Earlier we (and others like Fred at OneBarkAtATime) blogged about Phoenix, the purebred cream chow chow who was rescued by Durham Humane Society after a heartless abandonment or perhaps an escape from an unthinkable existence.
Phoenix captured the hearts of many of us, and we were saddened to learn that the good veterinarians in Guelph had diagnosed him with inoperable cancer. Cancer that would otherwise have been imminently treatable…
Only five years old, Phoenix went to a loving foster home on September 9! He is a reported cat lover, and he has started playing with some doggie friends. Everyone in the neighbourhood loves him. He enjoys sleeping on the bed and getting all the attention He has a particular fondness for cat food.
Please take the Shelter Challenge, sponsored by the Animal Rescue Site (yep, the same folks you click on daily to provide food for animals in shelters) and Petfinder. Vote for the Humane Society of Durham Region. This little group has a big heart, and could really use the help, especially with the challenge of rebuilding their shelter after a tragic fire last Christmas.
Earlier we blogged about Bill C-203, a sham piece of legislation purporting to protect animals in Canada. Mark Holland, MP for Pickering, has relentlessly pursued legislation with some actual teeth, most recently in the form of Bill C-229. Last year, Ontario’s Animal Protection Act was overhauled, giving the OSPCA greater powers to intervene and prosecute.
Yet travesties continue in our own backyard.
A story that we are following closely is unfolding at the Durham Humane Society in Oshawa, a city hard-hit by the recession’s gutting of the auto sector. Durham Humane was also devastated by an awful fire last Christmas. Their dogs are being looked after by the local Animal Control people and foster families.
As Durham Humane rises from the ashes like a phoenix, and is rebuilding its shelter, its challenge these past few days has been to give life and hope to another phoenix. He is a four-year-old Chow and he has been named, yes, Phoenix.
The worst case of animal neglect that Durham Humane has ever seen, Phoenix wandered into a back yard on Sunday. His fur was filthy and matted, where he had any, because much of it had fallen out. He was covered with bleeding sores. His nails were so long that they curved back into his paw pads. He was a skeleton under what remained of his fur. He was in terrible pain.
Veterinarians at Durham Humane have been running tests to discover the cause of his hair loss and assess whether he can recover. They’ve given him painkillers, bathed him, and trimmed his nails and matted fur. Durham Humane website reported today that he is doing a little better, loving his food, and walking a bit, but his condition is still critical.
The society has been swamped with phone calls and offers to help Phoenix. Funds have been raised to offer a reward for conviction of Phoenix’s former guardian.
This dog is not a stray. He appears to be a pure-bred Chow, and a cream Chow at that – highly unusual and desirable. It’s possible that he was part of a puppy mill operation. Mills are notorious for keeping costs down by skimping on decent food and care for their animals. Phoenix wouldn’t be the first mill dog to suffer horribly from mange and overgrown nails.
On the other hand, he weighs half of what a four-year-old male Chow should. That speaks to confinement, neglect and abandonment. As the reward climbs and the word gets out, it’s only a matter of time before the despicable devils that did this are charged.
Meanwhile, this isn’t an isolated case. It just happens to be in our own backyard. It’s the tip of the huge, dark iceberg that is humanity’s ignorance and arrogance.
Phoenix, those of us who hang out at Fred’s blog, One Bark At A Time, have fingers crossed that you, like Durham Humane, will come back strong.
And…Durham has had a hell of an uphill climb since the fire. Please consider sending them a donation, and if you can’t spare the cash, this well-deserving group of rescuers and volunteers could use your HBC points, Canadian Tire coupons or just Good Thoughts.
Update: September 1: University of Guelph veterinarians report that he has inoperable cancer of the tongue, with no real options because his condition is so poor. Durham Humane’s focus now is to place him in a loving home for his remaining weeks or months.
Update: September 8: Phoenix goes to a loving foster home on September 9!
One Bark At A Time is one of our very favourite blogs. Its keeper, Fred, is a volunteer at Toronto Animal Services (TAS). His insider view of the shelter operation is a window on compassion but also some very heavy issues. It’s heartbreaking when shelters and rescuers must go head to head with Canadian and Ontario animal “welfare” regulation which stands in the way of protecting animals. Read about Fred’s frustration here. Heck, read his whole blog!
In the case of federal regulation, it’s a bloody travesty.
Parliament passed ineffective but politically correct legislation (as in Pontius Pilate’s handwashing) last year in the form of Bill C-203, a sham introduced by John Bryden to not rock the boat. After all, meaningful legislation could come later, once the ice had been broken. As in a hundred years from now, maybe.
Meanwhile, Mark Holland, MP for Pickering, continues to push for legislation with some real meaning and teeth. Each time, our elected MP’s haven’t stepped up to the plate or there’s been yet another election or similar obfuscation. Please keep on pushing, Mark!
Last year, Mark rightly promoted Bill C-373, which might have helped suffering animals a whole lot more than the pap that was approved under Bill C-203.
Now, Mark has re-introduced the more hefty Bill C-373 as Bill C-229.
Pongo and Missis Pongo are a pair of Dalmatians. They live with the newly married Mr and Mrs Dearly (their “pets”).
Missis gives birth to a litter of 15 puppies. The Dearlys are concerned that Missis will not be able to feed them all and Mrs Dearly looks for another dog to act as a wet nurse. By chance, she finds an abandoned Dalmatian mother in the middle of the road in the pouring rain. She has the dog treated by a vet and gives her the name Perdita, from the Latin for “lost”. Later Perdita tells Pongo about her own lost Dalmatian love and the circumstances that led to her being abandoned in the middle of the road.
Mr and Mrs Dearly are invited to a dinner party hosted by Cruella de Vil, an intimidating and very wealthy woman with one side of her hair coloured white and the other side coloured black. They meet her furrier husband and her abused cat, and discover her fixation with furs.
Shortly after the dinner party the puppies disappear. The humans fail to trace them but through the Twilight Barking, a form of communication by which dogs can relay messages to each other across the country, the dogs manage to track them down to Hell Hall, in Suffolk.
We keep 7.5 million cats and 6.1 million dogs as pets but do we know where that fake-looking fur trim comes from? Today in China over two million cats and dogs are killed each year for their fur and for their skins. Among other things, these furs are used as linings in boots and gloves, jackets and coats, blankets and rugs.
Pongo and Missis try to explain to the Dearlys where the puppies are but fail. The dogs decide to run away and find them.
After a journey cross country, they are met by Lieutenant Pussy Willow, a tabby cat and the Colonel, an Old English Sheepdog who shows them Hell Hall, the ancestral home of the de Vil family. He tells them to rest overnight and that they will see their puppies the next day. They then discover there are 97 puppies including their own 15 and many others who later turn out to have been legally bought. They also discover that the puppies are being kept in Hell Hall by Saul and Jasper Baddun, two crooks who work for Cruella de Vil as caretakers of Hell Hall.
According to government estimates, 500,000 garments sold in the United States every year are trimmed with bobcat, fox, rabbit, or other animal fur, potentially with nothing on the label to indicate there is any fur on the garment. With the labeling loophole in place, consumers are left in the dark; they have no idea that their new clothes may contain fur from animals—even dogs and cats—whose treatment can include being skinned alive, anally electrocuted, or held struggling underwater to drown.
Cruella de Vil appears in the middle of the night and tells the Baddun Brothers that the dogs must be slaughtered and skinned as soon as possible because of the publicity surrounding the theft of the Dearlys’ pups. Pongo and Missis devise an escape plan and agree that they must take all the puppies with them, not just their own 15. They escape on that same night, the day before Christmas Eve.
Pongo says that they need a miracle and find one when they are offered a lift in a removal van. The Dalmatians have rolled in soot to disguise their white hair, and they are able to hide in the darkness of the removal van with the help of a Staffordshire terrier whose pets are the movers.
The fur trade does not deny that it deals in dog and cat skins and it is quite legal for products made from this fur to be sold in Britain and Europe. Fur products do not have to be labeled by species. One cat fur coat alone requires the killing of up to 24 cats. 12 to 15 adult dogs are killed to manufacture each coat made from dog fur – and a horrific 40 or more if puppies or kittens are used.
Arriving back in London, they go to Cruella’s empty house. Her cat is still there and invites them in to destroy Cruella’s collection of animal skins, fur coats and mink bedsheets.
When the Dalmatians return to the Dearlys’ house where they are not recognized because of the soot. Once they are cleaned up, Mr Dearly sends out for steaks to feed them.
Presently, China is the second biggest commercial partner of Canada. According to Industry Canada, the Canadian fur and retail industry imported $5 million in animal pelts and $28 million in fur trimmed apparel from China in 2004. Despite the distinct possibility that many of these imported furs are from dogs and cats, the government has indicated that it has no intention of prohibiting these imports. By the year 2010, the Canadian government hopes to double commercial trade with China.
Later, the cat drops by to tell them Cruella has fled. The shock of discovering her furs have been destroyed has turned the black side of her hair white and the white side green. The Baddun Brothers have also been arrested. Hell Hall has been put up for sale and Mr Dearly buys it with a sum of money he has been given by the government for sorting out a tax problem. He renames it to Hill Hall and intends to use it to start a “dynasty of Dalmatians” (and a “dynasty of Dearlys” to take care of them). They adopt the cat, and promise her a white persian husband.
The import, export and sale of dog and cat fur was banned in the United States in 2000. Effective January 1, 2009, the European Union joined the ban. In Canada, buying and selling dog and cat fur is still legal.
Finally, Perdita’s lost love, Prince (the one hundred and first Dalmatian) shows up. His “pets” can clearly see that the two wish to be together and allow him to stay with the Dearlys.
101 Dalmations was originally written in 1956 by Dodie Smith, and illustrated by Janet and Anne Grahame Johnstone.
David Sylvester and Chiva are a human and canine best friend team exploring North America by bicycle to encourage and to teach responsible animal/human relationships.
The goals of Tour de Dog are to raise awareness about the challenges and problems animals shelters and control facilities face and to improve their images and capabilities.
Their plans are to tour animal shelters and control facilities throughout North America, and champion the cause through speaking engagements, blogging, reporting and fundraising. David would like to produce a video documentary of human/animal relationships, and implement improvements for shelter facilities in need.
“In the picture below, Chiva is seen in the gas chamber. Pipes were hooked up to car exhaust and the animals were left in the dark to suffocate. Chemical gas chambers are still used today in the United States to euthanize animals.”
The Canadian National Exhibition is a thing of the past. And organizers are proud of that.
CNE general manager David Bednar hopes some “cutting-edge nostalgia” will draw the crowds as the grand old lady of exhibitions begins its 130th season.
The CNE has announced with great fanfare that “rodeo is back,” welcoming a corporate-sponsored rodeo, the Dodge Rodeo Tour, into Toronto.
This is the 11th Ex for CNE general manager David Bednar. The last rodeo was way before his time “but it was least 25 years ago,” he says. “So why bring it back now? We’re constantly looking for something that’s new but, at the same time, we have all these people who harp on tradition. So it’s a balancing act.”
“It came up at one of our committee meetings two or three years ago: What if we had a rodeo? Great idea. But then we had to find the right person to partner with. Whatever expertise we ourselves had long ago went by the by.”
Prize money for the rodeo season tops $250,000 and about 200 cowboys and cowgirls will be competing for about $30,000 at the CNE.
Unfortunately, Toronto hasn’t taken a moral stand on the issue of animal rodeo cruelty, as Vancouver did when it banned rodeo in the city in 2006. Vancouver’s city council accepted the clear evidence that rodeo events cause unnecessary suffering to animals.
The city of Surrey in B.C. saw yet another sign of aversion to rodeo when its Cloverdale Rodeo bowed to public pressure and eliminated four key rodeo events (calf roping, steer wrestling, wild cow milking and team roping). The move followed the death of a calf and a steer during roping events in recent years.
Cloverdale is one of Canada’s biggest rodeos and the elimination of the four events sent shock waves through the North American rodeo industry. A debate began in rodeo circles about whether some events, like calf roping, were sustainable in the face of changing social attitudes.
So the CNE’s decision to host a rodeo seems to fly in the face of what appears to be growing disquiet about whether the “sport” is humane, as rodeo promoters insist it is. They like to portray opposition as being confined to a few animal rights activists. In fact, all mainstream animal welfare groups in Canada, including the provincial SPCAs, oppose rodeo. The B.C. SPCA has even called on the public to boycott the events.
Consider calf roping. A young animal is goaded to come out of a chute at high speed, has a rope thrown around its neck and is jerked to a violent halt before being picked up and slammed to the ground. Can anyone truthfully say this is a painless experience for the calf? Imagine this happening to a dog or primate just to amuse a crowd.
The reason rodeo horses and bulls buck is because of “flank straps” tied around their hindquarters that cause irritation and stress. They buck because they want the strap and the rider off. If they were “born to buck,” as rodeo promoters say, then why the flank strap?
Steer wrestling involves a cowboy twisting the head of the steer until it keels over. The steer naturally resists, creating a grotesque scene of a man literally bending an animal to his will. That’s how the steer in Cloverdale died – its neck was broken.
Animal behaviourist Dr. Temple Grandin has written that fear is “so bad” for animals that it is worse than pain. And she is no bleeding heart – she designs slaughterhouses for the beef industry.
The rodeo industry trots out inane arguments to defend its activities, i.e. flank straps merely “tickle” the animals and the animals have thick hides so they don’t feel pain. Often, they pull out the “heritage” card claiming that rodeo is a demonstration of historical ranching skills. Most of this is baloney. Why would a real cowboy ride a bull?
The difference between rodeo and traditional ranching is that no one ever timed a cowboy’s work with a stopwatch and handed out huge sums of money for being the fastest. It’s this pressure that puts the animals under stress and at risk of injury.
Out on the range, calves were roped when they needed “doctoring.” It was done with care and with their welfare in mind. Who can believe that is what happens when a calf hits the end of a rope in a rodeo arena?
Rodeo is low and sensational entertainment sold as nostalgia for the Old West. It is a pity the CNE bought it. Anyone who has compassion for animals should not.
Do you have more money than God and no time in your busy day to do your bit for Global Warming?
Then check out the pricey designs that were spotted at a recent Tokyo fashion show. The latest in Japanese fur designer Chie Imai’s creations included a cape of lowly polyester sewn with chinchilla that’s being billed as “ecological fur.”
The cape, bolero and several other items use real chinchilla and mink from fur farms. But the fabric parts of the clothing use recycled polyester from Japanese plastic and pharmaceutical maker Teijin Ltd.
“We have not compromised quality. And tying ecology with fur is such a fascinating concept,” Imai cooed.
“Ecological fur” sometimes refers to fake fur, but Imai uses real fur. Her so-called ecological designs use polyester strips and fabric with genuine fur. A bolero, for instance, has real fur trim, but the fabric parts and the lining are all recycled polyester.
Imai is the latest fur designer to use synthetic materials with fur – despite complaints from animal rights activists that the term “ecological” is just “green-washing” – a ploy to distract people from the mistreatment and cruelty of animals in the fur industry.
But Imai argues that fur itself is ecological because it can be worn for generations and “returns to the earth” as organic material and causes no pollution. She trots out the tired old argument about meat-eating.
It takes more than 60 times as much energy to produce a fur coat from ranch-raised animals than it does to produce a fake fur. Plus, the waste produced on fur farms poisons our waterways. And don’t forget … unlike faux fur, the “real thing” causes millions of animals to suffer every year.
Imai’s ecological fur — ranging in price from 1.2 million yen (US$12,000) for the mink bolero to the 8.4 million yen (US$83,000) chinchilla cape — allows her clientele, which includes the Japanese royal family and clueless celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker, to feel green, she said.
“They want to take part in being ecological, but it’s hard for them to find a way to do it.”
Watch for the Chinese dog-and-cat-fur knock-offs being flogged next to the organic food section at Wal-Mart.
Chie, what’s next? Recycling bisphenol A? Solving World Hunger?
Nowhere is the sheer uselessness of the current Canadian Parliament more evident than in its handling of animal cruelty legislation.
An animal cruelty bill headed for final reading in the House of Commons on Friday has been condemned by opponents as “19th-century legislation adjusted for inflation.”
Bill S-203 is a sham
If Bill S-203 is passed in April or May, when it comes to a third and final reading in the House of Commons, our animal friends will suffer. The bill, which purports to update Canada’s Animal Cruelty Act, is a sham. Some of its critics say that its only function is to earn brownie points for politicians.
The bill’s critics include practically every animal protection group in Canada, from the SPCAs and humane societies to the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and grassroots organizations.
The Canadian public wants better. Just read the letters to the editor every time humane society inspectors break up another miserable puppy mill hell. People will tolerate all kinds of objectionable behaviour towards humans. But when a yobbo drags his dog behind an SUV, the overwhelming public sentiment is to string him up.
And yet after more than eight years of trying, Canada’s elected Members of Parliament can’t pass a decent animal cruelty bill into law.
The current legislation, dating from 1892, is ineffective in both scope and penalty. Efforts to update it began in 1999 but quickly ran into a buzz saw of opposition from farmers and hunters.
Eventually a watered-down version passed the Commons and went to the Senate – only to be bogged down again. Animal researchers wanted to be exempted as did alligator wrestlers. Aboriginal groups worried that a ban on brutal treatment might impinge on their traditions. Jewish and Muslim groups fretted that tougher laws might affect ritual slaughter practices.
At that point, Liberal Senator John Bryden came up with the worst of all possible worlds – a new bill that would keep the loophole-ridden 1892 law as is but make the penalties (which in practice are rarely applied) harsher.
“(Prior attempts) died primarily because the bills tried to do too much,” Mr. Bryden said. “I put a bill in that didn’t change the law, it addressed the penalties.”
Harper’s Conservatives enthusiastically embraced his private member’s bill. The New Democrats and Bloc Québécois did not. Predictably, the Liberals were split.
Ajax-Pickering MP Mark Holland tried to introduce a much stronger Bill C-373. But rural Liberals tended to support Bryden’s do-little Senate version. In February, his Bill S-203 sailed through the Commons justice committee with Liberal support. Some said they didn’t much like S-203 but would pass it anyway and then fix it another year. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies says that there’s faint hope of that happening.
“We all look forward to the day when our laws concerning the abuse of animals are brought into line with acceptable sentences. However, it is never wise to be too hasty in changing the Criminal Code, given the far-reaching and sometimes unexpected consequences that can flow from our decisions.” ~~ Senator Donald Oliver, Nova Scotia
Under S-203, there would be no legal definition of what an animal is, and animal neglect would have to be proven to be predetermined or willful in order to be prosecuted.
MPs planning to vote in favour of S-203 say that, granted, it’s not a great improvement over the old laws, but it is “a step in the right direction” that’s “better than nothing.” That is pure bull. S-203 is a useless and vacuous piece of legislation, a blocking tactic that will stall forward movement and do nothing to help animals.
Intent to harm must still be shown, and this makes it nearly impossible to get convictions, especially in cases of negligence. Fewer than 1 per cent of animal abuse complaints are successfully prosecuted, and S-203 will do nothing to change that. What good are stronger penalties when we can’t get convictions? And only animals that are somebody’s “property” are “protected” – not stray or wild animals.
A recent report by IFAW shows Canada has the worst animal cruelty laws among the 14 countries surveyed, including the Ukraine and the Philippines.
Compared with other developed countries, Canada’s Third World mentality on animal cruelty issues is beyond shameful.
A better solution: Bill C-373
The member’s bill that would actually do something to help animals is Holland’s Bill C-373.
Holland’s bill introduces the term “negligent” and defines it as “departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use.” It prohibits the killing of any animal (owned or unowned) without a lawful excuse. (Lawful excuses include hunting, fishing, farming, euthanasia and self-protection.)
It outlaws killing an animal brutally or viciously, whether or not the animal dies immediately — which means that the boys in Edmonton who tied a dog to a tree and beat it to death would not get off on the basis that it died on the first blow (according to the examining vet) and therefore didn’t suffer. Other provisions deal with aspects such as fighting and baiting. Perhaps best of all, C-373 moves these laws out of the property chapter of the Criminal Code, reflecting the contemporary view of animals as sentient beings, rather than possessions.
MPs know that most Canadians support progressive animal abuse legislation. Those who disapprove of cruelty to animals may be interested in discovering how their MPs voted.
Excerpted from Thomas Walkom (Toronto Star, April 2), Matthew Jay (Ottawa Citizen, April 2), and A.S.A. Harrison (Globe and Mail, March 25)
Update on April 10
By a vote of 189-71, Bill S-203 passed final vote in the House of Commons on April 9th. It will become law once it receives Royal Assent and Proclamation.
More than 130,000 Canadians signed petitions specifically opposing Bill S-203. A 2006 poll found 85% of Canadians want modern and effective legislation that makes it easier for law enforcement agencies to prosecute those who commit criminal acts of animal cruelty.
Stated Pat Tohill, WSPA Programs Manager: “During the debate, many MPs argued that S-203 was only a first step. Many said they would support MP Mark Holland’s Bill C-373. Most said they would support further amendments to Canada’s animal cruelty laws. We will be holding MPs to their commitment to support further amendments to Canada’s cruelty laws. Canadians will not wait another century before animals are protected from heinous acts of cruelty in Canada.”
A more comprehensive animal cruelty bill has been passed by Canada’s House of Commons twice in the past ten years, receiving the support of all political parties only to die in the Senate.
The opposing votes were from NDP and some Liberal members and one Bloc MP. Conservatives stood steadfastly in support of this shameful bill that retains the archaic and problematic offences enacted in 1892.
To those MPs who supported Bill S-203, you can tick that off your list for another hundred years. Shame on you.
Check out the Don’t Be Cruel website to see how your MP voted.
In the case of federal regulation, it’s a bloody travesty.
Pongo and Missis Pongo are a pair of Dalmatians. They live with the newly married Mr and Mrs Dearly (their “pets”).
Cruella de Vil appears in the middle of the night and tells the Baddun Brothers that the dogs must be slaughtered and skinned as soon as possible because of the publicity surrounding the theft of the Dearlys’ pups. Pongo and Missis devise an escape plan and agree that they must take all the puppies with them, not just their own 15. They escape on that same night, the day before Christmas Eve.
The Canadian National Exhibition is a thing of the past. And organizers are proud of that.
Do you have more money than God and no time in your busy day to do your bit for Global Warming?
Imai’s ecological fur — ranging in price from 1.2 million yen (US$12,000) for the mink bolero to the 8.4 million yen (US$83,000) chinchilla cape — allows her clientele, which includes the Japanese royal family and clueless celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker, to feel green, she said.
Nowhere is the sheer uselessness of the current Canadian Parliament more evident than in its handling of animal cruelty legislation.
The Canadian public wants better. Just read the letters to the editor every time humane society inspectors break up another miserable puppy mill hell. People will tolerate all kinds of objectionable behaviour towards humans. But when a yobbo drags his dog behind an SUV, the overwhelming public sentiment is to string him up.
MPs planning to vote in favour of S-203 say that, granted, it’s not a great improvement over the old laws, but it is “a step in the right direction” that’s “better than nothing.” That is pure bull. S-203 is a useless and vacuous piece of legislation, a blocking tactic that will stall forward movement and do nothing to help animals.
