# pound put down shepherds because owners on welfare



## bearlasmom (Sep 21, 2006)

a couple of dogs strayed from their home in Sask. There owners were on welfare, the dogs were euthanized, has anyone hard about this yet. it disgusted and angered me that shelters are putting animals down as a result of their owners finances. 









Town denies euthanizing dogs because owner was poor
Updated Sat. Apr. 26 2008 10:49 AM ET

The Canadian Press

REGINA -- Like many communities across Canada, the town of Wolseley, Saskatchewan has rules for dog owners. 

The bylaw covers things like barking and how long the town will care for an animal when it's found running loose. And officials in town of 860 say it's that bylaw they were following when they found and destroyed a poor woman's three dogs. 

"We do not like to euthanize animals of any sort," former town administrator Gail Blaney said Friday. "That's sort of the last resort." 

The case has ended up in front of a human rights tribunal. 

That's because Jacqueline Nash claims town officials killed her dogs because they knew she was on welfare and assumed she couldn't pay the fees to get the animals out of the pound. 

The purebred German shepherds were picked up at a restaurant by animal control officer Leanne Shirkey in June 2005. 

Shirkey said they were a little dirty and missing some fur, but friendly. She took the animals to the pound, which was at the town garage. 

Nash said she spent five frantic days searching for the animals and was devastated to learn they'd been destroyed. 

But Blaney told the tribunal Friday that no one called to claim to the animals. 

She said she was simply following the bylaw when she scheduled a time to have the dogs euthanized. The bylaw states that the animal can be destroyed if the owner doesn't come forward within three days. 

"I had booked the appointment but was hoping to never have to follow through with it," Blaney testified. 

"It was not cut in stone." 

On Thursday, Nash testified that she had called Blaney the day after the dogs went missing and was told the town office had nothing to do with strays. No one, Nash said, had seen her dogs or could tell her what the town would do with stray dogs if it found them. 

Blaney said it "crossed her mind" that the dogs might be Nash's but added she couldn't be 100 per cent certain. 

"I didn't know whose dogs they were. They were black dogs, they had no tags." 

Blaney said a co-worker made one attempt to call to Nash, but the phone number was no longer in service. However under cross examination, Blaney also said that town councillor Richard Banbury later told her not to call Nash. 

Banbury was scheduled to testify late Friday afternoon. 

It was Shirkey who said that Blaney and others appeared to know that the dogs belonged to Nash, but they didn't want Shirkey to contact her. Shirkey said Friday that officials weren't doing backflips, but were clearly pleased that the animals were in custody. 

"Monday morning there was some satisfaction expressed that we did have these dogs," said Shirkey. 

The tribunal heard that the town had received numerous complaints from neighbours about Nash's dogs barking and defecating on other people's yards. At one point she was fined $20, which she admits she didn't pay. 

Shirkey was also the one who said there had been talks about Nash's financial situation and her ability to care for the dogs. 

"There was definite discussion about her source of income," Shirkey told the tribunal. 

Blaney adamantly denied the charge. The former administrator said she was aware that Nash was struggling financially and that social services paid her utility bills, but insisted she did not know about Nash's source of income. 

The tribunal chair was expected to reserve his decision. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## DSudd (Sep 22, 2006)

WOW that is sad. Poor pups I really don't understand some people.


----------



## Strana1 (Feb 9, 2008)

If the testimony of the ACO is accurate I hope the town gets sued big time! The part that really steams me is the Town Manager saying that it "crossed her mind" that the dogs could belong to the victim.


----------



## ldpeterson (Feb 13, 2005)

Well it sounds like that owner didn't deserve the dogs, but I wish they would have met a better fate then the one they did.


----------



## DSudd (Sep 22, 2006)

I could of missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article that said the dogs were starving or anything. Of rosue it doesn't give much info as to why the animals were lose or without collars and tags though.


----------



## butch33611 (May 4, 2007)

Well, im guessing she aint goinna have to worry about income now!! Its fairly obvious what happened here. They saw her and her dogs as a pain in the rear. They picked up the dogs knowing who they belong to and put them down before the lady could find them. 

The killer part is where they said they were happy to have the dogs, Then that would lead me to believe they were also happy to destroy them. If she sues the city it will have to pay.

A jury will not like the testomony about the city being glad this happened, thats the killer blow for the city right there. 

JACK POT!!!


----------



## ldpeterson (Feb 13, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: DSuddI could of missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article that said the dogs were starving or anything. Of rosue it doesn't give much info as to why the animals were lose or without collars and tags though.


I think it was the fact that she had numerous complaints about her dogs barking and defecating on other people's lawns. Not to mention she was fined for it and failed to pay the fee. I would imagine this was definately not the first time the dogs were loose.


----------



## bearlasmom (Sep 21, 2006)

i cant see putting a dog down because its barking. fine its owner, if they dont pay, fine them again, take the dog if it gets loose and allow them to go to a rescue or new owner! but putting down 2 gsd that they openly state where extremely friendly, is obsurd. Yes, they may have been ill (they were loosing some fur) but that could have been because they were undernourished. its sad really that they felt that putting the dogs down was the only alternative. i agree, they will be found guilty though on their statement that the city was glad this had happened. you cant penalize a otherwise good dog because the owner is a pain in the butt.


----------



## butch33611 (May 4, 2007)

If the city had been smart and just stuck to the facts they might have been ok, The dogs had no ID, we have a 3 day limit, The dogs were just strays to us. 

Sorry lady, you loose.

But to know who the owner was is bad enough but to be happy about the outcome is the killer!!!!

When that comes out in court and the jury hears that...PAY DAY!!

If I were her I wouldnt even consider any kind of out of court settlement...no way, I want a jury to hear it all!!!










And when I get my huge settlement Id buy 3 or 4 more dogs..lol


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2008)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

I feel for this woman, but I can see how this happened too. It was my constant fear for two years when I was down and out that I would lose Odin because of it. Our epic journey hitchhiking from South Carolina to Florida burns still in my brain. I can't tell you how many times I'd see a police car drive by and slow down to look at us and wonder if this time I'd lose Odin. The closest we came was on the South Carolina border of Georgia when a sheriff's deputy drove past us three times. the first time he slowed down and gave us the hard stare. The second time he slowed down gave us a harder stare and flashed his lights for a second. The third time he scowled, flashed his lights and hit the siren a second. The meaning was clear. If he saw us again that was it. Lucky for us we were delivered by an old black man in a pickup truck who was working on some landscaping nearby. He saw all this and got in his pickup and told us to hop in. I rode in the back with Odin to ensure his safety as he was unused to pickups. The man drove us as far as he could into Georgia and let us out at a truckstop. I thanked him profusely and he said he knew what it was like to have the law unfairly against you. I'll never forget that either. GSDs losing their homes and subsequently their lives is happening all too often as people lose their homes through foreclosure, or from BSL. That's what happened to us. I woke up one day and the housing complex I lived in no longer allowed GSDs. I couldn't drive then because of my wounds and nobody I knew could spare the time to drive me, buses won't take GSDs and I couldn't afford the airfare. No place would have us on such short notice and so I left for a friend's place in Florida and our journey began.


----------



## romeosmom (Mar 27, 2008)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

"I didn't know whose dogs they were. They were black dogs, they had no tags."

grrr! Just Black dogs with no tags! They deserve better than that! So many GSD in shelters are just thrown away! That is so sad.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: mamagooseWell it sounds like that owner didn't deserve the dogs, but I wish they would have met a better fate then the one they did.


that's rude and ignorant of you to think that way!!!!!! why doesn't the owner deserve to have the dogs?????


----------



## scannergirl (Feb 17, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: doggiedad
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: mamagooseWell it sounds like that owner didn't deserve the dogs, but I wish they would have met a better fate then the one they did.
> ...


Because she had allowed them to be loose and a nuisance. Multiple complaints from the community. NOT because she was poor. I do not at all think that was rude nor ignorant. Those are strong words.

But anyway, the dogs should not have had to pay for their owner's mistakes with their lives.


----------



## ldpeterson (Feb 13, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: Lucina
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: doggiedad
> ...


Correcto Lucina. And BTW to anyone who noticed I did say that it's sad that the dogs didn't meet a better fate. Do I need to translate that? It meant perhaps they would have been better off rehomed versus euthanized.

Geez DoggieDad, you sure are coming off a little strong in your posts. Might lighten up a bit.


----------



## ldpeterson (Feb 13, 2005)

Oh and I'm sorry, perhaps my standards are a little high, but IMO if your letting your dogs run loose and crap in people's yards on a regular basis then you are far from the "model" dog owner in my book. 

I don't have much sympathy for the lady, but the dogs I do.


----------



## DSudd (Sep 22, 2006)

Lisa I understood exactly what you said and I really don't see how that can be taken as rude or ignorant.

I guess I am just missing something, (or you are just putting up a big front on how you really feel about dogs) LOL


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

She spent five frantic days searching for the dogs but didn't go to the shelter/garage? I think that is a bit odd. 

I agree with mamagoose, and am very sad about this. You can love a dog and still not take good care of it-sadly, which then gives other people the opportunity to be less than caring in their approach to the dogs. Unfortunately the poor dogs paid for just being dogs. 

I don't care about her income-when I was able to, I gave money on that IMOM board to people who are unable to pay for vet procedures for their own pets.


----------



## butch33611 (May 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: doggiedad
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: mamagooseWell it sounds like that owner didn't deserve the dogs, but I wish they would have met a better fate then the one they did.
> ...


That seems like a pretty harsh responce, I dont think mamagoose is either rude OR ignorant!!! Its generally the ignorant person who opens their mouth before giving the subject matter proper thought.

I understand exactly what she ment and agree with her 100%. Its a very sad thing that happened to the dogs, but the lady is not completly without blame here.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

Once again the dogs are the losers.................


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2008)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

Agreed, the woman has sympathy for being on hard times, but she also exhibited behavior that was wrong no matter what the income level is. I too find it hard that her _first_ call when the dogs were lost wasn't to the shelter. 

When you make a choice to care for a pet you've accepted the responsibility for a life. When I was destitute I made a promise that no matter what Odin would not go hungry. There were days when I didn't eat but he did. This woman let her dogs down.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*



> Quote:Our epic journey hitchhiking from South Carolina to Florida burns still in my brain.


I smell a New York Times bestseller that has not yet been written. I'll gladly wait for the book if you're writing it but if not, please do share the story sometime?


----------



## Timber1 (May 19, 2007)

I doubt the city would lose this one. No identification on the dogs and an owner that didn't try and find the dogs ASAP. And futhermore, could probably not afford to care for three GSD's. It makes me wonder if the dogs were even medically cared for, I doubt it. 

I feel bad for the dogs, as for the owner, hopefully she never gets another dog.


----------



## khurley (Sep 25, 2004)

*This is a general reminder that personal attacks are not allowed.*


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am going to stick up for the victim here. 

The dogs are dead, hopefully they were euthanized humanely, but they are not currently suffering. 

The one who is suffering is a poor woman. 

No she was not a model dog owner, at least in the opinion of many of the people on this board. Letting her dogs bark and defecate on people's lawns is certainly and excuse to steal her dogs away from her. 

It is very possible that her dogs got loose from her home, this was the very first time it happened, and the city jumped on their opportunity to get rid of the nuisance. 

Many of us do not wear collars on our dogs within our homes because collars can be dangerous, especially if you have two dogs housed together when you are not there to supervise. It does not sound lide the woman had the dough to microchip her animals. 

The city fined her $20 which she did not pay. I cannot have a cerebral incident over that. I would not euthanize a person's dogs for that reason. 

The thing is that they did not want her to get her dog back. This woman did not go through the procedure to beg and borrow from everyone she knew to pay a barking/deficating fee; but she may have done this to pay a fine to release her babies from the pound and keep them from being killed. 

Some people are on assistance for reasons that do not show physically, some of them are there because of their mental state, some of them are there because they are down and out. Murdering somebody's dogs that is already on the fringe of society is just plain mean. This was a mean-spirited act. 

Before I became very involved with dogs, I would take my parents' dog out for a walk and sometimes she was leashed, sometimes not. Sometimes she chase the cat around the State Highway Patrolman's house at the end of the street that I did not avoid even if it was 2 AM. I never picked up a pile of poo that the dog made. In fact, it never crossed my mind at that time. Once the dog ran right up onto somebody's porch and started scarfing their cat food. I kept on walking like I did not know her, and knew she would catch up to me. But this dog would NOT have been better off taken to a rescue, rehomed, or euthanized. 

I have no tolerance for people who LET their dogs run free. I have very little patience for people whose dogs got loose -- even thought it happened to me once. I feel that it would have been entirely my fault if my dog was struck by a car, shot, picked up and kept as a stray. I advocate that our dogs are formidable animals and need to be kept safe for their own safety and we their owners need to make sure we do not slip up. But accidents DO happen. Repeated accidents need to be treated differently. 

If these dogs had been picked up prior to this, then there would have been no excuse about not knowing who the dogs belonged to, so I am guessing this NEVER happened. The dogs were friendly, probably shedding, possibly ill, probably hungry, but this was no dog fighter we are talking about. 

Let's put it this way, lets say you own a 1980 Chevy Nova. Did they make one in 1980? Anyway, it is a rust bucket, noisy as ****, has one of the back windows missing and taped up with plastic. But it runs and gets you back and forth to church and the grocery store. 

Now let's say that you left it at the grocery store because you met a friend and decided to have dinner. By the time you get back your car is gone. Just totally missing. You call the police and they send you to the city manager, and the city manager doesn't say anything for a day, and then tells you that your car was taken to Nick's Salvage down the road and demolished. 

They decided you couldn't really afford to put gas in it and keep up the maintenance on it so they decided to scrap it out. The city guy is dancing a jig because the neighbors had complained about the noise it made and how it made the neighborhood appear to be rundown. You even failed to pay a ticket for parking it outside of your garage. Oooooh! 

Are you happy? 

This poor woman lost her dogs and if they had been smooshed in the road she would have nobody but herself to blame for it. But they were turned into AC and perfectly safe, and someone considered her less than stellar human being status, and decided she should not own dogs and had them euthanized. 

The city councilman and the person that ran the shelter and euthanized these dogs SMELL like AR not AC. They SMELL like PETA. The victim SHOULD sue them, and she should win a healthy settlement for punitive damages.


----------



## ldpeterson (Feb 13, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: selzer The victim SHOULD sue them, and she should win a healthy settlement for punitive damages.


Oh and I'm sure she will. Everyone seems so sue happy these days I don't know why she wouldn't. 

AC said they had received *numerous * complaints about these dogs. That would of course mean more than one. 

It's one thing for dogs to get out once but to continue doing so makes them a more serious problem. 

Dogs don't have to wear collars but microchips are quite safe and common practice.

Remember there are always two sides to every story and the media always makes things more dramatic than they actually are. In other words they are going to play any card they have to make this poor woman sound like a victim rather than the irresponsible dog owner that she was.


----------



## Ursa Lunar (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*



> Originally Posted By: article_On Thursday, Nash testified that she had called Blaney the day after the dogs went missing and was told the town office had nothing to do with strays. No one, Nash said, had seen her dogs or could tell her what the town would do with stray dogs if it found them.
> 
> Blaney said it "crossed her mind" that the dogs might be Nash's but added she couldn't be 100 per cent certain. _


So, owner DID call town asking if her dogs had been found, they most likely HAD been at this point, but owner was given run-around about what is done with seeming strays.

I don't agree with how owner was "taking care" of her dogs either, but fact of the matter is that not-too-terribly-long-ago it was common for people to let their dogs roam - and without collars - especially in small communities such as this. Everyone knew who each other's kids/dogs/cats were and watched after them and complained in turn as needed. We know better now.

What the town did to rid themselves of a perceived nuisance is wrong all over; unfair to the innocent and well-tempered animals to not at least give them a chance at something better, and cruel to the owner who loved them even if we don't agree with her "care-taking."


----------



## ldpeterson (Feb 13, 2005)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

Oh I agree that the AC in this town sounds pretty screwy. I'm glad ours isn't like that. I think they are both to blame and the dogs paid the price.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Mamagoose,

"The tribunal heard that the town had received numerous complaints from neighbours about Nash's dogs barking and defecating on other people's yards. "

This is the quote I was going off of. The dogs were not being complained about being loose. I think that the assumption is that the dogs are defacating on other people's lawns mean they were loose at the time. This is not necessarily so. A lot of people out there do not carry baggies. 

The dogs may have gotten out just once. We do not know by what is in this thread. 

This woman did not have $20 to pay her fine. Maybe she did not have the money for microchips. Maybe she was spending that money on dog food. In the states, you cannot buy dog food on food stamps, not sure about where she is from. 

Whether microchips are safe or if they are actually causing cancerous tumors where they are located, is a subject for another thread. 

But even if they were chipped, would the town of 860 people who house their strays in the town garage have a scanner? Would they have bothered to scan the dogs? Particularly if there was some reason why they decided this woman should not get her dogs back?


----------



## butch33611 (May 4, 2007)

In a town that small, they knew who those dogs belong to and they killed to aliviate a problem.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: bearlasmom...
> * The bylaw covers things like barking and how long the town will care for an animal when it's found running loose. And officials in town of 860 say it's that bylaw they were following when they found and destroyed a poor woman's three dogs.
> ...
> Nash said she spent five frantic days searching for the animals and was devastated to learn they'd been destroyed.
> ...


I don't know, but IMHO the town's officials behaved badly. It sounds like the officials knew who owned the dogs in question and that they ignored their own policy by giving Nash the run-around when she originally called inquiring about the missing dogs. The testimony that Blaney claims that town councillor told her not to call Nash also indicates that they knew who the owner was. 

I hope that all involved in the cover-up lose their jobs and that Nash takes them to the cleaners.


----------



## butch33611 (May 4, 2007)

I hope the town has to pay up big time, not for the sake of the owner but for killing those animals not because they did anything wrong but just to take care of a problem they had with the owner. Also I hope heads roll because of it for the same reasons. Not only did they destroy the animals for no good reason they seemed very satisfied with themselves for doing it. 

Its time to uncover the cover up.


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

Let me just start by saying I live in SK, but not in Wolsley.

Wolsley, like the article said, has a population of about 860. They do not have a shelter that someone can just call, they do not have an animal control division. I don't think they even have their own police station, the didn't the last I heard. The garage that the dogs were taken to is likely one owned by a private citizen who voluteers/contracts with the village to hold stray animals for three days, as this is what many of the villages do. They have likely $0 allocated to animal control.

The city appears to have responded poorly. If they had a reasonable suspicion that these dogs belong to this woman, then they should have taken steps to locate her and ascertain if the dogs did belong to her. However, after three days strays are strays and the town can do what it wants with them. As for being told that the town office doesn't have anything to do with strays, that's likely. Strays are likely handled by by-law enforcement, not the town office.

The woman was not a responsible owner for allowing them to bark constantly and poop on others property. Allowing them to run at large is just another incident of allowing her dogs to be a nuisance. Her income level really doesn't matter in regards as it does not take a paycheck to teach your dogs to be quiet (library cards are free and provide access to dog training books), grocery bags make poop pick up easy.

As for suing, I don't see her getting a big settlement even if she does win. It's simple. You cannot sue for more than the value of the property that was destroyed. She will have to prove how much their purchase price was. And around here, liability hasn't gone stupid like other places.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Sue a town of 860? Probably a good many of those are children so how many families are they talking about? What type of money would they have at their disposal? Would the head of household for each family be ordered to show up and pay X amount of $$?


----------



## ldpeterson (Feb 13, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: angela scriverLet me just start by saying I live in SK, but not in Wolsley.
> 
> Wolsley, like the article said, has a population of about 860. They do not have a shelter that someone can just call, they do not have an animal control division. I don't think they even have their own police station, the didn't the last I heard. The garage that the dogs were taken to is likely one owned by a private citizen who voluteers/contracts with the village to hold stray animals for three days, as this is what many of the villages do. They have likely $0 allocated to animal control.
> 
> ...


This description answered a lot of questions I had about the town and I agree with your personal thoughts about it 100%. 

I agree the city handled it VERY poorly. By stating they knew who the animals belonged to they could have made more of a conscious effort to let the woman know they were there. However, it sounds like they had run ins with these dogs before and someone took having these dogs to a more personal and less proffessional level.

But I guess all in all, if you keep you control of your pets you never have to worry about this.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2008)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

Yes, it seems apparent that the town acted to get rid of what they saw as a nuisance and did so wrongly. I have to wonder though if the woman had kept better control over her dogs if they would've even _been_ a nuisance?

Note to Diana: Book deal in the works. Look for it soon. LOL! Actually it was perhaps one of the many episodes of the past couple of years that have made my life shall we say, unexpected. Remember the Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times".


----------



## MTAussie (Dec 9, 2007)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

GSDad I agree with Diana! When I read your post I was thinking that your post sounds like the start of a good book and laughed when I saw Diana had already posted the same thing!







Anyone work for a publisher?


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

To little information for me, but either way, the dogs didnt deserve to be put down and I dont think she "shouldnt" have dogs just because they dont meet someones standard. If we all went by that, then gosh, where I live there would be no dog and no dog owners at all, and alot of people around here really do love their dogs.

I think that they should have done whatever they should have done LEGALLY and not like this. Was she an ideal dog owner? probably not, but how many people start out as ideal dog owners?

I mean gosh, there was a time that I could barely feed my kids, let alone my dog. Im sure some would think it would be "OK" for me to not have the dog, but we survived and learned.

Ive even actually met people who thought someone shouldnt own a dog unless they fed them a certain kind of food.

The dogs very well probably a "pain" and probably did poop in peoples yard and people probably called and then it seems to me like no one ever really went out there to do anything except the one time, and that doesnt mean that they were always running at large. It could have been that she never picked up after them. I dont know how many stories ive seen on here about people complaining about others not picking up after their dog/s.

Thats probably something we will never know though.

Sounds to me like they just didnt want to do their jobs and fool with anything and took the easy way out. Only to leave the dogs the bigger victims in all of this.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

I see it as a viscious and deliberate mean-spirited act against this woman. 

I want to see the two perpetrators exchange places with the woman that is on assistance. 

I almost think it may have been personal. 

It will be interesting to find out how this ends up. 

I cannot figure out how two or more people could get together and plot and murder somebody's dogs. 

Even though my animals are double-locked in, this gives me nightmares.


----------



## curtis.emoboy (Apr 28, 2008)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

"Originally Posted By: angela scriverLet me just start by saying I live in SK, but not in Wolsley.

Wolsley, like the article said, has a population of about 860. They do not have a shelter that someone can just call, they do not have an animal control division. I don't think they even have their own police station, the didn't the last I heard. The garage that the dogs were taken to is likely one owned by a private citizen who voluteers/contracts with the village to hold stray animals for three days, as this is what many of the villages do. They have likely $0 allocated to animal control.

The city appears to have responded poorly. If they had a reasonable suspicion that these dogs belong to this woman, then they should have taken steps to locate her and ascertain if the dogs did belong to her. However, after three days strays are strays and the town can do what it wants with them. As for being told that the town office doesn't have anything to do with strays, that's likely. Strays are likely handled by by-law enforcement, not the town office.

The woman was not a responsible owner for allowing them to bark constantly and poop on others property. Allowing them to run at large is just another incident of allowing her dogs to be a nuisance. Her income level really doesn't matter in regards as it does not take a paycheck to teach your dogs to be quiet (library cards are free and provide access to dog training books), grocery bags make poop pick up easy.

As for suing, I don't see her getting a big settlement even if she does win. It's simple. You cannot sue for more than the value of the property that was destroyed. She will have to prove how much their purchase price was. And around here, liability hasn't gone stupid like other places."

---------------------------
To offer some CONCRETE information from someone living in Wolseley:

The town has no police (just RCMP from Indian Head) but does have a small budget for AC. The town "shop" is owned by the municipality - it's the garage where recycling is taken, maintenance on town vehicles is done, and a general storage area for random town-owned things.

MOST IMPORTANT: the woman in question had valid, legal dog tags for her dogs (submitted into evidence at the hearing). Her dogs were also microchipped (but the town doesn't have a chip reader). 

As for not knowing about the "pound"... how many people do you think are completely aware of all by-laws? 

Just because someone is on public assistance doesn't mean they were always on assistance. Sometimes people have a tough bout for what ever reason... sometimes they end up on disability. It's not wise to point fingers at someone on assistance unless you are fully aware of their real situation.

The dogs that were euthanized were well behaved and friendly. They were black shepards from Europe - police stock. "Numerous complaints" received in the town regarding her dogs were not received from multiple people... but a couple who had a problem with having dogs in their neighbourhood. 

The current mayor, Denton Keating, is currently on the circuit spreading lies. He wasn't even the mayor at the time. The mayor at the time was told when the dogs were picked up... and his response was "good [with a smile]". Furthermore, other dogs picked up by AC were returned to their owners - often returned on weekends or holidays (if necessary). The town knowingly chose to NOT inform Ms. Nash.

Hopefully at some point the hearing transcript will come out so everyone can read all the testimony.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

Thanks for the clarifications bigdogboy


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

Thanks bigdogboy. I wasn't sure, but it's still bothersome. If they knew the dogs belong to her they should have contacted her. However, if they weren't certain, then I don't see how they violated anything.

Whether the dogs were licensed or not is moot point if they aren't wearing the tags. Can't trace ID when there is nothing on the dog. I understand the town not having a scanner, my city doesn't have one at the shelter/pound either and its a lot bigger than Wolsley. Just the vets have them.

Hopefully, if nothing else comes out of this, at least the town will set up actual procedures for addressing strays that would include reliable numbers/times to call when looking for animals that may end up in the "pound."


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: pound put down shepherds because owners on wel*

What they did wrong was when the woman called and asked about her dogs, they pretended they knew nothing about them AND told her that they did not know how the city dealt with strays or where. 

They lied to the woman. And they talked about it with the higher up and conspired to keep her in the dark. They MURDERED her dogs! 

THIS IS SCAREY.


----------

