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