Please tell fran we are in Nova Scotia not some back water state!

Apparently a nerve was touched.
Our group is new but it strives to draw attention to what is hidden, forgotten, misleading because we consider dogs and cats family members, and because fixing HRM animal control must be done, and it must start with Brindi.
Where do you stand?
There is not only no imperative to continue locking Brindi up regardless of her "crimes" (and the case does fall into that category): there is every reason not to.
And yes, locking her up is what you are doing; one could render a worse image. The punitive aspect certainly resounds in the latter rather militant part of your post.

Look around. Cities are beginning to realize how wrong it is to lock away a dog for months at a time. Years are unheard of. You are not doing your job, you are doing something that is widely regarded as wrong and harmful.

It is what it is.

A few corrections and some information:

-The motion hearing began after 2:15 pm and ended just before 3:30 pm. If you were there for two hours, perhaps you were at the wrong hearing? As far as the rest of your analysis, why should anybody accept it as accurate and objective?

-Brindi's vet questioned the kennel's size and door, as well as other things. If the court had allowed it, this information would have been presented. As a full response to the kennel affidavit could never be made, so assuming what the judge would have said is pure speculation.

-Nobody said a word about how good a trainer Ms. Graham is or isn't, but now that you did, the subject does raise some questions, as many other trainers totally disagree with what she is doing here. Trainers from Halifax to Australia, in fact.

-Similarly, if we were so off the mark, how is it that from here to places far and wide so many dog lovers, owners, rescuers, have questioned the affidavit, as well as the whole case, on ethical grounds?

-Nobody is holding a gun to your head, or to your wife's head, Mr. Graham. You have a job. Your wife can train, breed, or kennel. She has other customers, doesn't she? If this bothers you so much then perhaps you should rethink your involvement. That's your decision. But attacking Brindi's owner is not a wise way to go.

-To characterize urgent fundraising efforts to save a dog - without succumbing to destitution - as "luxury" is shockingly offensive. Are you that cold? And do you honestly imagine you are in a worse financial situation? Wow.

-It's the truth that Wyndenfog was not licensed, and making that fact known is not illegal. You probably should be glad about that as you were already running up a fine of over $36,000.

You doth protest too much.Since when is it trespassing to use the driveway of a place of business to drop off a doggy Xmas stocking - on Xmas eve, when most folks are at home, no less - trespassing? Please. Never mind photographs; worry about negligence.

And with you there to protect the premises with all your training and experience, it seems odd that you feel so threatened, even if one were to believe people are "threatening to illegally confiscate her and/ or forcibly break into this kennel or (y)our personal residence". Honestly.

Here are a few counter-examples for you to think about with regard to the abnormal situation you are cooperating with. Just a suggestion.

*In Broward, Florida, a leashed husky that killed a poodle was seized and sentenced to death. Six months later the dog went home. No muzzle order. The town kicked out the mayor, changed the law, and got 6 other dogs off death row as well.
Out of concern for the other dog owners, the county lawyers went to them and offered financial compensation. We are talking only months, not years, remember. Brindi is in her fifth year of confinement!

*In Okanagan, a dog named Shadow was accused of biting a woman who allegedly kicked him. The trial was mid-way through, the owners had a sharp lawyer destroy a number of witnesses, but the sudden adjournment of another six months was too much for the owners, the Madsens. They called a public gathering and it resulted in immediate negotiations, with the district stating it acted out of concern for the long-term period of kenneling Shadow had endured.
(Remember, Brindi did not attack people who kicked her on two occasions.)

The district also reimbursed the Madsens 60% of their legal costs. Imagine, Mr. Graham.

Here are a couple of things - the district's statement, then the report on the release of Shadow.

Regional District releases statement regarding Shadow
CHBC News, Kelowna : Monday, July 23, 2012 5:04 PM
http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/78303…

On Monday afternoon, the Regional District of the Central Okanagan released a statement regarding Shadow, an Alaskan Malamute accused of biting a woman in the leg. Shadow has been kept at a dog pound in Kelowna for the past 15 months, which is half of its life. People around the Okanagan as well as across B.C. have become attached to the story and many are calling for the animal's release.

Here is the release verbatim:

RDCO Statement – Custody of Shadow

The Regional District of Central Okanagan presents the following facts:
• On April 27th, 2011 Regional District Dog Control received a report of a dog attack-person bitten on Middle Bench Road in Lake Country on March 26th, 2011.
• The injuries suffered were severe and required a lengthy treatment and rehabilitation.
• The victim identified an Alaskan Malamute dog named Shadow as the aggressor and RDCO Dog Control began an immediate investigation.
• On May 1st, 2011 RDCO dog control seized the dog under Section 49 of the Community Charter.
• In July 2011, a trial date was set for July 2012 to hear arguments on a Destruction Order.
• On April 20th, 2012 a Provincial Court judge ruled the seizure was improper since no warrant was obtained and the judge gave the Regional District five days to get an approved warrant.
• On April 24th, 2012 the Regional District obtained a warrant to seize the dog alleged to have bitten a person on March 26th, 2011.
• On January 3, 2012 the hearing for the dog owners’ application for interim release of their dog was dismissed by a Provincial Court judge.
• In February 2012 a consent order offer was made by the Regional District to the dog owners to release the dog including a number of conditions provided to protect public safety.
• If accepted, this consent order, would have returned the dog to its owners and finally conclude this matter. The offer was refused by the dog owners.
• On Monday and Tuesday last week, July 16th and 17th, the Provincial Court trial began hearing evidence and the case has been adjourned, likely to continue in January 2013.
• While there are witness statements that conflict with the victim's statement, the Regional District is not in a position to make a judgment.
• The judge will determine the outcome of the case, based on all the evidence that is presented.

The Regional District would like to address a number of issues of concern raised by the public.
• The Regional District does not believe it is appropriate for any dog to be held for extended periods of time in its dog pound facility, but it is bound to protect the safety and interests of the public and all ratepayers in the Central Okanagan. Consent orders are a tool to avoid keeping dogs for long periods of time.
• Criminal, family and civil court matters are the priority for the courts and it makes it difficult to get dog bylaw cases before the courts in a timely manner. Counsel for the Regional District has been told on several occasions by judges that dog bylaw cases are not more important than civil, family or criminal cases.
• Last Friday, July 20th, the Regional District offered a revised consent order to the dog owners. Among the conditions are secure fencing, behaviour training and control when outside the fenced area. The Regional District is awaiting a response.

The Regional District regrets this situation and is concerned about the welfare of the dog, but will consider only one option other than continuing to house the dog at the RDCO pound and that is for the owners to take their dog back under the conditions of the revised consent order.
(END)

That was the statement of the district. This is what happened a week later:

http://www.castanet.net/news/Central-Okana…

Charges dropped, Shadow goes home
by Wayne Moore - Story: 78490
Jul 27, 2012 / 6:00 pm

Shadow is going home.
An agreement between her owner, Peter Madsen, and the Regional District of Central Okanagan (RDCO) was finalized Friday, paving the way for Shadow's return to her family later that afternoon.
In announcing the agreement, the RDCO says the two sides reached agreement on a Consent Order which outlines what they describe as a number of mutually acceptable conditions.

As part of that order, the dog owners have agreed to a program of rehabilitation and reintegration training for the two year old dog to help her in transitioning back to her owners’ home.

“The agreement marks a positive step for both parties in resolving what has been a very difficult case. It’s been an extremely emotional experience for everyone involved: the victim, the dog owners, Regional District Dog Control staff and other professionals in the community,” says Regional Board Chair Robert Hobson.

The Lake Country Alaskan Malamute had been on 'death row' in the RDCO's dog pound for the past 15 months awaiting a court date on allegations she attacked and bit a Lake Country woman March 26, 2011.

As part of the agreement reached between the parties, Madsen says the RDCO agreed to drop all charges against Shadow while Madsen says he has agreed not to pursue civil charges against the district.

"It's been hell for our family. We just wanted it to end," says Madsen, whose attempts to get Shadow released from the pound cost him and his family ten's of thousands of dollars.

“We are grateful for the cooperation of the Regional District in working to resolve this matter and getting Shadow back with us. We’re very happy that she is home and will begin professional training to help with her adjustment.”

Madsen adds the Regional District has agreed to help with his legal costs as well as the cost of rehabilitation in case the experience at the pound has caused lasting affects on the dog.
For their part, the family agreed to build adequate fencing around the family home. Madsen says those renovations passed RDCO inspection Friday, paving the way for completion of the deal.
Madsen also offered his thanks Paul Macklim at the Regional District and to members of the media who helped champion Shadow's cause.
He adds he will continue to fight for the need for better conditions and better facilities at the RDCO's dog pound.
He also hopes the district will change its policy and allow dogs such as Shadow to go home under strict conditions while awaiting court disposition of cases like this.
Madsen says it's done that way in other jurisdictions and should be done here as well.
It’s anticipated the final consent order between the parties will be presented for Provincial Court approval early next week.

earlier piece:
http://www.castanet.net/news/Central-Okana…
Praiseworthy caliber of reporting.

Finally -
*Cities and by-laws differ, and some are ahead of others. Most know about Calgary's method of handling dog cases by dealing with dangerous dogs and violations separately; using a separate tribune and limiting the time to 30 days and 30 for appeals.

* In Boston, Mass., a city many times bigger than Halifax, the fines start at less than $50. The city never orders a dog to be destroyed. By law the most it can do is ask to get a dog sent out of town, unless the owner agrees on euthanasia. But to get to this point takes a number of incidents, and they must be severe in nature.
Also relevant here is that Boston also clears the record of a dog yearly, so that an incident that happened 4 or 5 years earlier can't be held against the dog - or the owner, in fact, cumulatively and for the rest of its life, as if it is a human being. Makes sense.

You are a person with free-will. Brindi is a helpless animal. Any owner would grieve for her every day. Be a soldier, but be a soldier of compassion first, Mr. Graham.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Posted by humane halifax on 10/07/2012 at 3:28 AM

OK “Humane Halifax” -

If ya wanna go – then lets go then, the gloves are coming off …

“Humane Halifax” / “Robert Riley ?” / “Francesca Rogier?” /”Brindi’s Mom?” whoever … – because you are too cowardly to use your own name, you predicably post a scatered pile of banner designed to distract from the main issues by using worthless references to studies that don’t apply and character assisnations - in an attemp to draw the reader away from the real topic – accountablity and responciblity. I, Derek Graham stand in the open. I don’t throw inuendow and sling crap and then scury under a rock or in this case - hide behind a cloak of self -righteousness with a trendy slick Twitter name. Therefore, I speak to what I know, what I have experienced, or what I have seen.

This kennel business operates in the real world. We don’t have the luxery of putting up donation sites all over the web if things don’t go our way. That means hard work. That means providing a safe enviroment. That means if you want a service, you have to pay for it. Brindi represnts a small percentage of the finaical gain to this business and to be quite honest, there is no amount of money that truly compensates for the amount of grief that Humane Halifax and Francesca Rogier have caused in terms of ridicule and childlike harassment. For the record - We are not holding Brini to personally aggravate Francesca Rogier, although it would appear that is what she's trying to sell. We've been hired to do a job and provide the best possible service that goes with this line of work. Frankly, we would just like to be left alone to do our job, however, is obvious that your organization or group and Ms. Rogier believe that attacking this business and the people in it will win you public sympathy and support. I advise you to rethink your strategy because quite frankly, other than being an annoyance and sometimes just a plain nuisance, your tactics are failing miserably. I seriously don't expect any of you to actually follow through on that, as that would be an indication of perceived defeat. However, if common sense miraculously makes its way between the ears of any of your members, I will consider that a miracle and be thankful.

I was present during the Supreme Court hearing as to whether Ms. Rogier was going to be successful in convincing the courts to have Brindi moved from our Kennel to a foster home environment. She first had to convince the court that they had jurisdictional authority to act. If the matter of jurisdiction could be resolved, only then would she be permitted to challenge the “living conditions” of the kennel to support fostering to a home. For the record I would like to state that a home environment with a properly trained owner who has taken the necessary precautions to provide a safe environment for the intended pet is always preferred to any kennel environment. That was never the question. The question here, posed before the courts, was this ideal environment necessary and obtainable under the current circumstances and what criteria would be required for the Supreme Court to have permission for jurisdictional interference. Ms. Rogiers argument was approximately 2 hours long. Several times she was warned to stop referring to elements of the original trial as an excuse to support her jurisdictional argument. When it became apparent that she had no real basis for the Supreme Court to interfere with the decision of the lower court, her final tactic was to attempt to discredit the affidavit submitted by the kennel and to refer to late the payment of a business licensing with the hopes that she could infer that the kennels administrative abilities were a reflection of their professional abilities. The HRM lawyer only required 10 min. to present an argument that although the kennel is not ideal - as NO kennel is - it was certainly adequate under the circumstances. The judge quickly dismissed Rogier’s argument, and stated that she was quite confident with the kennels abilities to take care of the dog in question and noted that under the kennel’s care, the dogs general health had might have even improved.

It is very sad and unfortunate that this animal had to be confiscated due to the negligence of the owner for a second time. This is what happens to a dog that has attacked other dogs or is left vulnerable to attack, on multiple occasions. Generally, the accused is not afforded the luxury of choosing who or what organization the confiscated animal will be assigned to. As Ms. Rogier stated on her blog and during the court proceeding, NO kennel environment is suitable for long-term stay -be it Wyndenfog or Belle Kennels. Apparently, your “legal advisors” have, come up somewhat lacking in convincing the entire legal system that they are operating completely outside of the law. The term “locked up” is flippantly used by your group is a reference to a penal system and its inmates. I find it particularly vile and disgusting that you would refer to the housing, caring, exercising, and attention given to an animal in kennel care, in this manner. It is abstract, irresponsible and absurd and nobody in their right mind would be bringing their dog to this facility if that were the case. The original owner of this animal insists on prolonging the animal to stay in the state of legal limbo indefinitely by her attempts at appeal. She has no one else to blame but herself for the prolonged situation of this form of care. However, this business anticipated this action, consequently we have modified the standard kennel environment to better suit the situation. It is unprecedented, therefore NO current study can't accurately account for the variables for which this situation applies. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court listed the MINIMAL and most stringent situation that this animal would endure. This was presented in this manner so that the court would understand the worst possible scenario at any given time that this animal would experience. The presumed lack of a door system to the outer runs clearly shows how much this group does not understand the structural requirements for kennel doors. In this case, on our kennel system, there is a drop slide down door on the interior. This closes off the all the elements to the animal, less the occational draft. For extreme weather conditions, a hinged outer door drops into place on the outer frame of the building creating a double door. Insulated inserts are put in place to deal with substantial temperature drops. In effect, this system represents a higher R-value than the doors on any home.
The maximums in this situation were not listed as it would have been considered exaggeration and inaccurate. That being said, some of the maximums that Brindi is afforded are, four 3 X 15 runs as they are all interlinked. In addition to added run space when available, an entire 8 x 8 room, heated floor, with the standard bedding and pillows is available upon occation. Finally, extra walks up to approximately 1.5 hours or the same amount of time of free play in a controlled grassed area. It should be noted that we would have loved to be able to take her out for walks to other environments that offered different scenic venues, but, due to the security risks posed by many of her online supporters threatening to illegally confiscate her and/ or forcibly break into this kennel or our personal residence, this made this option quite impossible. Brindi’s restrictions are directly related to Ms. Rogeir’s social media followers and her unwillingness to curb or eliminate such comments. These comments are a matter of record and she has no one to blame for this, except herself.

I don't know what legs I am supposed to stand on - or whatever that statement is supposed to mean. I'm well aware of what Ms. Jordan's qualifications were as the courts determined - she was considered an expert in reference to training, not behaviour. What I do know is that the operator of this kennel has twice as much experience as Mrs. Jordan in this field as well as operating kennel for 12 years and being a registered breeder for twice that as well. It is safe to assume that if she was doing anything unethical, it would have been noticed long ago. Humane Halifax has an infatuation with quoting credentials. It is been said, because I've heard personally, that the owner of this kennel is rated one of the top five instructors in this province. This is hearsay - I freely admit that - and I admit that could be considered a biased opinion, however, I encourage anyone with an open and objective viewpoint to research that. For an animal that would appear to have aggressive tendencies, it would appear that she is more than qualified to cope with any aggression issues that Brindi may show signs of and professionally deal with them.

The question of the business license. This kennel had not renewed his license due to an administrative error, period. Once discovered, this was immediately corrected. If you think this has anything to do with the professional capabilities of a person's training in a specific field I would submit to you that your focus is guided to suit a specific agenda. I am serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces and my wife has choosen a career in kennel management and dog training. These jobs with their respective duties and responsibilities were our primary efforts. We freely admit that we will have to apply more personal time and resources to ensure that our administration of the business is raised to a higher standard. Despite innuendo inferred by this group, there are no payment anomalies or taxation anomalies.

I find it particularly amusing that a supposedly credible group that is dedicated to the care of animals would waste time and resources researching personal communications on various social media for the sole purpose to put somebody in a bad light - and that the best that they could come up with, was a singular joke selected for specific people that was never intended for public viewing. It speaks volumes to the desperation of how low and underhanded this group will go to get public support and speaks to their character. It is literally the kettle calling the pot black. It was never my intent for this comment that was intended as joking banter, to have been put in a public forum like that, had it not been for the actions of some twisted and small minds. Never the less, if some people were offended, I apologize, and I don't deny saying it, however, I would like to personally thank the conniving individual for educating me on the vulnerabilities of the Internet and the methods that some people will stoop to.

Humane Halifax loves to talk about complicity. So let's go there. Ms. Rogier is complicit in allowing illegally obtained photographs of my residence on her social media and taking advantage of them. Ms. Rogier is complicit in allowing incorrect information based on these photographs to be spread on the Internet. Ms. Rogier is complicit in not discouraging potential violence against this kennel or the people that reside in this residence. Ms. Rogier is complicit in trespassing on this residence on Christmas Eve. There is a standing police file on record. There are statements recorded off the Internet that support EVERYTHING printed. Ms. Rogier had to be personally and formally warned by the RCMP to cease any other possible invasive intrusions on this property. THAT…is matter of record. Ms. Rogier presents herself as a victim; however, this “victim”is a bully and many people who once supported her, now see her in a much different light.

As I mentioned before, I am serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces CD with over 25 years experience. I've have served my country on various deployments including Afghanistan. I am a husband and a father. I also hold a martial arts degree and have instructed sexual assault management and countermeasures to female members of the military and civilian population. I volenteer as a football trainer for a local Hight school.

As I mentioned before, I stand in the open and do not hide or back down from any fight. As also mentioned before, I'm not one to grab a soapbox and preach down to others, however, I would put my character up against the likes of the ones at Humane Halifax any time, and I do not think they would present much of a challenge.

fRan take a hike a long one!

So once again, Mr. Derek Graham, whose wife owns Wyndenfog kennel, posts a poorly informed and illogical diatribe, barely concealing his identity. Not a very seemly thing to do for somebody with a financial interest in keeping Brindi locked up.

Mr. Graham, nobody in their right mind thinks it's okay to keep a dog in a kennel for years at a time, so you'd be well advised to remain silent rather than post such claptrap. Being an anti-intellectual is the least of it.

First of all, you've not only twisted the truth; you've got key facts completely wrong: Francesca did not ask the judge that "Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations - or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing"! Instead she asked for Brindi to be temporarily fostered pending the outcome of the appeal, to a foster home that is mutually acceptable to HRM, the court, and herself. A very reasonable proposal for a dog that is highly deserving. And you can read her brief here: http://www.brindijustice.com/brindi/Motion…
And she didn't propose these things because her home is not suitable, or because she doesn't have a right to have her dog at home pending trial /appeal - as virtually every other dog owner prosecuted in HRM - but because she didn't want to ask for too much and she was putting her dog's interests first, unlike you.

Secondly, you are very well aware that Brindi's vet and trainer have been saying since 2010 that it's bad for Brindi to be kenneled again after her ordeal at the Metro Shelter from 2008 to 2010. In October 2010, they both asked HRM to send her to Belle Kennel if not to a foster home. That was the least HRM should have done, as according to our legal advisors it was completely outside of the law to lock Brindi up month after month. And you, sir, and your wife, are complicit in that action.

And overall, neither you nor HRM has a leg to stand on. Five positive assessments say Brindi should be either at home with Francesca or in an otherwise suitable home. Ms. Jordan testified that she finds Francesca a very responsible owner. Back in 2008 Francesca proposed the very conditions that a judge put in place two years later. Too bad HRM didn't accept them in the first place, so that Brindi didn't have to suffer.

Why would Dr. Larkin and Susan Jordan go out on a limb unless they were sure? Both Larkin and Jordan say that long-term kenneling puts her health AND her temperament at risk. The latter is backed up by a recent study: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berg…

For the record, a government contractor operating without a business license for two years at a stretch doesn't exactly add to your wife's credibility. More importantly, the veterinary regulations of Canada designate a 3x4 space as the MINIMUM for a medium-sized dog - for SHORT-TERM housing. Not long term!! There's no door to ward off the elements, and the concrete is dingy and cracked. What a sad prospect for a sweet dog to be in such a place, and viewing your family through the window is not positive visual stimulation - if anything it would taunt a companion animal. Letting her out twice a day for 20 minutes - big deal!!

You and your wife are co-responsible for this tragedy, sir. Under the law Wyndenfog is just as liable as HRM. But you are evidently as calloused as the knees of your "ideal woman".

For a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, your character sure leaves a lot to be desired.

report 8 likes, 7 dislikes   like  dislike

Posted by humane halifax on 10/06/2012 at 4:36 PM

I see Ms Rogier had a chance to express her views on this subject. I thought that a perspective from the "side of the fence" that Brindi is living on now, might give some insight on what it like to be bullied by a "True Believer"

My, oh my .. what gives .. no slick-spin, negative, American style attack adds/comments against me or the kennel in "Humane Halifax" tweets since 3 Oct .... maybe they have decided to be useful and pick up some doggy do - rather than fling it .... of course FR is still at it...
BTW , I hope she keeps linking the affidavit photos all over the net to her blog. Despite her diatribes, I love the fact that rational people will see that Brindi’s “cage” consists of getting one –if not more, clean 14 ft run always at her disposal - and a MINIMUM 3 ft by 4 ft sleeping area with a heated floor, fresh dog pillow daily, and a ½ acre outdoor play area that is professionally supervised when she is out playing. I find it difficult to fathom how a person with such an extensive education, has a quantum lack of basic observation skills - that also appears to be at par with her inabilities to operate a common car door power widow. Perhaps these are gifts granted by God to only the lowly common and simple folk … like myself, to compensate for our inability to operate on the intellectual plain she does. Apparently, on her “analysis” of my property – which is not “that nice” a property according to her standards (please feel free to compare our respective dwellings on her sites – there are lots of legal and illegal examples – mine is the one NOT falling apart) …, she has failed to notice in the pictures there are bushes for a dog to run around and grass to play on .. oh … and that big wood thing in the background ..its called a tree.. she said there were none – but I am sure I remember in my grade 1 reading books, that thing sticking out of the ground was called a tree … they tend to provide a great wind break and sunshade - along with the newly landscaped embankments that also provide shade and are fun for canines to run up and down. I am making an un-educated guess, but the Supreme Court Judge agreed that this stuff is pretty good and therefore, Brindi’s “sub-standard “ environment doesn’t throw up any red flags for her to intercede, but , what do I know, I just have a basic education and some post secondary. Maybe at MIT, an embankment is also referred to as “rubble” – which is also on the property that she says the dogs must navigate over. She has claimed that the kennel uses barbed wire to restrict the animals. Perhaps the illegally obtained photos she uses from someone trespassing on my neighbours property on her FB pages, have her confused. Now, I must admit, I don’t believe that they teach much about fencing material at U-M, Columbia, Harvard and MIT –and, in all fairness - perhaps she has confused that with the chicken wire she has used on her property. In any event, the simple masses can plainly see that no such containment exists.
It is un-ethical for providing this environment for Brindi , according to Ms. Rogier and Humane Halifax. Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations - or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing … yet the Judge, for some strange, cruel reason - said “no”
My father always used to say it is impossible to rationalize with people that are educated beyond their intelligence…. maybe he had point …perhaps the combined, compressive nature of that much data from so many lofty institutions has lead to some sort of cascading cerebral trauma that interferes with the ability perceive the world properly …


Sweet Jesus WTF does this Whore want,we all back water people in her mind ,,,well I never went to harvard,nore any of my family did.,However we do know right from wrong and when to give up, The damn mutt is given the best possible care ....no tks to you...your shack is a disgrace,you can't control any thing ,even power windows; so go figure.I suggest you get more education just so you can get more stupid....LOL Forget it let it go you will never see mutt again,nor should you you careless BITCH!

More to follow

.......................

OMG.....More crap!

WELL Frannie I just sat through your most recent u tubes crap,where you claim everyone is wrong ,including the Judge,of course you are always right.Accidents my arse you can't control your ex mutt or follow the rules; like laws,have you a clue......I doubt it!

How about showing some respect to the laws of CANADA,and stop making up your own excuses, you are doing nothing to save Brindi,in fact you are pissing people off and at this point many people that cared could care less..........sad part people that tried to save Brindi.....now could care less if the mutt was put down tomorrow.......WHY...because of you....

I haven't reached that point yet bet pretty close......Now go back and try to get some more money out of your suckers,as its all about you,you couldn't care less about your ex mutt.

Go see some shrink you have serious issues,,than call your mommy and get some money to haul your sick sorry arse back to the USA....WE don't need trash like you here.

Cheers.

Humane Halifax......!!!!

Yep frannie , I see how much you love me, I could care less to who you report me....Since you in Canada  we do have freedom of speech. Like it or lump it, yep if I feel your house (SHACK) is un sightly of course I will report it,and if need be report it again, If i think your shack is unsafe,yep I will report, If I see you sneak through a stop sign I will report.
Bottom line is Frannie you not welcome in CANADA, you proved your point,and I as a tax payer am sick and tired of you.
You have fun!
What brought this on do do you ask??

HERE YOU GO!!


Wayne Croft & Co. continue to harass @BrindisMom incl. false reports to HRM about house. Awaiting @hfgpolice/RCMP response.




Bring it on...I am about to reverse it and take legal action against you, I speak the truth I guess you don't like it.       PLAY ON FRANNIE!!!!!


WAYNE.

OK ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!

OK I think I heard enough!

Fran are you not a resident of Canada? I think not,if you were you may have a clue,I see you went to court today,sooooooooo...what did you gain? NOTHING,,,To bad so sad.

Now if you were so concerned which i doubt,your ex Mutts health,welfare..you would of STFU after you lost in Provincial court,but NO you insist on dragging it on,and of course you are entitled to.

But would you not want to see the Mutt RE HOMED?  You claim to be an animal lover...I doubt that!!  Its all about you and your ego; to say nothing of sucking people in to pay your bills,otherwisw why would you have several FB groups begging for money..and a pay pal account to donate to?

My thoughts are that you could care less about Brindi,as you now should realize ...You lost her because you are ...careless,lazy,stupid,a leach,a beggar,and a worthless POS. The First time you lost in court the Judge took pity on you and gave the Mutt back with conditions...Well you blew that in 2 months....So give your head a shake. Its not the Canadian Law that Fucked Up its you sweetie......Ok I now let you go back to begging for $....Good luck....I will contact all people that donate and tell them the full story. But I think most nor realize you are a POS.

Want to sell your shack? ...I will buy it at fair market value,provided you head south of the border.

Cheers

WHO T F>>>>>?? ARE YOU FRAN!!

Why keeping Brindi isolated from contact with dogs is bad for her & her chances of recovery Keeping Brindi isolated from other dogs means not only is her need for social interaction with her own species unmet; it also risks harmful effects on her behavior, jeopardizing her chances in the future. Effects of Group and Individual Housing on the Behavior of Kennelled Dogs in Animal Shelters Abstract: To emphasize the effects of group- and single housing of kennelled dogs, the behavior of 211 dogs in two German animal shelters was tested and observed. After being placed, 197 of the dogs' new owners were interviewed. Although 51% of the German animal shelters already keep dogs in groups, there is strong prejudice against group housing because of the fear of fights. This study demonstrates that this apprehension is unfounded. Ninety-one percent of the social confrontations between dogs housed together were settled by the use of behavioral rituals. Keeping dogs in groups, furthermore, leads to a significant reduction in noise emission (p<.001). Group housing fulfills the dog's need for social interaction and the need to move. Dogs that were housed in groups displayed a closer human-animal relationship (80%) than those that had been kept individually (43%). A high percentage of individually housed dogs suffered from behavioral problems (31%) and 10% developed stereotypes. The percentage of behaviorally disturbed dogs observed in group housing was 11%, and stereotyped forms of behavior did not occur. Dogs who had been kept in groups were, on average, placed within 10 days, and were returned to the animal shelter less often (9%) compared to those housed individually (25%). Dogs that were housed separately needed an average of 17 days to be placed. Even after being placed, there is a correlation between the animal shelter's type of housing and the dog's behavior. Within four weeks after picking up their pet, 88% of the owners of dogs that had been housed individually complained of problems compared to the owners of the dogs that had been kept in groups, 53% of whom were completely satisfied with the adoption. Despite the fact that these results might be influenced by the small number of shelters examined, the study leads to the conclusion that keeping dogs in groups is a suitable alternative for dog housing in animal shelters and, for the animals' welfare, is preferable to individual housing. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Our trainer, Susan Jordan, tried to explain to the judge during the trial last March that it is normal for a dog to back-slide in its training under any circumstances. What's really important is whether the aggressive behavior escalates - which it did not. Also, during those precious ten weeks when she was back home, Brindi was in many situations around strange dogs where she did not react aggressively. And now, based on the findings of this study regarding the increased risk of behavioral problems due to the isolation from other dogs, after years of isolation, seems to me that having an incident ten weeks after she was released from two years of isolation from other dogs is understandable. Even for dogs that aren't known to have any aggressive tendencies, "Within four weeks after picking up their pet, 88% of the owners of dogs that had been housed individually complained of problems". Unfortunately, judges don't apply studies in their decisions, or listen very closely to canine behavior consultants. But essentially, this is further evidence to show that Halifax has been harming my dog's health, well-being, and her chances of successfully recovering and readjusting from all these years of confinement and isolation. Ever since 2008 the city has argued against every option other than death. Judging from her previous arguments, the current municipal prosecutor, Katherine Salsman, would likely exploit the fact that all these years have jeopardized her future to argue that she should be locked up forever or put down. Even sicker, if Halifax had never seized Brindi, it's extremely likely her territorial aggression would be way behind her. I was in the process of training her the first time they took her - which was after an incident in which she didn't even make contact with another dog. I was in the process of training her with an even better trainer and even better methods when they took her the second time, after a minor incident that caused a few scratches to a dog, whose owners kicked Brindi repeatedly without her trying to retaliate. But apparently it is more important to Halifax to cling to the bad laws and bad practices that led to their decision to seize and destroy Brindi. And being alone in the courtroom, representing myself, a person convicted of by-law violations (that the city used as an excuse to seize Brindi), the judge is apt to confuse the message with the messenger. Do I think it would be better to have a lawyer? Of course! Can I pay for one? Heck no. More importantly perhaps, is one available who'd be willing and able to do the job? Not that I could find, and I sure looked, and so did many friends, for a long, long time. at 9/21/2012 07:00:00 PM Links to this post No comments: Here is where Brindi has been kept for the last two years Halifax has never allowed our vet or trainer to visit Brindi at this kennel. Why not? It's a place of business, it boards people's pets. Friends ask, "What are they hiding?" Well, now there's a glimpse of it. Halifax submitted these photos of the Wyndenfog Kennel, where Brindi has been kept for two years now, to a judge who I hope will hear my motion to order that she be sent to a foster home - a real home - pending the outcome of my appeal. This is the outdoor space. It's fenced in, it has no trees for shade or windbreak. They use it for walking her a few times a day - it doesn't appear that they allow her to run around in it by herself. This is Brindi's cell. I don't know what that material is - it looks pretty dreary though. I don't know about the door either - it seems to go right to the outside. What happens when it rains or snows or a cold wild blows and she wants to stay in? Also, the area is 3x4 feet - below the veterinary society minimum standard of 3x5 for indoor runs, even for stays of just one day. For two years, the minimum standard is not very comforting. I can't look at these images for very long, I am fighting back the tears and shrieks already. I can't believe that a civilized city would argue that it's okay and even healthy for my dog to be kept in a kennel for years at a time. Any dog. It's no wonder that when they took Brindi to the vet clinic (instead of allowing the vet to go to the kennel in her mobile unit), Brindi seemed to be in a good mood. She was getting out of the kennel for a few hours a month. September 27 will mark the beginning of her FIFTH year at the hands of Halifax Regional Municipality. The first two were spent in a pound that was even worse than this - but this is not much better, frankly. Even if it were the Plaza Hotel of dog kennels, I just cannot and will not ever understand why any decent person armed with only two facts - that Brindi never bit a person and that she never caused a severe injury to a dog - would agree that keeping her for years in any kennel is an acceptable action!! And yet that is what Halifax is arguing and it has the kennel owner arguing this as well, in court, on Tuesday, Sept. 25, at 2 pm, in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. How could any decent person, armed with two key facts - the facts that matter the most, that Brindi never bit a human & never inflicted severe injury to a dog - lock her up for years and years? Even Halifax's attempt to get Brindi killed by smearing me as much as possible, conflating a human's alleged by-law violations with a dog's alleged "dangerousness" - failed. The judge could have ordered her put down, but instead passed the buck to Halifax. Who is going to put a stop to this insanity? Fran do you even have a clue?? you a wack job!

Fran are you fracking NUTS:????

Hey fran do you really think anyone believes this crap..Please go get a friggen job!

""Hayley Clarke, Registrar, Registry of Joint Stock Companies
P.O. Box 1529, Halifax, N.S. B3J 2Y4
Fax: (902) 424-4633
joint&stocks@gov.ns.ca
Re: Wyndenfog Instructional and Kennel Services, ID no. 3103426
Sept. 9, 2012
Dear Ms. Clarke,
Our group, Humane Halifax, is concerned among other things with the welfare of animals in
the care of Halifax Regional Municipality. It’s come to our attention that the Wyndenfog
Instructional and Kennel Services has been operating without a business license for two years.
According to the Registry, the province revoked Wyndenfog’s license for non-payment on Sept.
7, 2010. On reporting this to Service Nova Scotia, we learned that under provincial law,
businesses are subject to a fine of $50 a day for every day they operate without a license, and
we were instructed to provide you with this letter.
Wyndenfog is a government contractor to the Halifax Regional Municipality, which places
animals in its care for long periods of time. As it is not very reassuring to learn that it operates
unlawfully, we are very concerned.
We hope you will take the appropriate action in a timely manner. We’d be very grateful if you
would inform us of same.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Robert Riley, member, Humane Halifax
Halifaxhumane.org
email: humanehalifax@yahoo.ca


Yep Robert Riley can't even spell ...so fran play on...we will to.