there’s Mr. Ottenbrite’s vague claim, indirectly quoted, that “many people support an option other than killing the dog or returning her to Rogier.” No need to indicate how many is “many”, or why they feel this way; the damage is done without it. Then there is the obvious falsehood in the statement, “Ottenbrite said he and other local animal trainers have tried to work with Rogier in the past.” As I have never met Silvia Jay, it cannot be said she ever tried to work with me; nor has any other trainer, simply because I have not had Brindi with me for them to work with. Can this be a news article?
Ms. Lee then presents Kristin Williams’ comments about re-homing Brindi as significant, although the SPCA is not comprised of behavioral experts and Ms. Williams is a marketing specialist. Lee neglects to ask: having kept Brindi in the pound 20 times longer than recommended for that facility–can the SPCA really say anything meaningful about Brindi’s welfare, let alone her behavior with regard to her issues in the past? Lee fails to note that I am the only person on earth that can say with certainty how well Brindi “can live peacefully” in a home – I wrote about it in numerous blog posts; I published letters from people who had first-hand experience of her in that environment and others. Whereas, at the pound, Brindi is never to be allowed around dogs, and they have never seen her in anybody’s home, least of all mine. Ms. Lee fails to note these things entirely, apparently hoping to dupe readers into believing there is merit in what Ms. Williams says and proposes.
The irony is just too much to endure, given that the SPCA turned a deaf ear to me month after month when I tried to convince them what a great dog Brindi is – now they rave about how much they love her and say I shouldn’t get her back!?! And yet, there is no comment about this to be found.
The guilty charges notwithstanding, Ms. Lee should realize Mr. Ottenbrite also cannot say anything about Brindi in a home or how she behaved in mine. None of these people know me personally, yet they do know that I worked with Brindi to pass Mr. Ottebrite’s class (we were not just in the class!); that I succeeded in saving Brindi’s life twice already (once from the Celtic Pets seizure, then from the euthanasia order); and that by publicizing our plight, I convinced the world singlehandedly of what the SPCA didn’t want anybody to know a year and a half ago: that Brindi is a loving and lovable dog, and should not be put down. Thousands are now in love with Brindi - the dog nobody wanted to adopt for two years. They love her not just at the SPCA but all over the world, because I portrayed her with my love. And I made sure to tell the truth, including my mistakes, to show that I am serious about keeping her out of trouble in the future. The sad part is that nobody with authority listened very much, and even sadder, the Herald never asks them why. Why not?
It’s no surprise that Lee’s article also fails to note that I have been fighting to get Brindi back all this time with no assistance whatever from the SPCA or Mr. Ottenbrite, or indeed, the unnamed “hundreds” who believe she should not come home. Nor does it mention the documented hundreds in the area who signed petitions for Brindi to come home ASAP, let alone the thousands joining them, here and all over the world – including PETA and numerous other animal rescue groups and advocates. The article also never mentions the fact that Mr. Ottenbrite is a past president of the SPCA, the same group that not only neglected to speak up for Brindi when it really counted, but would have gone further and killed her, had I not acted to stop them. I notice that the Herald has said little or nothing about the fact that Brindi, a healthy, fit dog in July 2008, developed chronic pancreatitis at the pound, or the treatment I have received at the hands of the SPCA for having the audacity to wish to visit her.
These thinly veiled attempts at preventing the return of my dog by questioning my character without basis are highly irresponsible, third-rate journalism, and unworthy of your readers. What they most wanted to hear about Brindi at the time was the outcome of a court hearing, and perhpas what I said to reporters afterwards. I spoke about the contrast to other cases of euthanization, how HRM compares to Hants County (far more killed), about my dream to settle in Nova Scotia, and how I am willing to sacrifice it for Brindi’s sake, and more. Readers might have appreciated a reminder that my supreme court case, done at my expense, quashed a dangerous section of the by-law that was passed two years ago. They also might have liked to know that a new group named Humane Halifax formed last April to help HRM fix the rest of the law. How odd that the Herald would cover Mr. Ottenbrite’s “statement” today, yet has never published a word (that I know of) about Humane Halifax, ignoring many press notices about the group’s actions.
Last year, the Herald published a similarly defamatory story about “death threats” implicating me and/or Brindi supporters without any evidence whatsoever. It is not hard to prove it caused me harm. I will not tolerate this latest effort, especially one that includes Mr. Ottenbrite’s nonsensical and unsupportable claim that Brindi supporters threatened him “and his dog training business and he feared for Brindi’s safety.” Brindi supporters threatening Brindi’s safety- by stealing her? First, can Ms. Lee or Mr. Ottenbrite furnish some proof? If so, surely she would have included it, no? Second – if anybody is threatening Brindi’s safety by seeking to steal her – it’s Mr. Ottenbrite and his associates, since she is my lawful property, which happens to have been held without any legal authority since the first night in the pound. (Has the Herald asked why?)
Nevertheless, the absence of anything to back up such statements doesn’t make them any less harmful to me, nor any less deserving of an apology. I feel it is a disgrace that, instead of serving your readers by covering today’s real news, or providing critical information about animal control practices that may affect them, the Herald seems to have cooperated in a cleverly timed plant to put across a deceptive message to the public. I assure you, it backed by people who never had my dog’s best interest at heart and are angry at me because I always have. They were willing to let her die without a word for the sake of protecting monetary interests – so much so that the SPCA ended up losing the very contract it sought to protect. So they are are far more interested in hurting me now than they were in saving Brindi in the past. This sad fact makes the attempts to defame me in this article even more of a disgrace.
Therefore, I must demand a retraction and an apology to me and the thinking dog owners of this city. Toward that end, I would hope that you see fit to publish this letter.
Sincerely,
Francesca Rogier
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
ARTICLE FROM THE CHRONICAL HERALD MARCH 9, 2010
N.S. court to rule on Brindi's fate after assessment
After a court-sanctioned behavioural assessment is done on Brindi, some animal advocates hope the dog is spared death but not given back to owner Francesca Rogier. “Brindi is a good dog,” he said Tuesday. “So we’re offering the third option of placing her in a home so she doesn’t have to be put down. A group of us have gotten together to put that out there.” Rogier, of East Chezzetcook, was found guilty in February of being the owner of a dog running at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failing to comply with a muzzle order. Rogier’s sentencing, and Brindi’s fate, were postponed on Tuesday when Rogier asked for time to have an expert assess the six-year-old mixed breed. Since Halifax Regional Municipality’s Animal Services branch seized Brindi about 20 months ago, the dog has been held at the SPCA shelter in Dartmouth. Judge Alanna Murphy agreed to delay proceedings until April 16 when she will review the animal expert’s findings. Brindi, whom Rogier adopted from Celtic Pets in Port Hastings — which the SPCA shut down in 2008 for inhumane treatment of its animals — was under a muzzle order in the summer of 2008 because of complaints about her behaviour. On July 20, she ran off Rogier’s property and attacked a dog being walked along East Chezzetcook Road. Animal Services had originally ordered the dog euthanized, but a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge ruled that portions of the bylaw authorizing Brindi’s killing exceeded the municipality’s power. A few days later, the city laid charges against Rogier. Rogier continues to insist that Brindi be returned to her. She said Tuesday that she has proposed private training sessions or moving out of the municipality with the dog. But finding a new home for Brindi is not an option, she said. “We’ve bonded and she recognizes me,” she said. “I think this dog has had a raw deal and I (gave her) the only home she’s ever known.” During the February court appearance, Ottenbrite made it known that he would adopt Brindi and keep her at his kennel in South Rawdon, but he has since rescinded the offer. He said supporters of Rogier threatened him and his dog training business and he feared for Brindi’s safety. “I do not feel that Brindi would be safe here,” he said Tuesday. “I think that she would probably be stolen.” But Ottenbrite is still offering to work with Brindi and he said he has made arrangements with another suitable owner, who does not want to be named at this time. Ottenbrite said he and other local animal trainers have tried to work with Rogier in the past. Rogier formerly had Brindi in Ottenbrite’s obedience and agility classes. “There were a lot of us, several trainers that I know who are really good trainers and can make all the difference in the world, but each one of them has become fed up with what’s going on,” he said. He said many people support an option other than killing the dog or returning her to Rogier. “There’s hundreds of people out there of the same opinion,” Ottenbrite said. The city has never said whether it would support a deal to spare Brindi’s life and find her a new home. The SPCA wrote to the city in February asking that the dog’s life be spared. “It is the society’s belief that Brindi could be safely placed (in another home),” said executive director Kristin Williams. “Brindi has demonstrated over the last 18 months that she can live peacefully and happily with a responsible owner.” Janet Chernin, who runs a dog daycare in Halifax and is a founding member of Advocates for Responsible Pet Ownership, said the drawn-out Brindi case highlights the need for an impartial panel to mediate animal control issues. “This clearly shows why we need an ombudsman, why we need a panel of experts to judge cases in an unbiased manner,” said Chernin, who wants Brindi spared but not returned to Rogier. Rogier said she will appeal any decision that does not return Brindi to her.
| |
ANOTHER OPINION FROM A RESPONSIBLE OWNER
-
uh, partially in response to Anonymous who said "We all know from common sense that any dog can attack any time; however, as Silvia, Bob, Francesca and many more have said Brindi is a trainable dog. Isn't she?"
#1. Any responsible dog owner does not let their dog even get close to a red zone case (if you don't know what this is I suggest you look it up)
#2. Any responsible dog owner realizes after the first incident that they need to step up the training and step up the responsibility and abide by the laws set out in the place that they CHOSE to live in.
#3. If Brindi is SO trainable (which I believe all dogs are) why did her owner not train her properly to avoid all these issues in the first place????
#4. It's indisputable that the owner is the one who needs more training that Brindi does. Ignorance for the law is NEVER justifiable.
#5. Brindi's SOLE reason for being in the pound for almost 2 years now is thanks to an owner who can't mentally process that everyone has to abide by the same laws...failing that there are consequences.
#6. Brindi could have been out of the pound in less than 2 months and in a dog knowledgeable home where she would have been given the appropriate training had the owner CHOSEN to give that life to her. Brindi's 20 months of pound living were her owner's CHOICE therefore the owner has NO right to complain about her dog being in the pound. Any reasonable person would deduct that from 20 months of court battles and wasting the public's tax payers money and time that her dog would be 'held up' in the pound.
#7. The Courts have more pressing issues to deal with like rape, murder and child abuse.
#8. Most everyone in Canada (not all as I can clearly see there are still a few nutters left willing to shell out their hard earned tax dollars on this issue)is sick and tired of hearing about how a dog owner can't seem to take the responsibility for her own actions.
#9. a comment was made on another thread that posed the question "what would you do if you were in this owner's position?" (as if to justify this whole farce)The answer? What any sane and reasonable dog owner would do....what is best for the dog. Now if you agree what is best for Brindi is to be in a pound for 20 months instead of having the opportunity this entire time to be rehabilitated then you deserve to have the owner waste YOUR tax money not mine!
#10. Love is NOT enough for a dog to thrive on and to be a balanced happy animal. They need rules, boundaries and limitations....NONE of which this owner provided for Brindi, clearly as Brindi's past behaviour showed. Love would have been doing everyting in her power to keep Brindi from ever getting to this place and having to deal with what I can only call a grave lack of understanding and sheer unwilingness to learn in an effort to protect an animals welfare and well being. And NO, going to court during a span of almost 2 years to get your dog back after you have had 3 or more opportunities to correct the situation does NOT qualify as protecting your animal. That qualifies as a belligerent intent to show how ignorant you really are about animal welfare in general. This owner is down right lucky if she is ever allowed to own an animal again. I can tell you right now.....if Brindi gets returned to her owner and the ignorance continues it will be her death sentence. - March 9, 2010 5:20 PM
Post a Comment
DARE I SAY ATTITUDE??
The following comment was sent to me by,"anonymous",well since its my blog I decided to post it as a topic. I suspect it was written by a Fran supporter,who calls me a kid. Well other than say,that the comment is not worthy of me commenting,I leave it to the readers to determine who actually is the hot head.
" WOW i decided to glance at this page and am comple... WOW i decided to glance at this page and am completely shocked by these comments. Negativity, hatred, finger-pointing, name-calling, accusations, put-downs, adults acting like four year olds (if that) who don't have any respect whatsoever for another human beings feelings.
Where the f*&% do you all get off treating each other this way? You should ALL be ashamed, to say the least.
I'd also watch making self-righteous comments like the "it would never happen to me/i'm so above that/perfect" stuff here, as well.
negative attracts more negative. positive attracts positive. be careful what you "put out there". i personally believe in karma.
Why not consider the old saying: if you don't have something positive to say, don't say anything at all. Worry about yourSELVES. When my dogs are barking at something/someone, i often tell them "if you don't like it/them, don't look at it!". Couldn't you all learn alot from hearing that too.
Whatever happened to treating others how you would like to be treated yourself? ......""
" WOW i decided to glance at this page and am comple... WOW i decided to glance at this page and am completely shocked by these comments. Negativity, hatred, finger-pointing, name-calling, accusations, put-downs, adults acting like four year olds (if that) who don't have any respect whatsoever for another human beings feelings.
Where the f*&% do you all get off treating each other this way? You should ALL be ashamed, to say the least.
I'd also watch making self-righteous comments like the "it would never happen to me/i'm so above that/perfect" stuff here, as well.
negative attracts more negative. positive attracts positive. be careful what you "put out there". i personally believe in karma.
Why not consider the old saying: if you don't have something positive to say, don't say anything at all. Worry about yourSELVES. When my dogs are barking at something/someone, i often tell them "if you don't like it/them, don't look at it!". Couldn't you all learn alot from hearing that too.
Whatever happened to treating others how you would like to be treated yourself? ......""
NOPE TODAY NOT THE DAY
I just decided to check the news on my break,and I see where Fran has got the matter delayed again,so that she can have her dog assessed. What the Hell,she has had almost 2 years to have the dog assessed,yes I know that Ms. Jay did an assessment,however due to Frans pig headed attitude it seems that they departed ways.
Do I think that the matter wil be concluded a week from today,NOT BLOODY LIKELY. I suspect the only way the matter will be concluded is when Brindi dies of old age in a pound. Its not the dog that needs to be assessed its the owner. This whole matter is beyond; oh well Fran now can bask in the limelight a bit longer,longer,longer.
Will write a bit more after my days work is finished.
Do I think that the matter wil be concluded a week from today,NOT BLOODY LIKELY. I suspect the only way the matter will be concluded is when Brindi dies of old age in a pound. Its not the dog that needs to be assessed its the owner. This whole matter is beyond; oh well Fran now can bask in the limelight a bit longer,longer,longer.
Will write a bit more after my days work is finished.
Today is the day ( maybe )
Well, today March 9 / 2010, Brindi's fate (maybe) will be decided. This poor dog has been locked up since July 08. It really isn't fair that this dog has been locked up for so long because the owner couldn't or wouldn't follow simple laws. Granted, the law that this dog was taken on was wrong but it was still the law.
After many delays and being found guilty of the charges she had been charged with, today the fate of Brindi should be decided. Now the kicker is, the owner says she will go for a continuance for another assessment. Now that don't mean she will be granted and then the question becomes, where will Brind be. Come April 1st the new shelter will open. Now, the HRM has banned the owner from seeing the dog because of her verbal abuse of the staff at the SPCA. This is the second time. If Brindi is moved to the new shelter ( dog pound for animal control ), the owner of that place is a supporter of the dog owner. This owner is suppose to be a volunteer there ( I say suppose because I do not know for a fact ) and does this owner believe or hope that the pound keeper will ignore the mandate set by the AC?
If the owner is granted a postponement, the best possible thing to happen is Brindi be in a foster home that the owner has no contact. The dog can be assessed without the owner being there. Brindi will at least be out of the shelter. I know the owner will not allow this but one can hope. This dog is not really a danger to humans. Yes it was reported that she knocked a lady down trying to get at her dog but one on one she is not a danger to humans. She has dog on dog issues ( like many ) around her own property. Here lays the problem. This dog's owner after repeated warnings still never followed the laws. Accidents happen, that's a given. The problem is, this owner actions past and present shows she don't heed laws. For example: when the owner was banned from the SPCA the first time for 6 mths, in order to see brindi she had to sign a paper with rules on it. Having to do with her conduct with staff, no photos or videos, only her lawyer could be with her ( not her friends ), no high value items etc. Well she broke all of those rules and then some. Now that was in order to see her so beloved dog. I don't know about anyone else but I can tell you I would follow any rule without question to see my dog. If they said jump I would say " how high". The harassment and lies against people has been unreal.
I just pray with all my heart this dog finally gets the life she has been denied since she was born. That is to be in a home that will look after her needs totally, keep her safe and other dogs too. To love this dog more then the owners petty wants.
After many delays and being found guilty of the charges she had been charged with, today the fate of Brindi should be decided. Now the kicker is, the owner says she will go for a continuance for another assessment. Now that don't mean she will be granted and then the question becomes, where will Brind be. Come April 1st the new shelter will open. Now, the HRM has banned the owner from seeing the dog because of her verbal abuse of the staff at the SPCA. This is the second time. If Brindi is moved to the new shelter ( dog pound for animal control ), the owner of that place is a supporter of the dog owner. This owner is suppose to be a volunteer there ( I say suppose because I do not know for a fact ) and does this owner believe or hope that the pound keeper will ignore the mandate set by the AC?
If the owner is granted a postponement, the best possible thing to happen is Brindi be in a foster home that the owner has no contact. The dog can be assessed without the owner being there. Brindi will at least be out of the shelter. I know the owner will not allow this but one can hope. This dog is not really a danger to humans. Yes it was reported that she knocked a lady down trying to get at her dog but one on one she is not a danger to humans. She has dog on dog issues ( like many ) around her own property. Here lays the problem. This dog's owner after repeated warnings still never followed the laws. Accidents happen, that's a given. The problem is, this owner actions past and present shows she don't heed laws. For example: when the owner was banned from the SPCA the first time for 6 mths, in order to see brindi she had to sign a paper with rules on it. Having to do with her conduct with staff, no photos or videos, only her lawyer could be with her ( not her friends ), no high value items etc. Well she broke all of those rules and then some. Now that was in order to see her so beloved dog. I don't know about anyone else but I can tell you I would follow any rule without question to see my dog. If they said jump I would say " how high". The harassment and lies against people has been unreal.
I just pray with all my heart this dog finally gets the life she has been denied since she was born. That is to be in a home that will look after her needs totally, keep her safe and other dogs too. To love this dog more then the owners petty wants.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
OK LETS TRY THIS:
In the past 2 days I have noticed that one anonymous,poster has written a lot of comments,most of which I have posted,yep I deleated a few ,as its my right,now since this blog has an e-mail tracker enabled,its not hard for this author to determine where the comments are coming from
Now the owner claims that "IF" Brindi is returned to her MS Rogier will have to re-train to be house broken.....GIVE ME A BREAK....I would think there is more important issues. ie chicken wire fence,gentle leader vs muzzle, I think we all have seen the e-mail floating around the net.
This blogger will do anything to save Brindi,and isn't that the maim issue? Fran has proven that she can not look after a mutt with issues,all Fran is interested in is HERSELF, as has been shown by her past rants:
Now if anyone wants to attack me fill your boots better yet here is my e-mail oldtrout03@msn.com. Come on fill up my in box.
Now the owner claims that "IF" Brindi is returned to her MS Rogier will have to re-train to be house broken.....GIVE ME A BREAK....I would think there is more important issues. ie chicken wire fence,gentle leader vs muzzle, I think we all have seen the e-mail floating around the net.
This blogger will do anything to save Brindi,and isn't that the maim issue? Fran has proven that she can not look after a mutt with issues,all Fran is interested in is HERSELF, as has been shown by her past rants:
Now if anyone wants to attack me fill your boots better yet here is my e-mail oldtrout03@msn.com. Come on fill up my in box.
Pro-BRANDI demonstrators rally to support owner Rogier
Well that's a bit of a kick in the pants when the newspaper spells the name of your dog, wrong - isn't it? But it does certainly give a chuckle though... the devil is in the details.
There's some interesting things in this article -
- 10 people showed up
- Ms. Rogier plans to ask for a POSTPONEMENT on March 9th so she can arrange to have a behavioural assessment done on Brindi
Poor Brindi. And we have to ask - WHO is keeping Brindi in a cage all these months?
Pro-Brindi demonstrators rally to support owner
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter
Sun. Mar 7 - 4:53 AM
A small group of animal lovers rallied in Halifax Saturday to support an embattled metro dog owner who’s been on a crusade to save her beloved pet from being put down.
The rally was held on behalf of Francesca Rogier and her impounded dog, Brindi, in advance of the woman’s sentencing hearing Tuesday in Dartmouth provincial court.
Ten sign-carrying protesters gathered in front of the main entrance of the Public Gardens to hand out leaflets and appeal to passersby to support their cause.
One of the protester’s signs said: Dogs Forgive – Why Can’t We?
Nearby, young people were on the sidewalk extolling the virtues of God and the Bible.
It was sunny and a cool breeze was blowing but pro-Brindi demonstrators and their furry friends came prepared for the weather. One pet owner tied a scarf around her dog’s neck, another dressed her pooch in a blanket-like sweater and tuque while a third owner quenched her dog’s thirst with a large bottle of water.
One of the handouts said there were misconceptions about Brindi’s past behaviour.
"Brindi has never attacked or bitten a person," it says. "The SPCA shelter finds her lovable and sweet."
She has had a few scrapes with other dogs, though.
Last month, Rogier was found guilty of violating Halifax Regional Municipality’s animal control bylaw. The presiding judge must decide what to do with the dog, which has been held at an SPCA shelter since it was seized by the municipality in 2008.
Rogier was convicted of three charges: being the owner of a dog that was running at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failing to comply with a muzzle order.
Judge Alanna Murphy scheduled the sentencing hearing for March 9. Rogier told The Chronicle Herald Saturday that she plans to request a postponement.
"I’m asking for an adjournment so I can get time to get a behavioural assessment" of Brindi, a six-year-old mixed breed, she said.
Rogier, who is representing herself in court, said she will appeal if the judge orders her dog destroyed.
She said she might consider some sort of temporary foster care for Brindi, if the court should issue such an order, but doesn’t want her dog adopted by someone else.
"I’m perfectly capable of taking care of this dog," said Rogier. "I just need to have her behind a fence . . . and I’ve already lined up trainers to help me work on her behaviour. I don’t see how anyone can do any better than that."
Rogier said she’s visited her dog since it was seized about 20 months ago. Asked if she and Brindi might have to form a new bond should the animal be released to her care, she said probably not.
But Brindi would likely have to be housetrained again — if she gets to go home with Rogier to East Chezzetcook, the woman said.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
TRUE COLOURS COMING OUT:
During the past hour this blogger has been attacked by an anonymous poster to this blog. I suspect the person who attacked me thought that I wouldn't publish them,well suprise I did.
The reason that I did so was just to show the mentality of the people that are calling the Mayors Office and now the Premiers office with the sole purpose of harassment of their staff.
With the attitude of anonymous,there is little wonder that Brindi is still locked up.
Now if the group of Brindi supporters don't like the truth as posted in this blog,I'm so sorry there is nothing I can or will do about it, however I will humor them by publishing their comments.
The reason that I did so was just to show the mentality of the people that are calling the Mayors Office and now the Premiers office with the sole purpose of harassment of their staff.
With the attitude of anonymous,there is little wonder that Brindi is still locked up.
Now if the group of Brindi supporters don't like the truth as posted in this blog,I'm so sorry there is nothing I can or will do about it, however I will humor them by publishing their comments.
Lets Adopt Canada RED FACED!
Day 10 on the "Let's Adopt Canada blog" has some illegal taping on it - but we here at the Dog Lovers blog aren't too worried about that - we're laughing too hard at what they're calling the tape that has HALIFAX red faced - really it's THEM who are red faced, when you actually listen to the tape that they made.
A lady, who sounds very sincere, and we are sure is very dedicated to this cause and has been completely bounddougled by the perpetrator of this debacle - has actually somehow managed to get through to Mary Ellen Donovan - the head of HRM Legal on the telephone.
Now, Mary Ellen Donovan isn't known as being very graceful - so the fact that she is being tactful and polite is actually quite amazing. She is known within her own department as being quite the hard taskmaster - so this lady was actually quite lucky.
But as you're listening to the tape - there comes a point when the lady from South Africa actually says - "So really, everybody who's worked really, really worked to offer some kind of support to this case has been completely wasting their time."
To which Mary Ellen Donovan replies - "I have no comment", and the lady from South Africa says "hmm, well that's very sad, I must say".
So at least one of Brindi's Angels seems to have finally gotten it, eh?
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
You can listen to the tape below - or if they dismantle the link - you can go to -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qpoQdG85_o
A lady, who sounds very sincere, and we are sure is very dedicated to this cause and has been completely bounddougled by the perpetrator of this debacle - has actually somehow managed to get through to Mary Ellen Donovan - the head of HRM Legal on the telephone.
Now, Mary Ellen Donovan isn't known as being very graceful - so the fact that she is being tactful and polite is actually quite amazing. She is known within her own department as being quite the hard taskmaster - so this lady was actually quite lucky.
But as you're listening to the tape - there comes a point when the lady from South Africa actually says - "So really, everybody who's worked really, really worked to offer some kind of support to this case has been completely wasting their time."
To which Mary Ellen Donovan replies - "I have no comment", and the lady from South Africa says "hmm, well that's very sad, I must say".
So at least one of Brindi's Angels seems to have finally gotten it, eh?
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
You can listen to the tape below - or if they dismantle the link - you can go to -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qpoQdG85_o
This is ILLEGAL
Someone from Africa RECORDED a telephone call to the mayor's office WITHOUT telling them
278 confirmed guests to protest - 5 people showed up
Worldwide support for Francesca Rogier's cause. Thousand's of members on her Facebook groups.
Over 2,000 people invited to this protest today in downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia - and 278 people confirmed that they were going to come - but almost all of them were not from Halifax.
These photos were taken at 1:20 pm and 2:40pm
The protest was slated to start at 1pm on the corner of South Park Street and Spring Garden Road in front of the Public Gardens in downtown Halifax.
This blog thinks it pretty clearly shows how many people showed up, and how many people LOCALLY support Francesca Rogier.
Probably most of the people walking by didn't even notice that there was a protest going on - one would think that EVERYBODY walking by didn't notice that there was a protest going on.
So much for social networking to save lives.Thursday, March 4, 2010
MORE CRAP FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!
Do you think that perhaps you could post a comment that I attempted to leave that on that "Victor" person's blog - and he for some reason didn't post? It is -
http://blog.myletsadopt.com/2010/02/26/day-2-something-is-clearly-wrong-with-halifax/comment-page-1/#comment-3485
Does this mean that every day until March 9th, 2010 you are going to
be publishing a blog post that is saying inaccurate and hateful things
about the very beautiful and animal loving place that I personally
live in - Halifax, Nova Scotia?
I wish that people who don't live here actually knew all sides of this
story. The story that Francesca Rogier is telling the world is
perhaps not the most truthful side - it is the side that she wants the
world to know so that she can go to bed and sleep each night - but it
isn't even the side that is going to keep Brindi alive.
The only people in this world right now who are going to keep Brindi
alive right now are the judge presiding over the case - Judge Alanna
Murphy - who is not taking emails, phone calls or any kind of
communications from anyone; the Crown Attorney in charge of
prosecuting the case - and it has been the Crown's aim to have Brindi
euthanized from the day that Brindi was seized, and Francesca Rogier
herself - because Brindi is her property.
Francesca Rogier was found guilty on the 3 charges that was convicted
of - and the Judge is hearing arguments from herself and the crown on
whether or not to euthanize Brindi. There is no one outside of that
circle who have any say whatsoever at this point.
All of your slagging of miine and every other person who lives in this
corner of the world means nothing.
The place we live in is actually very animal friendly, beautiful,
progressive, and one of the best places to live on the entire earth -
it has nothing to do with this case that has been brought about by the
owner of this particular dog - not by the people of Nova Scotia, or
Halifax.
Please stop this misinformation now. Please get your facts. I am
sure you are are a lovely man, but you should be working on saving
animals in Turkey, don't you think?
I have a blog also, and I try to make the biggest effect in my life -
and that's working for animals in Nova Scotia - where I know what I'm
talking about.
You have been duped.. I can pretty much guarantee you that Brindi is
not going to die, but Francesca Rogier was for sure guilty of the
charges she was convicted of. I know that because I actually live in
Nova Scotia.
Thanks for your time.
http://blog.myletsadopt.com/2010/02/26/day-2-something-is-clearly-wrong-with-halifax/comment-page-1/#comment-3485
Does this mean that every day until March 9th, 2010 you are going to
be publishing a blog post that is saying inaccurate and hateful things
about the very beautiful and animal loving place that I personally
live in - Halifax, Nova Scotia?
I wish that people who don't live here actually knew all sides of this
story. The story that Francesca Rogier is telling the world is
perhaps not the most truthful side - it is the side that she wants the
world to know so that she can go to bed and sleep each night - but it
isn't even the side that is going to keep Brindi alive.
The only people in this world right now who are going to keep Brindi
alive right now are the judge presiding over the case - Judge Alanna
Murphy - who is not taking emails, phone calls or any kind of
communications from anyone; the Crown Attorney in charge of
prosecuting the case - and it has been the Crown's aim to have Brindi
euthanized from the day that Brindi was seized, and Francesca Rogier
herself - because Brindi is her property.
Francesca Rogier was found guilty on the 3 charges that was convicted
of - and the Judge is hearing arguments from herself and the crown on
whether or not to euthanize Brindi. There is no one outside of that
circle who have any say whatsoever at this point.
All of your slagging of miine and every other person who lives in this
corner of the world means nothing.
The place we live in is actually very animal friendly, beautiful,
progressive, and one of the best places to live on the entire earth -
it has nothing to do with this case that has been brought about by the
owner of this particular dog - not by the people of Nova Scotia, or
Halifax.
Please stop this misinformation now. Please get your facts. I am
sure you are are a lovely man, but you should be working on saving
animals in Turkey, don't you think?
I have a blog also, and I try to make the biggest effect in my life -
and that's working for animals in Nova Scotia - where I know what I'm
talking about.
You have been duped.. I can pretty much guarantee you that Brindi is
not going to die, but Francesca Rogier was for sure guilty of the
charges she was convicted of. I know that because I actually live in
Nova Scotia.
Thanks for your time.
blog.myletsadopt.com
Our mail boxes are filled with letters from people from all over the world asking all kinds of questions. The most common one is: Who can stop this madness? Who can save Brindi’s life and return her to herowner? Who has the power to take action?
Harsh but True:
A person sent me this which they tried to post on Fran's blog,I was asked to print it so here it is:
Are you that stupid or what?? You have ranted and raved for the past 19 months,blaming the SPCA and HRM for your issues. Have you ever looked in the mirror to actually see who is to blame?? Its your constant lies and whining that have led to the situation that you are in.Need I refer to the e-mail from you to Jenn in regards to gentle leader vs muzzle? If you forgot about that e-mail I can send you a copy. Did you forget that your dog knocked an eldery lady down? I can go on and on.
However the purpose of this comment which you haven't got the guts to post,so I will copy and post in other blogs. Is what thrill are you getting from contacting the mayors office and getting your other clowns from turkey and italy to do the same.
There is nothing that the Mayor,the GG,the Pope,the PM or anyone else you can think of can or will do for you;In fact if they do call the Judge it would be considered obstruction of Justice,check it out under the CC of Canada,shouldn't be an issue as you live on your computer.
If you want to save Brindi's life YOU have to inform the judge to re-home and you will have no further contact with ,"YOUR" dog, failing that your dog is dead.
You have either been hauled into court be it small claims or criminal court at least 3 times in the past lost all times,so now you want to be hauled in a few more times,well keep it up I can tell you the end result,the province and HRM will own everything that you have bank accounts,house,remember this is CANADA not the USA or Germany. Admit it you Fu@@@@ up and move on.
Bottom line in addition to your constant phone calls to Peter Kelly,and his staff they have recieved a number of flowers,and cards from people all over the world that think you need to be in a mental hospital, I am not sure you belong in a padded cell however you need help.
Just my 2 cents
Are you that stupid or what?? You have ranted and raved for the past 19 months,blaming the SPCA and HRM for your issues. Have you ever looked in the mirror to actually see who is to blame?? Its your constant lies and whining that have led to the situation that you are in.Need I refer to the e-mail from you to Jenn in regards to gentle leader vs muzzle? If you forgot about that e-mail I can send you a copy. Did you forget that your dog knocked an eldery lady down? I can go on and on.
However the purpose of this comment which you haven't got the guts to post,so I will copy and post in other blogs. Is what thrill are you getting from contacting the mayors office and getting your other clowns from turkey and italy to do the same.
There is nothing that the Mayor,the GG,the Pope,the PM or anyone else you can think of can or will do for you;In fact if they do call the Judge it would be considered obstruction of Justice,check it out under the CC of Canada,shouldn't be an issue as you live on your computer.
If you want to save Brindi's life YOU have to inform the judge to re-home and you will have no further contact with ,"YOUR" dog, failing that your dog is dead.
You have either been hauled into court be it small claims or criminal court at least 3 times in the past lost all times,so now you want to be hauled in a few more times,well keep it up I can tell you the end result,the province and HRM will own everything that you have bank accounts,house,remember this is CANADA not the USA or Germany. Admit it you Fu@@@@ up and move on.
Bottom line in addition to your constant phone calls to Peter Kelly,and his staff they have recieved a number of flowers,and cards from people all over the world that think you need to be in a mental hospital, I am not sure you belong in a padded cell however you need help.
Just my 2 cents
Monday, March 1, 2010
Can't or Won't Work....Ahhhh Do it under the table....
During the past 18 or so months since Brindi was seized,there have been fund raising,pleas for money,pay pal accounts set up and if I recall a benefit concert. Brindi's owner,has said time after time she can't work for several reasons one of which was because she didn't have a working visa for Canada. I found the following site which by the way was up dated May 2009,less than a year ago I see her fee is 40 euro an hour or appox 50 canadian dollars an hour seems to be a nice little business to me.
Than there is the fact that she is an Architect,which she well advertises on the included site,now would it be possible that there could be a bit of free lance work going on? I am not saying there is however with all the lies going around its very possible. I have great difficulty trying to get my mind around the fact that she is capable of making 50 dollars an hour why in Hell would she need handouts? To say nothing of the tax implications,I would bet that the Canadian Tax collector would be interested.
Here is the link......http://www.proz.com/translator/125616
Bottom line since there have been so many lies by Brindi's owner,how and why would HRM release the dog back to her....ANSWER....they won't.
Than there is the fact that she is an Architect,which she well advertises on the included site,now would it be possible that there could be a bit of free lance work going on? I am not saying there is however with all the lies going around its very possible. I have great difficulty trying to get my mind around the fact that she is capable of making 50 dollars an hour why in Hell would she need handouts? To say nothing of the tax implications,I would bet that the Canadian Tax collector would be interested.
Here is the link......http://www.proz.com/translator/125616
Bottom line since there have been so many lies by Brindi's owner,how and why would HRM release the dog back to her....ANSWER....they won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)