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 investigationrevealed 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.
High time.
Fucking bastard should rot in cages with no one to help their suffering as they did for the animals
A-f'ing-men. About bloody time, and it sucks that it took this long to assemble the evidence and complete the investigation.
Hopefully though this will stick and perhaps the THS can turn the page and rediscover the middle word of their name.
OMG, some of the stuff at the G&M... I'm all for preserving healthy animals and finding them homes, but so many of these poor critters should have been euthanized. It would have been the truly compassionate thing to do.
It is all over the news out here too, and the pictures, am not sure OMG covers it even.
What infuriates me is that all this information - pictures included - was revealed long ago. Even if they didn't have enough to lay charges then, why did the animals have to continue to suffer till now?
It's so horrifying - some of the pictures they were showing on the news last night broke my heart. This story has been ongoing for quite a while [edited to correct info - I thought it was the Star that broke the story, but it was the Globe, so I guess it did get national coverage from the start], so I've seen a number of heartbreaking images before - poor little souls.
It'll be interesting to see whether the arrested suspects start turning on each other and testifying against each other. There were lots of reports earlier this year about vets being intimidated by management into not euthanizing animals who desperately needed to be put out of their misery - and wasn't the head vet one of the five people arrested?
Many of the people interviewed for the series signed confidentiality agreements effective for two years after leaving the shelter, and agreed to interviews despite the possibility that they could be sued for speaking out.
From the May Globe article.
Just a legal question, a confidentiality agreement, or "gag" order can't include criminal activity, surely?
Can someone answer a technical question here. This is apparently all the result of an investigation by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - but what sorts of powers does the OSPCA have when it comes to investigating and raiding a place and arresting people - and what link is there between the OSPCA and the police - do the police press charges on the basis of OSPCA investigations?
I always thought that the OSPCA was a charity - I didn't realize that they had quasi-judical and police powers.
Pretty sure they were there just to assist the police. They would be the experts.
Not only the ancient Egyptians have been mummifying cats......Ugh.
Yes that horror was on the news out here....
OSPCA has indeed investigative and police like powers and can lay charges themselves. Police assist them, not the other way around
This is an awful story, I don't have a lot of faith in these organizations. Ten years ago I gave a cat up for adoption, we were about to undertake a move to an isoalted area, we didn't know what kind of housing we were getting or really anything about the kind of place were were going to be living. I was heavily stressed, and looking back now I probabbly unintentionally put to much pressure on my wife, but the decision was made, and she brought the cat to the shelter, they told us they would keep it for a week and try to find it a new home, it was a very well mannered pet. I was away at that time training, my wife after giving the cat up was very upset and called me, I realized what a mistake I had made and told her to go back and get the cat, despite the fact that it would cost $70 dollars to get her back and we were broke, it was the right thing. When my wife went back, not two hours later, those bastards at the shelter had already euthanized our cat. There are a few moments in my life when I feel i completely failed, that is definitely one of them, I set that event into motion, that said, we were lied to, they murdered a perfectly wonderful cat that could have made someone a companion if not us, this is after we paid them to keep her for a week. It was best that I was 2000km away, I don't think I have ever been more angry in my life, partly due to my own failing no doubt, after this incident I trust these organizations even less.
On a broader political note, let's remember this as evidence next time someone claims that private charity will always do a better job than a public organization.
As much as I disagree with him about just all political issues, i have to say that Peter Worthington of all people has a good column on the whole THS issue today that seems to be quite fair and unsensational and points out that the OSPCA and THS have been at war with one another for many years and that there are two sides to very story (needless to say).
The sad thing is that while OSPCA and THS and the police spend all this time and money attacking each other - the animals are left to duffer since as far as I know the whole shelter system in Ontario is terribly neglected and underfunded.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/11/28/1...
Wonder which PR firm has been retained by the THS to manage this mess? Navigator weems to be the go-to firm these days.
Maybe the OSPCA has already retained them?
Not the time to be playing Devil's Advocate Stockholm. A lot of us are very very tied into the suffering of animals and that comment and the one above weasel's was insensitive.
This story is not new. It has been out for awhile. No one has acted upon it until now.
Obviously the THS requires more oversight - Tim Trow ran it as his own private club for years.
Over the Tim Trow years, people have been turning away from the THS. Used to be the place to go to adopt a cat/dog, but now there's all sorts of community organizations doing this. People in my neighbourhood use a local Cat Rescue to get kittens, and we'll go there when our 21 year old kitty shuffles off this mortal coil.
Because if you adopt an animal from the THS, assuming you pass their screening process and are willing to pay all their fees, the animal you get is likely to be sick.
The mummified cat in the ceiling was especially upsetting to me. Somebody had to have put that trap there, and never ever checked it - a deliberate act of unconscionable cruelty.
Not the time to be playing Devil's Advocate Stockholm. A lot of us are very very tied into the suffering of animals and that comment and the one above weasel's was insensitive.
This story is not new. It has been out for awhile. No one has acted upon it until now.
In case you didn't know, I'm a big animal lover and also very "tied to into the suffering of animals". I know you like to believe that I'm some sort of monster that you can project every evil in the world onto - and it must come as a total SHOCK to you to know that I happen to love animals - especially cats.
I'm not trying to play "devil's advocate", I was just linking to a column that I thought gave some interesting background to this case and that there is clearly been a "war" going on for many years between THS and OSCPA - it's not totally clear to me what is at the root of the conflict (i.e. is it a power struggle? is it a personality clash? is it all about a clash of philosophies around the euthanizing of animals? is it over genuine concerns about the welfare of animals? is it a turf war? or is it some combination of all these things).
If you think it's "insensitive" to link to a column that doesn't take sides but points out some of the background to the events, and urges us to get all the facts before being judge, jury and executioner - then I think some people are being oversensitive.
There are lots of people who have "extreme animal rights philosophies" (e.g. vegans) who would also be horrified at the thought of extremely sick animals in pain and who were dying not being euthanized humanely. Just because you believe in radical animal rights doesn't mean you don't believe in humane treatment of animals.
I highly doubt that the THS is "extreme" or radical when it comes to animal rights. As far as I know, they don't promote veganism, which is about as basic as you're going to get when it comes to animal rights philosophies. They're more likely on the "welfare" not "rights" end of the animal advocacy spectrum.
Maybe the conflict between THS and OSPCA is rooted in a conflict with Tim Trow and his minions specifically. He's been around, off and on, since the early 80s.
Nothing wrong with providing context, but there has to be context to the context. Sometimes it's specific individuals creating a toxic workplace, and not a structural problem - though I would add the lack of oversight at the THS is a huge structural problem.
I find this topic painfully hard to read in the first place, but when I saw Michelle and Sineed posting, I decided to try reading from the bottom up. I got as far back as Yarg's very affecting post, and decided through my tears that I'd probably best stop there.
My bottom line is the irresponsibility of the city of Toronto. Everyone involved with animal welfare in the city knows that there have been running problems with the THS for decades, political battles that have meant periodic power shifts from one group to another. The city has mainly not tried to think those battles through, to do the research it would take to figure out how the place would best be run and how the considerable resources the city is collecting should be put to best use. Councillors have played the ever-popular public-health card -- draconian measures about licensing animals and charging for that, which have now become exceptionally draconian -- but that has been the only lazy measure they're interested in taking.
I only know cats, but then the huge population of feral cats is probably the city's first problem on this turf. There are a lot of people around who know how to work on feral populations, how to control them, and there are examples of successful city-wide programs undertaken in large American cities that Toronto could be studying. Do they bother? No. They sit back and allow public-health to collect huge fees from people with indoor cats, and then they smirk at organizations like the Annex Cat Rescue, who actually know what they're doing with trap-neuter/spay-release programs and who scoop up the litters.
The rescue organizations are small and poor, though, and the problem is a public problem. The cats didn't get there on their own; irresponsible human beings created those colonies, and until we have city politicians who can say that out loud, instead of treating cat owners as buggy-minded eccentrics who are a good source of cash-flow, the problem will remain.
I support the OSPCA, who do all the work -- small animal, big animal, wild animal, farm animal -- and have become imho very politically sophisticated. They have been leading the fight for improved sanctions in the Criminal Code against animal abuse, a fight now over a decade long, continually frustrated by Big Gun and Big Farm (and Senator Anne Cools). I don't follow this in detail any longer because it is too hard for me to know the details. I can't read the OSPCA magazine (excellent production, hard truths), but I give them money, as I do the ACR, if there's any money left.
It still all comes down to the same thing, though. For a city as huge as Toronto, we have a most pitiful municipal government. All they know is fast-hit revenue. They seem immune to serious thought. About anything.
ETA: I don't actually live in Toronto any more. My new little burgh does the same stupid things, though.
Because if you adopt an animal from the THS, assuming you pass their screening process and are willing to pay all their fees, the animal you get is likely to be sick.
This happened to me at the Victoria SPCA. I adopted two kittens and one of them was too quiet and wasn't playing. I took her to the vet who informed me that she had a congenital heart condition (she couldn't play or she would turn blue) and I had her put to sleep. When I went back to the SPCA, they were all "oh, no problem, we'll give you a voucher for a new kitten" and I replied "yeah, my point was that you adopted out a very ill animal, not that you owe me 30 bucks back." Their coldness and uncaring turned me off and I got my replacement kitten elsewhere.
To be fair, though, adopting out ill cats is something that happens all the time with rescues as well.
Myself and my family have had multiple cats from rescues, each started off with some sort of illness. One undiagnosed FIV (could have infected our other cats!!!) and another as bad as needing emergency surgery three weeks later to remove a foreign object constricting its bowel that would have led it to bleed to death internally (the vet said the foreign object was likely in the cats bowel since kittenhood), in addition to the more benign URIs and UTIs and worms.
This sort of stuff is just very hard to control without putting lots of money into screening each individual cat. The time it takes to wait and ensure that they are fully healthy can often limit the chances of adopting them out, too. That's not to besmirch (sp?) the work rescues do (I'm a rescue volunteer and contributor) but it's not unique to the THS. It's tough, rescues do as well as they can.
From what I've heard from people formerly involved in the THS, a lot of the comments here re: Trow and THS leadership are not off-base. But I've also heard what Stockhold wass referring to earlier, that in addition to the leadership issues, a part of this is about philosophical differences that have, over time, been taken to an extreme due to the political relationship between TAS, OSPCA, and THS.
Latest is that they have been feeding animals expired food (the example shown was food from exp 2005)
and the interim president of THS admitting that they are (and have in the past for suing people) been using peoples donations for animal care for legal bills. Suing before saving I guess.
Trow is an [removed by moderator] who needs to be out of anything resembling management before he [removed by moderator].
and the interim president of THS admitting that they are (and have in the past for suing people) been using peoples donations for animal care for legal bills.
Now that's going to negatively affect every animal charity.
Bacchus, you know I can't let that last paragraph stand. The last thing we need is lawyer's letters hitting us too!
Here's a link that backs up the rest of your post, though.
Regarding donations used to pay legal bills: that's ongoing, as the THS has announced they're going to cover everybody's legal bills.
You're right Michelle, Im sorry. That WOULD be a tactic they would use too
Can I be the devil's advocate here re: the legal bills?
Obviously I don't think that donations should be used to carry out SLAPP suits, and I have no idea whether this has happened. But certainly an organization should pay legal bills for their volunteers and staff who are being sued or prosecuted over things that happen during their involvement with the organization. They're not guilty until proven guilty, and until then, all work they've done is under the umbrella of the organization, so the organization needs to take responsibility for their legal bills.
It sucks, but I think that's the way it has to be.
Regarding donations used to pay legal bills: that's ongoing, as the THS has announced they're going to cover everybody's legal bills.
Good luck to them raising money for it. I certainly don't plan to donate to THS.
there is clearly been a "war" going on for many years between THS and OSCPA - it's not totally clear to me what is at the root of the conflict (i.e. is it a power struggle? is it a personality clash? is it all about a clash of philosophies around the euthanizing of animals? is it over genuine concerns about the welfare of animals? is it a turf war? or is it some combination of all these things).
I don't have time to research this right now, but someone should. My recollection is that it starts with an extreme animal-rights philosophy, and continues with a siege-mentality of that group which feels themselves (and their feelings could be correct) under attack by the OSPCA, by the union that organized their staff, and by what they see as libellous media attacks which have resulted in a high budget for legal fees (one would want to be very careful in suggesting how often they sue people for libel.)
Latest is that they have been feeding animals expired food (the example shown was food from exp 2005)
and the interim president of THS admitting that they are (and have in the past for suing people) been using peoples donations for animal care for legal bills. Suing before saving I guess.
Trow is an [removed by moderator] who needs to be out of anything resembling management before he [removed by moderator].
Libel chill hits Babble. Not that I disagree. When faced with Conrad Black or Tim Trow, best to be careful. Not that I am implying any similarity between the character or honesty of either man.
But certainly an organization should pay legal bills for their volunteers and staff who are being sued or prosecuted over things that happen during their involvement with the organization.
Is there some distinction due to it being a volunteer organization? Because if I were doing something criminal at work I would not expect my employer to foot the legal bill for my defence.
Is there some distinction due to it being a volunteer organization? Because if I were doing something criminal at work I would not expect my employer to foot the legal bill for my defence.
You need to get yourself into upper managment.
Funny to see the outrage here now that everymedia is hammering away at all the multiple problems.
Where were you guys when the small group that started it all tried to inform you and get your asses out to protests?
Is there some distinction due to it being a volunteer organization? Because if I were doing something criminal at work I would not expect my employer to foot the legal bill for my defence.You need to get yourself into upper managment.
Please explain. If a delivery driver gets a DUI is it the pizza joint's responsibility?
Funny to see the outrage here now that everymedia is hammering away at all the multiple problems.
Where were you guys when the small group that started it all tried to inform you and get your asses out to protests?
Fair enough...I was busy
Can I be the devil's advocate here re: the legal bills?
Obviously I don't think that donations should be used to carry out SLAPP suits, and I have no idea whether this has happened. But certainly an organization should pay legal bills for their volunteers and staff who are being sued or prosecuted over things that happen during their involvement with the organization. They're not guilty until proven guilty, and until then, all work they've done is under the umbrella of the organization, so the organization needs to take responsibility for their legal bills.
It sucks, but I think that's the way it has to be.
But in reality, whether an employer covers the legal bills of an employee seems to be contingent upon the ability of the employer to pay. Currently I work for the government so I'd be covered if I got into trouble at work. But if I worked for a small, independent drug store, there's no way in hell my legal fees would get covered if I were sued, say; or was caught drinking the Hycodan.
I have donated to THS in the past but certainly wouldn't right now if I knew it was paying the legal bills of the person who put the live trap in the ceiling and left a cat in there to starve to death.
Is there some distinction due to it being a volunteer organization? Because if I were doing something criminal at work I would not expect my employer to foot the legal bill for my defence.
You need to get yourself into upper managment.
Hahahaha. So true.
It was a joke G.Pie.
You need to get yourself into upper managment.Hahahaha. So true.
It was a joke G.Pie.
Yeah, I get that it was said in jest. However, the gist of the joke seems to be that anyone who would hold an employee responsible for their own criminal actions must be heartless. So ha, ha, ha, well done. Do you think employees are responsible for their own criminal behaviour?
G. Pie, I think the gist is only the working class are responsible for their own criminal behaviour.
No, I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that upper mgmt can be assured of legal help by their company from legal liability/vicarious liability law suits. I don't think he was referring to responsibility at all. It was a joke. Nothing more.
I think if you've ever followed Le T's postings than you would know he didn't mean what you thought at all.
Thanks, you guys. I'm going to do babble a big favour and sign off for the night. Too prickly to participate properly.
I know that feeling. Have a good night.
I know it too, have a great night G. Pie. Prickly can be good.
We are organizing a supply donation drive this weekend. Please check out http://helpths.wordpress.com for a list of supplies that the animals inside the Toronto Humane Society urgently need.
If people don't have any of those items, would you prefer money to buy them yourselves, or would you prefer people buy the items and drop them off? I ask because some were leery of money being given to the THS being used for legal bills.
