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.)
