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.
Oh lord, the tale spinning lies STILL continue. She would be better off using the assessment SILVIA JAY did. Yes Brindi does need behavior management but fran needs the training. This dog does not deserve this owner... she deserves better.
ReplyDeleteI just thought of something.... would fran be thinking to postpone this AGAIN for an assessment because come March 31st, this dog will be transferred to the new AC shelter, thinking she and her coHURTS can visit etc. ? Don't she realize that no matter where Brindi is held she is STILL under the HRM and THEY have stopped her visits because of her ranting and raving along with all the verbal attacks on staff at the SPCA just for being NICE. I bet that is what she is doing....
ReplyDeleteFrancesca's comments reflect the whole issue. Focusing on the non-issue = house training, which I don't think Brindi will need, while trivializing the real problem = reactivity to other dogs. Keeping Brindi behind the fence will not be good enough - and if she requests postponement that she proofs that she doesn't give a rat's tail about Brindi being locked up. Hope she won't succeed to keep the drama going - for the poor dog's sake.
ReplyDeleteSo true. She has never focused on what the real problem is.... the owner, then the dog.
ReplyDeleteI have believed all along that Brindi should be released. But to whom is the question. I'd take her in a heartbeat, work with her the way she should be. This is not fair to Brindi. Is anyone thinking about her? Really?
ReplyDeleteSilvia Jay, the reporter asked a question about bonding, not behavior. And they never quote somebody in full so you don't know what else she said, do you? Judging what this owner would do based on a newspaper article is just as wrong as judging from one line on a facebook comment. If you don't think she cares about Brindi being locked up you're truly cold at heart.
ReplyDeleteAnd you must not be a very good trainer if you say it's impossible to improve behavior on a dog that never caused stitches to be needed. What about the dogs that kill?
Gail, Francesca asked the court many times to use Silvia's assessment of Brindi. She had to get a court order to even get it done in the first place!! The court proceedings to date have not involved discussions of Brindi's behaviour on a training level. Silvia has shown her intense personal dislike of Francesca, which makes an objective assessment not possible. Hence getting another assessment to "prove" Brindi is not a dangerous dog.
ReplyDeleteWe 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?
Hey, fran has time to take me to court and run around getting everyone to harass other people and it is already on the court documents that Silvia had assessed Brindi. Get off her ass and get the court order.... wait... she waited so long that now she wants another delay to keep Brindi in the shelter so she can get the court order.
ReplyDeleteAre you all really this blind? She had over a year to do that. Get real. It has nothing to do wether any of us like fran or not. Our main purpose it to make sure Brindi is alive, safe and with an owner who is responsible. After what fran has written about these 2 behaviorists, I don't blame them for their dislike ( if they do ). We are called dog haters by her and her cronies meanwhile we all do rescue etc. Yes Brindi is trainable but she will not be successful in fran's hands because she JUST DON'T GET IT. When are you people going to do what is right for Brindi? You are all helping fran kill this dog. All this time, Brindi could have been safe, in a home with pure love of family. The best love any pet owner can give their pet is to let them go to be a better dog.
I can tell you, as much as I love my dogs, if I couldn't be the owner these dogs needed, I would most certainly get someone who could. That is LOVE for my dogs. I just lost one of my 3 dogs due to cancer. I would let her go everyday to save her the pain. Don't you think Brindi is in pain all this time being away from a family home life? Who's fault is that?
I do applaud her for fighting the euth order... but she should never have put Brindi in that position in the first place. She has done nothing to improve the living conditions of Brindi, she has not even learned how to be a better owner of a dog with issues because she is to busy going after other people and the SPCA. Now she is looking to delay AGAIN and I believe in my heart of hearts it is because Brindi will be going to Homeward Bound come April 1st.
Can you prove me wrong? I bet you can't. It is time you and the so called supportors get fran to come to her senses and finally do what is best and right for Brindi instead of this death sentence she got her under.
I would rather my dog be with a loving owner who can be responsible for her needs then DEAD
wouldn't you?
Gail, you just summed up my feelings perfectly. Very well said!!! When we truly love someone, whether a person or animal, we do what is best for them, NOT us. She says she loves Brindi, but yet she is willing to risk her life out of her own selfishness. There is no doubt Francesca would miss Brindi terribly if she were re-homed, however I feel very strongly that dogs adjust well to any loving situation, no matter who the person is. I know that if she was put into a responsible and loving home, she would love that person just as much as she loved Francesca, and would be much happier than living behind bars, or worse yet, dead! So it all comes down to selfishness, to satisfying her own needs and wants, and not those of Brindi's.
ReplyDeleteI know this is a waste of time - you have your opinion, and refuse to consider things from any other point of view - are you even capable of being truly open minded? But I'll try to give you more to think about.
ReplyDeleteIt's wrong to say Francesca "gets" people to harass for her - she hasn't done that. I know probably some supporters have said or done some things I don't agree with that were maybe upsetting, but that's a very different thing from what you're saying here.
Silvia did do an assessment but no judge has yet admitted it in court. It is not in the court records. Judges Beveridge, MacDonald, Hoskins and Murphy have all refused to hear it because they have been dealing with other matters.
I don't think any of you are dog haters - far from it - you all clearly have a strong interest. I don't even believe you hate Francesca, though you've all said some needlessly hateful things. I don't see how that helps Brindi, owners or betters the law.
I do think that you don't really understand the law, however.
I'm glad if you do animal rescue and I am sorry for your loss, it is hard to lose a loved one.
I am curious why you don't believe Francesca is at all capable of being a responsible owner. Why is she not rehabilitable? Everyone gets a chance to pay for their crime and start over as a law abiding citizen. What should Francesca be doing to "become a better owner of a dog with issues"? Then you do actually believe she can be a responsible owner?
Why should HRM think they have the right to take anyone's pet without an investigation, without a hearing and just kill them if they feel like it or force an owner to give them to someone else? You really think that's ok? Or are you so scared of AC you refuse to even say so when they do something wrong?
You say you feel Brindi is in pain just from being at the SPCA. Why do you think neither HRM nor the SPCA would agree to transfer Brindi to a better kennel or foster when they were asked to by Francesca? I agree she should have got a court order for Brindi to at least be held somewhere more suitable and to receive more personalized care, if a judge would have agreed, which I doubt they would've. It's not easy considering every lawyer Francesca has tried can't seem to do a good job for her or Brindi. She has had to nag the city and SPCA many times just to even provide basic care like walks or dental care. Maybe the city and SPCA should have moved Brindi voluntarily, shouldn't they? If they cared about Brindi - but it is clear they don't.
And what difference does it make which city pound Brindi is held in? A pound is a pound. Hope isn't about to "spring" Brindi!
Of course I would rather my pet live than die...but why do you think rehoming should be the ONLY option? That would let a truly 'unresponsible' owner off the hook...they could just as easily get another animal and have the same problems all over again. Having a good trainer solves the problems of the dog, the owner and the community. If there were further incidents after a first conviction, like in most criminal situations if you're convicted a second time the punishment is usually more severe because of your record. At that point
it would make more sense to talk about prohibiting ownership.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"You say you feel Brindi is in pain just from being at the SPCA. Why do you think neither HRM nor the SPCA would agree to transfer Brindi to a better kennel or foster when they were asked to by Francesca?"
ReplyDeleteFor one I never said nor will I that Brindi is in pain because of the SPCA. So don't put words in my mouth or twist it.
The SPCA had and has nothing to do with where Brindi is or will be. You don't seem to grasp the concept of a CONTRACT. Just like when Hope takes over. She HAS to follow the same CONTRACT. The HRM / AC would not entertain Brindi going anywhere because of the limitations fran put there. Who in their right mind would? To allow her full access to Brindi, not a chance.
I'm going to respond to each of these individually:
ReplyDeleteQUOTE:I am curious why you don't believe Francesca is at all capable of being a responsible owner. Why is she not rehabilitate? Everyone gets a chance to pay for their crime and start over as a law abiding citizen.
R: She had several opportunities to prove she could abide by the laws set out did she not?
QUOTE: What should Francesca be doing to "become a better owner of a dog with issues"? Then you do actually believe she can be a responsible owner?
R: She should be humble and take responsibility for her actions, she should be selfless and realize that she is not above the law. So far I have not seen any inkling that she is prepared to do this. How you say? by her actions! It's also what she should have done, IMHO, 1, 2, 3 strikes your out. Shouldn't even be that many chances.
QUOTE: Why should HRM think they have the right to take anyone's pet without an investigation, without a hearing and just kill them if they feel like it or force an owner to give them to someone else?
R: Because these are the laws that are clearly laid out. Follow the rules or there will be consequences? Do you know somewhere else that doesn't have such a thing?
Quote:You really think that's ok? Or are you so scared of AC you refuse to even say so when they do something wrong?
R: I absolutely think it is ok for the SPCA and HRM to do their job when they are forced to. Why put yourself in teat situation to begin with when it could have all been easily avoided? Do I really sound like someone who would be scared to speak my mind??!?
QUOTE:I agree she should have got a court order for Brindi to at least be held somewhere more suitable and to receive more personalized care, if a judge would have agreed, which I doubt they would've.
R: Then why didn't she? She's been in court numerous times asking for things that the judge 'may not have agreed to' so why not ask?? How can anyone predict what the judge is going to say/decide?
QUOTE:It's not easy considering every lawyer Francesca has tried can't seem to do a good job for her or Brindi.
R: so are you telling me that every single lawyer she has hired has been a dud? I find that truly hard to believe. Lawyers are not stupid.
QUOTE: Maybe the city and SPCA should have moved Brindi voluntarily, shouldn't they? If they cared about Brindi - but it is clear they don't.
R: And what about all the other dogs in the city or at SPCA??!? I guess they should move all of them too? Do you not realize that Brindi is not the only dog that spends upwards of 2 years looking for a home? Do you not think they want this for all the dogs? I guess Brindi's case should be special because it has gotten so much press and the other dogs should just hang back and hope for the same?
QUOTE:If there were further incidents after a first conviction, like in most criminal situations if you're convicted a second time the punishment is usually more severe because of your record. At that point
it would make more sense to talk about prohibiting ownership.
R: Did She not get more than one chance to correct the issue at the beginning and refused? Isn't this why Brindi is where she is now and why we are all SO frustrated with it?????
urg....excuse the typos, gotta love the auto spell correct when your typing fast! BTW that was a bit of sarcasm there. :)P
ReplyDelete