Please send your comments to editor@vancourier.com as well as
mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca

Vancouver Courier April 13, 2005
www.vancourier.com
editor@vancourier.com

Re: Animal Activists Out Of Line

April 14, 2005

Dear Editor,

Thank you for covering the story about the Vancouver City Pound killing
healthy animals. I would like to correct several of the inaccuracies in
this story written by Sandra Thomas. It is important for all writers,
including those with a regular column, carefully check their facts before
delivering "the news" to the public, even if it means a bit of effort. The
lives of animals hang in the balance in this case. It is very important to
understand all the nuances behind this story.

Firstly, Ms. Thomas writes that the Vancouver City Pound has a no-kill
policy, then writes at the end of her article that the Pound killed 10
animals last year. Secondly, she writes about one dog being killed, when
there were a number of witness who saw that there were two dogs slated to
be killed. There were also two euthanasia forms at the vet. What happened
to the other dog? This is an interesting question, and one no-one at the
Pound has seen fit to answer.

Katie Ernst, a pound employee and low-level staffer that pound manager
Nancy Clay and her assistant Bob Christofoli are hiding behind, stated that
neither Liberson nor I offered to pay for rehabilitation should it actually
be required for the dog(s). There were a number of witnesses to my offer
of help, so Ernst is caught out on this one. Furthermore her statement
that 1,835 dogs were kept at the pound last year is inflated by more than a
thousand. Please reference city figures.

It is not mentioned that the dogs could have been saved and rehabilitated
at no cost to the city by private individuals, trainers, or non-profit
animal resuce groups. I and others have rescued a number of similar
animals, all of whom were rehabilitated or recuperated and living with
their new families. There are many people in the lower mainland who are
willing and able to take on animals that would otherwise be killed, and the
pound is well aware of this. It is a shame that they chose to take the
easy way out by killing the animals, ridding themselves of a burden they'd
rather not bear. More the shame that they continue to mislead the public
and financial supporters by calling themselves a no-kill shelter.

Another question which should have been raised in the article is why the
Pound took it upon itself to kill an animal at the owner's request? If
every one of the approximately 60,000 dogs in the City of Vancouver came to
the pound at the end of their days, what would that cost the city
taxpayer? It is not the mandate of the pound to kill dogs at the request
of the owner. In this case, if the owner wanted the dog killed, it should
have been handled privately, not on the public dime. The only reason the
pound has to kill an animal is if the court so orders it, or if the animal
is seriously ill, suffering, and there is no treatment for his/her
disease. This is true euthanasia. Anything else is killing and should be
called killing.

If the pound officials were truly concerned for the well-being of the
animals in question, why did they leave Cashew lying in a large puddle of
vomit on a cold floor? Why did a total stranger have to clean that up and
place the dog on a comfy blanket and comfort him? Why did the pound
officials sit like two lumps on a log on the other side of the room while
the poor dog lay whimpering on the floor? Why did they leave the second
dog sedated and alone in a vehicle in the parking lot, when he/she could
have choked on his/her vomit?

If these dogs were so dangerous, why were they taken, unmuzzled, into a
busy public veterinary clinic? Why would pound officials not confirm that
a behavioural assessment had been done, or not? It is easy enough for any
person to walk into the pound and say this dog is a biter, please have him
or her put down, whether or not the dog has ever done so. Who's to say the
owner's not lying? It is also a good way to avoid paying the vet bill
yourself or taking responsibility for your companion animal. If the pound
takes an animal on that basis (which it is not mandated to do) they must do
a proper behavioural analysis and rehabilitation. If the City is unwilling
to go to this extent then they must stop calling this facility a no-kill
shelter, and using that hook as a method to gain funds.

I would never have voted in favour of huge increases to the pound budget
while I was a park commissioner had I not thought it was a no-kill
facility. I can no longer support this facility which now has conditions
that may be worst than the SPCA, which does not have a no-kill policy (and
no longer pretends to). Furthermore, I am shocked and dismayed by the fact
that pound officials have allowed UBC researchers to use the dogs as lab
animals, despite a city ban on pound seizures for research.

Huge amounts of taxpayers' money have been spent on increasing the size of
the pound in order to accomodate a locked area for UBC animal
research. Much of the funding has gone to increase staff levels from 15 to
25 since 1999 despite a significant decrease in the number of animals
handled by the pound, and an almost total lack of bylaw enforcement, which,
next to parking complaints, was one of the top complaint topics I used to
receive when I was a park commissioner.

Once again, thank you for covering an important civic issue.

Roslyn Cassells