Toronto Humane Society managers and board charged with cruelty to animals

I’ve been a member of the THS for over 20 years, contributing monthly despite living outside Ontario for 11 of those years. Watching this story unfold has left me heartsick and devastated.

I would like to add (1) an observation and (2) a question.

(1) Peter Worthington has been a high-profile and very vocal member of the Society for as long as I can remember. While I appreciate his efforts to balance his column, I suspect he, himself, is deeply embroiled in the politics of the situation and is therefore deeply biased. As a very public member of the THS, he is in some ways defending his own part in this travesty. (Curiously, Worthington’s Wikipedia bio, last updated two days ago – on December 10 of this year – no longer mentions his association with the THS.)

(2) A question: Who? Who makes up the Board of Directors of the THS? Almost every organization I’ve ever dealt with lists their directors, yet this information is not available on the THS website. I would like to know the names of those involved in the governance of the Society.

And hey, thank you to THS_Protest for organizing the donation drive – very inspiring! :-)

Board members of any registered Canadian charity can be found in the federal Canada Revenue filing they do each year.

Public website: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/charities/

Lots of interesting info there... annual revenues, how many staff, top paid positions, etc.

Yes, the Toronto Humane Society website is very lacking in information like who runs the place, the board members, etc. Understandable as they are only interested in rasing donations, not responding to their members, the public or the media.

When people wanted to run for the board, they had to jump through hoops to get greatly delayed information like application forms, copies of bylaws.

They guard their membership list like a state secret.

If you really want to see what's what at THS go to this facebook group:

http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=86351415753

or this one:

http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=17589754250

or this one:

http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=233814105184

... in fact just access the main facebook page and search for 'Toronto Humane Society' and see the shared shock of a gullible public.

Yeah, uh, thanks.

There's only one sin.  And that's to be deliberately cruel to an animal.

My work is informed by:  PETA, Any Rand and the Beatles.

ETA:  Temple Grandin, Oliver Sacks, Grace Jackson, Richard Lee Simpson, the one and only Billy Shears.

It was 20 years ago today.  I believe that was 1989.  Oh, yeah, 1989 ... let's talk about 1989.

I'm available until 11:00 PST. 

Don't let me down.

Billeeeeeeeee Shears. What would you think if I sang out of tune ...

Reason enough to forgive Stephen Harper.

Have a little compassion, people.

I get high with a little help from my friends.

Shit me, I'm at 75.  And I'm allowed 1000.  WTF?  How on Earth will I make it through the night?

And as we all know the night ends

I need somebody to love.  Please, God, don't let it be Stephen Harper?

Yes, I'm certain that it happens all the time.

Christmas wish list TBA.

Over and out.

Do you need anybody?

Yo-yo Ma.

Kramer.

Seinfeld.

If this makes sense to you, read some Emily Dickinson and be careful out here.

Sophie's Choice as a film had its merits.

The coveragte of this has been entirely one-sided.

In the first place, you have a difference of phillosophies.

The THS is a non-kill shop, meaning that they will not put an animal down, unless it is in extreme suffering. Granted, it seems that the THS waits a little too long to euthanize some animals that are in extreme pain and have no hope of survival. Unlike humans (who are never euthanized), animals don't receive a lot of pain relief medication. The question is where to draw the line. If the THS is allowing the animals to suffer simply to boost their statistics for fundraising, or because it is less expensive to let them die 'naturally', then that is abominable and needs to be changed.

For those who don't know, the OSPCA has no problems euthanizing. They have sick animals put down. They also have older animals put down if they have little chance of being adopted out. They also put down animals if they are overcrowded and have no room left. Keeping animals alive that nobody wants is not part of the OSPCA mandate.

Given the number of animals that are housed at the THS, I am not surprised that there is some neglect, but one does not throw out the baby with the bathwater. However, the entire investigation seems contrived to be a PR war against the THS. Yeah, when you have hundreds of dogs, including German shepherds and rotweillers, there is some shit in the cages now and then. Big f'in deal.

Maybe the OSPCA doesn't have many dogs that have some shit in their cage. That's because they just kill off the animals that are inconvenient. Do we really think that is preferable?

Furthermore, there is a huge problem when you have two competing charities, when one has oversight and policicing powers over the other. Who checks the OSPCA numbers to verify the number of animals that they euthanize, and why they are put down? When the OSPCA takes pictures of dogs with shit in cages, and makes allegationst that employees used cars for non-work reasons (ie taking their kids to a soccer game). To me these aren't egregious charges - these are nitpicking items aimed ad discrediting the THS, so that donations flow from the THS to the OSPCA.

The OSPCA must be aware that a lot of the people have have been donating to the THS must be discouraged, and will pull their support, making it even more difficult to look after these animals that nobody wants. Perhaps it will force the THS to adopt policies similar to those of the OSPCA - euthanize inconvenient animals. If they have no potential to be adopted out - just kill them.

It's sad that this whole situation couldn't have been handled without destroying the THS reputation (assuming this wasn't the goal). I will concede that Trow's dictatorial style may have led to this, as it appears many groups approached with concerns, and were ignored.

"Keystone... wow do I disagree! Why are you such an apologist for an organization like THS that has been proven as negligent and mismanaged sixty ways from Sunday by independent witnesses coming forward (volunteers, disparate members of the public, workers, former workers, veterinarians, etc), not to mention numerus media investigations and the long documented history of dysfunction?"

We clearly have a different interpretation of the word 'proven'. Many of the complaints have to do with their euthanasia policies, and different philosophies. Do we kill an animal when it outlives its usefulness to mankind or when it's quality of life deteriorates, or when it is in tremendous constant pain with no hope of recovery or perhaps we don't kill it at all. It's a philosophical question, with no easy answers. Those that believe in generous amounts of euthanasia are clearly at issue with the practices at the THS. The allegations that they sustained them merely to affect their statistics, are unfounded.

"THS doesn't put animals down - why? -  simply to make their statistics look better and to encourage fundraising efforts.Have you not read the numerous accounts by people who were there and saw pain meds or euthanasia refused, just so the cat could die of 'natural causes' in its cage and not be counted? What more proof do you need?"

Well, as I have said, they have different philoshophies. I don't doubt that some people believed the animals should have been put down sooner, but to deduce that it is simply to make their statistics look better would suggest that it is in fact you that you are the one 'being played'.

"Given the number of animals that are housed at the THS (you) are not surprised there is some neglect".... Pardon me, but taking in more animals than you can properly care for IS neglect! It is also a psychological condition - animal hoarding. Recent reports say of the 1,000+ animals only 50-60 are adoptable. Lots of reports by members of the public who were sold a bill of goods and given sick animals."

Well, again, that is a moral question. Is it better to house 1000 animals and give them 80% of the care they deserve, or is it better to house 500 animals with 100% care, and have the others euthanised? One thing I am certain of - is that the OSPCA PR war will do little to alleviate the problem.

"The OSPCA had to be pulled in kicking and screaming to do their job, which as you do not seem to realize is to be the Provincial authority body to implement animal welfare laws. Read up on it"

I'm fully aware. Thank you. Is it also their mandate to investigate the personal finances, and company vehicle use? Is it also their job to publish the worst photos they could find? Is it also their job to describe the THS as a 'house of horrors'. Do these actions honestly seem to you, like a provincial authority trying to clean things up, or do these things seem like a PR war aimed at taking donations from the THS.

"It took nearly 6 months of scandals in the media, multiple street protests, public uproar and further scandals to make this happen."

I am certain that THS has made mistakes. I am sure that some animals have slipped through the cracks and that not everyone agrees with the euthanasia policy. They could easily fix these. They could adopt policies similar to the OSPCA. They could just kil any animals that are sick, or animals that are too old to be adopted or suggest euthanasia as an alternative, in the event that they are full.

"You are being played by the THS 'axis of evil' that tries to spin attention away from the facts to fanciful conspiracy theories. First THS tried to say 'aw just a bunch of disgruntled ex workers" when armies of unrelated people came forward to confirm allegations and evidence began to be discovered, they switch to "aw it's all just a ploy by the OSPCA who don't like our gentle no kill philosphy"... and don't forget the attempts previous to attact Toronto Animal Services as kitten killers, just to make THS rep more 'fund-raisable'."

TAS does kill a lot of cats. Their mandate is to serve people, not animals, as is the mandate of virtually all government funded services and agencies.

".... so what, shit in dog cages? It's not about that and you should know it. It's about animals left to fester, rot and die without medical attention. It's about feeding expired food or no food at all, just to save money for lawsuits. It's about evident cruelty and neglect."

Alright, so why then is the OSPCA showing us pictures of shit in dog cages, if it's not about that?
I agree with you that if animals are left to die and rot, with intense suffering, something needs to be changed.
But the pictures I saw (aside from a cat with a festering eye), did not seem to be overly egregious abuses, and yet they were trotted out as if they were hard evidence of abuse.

"God, how can anyone be so much in denial after all that's happened?"

Well, I guess that is because I value life. I don't want to see an animal killed unless it is in severe pain with no hope of recovery. So, if that means that all the animals have to compromise so that the vast majority can live, I think that is a good thing. I'm not that impressed by an organization that euthanizes routinely, so that the public can see the few survivors living happy, idyllic lives while they wait for adoption.

If the OSPCA was interested in helping animals, a PR war aimed at dismantling the donation infrastructure of the THS, and nitpicking about shit in cages, and improper vehicle use, probably isn't the way to go about it.

Well, obviously the mummified cat and the cat with the eye problem were awful mistakes (assuming it was not intentional), but given the number of animals that go through the THS, and the lack of public funding, it isn't that surprising that some mistakes do happen.

I am not attempting to defend the practice of allowing animals to endure great suffering when they have no hope of recovery.
If this is done, simply to make the numbers look good, it is an abominable practice.

However, I think that the practice of killing dogs simply because they are too old to find homes is equally abominable.
The fact that the THS will look after a dog for years, that has no hope of being placed is the reason that they get my money.

If the OSPCA singled out the lack of euthanasia when it was really necessary, I would tend to be more supportive. Instead, they threw everything at them that they could think of, and tried to paint a picture of the THS board taking the money for themselves, while fixing the numbers, and spending nothing on the animals.

I just don't have a lot of respect for an organization that kills dogs because they are too old for people, condeming the THS because conditions aren't as lilly white as they might like it. When the OSPCA starts housing similar numbersof dogs, instead of putting the inconvenient ones down, then we'll see if they can look down their noses at the THS.

And as for the humanization of the issue. No, I would not want to keep living if I was in tremendous constant pain with no hope of recovering. However, I would also not want to be killed, because I could not walk anymore, or because I had arthritis, or because I had outlived my usefulness. It seems as if neither organization (assuming the accusations are true) has it right.

I am still not convinced that the allegations are accurate. I would want to see more evidence than some people who have complained. Different people have different views as to when an animal should be euthanized. For instnace, some of those that have complained may have done so because a dog was no longer able to walk, and they felt it should be killed. There is a big difference between constant suffering, and deterioriation of the quality of life.

It's a good question.

The same way someone puts something in the oven and forgets about it.  Don't get me wrong, it's ridiculously terrible and negligent.  But I can totally see how that would happen, unfortunately.  Doesn't make it any less wrong though.

New Charges after re-opening for only 4 days

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/67421--ospca-announces-new-arrests-at-humane-societ

y

Quote:

I don't think all pet owners take the blame for this. Irresponsible pet owners, people who like the idea of a loving being without any clue about how much work and care it takes to have one in your life and who look at them as another object to acquire, yes. But people like me? Fuck, no. No animal of mine ever has or ever will end up at a shelter, and I resent the implication that I should even consider looking at this mess as anything I am even remotely responsible for.

I don't know, Timebandit. In my experience most dogs enjoy being with other dogs, outside, not in a city. So no matter what kind of care we provide they are still trapped in our world serving our needs. The only reason that most dogs exist is that it gives us some kind of pleasure. That to me has seemed increasingly wrong over the years. No different than raising cattle for meat and dairy (despite what PETA says I think that farm animals actually have better lives than most pets), yet so many vegans are cool with pets.

I just can't buy the "dogs and humans have been together for ever" thing either. This is far from true universally and dogs' relationship with humans has dramatically changed in the last 100 years in places where this is true.

Thanks for your post THS_PROTEST. Interesting points raised there.

It's not about you personally, Timebandit. Sorry to offend you.

"It isn't a matter of some mistakes. Casper the cat who was found in the ceiling was marked as having been euthanized on his chart. That in itself is evidence of a systematic issue at the THS."

And what conclusions are you able to draw from that? Do you think someone intentionally allowed him starve to death in the cage? Do you think the order came from Tim Trow? Do you think that is standard practice at the THS? I'm just not sure how much you can read into one isolated incident.

Here is a plausible scenario. An employee placed the trap in the ceiling. After two weeks, nothing happened - and it was forgotten about, or the employee left the THS - and no one went back to check. Or, one can deduce that the THS doesn't care about animals and systemically tortures animals and provides painful deaths for them, for their own amusement.

"There is also the issue of the complete lack of adequate veterinary care at the shelter."

I'm sure not as much is done, as should be done, or people would like done. I can only assume that there is a shortage of resources. As for 'legal costs'. they are part of running an organization. I am sure that if Rabble gets sued by Richard Warman at some point, they will dedicate a lot of money in legal fees as well. If many animals are dying because of a lack of resources, while a lot of money is being spent in court over one animal, then that may be poor judgement.

"That money could have been used for dog training, spays/neuters, hiring more staff, etc."

It really depends on what sort of legal fees it was spent on. If it is spent defending lawsuits, it may have ended up saving them money. If it was used to defend their reputation against libel, then it may result in defending their reputation which can result in more donations. I am sure that those that want to see the downfall of the THS can second-guess every dollar spent.

"What the Toronto Humane Society has done over the last decade is ailenate foster parents and rescue organizations that could have offered that old dog a dignified life. The THS has harboured an us vs. them mentality when it comes to rescue organizations and it has nothing to do with animal welfare. It has to do with ego."

Possibly.

If the OSPCA singled out the lack of euthanasia when it was really necessary, I would tend to be more supportive. Instead, they threw everything at them that they could think of, and tried to paint a picture of the THS board taking the money for themselves, while fixing the numbers, and spending nothing on the animals.

"But the lack of euthanasia isn't the only issue at the THS. Everyday animal care is an issue. Governance at the THS is an issue. How much money is being spent on legal fees is an issue. Management interfering with veterinary decisions is an issue. I am a former employee and a current volunteer, and I just don't understand why don't you believe us about the conditions inside the shelter"

I have never worked for an organization of more than twelve people where the employees did not second guess how things were run. This effect magnifies tenfold if there is any dispute with the union or teamsters.

"What would we possibly have to gain from all this? How many different people (most of whom don't know each other) have to speak up about the situation to get the members to step up to the plate to help?"

I am not saying that there is an agenda. There may just be different viewpoints on euthanasia. I think anytime an animal suffers or dies unneccesarily, there are strong feelsings - although preventing all such occurences may not be possible. So far, the only wasteful spending you have identified is legal fees, which may sound nebulous, but it can be very important, depending on what they are fighting.

"It isn't just the OSPCA that is fighting the THS. Most of us are animal lovers with no affiliation at all to the OSPCA. Most of the images of animal neglect that have made the media rounds were not taken by the OSPCA. They were taken by concerned volunteers and staff members."

The THS made a fatal mistake in gloating over the low euthanasia rate, and comparing themselves to other organizations. This creates enemies, and was a dumb move, IMHO. Obviously, this causes the other organizations to ask the question, of how they achieve such low euthanasia rates.Getting on the wrong side of the teamsters is sure to produce enemies out of the woodwork as well.

"I agree, there is a big difference. Shouldn't a veterinarian be the one making that call though?"

In most cases. Management also needs to stay within a cost structure. So, if the vet says a god needs replacement hip surgery at the cost of $40,000, that may not make sense.

Also, the euthanasia policy needs to be consistent, despite having many different vets. Some vets may feel that if a dog can only have three legs, and it is old, it should be put down. Some vets may feel that arthritis is enough. Other vets may be completely against euthanasia at all times. You need some consistency.

I certainly agree that keeping an animal alive simply so that it can die in its cage, to make the numbers look better is an atrocious crime. I'm just not sure how prevalent that practice is.

Regardless, I think new leadership at the THS would be welcome. I just find it dissapointing that the OSPCA couldn't find a better way to deal with this, than to destroy the reputation and fundraising abilities of the THS.

Actually, it's very like - you're making a moral argument by saying "The only reason that most dogs exist is that it gives us some kind of pleasure. That to me has seemed increasingly wrong over the years."

So from your words, it's easy to infer that if you regard it as wrong, it's something you probably don't like. And that you've linked the pleasure that people derive from having a pet as part of that wrongness.

What I find most interesting about this sort of argument (not you specifically, but other arguments have been made similarly, like in the hunting thread that was opened a couple of months ago) is that pleasure and wrongness are so closely aligned. It's very.... Catholic, for want of a better descriptor.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/08/16/humane-society-charges... Humane Society charges dropped[/url]

Quote:

The Crown has dropped all charges against six former leaders of the Toronto Humane Society, including erstwhile president Tim Trow.

The Crown told a courtroom at Old City Hall on Monday morning that there were several legal problems with a November raid by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that led to the charges against the five senior members of the society.

Some of the problems include seizures that were too broad and the presence of the media at various times during the execution of the search warrant, the Crown said in a document outlining the reasons it dropped the charges. [...]

The Crown was also concerned with the OSPCA's use of civilians — including private investigators — during its investigation. [...]

An angry Rob Godfrey, chair of the OSPCA, said at an afternoon news conference that the Crown's decision means "open season for animal cruelty in the province of Ontario."

He added: "We are outraged by the Crown's decision to drop all charges of animal cruelty, conspiracy and obstruction … [against] the former THS staff members."

Godfrey also appealed to Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley to review the Crown's move.

This shouldn't come as a huge suprise.

With the OSPCA's infiltration of the THS, their new policy is to focus on perfect conditions for a few, rather than imperfect conditions for many. They have gone from being able to house 1000 animals, to only 100.

While the conditions for those animals lucky enough to be one that the THS has chosen for display, the THS is refusing more animals than ever, and I am sure euthanasia rates are quite high as well for animals they deem to be hard to adopt.

I am sure that this board member preferred to take the cats home herself rather than let them be killed.

Sadly, it appears she wasn't able to manage the burden that she had given herself.

This is not a bad person, this is a person saddled with the weight of too much compassion, who has done everything possible to save cats that would otherwise be killed.

i'm not sure that's true, Keystone.  Over the years, the substandard conditions and bad behaviour of staff/management at the THS have resulted in other services springing up.  There are numerous no-kill cat fostering agencies, for instance; where cats are placed in homes while awaiting adoption rather than crammed into disease-ridden shelter cages.

Early this year, I adopted two feral kittens from Toronto Cat Rescue, one of these fostering agencies.  The woman who found the kittens, who were being hunted by coyotes on a relative's farm, decided to become a foster mum rather than putting them in a dubious shelter.

The THS is not the only game in town any more.  A person involved with animals would know this.  Surely it would have been more sensible and compassionate to place the kitties with a cat fostering agency rather than dumping them all into one foul and disgusting house.