Yesterday afternoon, after a multi-month investigation following a report in The Globe and Mail, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals decided to lay charges, both provincial under the OSPCA Act and federally under the CCC, against senior staff and the board of directors of the Toronto Humane Society. It has been reported that, during this raid, the leading officer pepper-sprayed a dog, the effects of which were felt by many other animals. Presumably, OSPCA Investigator Kevin Strooband will not be charged for this. In addition to laying charges against senior staff and the board of directors, the OSPCA has also created a list of employees who are not permitted to be on site for the duration of the investigation, including OSPCA Agent Tre Smith. (The OSPCA is a legal paramilitary organization with ranks: Agent, Inspector, Senior Inspector, Chief Inspector.) Smith was, possibly, the factor that ultimately led to the takeover of the THS by the OSPCA when, a couple years ago, Smith had his investigative powers suspended due to an altercation wherein he handcuffed a suspect to their car while breaking the windows of the car to get a dying dog out. While this may have been the tipping point, the THS and OSPCA have had an acrimonious history, most recently over the issue of euthanization: the THS has been running a campaign against the City of Toronto Pound over its excessively high euthanasia rates. The THS reports euthanasia rates of roughly 7% in comparison to the city pound which euthanizes at least 50% of the animals that come into its possession–legally, an animal becomes the property of the pound 72 hours after it is found. At the end of those 72 hours, the pound is free to do whatever it wishes with the animals, including seeking potential adopters, selling the animals as research subjects, or euthanizing them. This is, ultimately, the issue that led to the OSPCA takeover of the THS: a different theory about animal well-being and the propriety of euthanasia–rather than kill half of the animals that comes into its care, the THS would rather seek rehabilitation, even in complex and difficult cases.
Igge in June--the tumor has since grown
Take, for example, the case of a cat named Esmeralda (third photo in this series), who had squamous cell carcinoma in her ear. This is a form of cancer that is locally invasive and which does not respond to treatment–radiation therapy is the best option, of which only two clinics are regionally available (in Guelph at the OVC and at Cornell), but treatment takes roughly a month. In effect, the treatment is worse than the disease. This case sticks out for me because our cat, Igge, also has squamous cell carcinoma on his face. In his case, the origin of the tumor was just under his left eye. Having had this disease for three years now, it has spread from a tiny laceration under his eye to covering most of the left side of his face. His has a complex medication schedule including tramadol three times a day and clavamox twice a day. For an unrelated problem he also takes cisapride and lactulose three times a day, as well as fortikor once a day. Igge receives regular veterinary care, both from an oncologist and a general practitioner. While it is difficult to make any definitive conclusions from a photograph–high resolution radiographs would be the best bet–it would appear that Igge’s cancer is presently far more advanced than Esmeralda’s. An animal in such a condition is not easy to take care of (note the complex medication schedule), but Igge lives a completely normal life, with the exception that one of his eyes no longer works and he occasionally loses scabs and, thus, bleeds a bit. That is, he looks no different than Esmeralda. His behaviors are completely normal: he has not lost weight (weight loss is normal in cats with cancer), he has maintained his appetite (the usual recommendation is that a cat should be euthanized after refusing food for three consecutive days), he engages in his normal activities (cuddling, playing and exploring), and he expresses his happiness through excessively loud purring and frequent rubbing. The point here: while the cancer is serious for Igge (and Esmeralda), there is nothing to indicate that the cancer is actually painful for the cat or that it is even affecting the cat in any way at all. There are only two possible conclusions insofar as the OSPCA is concerned: either that it looks bad to have sick animals unless the animals particular story can used to generate income (witness similar humane societies in Ontario) or animals with chronic conditions are not worth keeping around because they require medication and do not generate donations.
This is most perfectly exemplified in the day-to-day practices of the Ottawa Humane Society, the second largest shelter in the province. While the OHS brags that it handles over 11,000 animals each year (ambiguously described as “fosters, cares for, and rehomes” on their website), at any given time there are only about eight dogs available for adoption–none with medical conditions–and fewer than fifty cats available for adoption–also without any medical conditions. Under their “FAQs,” the OHS brags that in the 2007-8 fiscal year, 3,768 animals were sent to adoptive homes: a rate of roughly 35%. One wonders what happened to the other 65% of the animals! Clearly, a humane society that cannot be accused of being inhumane: even the healthy animals don’t get a chance to suffer at the OHS because they are killed out of hand. (A vet tech, who did their field placement at the OHS, told me once that they were required to participate in euthanizing animals. One day a goose with a broken neck was brought in. In this case, euthanasia was, indeed, the only possible option. The vet tech complained about how the euthanasia was carried out: the animal was thrown on the floor, held down, and had a needle jabbed into it. Once it was dead, it was left on the cold floor for hours before anyone bothered to put it into a freezer. The same person reports that they were forced to re-use supplies, including needles, that were only acceptable for single-use: imagine re-using a vaccination needle or using a vacutainer on multiple animals.) Today, The Ottawa Citizen reports on a cruelty case investigated by the OHS. Earlier in the month, 36 cats were confiscated from an apartment. During the seizure, three cats escaped (where are they now?). Of the remaining 33, all but four were euthanized because the others “did not respond to treatment.” (What treatments? A standard course of clavamox, the go-to antibiotic in veterinary medicine, is two-weeks long; i.e., if confiscated on the 13th of November and they have already been euthanized, this means that the go-to drug was not used.) The article only reports that the cats were unsocialized, which is the norm in hoarding cases. In other words, these animals are feral. The article does not mention, for instance, upper respiratory infections, which is the most common ailment in hoarding cases. The question, of course, is why were these cats killed and not, say, put into a TNR style program or adopted out as barn cats?
The answer, it seems, is pretty clear: death is the official policy of the OSPCA. (One notes that five years ago, the OSCPA had over forty Investigators; there are currently twenty-five. One also notes that a Senior Investigator resigned, which I am told is unprecedented.) The THS does not appear to subscribe to the official “animal welfare” position of “kill and forget.” The OHS, a star organization, however, does.
Until evidence is actually presented in court, it would be my advice to take the OSPCA’s position with a grain of salt while inquiring into the day-to-day practices of the OSPCA and its affiliates.
(Note: until a week ago, I was the vice-president of an OSPCA affiliate. I resigned from my position due to what I understood to be cruel and inhumane practices that had become endorsed by the board of directors: my motion to end these practices was unanimously defeated after minimal debate.)
5 Comments
Four years ago, when I was considering adopting a dog from the THS, there were workers and volunteers protesting outside. Four years ago. About the terrible work environment and the conditions the animals were forced to live in. And I’ve heard bits and pieces of information running along the same vein since then without even trying. A friend of mine worked there for a while and then had to quit, but not before he got a first hand look at how horrible it was.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that anyone who decides to work with animals and give their time for them will not choose to march outside the building instead of helping inside, without very good reason.
So maybe we should take the OSPCA position with a grain of salt, but I would also not believe anything the people in charge of the THS says.
And while “kill and forget” is a horrible policy, absolutely no euthanasia is too. I have two cats and if they were in so much pain or so sick that they could not do anything, I will choose to put them down even though it would break my heart. You would do the same for your pets too.
I’m no expert and I have not had first hand experience with the cats that you’re describing but you know that cats don’t actually show pain right? The stoicism is an adaptation for survival. I got one of my cat’s tooth pulled the other week. Right away, he started rubbing at me constantly for attention and affection (far more than he usually did) and he was restless and couldn’t sleep well – his eyes were slightly open and glazed over a lot – and moved around constantly the rest of the time. I could tell that he was in pain even though someone who did not have this cat for ten years might not have understood that it was abnormal behavior.
So while there’s no “proof” so to speak, that the cat with the cancer in his eye was in pain, biologically speaking, if cancer is eating away at something in the skin that’s attached to nerves, it’s going to hurt and will never go away.
Given that you admit to having no expertise on the relevant legal, moral or medical issues, we can treat your comment as what it is: an uninformed opinion–the sort circulating in the media and actively promoted by the OSPCA.
I am not an expert on the relevant legal, moral, or medical issues here either, but I am trying to learn, so I hope you won’t mind if I ask a question. It seems to me that the THS and the OHS and the OSPCA all face a monumental task: trying to care for thousands of individuals using limited resources. The OSPCA says the THS failed at this task; you suggest the OHS and the OSPCA consistently fail at this task… My question is what do you think is the best way to approach this task? Do you think the THS was achieving success? Personally I am absolutely in favour of the no-kill approach, but again, what happens when the resources run out? Am I asking the wrong questions? Again, I am trying to learn, so I really appreciated your perspective. (And incidentally, after a week of “house of horrors” sensationalism, it seems like some in the media might be coming around to something resembling your perspective — I’m thinking especially of Thomas Walkom’s column in the Star a couple days ago.)
The animal shelter “industry” is, on the whole, understaffed, underfunded, and, in general, lacking any real knowledge of what dogs or cats are–those two being the most common species found in shelters. This situation leads to shelters with less than 10% euthanasia rates and shelters with over 60% euthanasia rates. Given that most shelters in Ontario function in more or less the same way, the day-to-day operations of shelters in Ontario cannot, on its own, account for extremely divergent outcomes for animals.
Let’s not talk about either the THS or the OHS, but a small to medium sized rural affiliate of the OSPCA (around 100 cats and 10 dogs on average at any given time). Employees are paid minimum wage. Employees do not receive training upon beginning their employment. Employees do not have any sort of background in animal care. Management has no background in animal care, but has worked in “the customer service industry.” Employees and management are easily swayed by charlatans on TV like Cesare Milan or Brad Pattison. (Indeed, at this particular shelter, the board of directors even voted to institute choke collars and physical punishment training as the officially endorsed approach at the shelter. Needless to say, my involvement with this shelter was short-term!) Employees who are not swayed by physical-punishment techniques (which are, by the way, not recommended by the OSCPA) and who are actually skilled animal handlers are fired for minor offenses, such as bringing incorrect medication information to the manager’s attention or for refusing to watch (and “learn”) “proper” handling techniques (i.e., choke-chain) as the manager chokes, pushes, and drags a confused and scared Rottweiler around the parking lot. But, despite all this, the shelter also managed to have a low euthanasia rate, putting it in line with the THS rather than the OHS or OSPCA branches. Keeping animals alive isn’t just a matter of money, it is also a matter of will–if you don’t think that it is a harm to kill an animal (this is standard animal welfare), then killing an animal isn’t bad regardless of reason (space, health, temperament, species, breed). Consider that most shelters have contracts with major food providers to receive their food for free, agreements with local veterinarians for reduced or at-cost services (of course, getting a few hundred cats sterilized at or near costs is still going to cost a lot of money), a large cadre of volunteers doing unpaid labour, and a public that is more often than not willing to donate small items when needed (paper towel, sheets, bleach, newsprint, etc) the amount of money actually needed to run a shelter is not that much.
Part of the problem is that the larger shelters are increasingly becoming fundraising organizations. What I mean by this is that they are oriented towards large, flashy and extremely expansive fundraising campaigns organized by full-time fundraising staff and professional consultants. This leads to gigantic overhead such that most of the money raised goes into paying for that money that was just raised. Now, shelters are not to blame. This has been the case for a number of years in the human health related charities: giant lotteries, thousand dollar a plate dinners, and the like. There is no shortage of people wanting to “help the animals” but the means of acquiring this help results in most of that money not going to the animals–most people who want to “help the animals” don’t have the resources or desire to buy a thousand dollar meal ticket despite the promise that you might catch a glimpse of Stephen Harper’s wife.
At the most basic, what a shelter needs, is (1) adequate facilities, (2) trained staff, (3) staff who want to work with animals even though it only pays minimum wage, (4) proper cleaning procedures, (5) and a network of volunteers, especially fosterers, to help when there is an outbreak of URI or otherwise sick and injured animals.
What isn’t discussed in the newspaper is that shelters routinely trade animals with one-another. We only see this in the news with high-profile seizures from hoarders or mills. But, on a day to day basis, animals are routinely transferred regionally when space is tight at one shelter but available at another. Of course, once animals leave your shelter, you lose control over them as they become the property of the shelter taking them in. There might be a reason why, say, OHS, is able to be a regional hero taking in animals from rural shelters…
To return to your question: was the THS achieving success? I don’t think, from what I’ve read in the papers, that THS is any worse than any other shelter in Ontario, with the exception that it kills far fewer animals. I am acquainted with numerous cases of animals being given the wrong medicine, of animals being denied medical treatment, of understaffing, of untrained employees and, yes, of dysfunctional management. Should the THS case go forward, the only benefit will be is that the rest of the shelters in Ontario will have to clean up their act as well. Based upon accusations by the “Help the THS” group as well as the strange things coming out of Inspector Strooband’s office, most, if not all, shelters should be shut down.
As for a model of an ideal shelter, I’d point to Best Friends. And if only people cared as much about the animals they mindlessly eat as they about the sensational accusations and media stunts coming from the OSPCA.
I have read your blog and comments with a great deal of interest as I was an active volunteer at the same shelter for about 12 years until 2008 and I saw a lot of changes. All my cats are rescues and have disablities or health issues, but they still have the right to a good life. Some came from the shelter before the emergency fund was set up. The important thing is their quality of life and they adjusted well to having three legs or one eye or no tail,etc. I am grateful that we do have euthanasia to alleviate suffering but it should not be used simply as population control.
My own feeling with cats is there should be more education regarding spaying and neutering and that it should be available at low cost. Farmers and rural residents are always having cats dropped off and often the shelters will not take them. The only way to stop the huge numbers going into shelters or being unwanted is by preventing their birth.
I have no personal knowledge of the THS nor its politics, but it is the animals who ultimately suffer.
Post a Comment