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.
If the testimony of the ACO is accurate I hope the town gets sued big time! The part that really steams me is the Town Manager saying that it "crossed her mind" that the dogs could belong to the victim.
I could of missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article that said the dogs were starving or anything. Of rosue it doesn't give much info as to why the animals were lose or without collars and tags though.
Well, im guessing she aint goinna have to worry about income now!! Its fairly obvious what happened here. They saw her and her dogs as a pain in the rear. They picked up the dogs knowing who they belong to and put them down before the lady could find them.
The killer part is where they said they were happy to have the dogs, Then that would lead me to believe they were also happy to destroy them. If she sues the city it will have to pay.
A jury will not like the testomony about the city being glad this happened, thats the killer blow for the city right there.
Originally Posted By: DSuddI could of missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article that said the dogs were starving or anything. Of rosue it doesn't give much info as to why the animals were lose or without collars and tags though.
I think it was the fact that she had numerous complaints about her dogs barking and defecating on other people's lawns. Not to mention she was fined for it and failed to pay the fee. I would imagine this was definately not the first time the dogs were loose.
i cant see putting a dog down because its barking. fine its owner, if they dont pay, fine them again, take the dog if it gets loose and allow them to go to a rescue or new owner! but putting down 2 gsd that they openly state where extremely friendly, is obsurd. Yes, they may have been ill (they were loosing some fur) but that could have been because they were undernourished. its sad really that they felt that putting the dogs down was the only alternative. i agree, they will be found guilty though on their statement that the city was glad this had happened. you cant penalize a otherwise good dog because the owner is a pain in the butt.
If the city had been smart and just stuck to the facts they might have been ok, The dogs had no ID, we have a 3 day limit, The dogs were just strays to us.
Sorry lady, you loose.
But to know who the owner was is bad enough but to be happy about the outcome is the killer!!!!
When that comes out in court and the jury hears that...PAY DAY!!
If I were her I wouldnt even consider any kind of out of court settlement...no way, I want a jury to hear it all!!!
And when I get my huge settlement Id buy 3 or 4 more dogs..lol
Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel
I feel for this woman, but I can see how this happened too. It was my constant fear for two years when I was down and out that I would lose Odin because of it. Our epic journey hitchhiking from South Carolina to Florida burns still in my brain. I can't tell you how many times I'd see a police car drive by and slow down to look at us and wonder if this time I'd lose Odin. The closest we came was on the South Carolina border of Georgia when a sheriff's deputy drove past us three times. the first time he slowed down and gave us the hard stare. The second time he slowed down gave us a harder stare and flashed his lights for a second. The third time he scowled, flashed his lights and hit the siren a second. The meaning was clear. If he saw us again that was it. Lucky for us we were delivered by an old black man in a pickup truck who was working on some landscaping nearby. He saw all this and got in his pickup and told us to hop in. I rode in the back with Odin to ensure his safety as he was unused to pickups. The man drove us as far as he could into Georgia and let us out at a truckstop. I thanked him profusely and he said he knew what it was like to have the law unfairly against you. I'll never forget that either. GSDs losing their homes and subsequently their lives is happening all too often as people lose their homes through foreclosure, or from BSL. That's what happened to us. I woke up one day and the housing complex I lived in no longer allowed GSDs. I couldn't drive then because of my wounds and nobody I knew could spare the time to drive me, buses won't take GSDs and I couldn't afford the airfare. No place would have us on such short notice and so I left for a friend's place in Florida and our journey began.
Originally Posted By: mamagooseWell it sounds like that owner didn't deserve the dogs, but I wish they would have met a better fate then the one they did.
Originally Posted By: mamagooseWell it sounds like that owner didn't deserve the dogs, but I wish they would have met a better fate then the one they did.
Because she had allowed them to be loose and a nuisance. Multiple complaints from the community. NOT because she was poor. I do not at all think that was rude nor ignorant. Those are strong words.
But anyway, the dogs should not have had to pay for their owner's mistakes with their lives.
Originally Posted By: mamagooseWell it sounds like that owner didn't deserve the dogs, but I wish they would have met a better fate then the one they did.
Because she had allowed them to be loose and a nuisance. Multiple complaints from the community. NOT because she was poor. I do not at all think that was rude nor ignorant. Those are strong words.
But anyway, the dogs should not have had to pay for their owner's mistakes with their lives.
Correcto Lucina. And BTW to anyone who noticed I did say that it's sad that the dogs didn't meet a better fate. Do I need to translate that? It meant perhaps they would have been better off rehomed versus euthanized.
Geez DoggieDad, you sure are coming off a little strong in your posts. Might lighten up a bit.
Oh and I'm sorry, perhaps my standards are a little high, but IMO if your letting your dogs run loose and crap in people's yards on a regular basis then you are far from the "model" dog owner in my book.
I don't have much sympathy for the lady, but the dogs I do.
She spent five frantic days searching for the dogs but didn't go to the shelter/garage? I think that is a bit odd.
I agree with mamagoose, and am very sad about this. You can love a dog and still not take good care of it-sadly, which then gives other people the opportunity to be less than caring in their approach to the dogs. Unfortunately the poor dogs paid for just being dogs.
I don't care about her income-when I was able to, I gave money on that IMOM board to people who are unable to pay for vet procedures for their own pets.
Originally Posted By: mamagooseWell it sounds like that owner didn't deserve the dogs, but I wish they would have met a better fate then the one they did.
That seems like a pretty harsh responce, I dont think mamagoose is either rude OR ignorant!!! Its generally the ignorant person who opens their mouth before giving the subject matter proper thought.
I understand exactly what she ment and agree with her 100%. Its a very sad thing that happened to the dogs, but the lady is not completly without blame here.
Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel
Agreed, the woman has sympathy for being on hard times, but she also exhibited behavior that was wrong no matter what the income level is. I too find it hard that her first call when the dogs were lost wasn't to the shelter.
When you make a choice to care for a pet you've accepted the responsibility for a life. When I was destitute I made a promise that no matter what Odin would not go hungry. There were days when I didn't eat but he did. This woman let her dogs down.
A forum community dedicated to all German Shepherd owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bloodlines, training, breeding, service dogs, and more!
