Joined
·
1,767 Posts
a couple of dogs strayed from their home in Sask. There owners were on welfare, the dogs were euthanized, has anyone hard about this yet. it disgusted and angered me that shelters are putting animals down as a result of their owners finances.
![]()
Town denies euthanizing dogs because owner was poor
Updated Sat. Apr. 26 2008 10:49 AM ET
The Canadian Press
REGINA -- Like many communities across Canada, the town of Wolseley, Saskatchewan has rules for dog owners.
The bylaw covers things like barking and how long the town will care for an animal when it's found running loose. And officials in town of 860 say it's that bylaw they were following when they found and destroyed a poor woman's three dogs.
"We do not like to euthanize animals of any sort," former town administrator Gail Blaney said Friday. "That's sort of the last resort."
The case has ended up in front of a human rights tribunal.
That's because Jacqueline Nash claims town officials killed her dogs because they knew she was on welfare and assumed she couldn't pay the fees to get the animals out of the pound.
The purebred German shepherds were picked up at a restaurant by animal control officer Leanne Shirkey in June 2005.
Shirkey said they were a little dirty and missing some fur, but friendly. She took the animals to the pound, which was at the town garage.
Nash said she spent five frantic days searching for the animals and was devastated to learn they'd been destroyed.
But Blaney told the tribunal Friday that no one called to claim to the animals.
She said she was simply following the bylaw when she scheduled a time to have the dogs euthanized. The bylaw states that the animal can be destroyed if the owner doesn't come forward within three days.
"I had booked the appointment but was hoping to never have to follow through with it," Blaney testified.
"It was not cut in stone."
On Thursday, Nash testified that she had called Blaney the day after the dogs went missing and was told the town office had nothing to do with strays. No one, Nash said, had seen her dogs or could tell her what the town would do with stray dogs if it found them.
Blaney said it "crossed her mind" that the dogs might be Nash's but added she couldn't be 100 per cent certain.
"I didn't know whose dogs they were. They were black dogs, they had no tags."
Blaney said a co-worker made one attempt to call to Nash, but the phone number was no longer in service. However under cross examination, Blaney also said that town councillor Richard Banbury later told her not to call Nash.
Banbury was scheduled to testify late Friday afternoon.
It was Shirkey who said that Blaney and others appeared to know that the dogs belonged to Nash, but they didn't want Shirkey to contact her. Shirkey said Friday that officials weren't doing backflips, but were clearly pleased that the animals were in custody.
"Monday morning there was some satisfaction expressed that we did have these dogs," said Shirkey.
The tribunal heard that the town had received numerous complaints from neighbours about Nash's dogs barking and defecating on other people's yards. At one point she was fined $20, which she admits she didn't pay.
Shirkey was also the one who said there had been talks about Nash's financial situation and her ability to care for the dogs.
"There was definite discussion about her source of income," Shirkey told the tribunal.
Blaney adamantly denied the charge. The former administrator said she was aware that Nash was struggling financially and that social services paid her utility bills, but insisted she did not know about Nash's source of income.
The tribunal chair was expected to reserve his decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town denies euthanizing dogs because owner was poor
Updated Sat. Apr. 26 2008 10:49 AM ET
The Canadian Press
REGINA -- Like many communities across Canada, the town of Wolseley, Saskatchewan has rules for dog owners.
The bylaw covers things like barking and how long the town will care for an animal when it's found running loose. And officials in town of 860 say it's that bylaw they were following when they found and destroyed a poor woman's three dogs.
"We do not like to euthanize animals of any sort," former town administrator Gail Blaney said Friday. "That's sort of the last resort."
The case has ended up in front of a human rights tribunal.
That's because Jacqueline Nash claims town officials killed her dogs because they knew she was on welfare and assumed she couldn't pay the fees to get the animals out of the pound.
The purebred German shepherds were picked up at a restaurant by animal control officer Leanne Shirkey in June 2005.
Shirkey said they were a little dirty and missing some fur, but friendly. She took the animals to the pound, which was at the town garage.
Nash said she spent five frantic days searching for the animals and was devastated to learn they'd been destroyed.
But Blaney told the tribunal Friday that no one called to claim to the animals.
She said she was simply following the bylaw when she scheduled a time to have the dogs euthanized. The bylaw states that the animal can be destroyed if the owner doesn't come forward within three days.
"I had booked the appointment but was hoping to never have to follow through with it," Blaney testified.
"It was not cut in stone."
On Thursday, Nash testified that she had called Blaney the day after the dogs went missing and was told the town office had nothing to do with strays. No one, Nash said, had seen her dogs or could tell her what the town would do with stray dogs if it found them.
Blaney said it "crossed her mind" that the dogs might be Nash's but added she couldn't be 100 per cent certain.
"I didn't know whose dogs they were. They were black dogs, they had no tags."
Blaney said a co-worker made one attempt to call to Nash, but the phone number was no longer in service. However under cross examination, Blaney also said that town councillor Richard Banbury later told her not to call Nash.
Banbury was scheduled to testify late Friday afternoon.
It was Shirkey who said that Blaney and others appeared to know that the dogs belonged to Nash, but they didn't want Shirkey to contact her. Shirkey said Friday that officials weren't doing backflips, but were clearly pleased that the animals were in custody.
"Monday morning there was some satisfaction expressed that we did have these dogs," said Shirkey.
The tribunal heard that the town had received numerous complaints from neighbours about Nash's dogs barking and defecating on other people's yards. At one point she was fined $20, which she admits she didn't pay.
Shirkey was also the one who said there had been talks about Nash's financial situation and her ability to care for the dogs.
"There was definite discussion about her source of income," Shirkey told the tribunal.
Blaney adamantly denied the charge. The former administrator said she was aware that Nash was struggling financially and that social services paid her utility bills, but insisted she did not know about Nash's source of income.
The tribunal chair was expected to reserve his decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
