November 26, 2009

This Isn't Your Grandma's Humane Society

Arrests at the Toronto Humane Society;

Police have arrested the Toronto Humane Society's president, chief veterinarian and three other senior staff members and charged them with animal cruelty, six months after a Globe and Mail investigation revealed widespread troubles at the shelter.

At the same time, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals executed a search warrant at the shelter's River Street facility late Thursday afternoon.

Humane Society president Tim Trow is facing Criminal Code charges of animal cruelty, conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals and obstruction of a peace officer. If convicted, Mr. Trow faces a maximum penalty of $2,000 and six months in jail for the animal cruelty charges, and two years in jail for the obstruction charges.

Head veterinarian Steve Sheridan, shelter manager Gary McCracken, manager Romeo Bernadino and shelter supervisor Andy Bechtel have also been arrested and face animal cruelty charges under the criminal code.

All of the above, as well as the Society's board of directors, are also being charged with five counts of animal cruelty, a provincial offence under the Ontario SPCA Act (as opposed to criminal charges).

Better late than never. But that's the problem with animal "rights" fronts like this and the
Humane Sociey of the United States. They have no real interest in the welfare of individual animals, beyond those they can exploit for fund raising campaigns. Their true goal is to eliminate animal ownership.

Posted by Kate at November 26, 2009 9:15 PM

Funny how a shelter can be charged with cruelty to animals because it refuses to perform euthanasia even on the most extremely sick animals but doctors in Quebec can advocate for euthanizing sick humans. And funnier how the same groups who howl about animal rights and the cruelty of non-"No Kill" shelters are usually all for killing the old an infirm of humanity.

Posted by: The at November 26, 2009 9:43 PM

This is my original mis-reading of this post:

Police have arrested the Toronto Humane Society's president, chief vegitarian and three other vegan members and charged them with eating animals, six months after a Globe and Mail investigation revealed widespread troubles at the shelter.

Posted by: RW at November 26, 2009 9:44 PM

Ownership? My cat would never give me up.

Posted by: Abe Froman at November 26, 2009 9:51 PM

I was going to describe the leisure activity of most animal rights types but this is a family site.

Instead this Bud Light ad should do the trick.

It comes after the paid advertisement so don't close it thinking the address is wrong.

Posted by: Mike T at November 26, 2009 9:57 PM

Abe, tee!
This is why special-interest groups should never have the upper hand in anything. If they succeeded in making people docile, this travesty might not have been uncovered.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at November 26, 2009 10:22 PM

OK, the people at those links are a bit off.


Posted by: Melinda Romanoff at November 26, 2009 10:44 PM

Christopher Avery, a Bay Street criminal lawyer representing the OSPCA, said Mr. Trow's own dog, Bandit, attacked a police officer during the arrest on Thursday. It was pepper sprayed.
(should do that to the owner as well)
What the heck is wrong with these people?
The THS pres with a personal attack dog on the premises, was he afraid of being attacked by an ill and hungry kitten for his lunch?

Posted by: ldd at November 26, 2009 11:01 PM

The SOB's should be made to live in the same damn conditions!!
I suppose they will say the photos and evidence was "hacked" ala AGW. Not so funny how lefturds really treat animals,and by extension,humans not of their same mental sickness.

Posted by: Justthinkin at November 26, 2009 11:05 PM

Just like in the summer, when this story first broke, the Perez Hilton-looking PR man for the THS is shown on the news tonight in complete denial, attempting to defend his morally bankrupt and discredited organization. If he's ever fired, perhaps he can replace the "Local TV Matters" guy for the broadcasters and do double duty defending the networks non-reporting on Climategate.

Posted by: jon at November 26, 2009 11:21 PM

I have two rescue kitties from the Calgary SPCA and they are sweeter than honey!

I am glad someone blew the whistle ... no living creature deserves that kind of treatment.

Posted by: Aizlynne at November 26, 2009 11:28 PM

You know, overall, it ain't just not my grandma's humane society, this isn't my grandma's world

Posted by: Erik Larsen at November 27, 2009 12:43 AM

The last vestige of the "Humane Society" locally was a "shelter" for cats. Dog part of animal control is contracted to a private kennel.
The cat shelter claims to adopt out cats but in reality doesn' screens out ALL comers as unfit.
The animal control has a truck going about picking up strays----trespassing on private property taking dogs off chains even....good money in fines. Better money in "adoption fees".

Posted by: sasquatch at November 27, 2009 1:29 AM

But the "sport" of blowing the heads off moose with a shotgun is A-OK.

Posted by: bleet at November 27, 2009 1:29 AM

But the "sport" of blowing the heads off moose with a shotgun is A-OK.

Posted by: bleet at November 27, 2009 1:30 AM

Apparently with a double-barreled shotgun.

Posted by: Vitruvius at November 27, 2009 1:46 AM

LOL Vit!
Your timing is perfect.

Posted by: ldd at November 27, 2009 2:03 AM

You never here about this in the Media. Truth to tell if Kate had not posted this, I would still be ignorant of this group.
They had me fooled!!!
Its gotten to the point where Socialist cant has taken over to the point you have to just flip the words to the exact opposite to know what there really up to.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at November 27, 2009 3:30 AM

Actually it was Channel #11, Hamilton (A-channel)leader at 11 pm ET (2300).
Nothing about Had CRU though.....a big noise about Harper seeing the light and going to Copenhagen....yeah...I emailed my dis-approval....

Posted by: sasquatch at November 27, 2009 4:28 AM

bleet , a rifle is for moose.

shotguns are for birds,

get your insults straight.

Posted by: cal2 at November 27, 2009 5:49 AM

It is usually demented old grannies or aunties with more money than sense who are scammed into supporting these cultlike organizations with vital donations. They are the enablers.

Posted by: Sgt Lejaune at November 27, 2009 6:19 AM

This has been a long time coming for this bunch. Too bad they couldn't find a way when Liz White was president. She's still on the loose. You can thank this bunch for the loss of the spring bear hunt in Ontario, and resulting mess to Ontario's black bear population.

Posted by: Skip at November 27, 2009 7:01 AM

...bleeting on once again about something he knows ABSOLUTELY nothing about.
Moose & shotguns? You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Posted by: K at November 27, 2009 7:33 AM

I can only recall my last experience there, adopting a cat - at the interview cubicle next to me, a THS volunteer (a rather broad example of the "diesel dyke" caricature) was grilling a little girl there with her older brother on the responsibilities of cat ownership, finally making her cry. "I just want to get a kitty!" she sobbed to her brother after she left. The place gave me the creeps.

After years of being told solemnly that you should get your pets from shelters and not breeders, private individuals or (especially) pet stores, stories like this are going to make a lot of folks feel betrayed and lied to, but what's new these days?

Posted by: rick mcginnis at November 27, 2009 8:31 AM

I disagree with the last statement, Kate.

If animal ownership is eliminated, humane society will cease to exist. Their sole goal, just as PETA's, is fundraising.

PETA main activity is coercing people to will their estates to themselves. I am guessing same goes with HS.

Also, although I despise those cruel to the animals, I also despise animal cruelty legislation. People have rights, animals don't. If it is illegal to be cruel to a cat, dog or hamster, it should also be illegal to hit animals with the vehicles or hunt. Allowing animal cruelty laws we pave road to hunting prohibition.

Posted by: Aaron at November 27, 2009 8:53 AM

"But the "sport" of blowing the heads off moose with a shotgun is A-OK."

I used to think people couldn't be this dense, but I guess I'm wrong.

Posted by: mikeg81 at November 27, 2009 8:58 AM

Ah, c'mon, feel sorry for bleep. He's cerebrally challenged, everything he knows, he learned from the CeeB!

Posted by: DanBC at November 27, 2009 9:04 AM

If there's ever a revolution I hope I come up against you Bleet. Your knowledge of weapons will assure my survival.

Posted by: Ghost of Ed at November 27, 2009 9:43 AM

Totally disagree Aaron. Some people are cruel to animals just for the fun of it, or out of complete disregard for the welfare of the animal.

Laws are needed to deal with such situations.

I don't see how such laws would lead to a ban on hunting. Most (if not all) hunters are not cruel to animals.

Posted by: TJ at November 27, 2009 10:37 AM

Where do you draw the lines, TJ?

Which animals are protected, which are not?
How much suffering is cruelty, how much is not?
Are only cute animals protected?
What about plants?
What about fungae, bacteria and viruses?

I contend that there must be no animal cruelty laws, as prosecuting them would at all times be subjective.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the architects of wind turbines executed by smashing of a wall for the number of birds they are exterminating as I am typing this. But that's just a feeling I have and that's how it's supposed to be. The law should not go beyond taking an abused animal from an abuser and giving it to a better person.

Posted by: Aaron at November 27, 2009 10:54 AM

into a wall

Posted by: Aaron at November 27, 2009 10:54 AM

You shoot a moose in the head with a shotgun, you're just gonna make it mad at you.

Posted by: grok at November 27, 2009 11:07 AM

Scenes of bear attacks + manbearpig flees: It's warm in here. Now, that's cruel.

"Bern scene of bear attack

A mentally handicapped man has been injured by a bear in Bern's newly opened Bear Park.

According to eyewitnesses, the 25-year-old man climbed over the railing on Saturday afternoon and fell four metres into the enclosure where he was attacked by one of the bruins.

The police shot and wounded the bear, Finn, in order to free the man, who was hospitalised with head and leg injuries, but is not said to be in a life-threatening condition.

"We were shocked by the [bear] attack and by the fact that someone was able to get into the enclosure," said zoo director, Bern Schildger.

The bear's injuries have been described as critical, after it was hit in the chest. On Monday, the authorities reported a slight improvement in his condition."

Comment at WUWT?

"Kate (02:14:42) :

Off-topic, I know. But you may be amused by this:

Gore Flees in Panic from Chicago Book Signing

November 25, 2009 (LPAC)—Not since Henry Kissinger fled a team of LaRouche organizers, in the back of a delivery truck in New York City’s Central Park in the early 1980s, has an obese fascist moved so fast to escape an angry crowd, as Al Gore did today in Chicago. Appearing at a bookstore in the downtown Loop, Gore was confronted by a team of demonstrators from a grass roots group called “We Are Change,” as he was signing his latest fascist screed on the global warming swindle. Gore bolted from the bookstore, raced down an alley, jumped into a waiting car, and tried to speed off, with protesters chasing after him and banging on the car. Midwest LYM organizers, who were also on the scene to confront the global warming swindler, provided an eyewitness account of Fat Albert’s flight of fear.

Make no mistake about it. This little encounter is typical of the kinds of things going on all over the country, as the fascists who brought you the near-destruction of the United States and an onrushing global Dark Age, are no longer walking the streets, smug in the belief that they are literally getting away with murder. The mass strike dynamic is playing out in thousands of ways, every day, and the recent revelations about the “smoking gun” emails from the East Anglia University global warming propaganda center, have made Al Gore’s life a little more miserable.

As Percy Shelley wrote in “The Mask of Anarchy,” “We are many, they are few.”"

Posted by: maz2 at November 27, 2009 11:10 AM

Aaron, it's perfectly possible to come up with a reasonable definition of cruelty that most everyone in a civilized society can agree on.

That's how the law works. It relies on making reasonable decisions. That's why you don't go to jail for a speeding ticket, but you do for murder.

In my life I have known of one or two people (not personally thank goodness) who really were genuinely cruel to animals. I feel no sympathy for such people, and as civilized human beings they should know better.

If my son ever tortured a cat or a dog for example, he would find out very quickly that such behavior was unacceptable. And if he repeated the act after that I'd call the cops.

Posted by: TJ at November 27, 2009 11:22 AM

Aaron - you wrote 'I despise those cruel to the animals, I also despise animal cruelty legislation. People have rights, animals don't'.

So if someone beats or starves an animal, he should be at liberty to continue doing so, without any intervention?

Posted by: Barbara at November 27, 2009 11:30 AM

TJ, interesting how you want to be a champion for animal suffering. This makes it apples and oranges: laws that affect people have plaintiff and defendant.

Is placing chicken in a small cage and feeding fodder laced with arsenic cruelty or not?

Is whipping a disobedient dog cruelty or not?

I have a friend, he breeds Caucasian Sheppard. His dogs are considered one of the best in the world. He has to beat them sometimes, and as a professional he knows that he has no choice - either he beats them so they cry, or they will grow up disobedient. That's nothing - people in Caucasian mountains who established the breed in the first place just shoot any disobeying dog. Is that cruelty?

We have too many laws. Public condemnation is enough, stay out of people's properties.

Posted by: Aaron at November 27, 2009 11:34 AM

Aaron, there is no plaintiff per se when you get a speeding ticket. It is the state that is charging you because the infraction is considered against the greater good of society.

Same thing with animal cruelty laws. There is no plaintiff. But there is a point where cruelty is sufficiently severe that it goes against the greater good of society.

As a society we are generally capable of making such decisions, although lawmakers do sometimes get it wrong. For example I think laws against spanking children are silly.

You are advocating no animal cruelty laws at all because you say we are not capable of drawing the line in the right place. I disagree and I think your position is a minority one.

It is equivalent to saying we shouldn't have any laws against child abuse because we don't know where to draw the line.

Posted by: TJ at November 27, 2009 11:48 AM

Aaron, I will add that Barbara's point is a good one.

If you don't have laws you cannot intervene.

If my neighbour is torturing his dog by electrocuting it every day just for fun, and there's no law against it, then there's nothing that can be done to stop it.

Posted by: TJ at November 27, 2009 11:51 AM

I have a mental image of a moose realizing that he'd been hit with birdshot.

btw, there are no moose in petting zoos for a reason.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at November 27, 2009 11:53 AM

And cruelty to dogs and cats is a crime while torturing a pig for its entire life then slaughtering it is perfectly acceptable...well, just because. Nice consistency there.

Posted by: bleet at November 27, 2009 11:55 AM

You are not answering questions, TJ. What is the point of debating then?

Where do you draw the lines?

Posted by: Aaron at November 27, 2009 11:56 AM

Bleet, we create animals, they are our property. This is why we are free to dispose of them as we see fit.

People object to setting cats on fire only because they think those who would do that would also be cruel to other people if given opportunity. A 38 cal in a hip holster should be a guarantee against that.

If I see something tying a can to a cat's tail, I won't intervene. Just like I won't intervene if the same person was in danger thereafter. You reap what you saw and that's the end of it.

Posted by: Aaron at November 27, 2009 12:03 PM

The OSPCA executing a search warrant?

Posted by: navy island at November 27, 2009 12:13 PM

Dick Cheney's geezer friend must have been pretty thick skulled.

Posted by: Kate at November 27, 2009 12:30 PM

Aaron you are trying to move this from a friendly debate to a fight. I'm not going to take the bait.

Our positions are pretty clear: you believe there is no reasonable way to define what constitutes unnecessary cruelty to an animal, and I believe there is. The law draws lines all the time.

We seem pretty committed to our views, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for the chat.

Posted by: TJ at November 27, 2009 12:37 PM

Mann's latest paper is out...he found new stuff about the past but...the hockey stick is still there.
Gimmee a break. See WUWT.

Posted by: Rich at November 27, 2009 1:34 PM

TJ, this is the problem with the current generation in the West: you are incapable of thinking logically and drawing sensible conclusions from available information.

It's not your fault, public schools made you that, they've been designed for that.

You don't even understand that the animal cruelty laws the way they exist on the books are instrumental in advancing leftist collectivist agenda. There is no denying that Canadian people do not have a right to own property. Animals are property. Do you see a problem here? You should and you should oppose animal cruelty or real estate upkeep laws equally. Cloth lines fit in just as well.

Your heart may be bleeding for your neighbor's dog being malnourished, but going after him is the same as banning sports cars or confiscating farmer's crop to feed proletariat.

Posted by: Aaron at November 27, 2009 3:37 PM

Aaron, you think we should do away with animal-cruelty legislation because under the law, a) animals are property and b) animals don't have rights.
Well, I can beat the cr*p out of my car or my furniture and so what? They're my property and I can do what I want with them. However, they're inanimate objects.
An animal, on the other hand is a sentient being, capable of feeling pain and suffering. So we intervene because we are decent, empathetic human beings, because a dog or a cat is not just a piece of furniture.
Your pal who beats his dogs until they cry in order to make them obey him? He is one lousy dog trainer. I know many people who have beautifully-behaved and trained dogs and they never beat them. Does this guy also belt his wife and kids if they get out of line?

Posted by: Barbara at November 27, 2009 4:58 PM

The links given in this article I can tell you are incorrect. They link to the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is just a front group for big industry. If you want to look for a group with an agenda, look closly at CCF. They were started by a $600,000 grant from Phillip Morris, and have attacked groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the CDC.
I work at the HSUS, and have worked in a shelter, and can tell you that there is no greater advocate for animals than the HSUS and local shelters. You need both to stop animal cruelty!
The majority of us at HSUS have pets, bring them to work with us, and all have different diets (not everyone is a vegan or vegetarian, just like our supporters we're all diverse).
The HSUS is about stopping cruelty to animals, about treating them humanely, whether they are our companion animals or farm animals.

Posted by: Sarah at November 27, 2009 5:08 PM

If HSUS is about animal welfare, how come they need so many lawyers?

If HSUS is about animal welfare, how come the best known kennel registry in the world, the American Kennel Club - the people who bring us Westminster Kennel Club - must mobilize the dog fancy to fight the efforts of HSUS in every state?

Why do sport enthusiasts and breed clubs see HSUS as a threat to their very existence?

Because HSUS actions speak louder than the propaganda - they are PETA without the stupid pranks. That these charlatans have appropriated the identity of an old and distinguished organization is an afront and a warning to legitimate animal welfare associations everywhere.

The number one objective of HSUS is to write and lobby for anti-breeder legislation across the US. The only animals they care about are the ones they can exploit for fundraising.

"Save The Lawyers. Give to HSUS today."

Posted by: Kate at November 27, 2009 6:20 PM

We push for stronger animal protection laws, so yes, we have many great lawyers working for us. We also have an awesome team of people who deploy to disasters and requests for help from local shelters to help with direct care. We have a lot of people in many departments, all using different skills to make a difference for animals.
Atleast we can agree on one point though, actions do speak louder than words, and everyday people at HSUS (including our lawyers) are making big steps to help animals.

Posted by: Sarah at November 27, 2009 11:23 PM

Oh, Aaron, we create animals do we? Were you out working on a platypus in your backyard this morning?

Christ, what blithering idiocy. People don't like cruelty to animals because they don't like seeing or hearing about animals being abused - not because they think the abuser will do the same thing to humans. What a stupid idea!

This is proven by the fact that it's a well-known fact that a story about the abuse of an animal in a newspaper or TV news show always gets more public outcry than even murders of human beings. Rightly or wrongly, that's the way it is. And animal abuse laws reflect that.

It's called democracy, pal. And your friend who beats his dog is a sadistic moron who hasn't the intelligence to train his dog properly.

Posted by: bleet at November 28, 2009 3:14 AM