Brampton Animal Control wins suckage of the year award

(h/t Ian)

From Brampton Guardian, which I must commend for doing such an excellent job covering this issue, Dog seizures not an isolated case:

Brittany and Rambo are safely home once again, but The Brampton Guardian has learned this isn’t the first time a previously legally licensed dog has been seized from a Brampton home without a warrant, and owner-offered proof that they are not “pitbulls” rejected by city animal shelter workers.

Rocsi, Ruckus and Missus were three dogs seized from two separate families in the past year, and all three ended up in adoptive homes in Newfoundland. Their owners argue the dogs were not pitbulls, they were mixed-breed mutts, but they were never given a chance to prove it and they didn’t have the resources to battle the city in court.

Thank goodness Rui Branco had the wherewithal and the finances to fight the Brampton AC's threats to kill Rambo and Brittany. It's pretty obvious now that this despicable behaviour on the part of BAC has been going on a long while and like a dog that learns to shit in the house and hasn't been shown otherwise, it's become self reinforcing.

One month later, a note appeared taped to Crocker’s door from an ACO (the same ACO who seized Brittany) asking for a spay date, according to Crocker. He had made an appointment, for April, but a telephone call from Shields revealed that wasn’t soon enough, Crocker said.

That’s when Crocker’s mother dropped into the shelter to complain about the tone of the telephone conversation, which she said was confrontational. Within 24 hours, thedogs were seized by police, who accompanied Shields to the door.

“It just seemed to become personal,” Gail Crocker said.

There was no warrant, she added.

“They forcibly took them right off my front porch. Right out of my arms,” she said.

“It was crazy.”

A while ago, I was wondering if the ones who subject others to this anguish were just mindless bureaucrats but now I'm beginning to wonder if they're plain malicious and get off on the power trip of being able to invade people's homes and tear apart their families.

“She was so good. She was the best dog ever,” Gail Crocker said. “There was never any complaint about aggression, or running or charging or biting anyone.”

They were told the dogs would be “put down” if the Crockers did not find a home for them out of province, Gail Crocker said.

Jamie Lowery, the city’s commissioner of community services, defends the actions of BAC by blaming it all on the provincial legislation.

“It’s not the city, it’s the legislation,” he said. “That is clearly the biggest problem we have. That (DOLA) is very vague and ambiguous. It speaks to certain breeds, but it also brings into question about characteristics, so we are charged with (trying) to enforce or interpret the legislation."

And Lowery is right. DOLA is open to interpretation which means that if an animal control officer doesn't want to be a jerk about it, he doesn't have to be. On the other hand, these open ended laws also give stormtrooper wannabes a lot of power to terrorize families.

“I think the net that we do cast is the net of reasonableness and that is, driven by complaints, and driven by the understanding that we as a municipality have some legal obligations to the community with respect to the DOLA legislation. That really is, from my point of view, as commissioner, the bottom line, protecting the community and taking reasonable steps.”

This guy thinks that costing Rui Branco $20000 in legal fees to save his dog's life after it was seized from his home without warrant falls within a "net of reasonableness"?

This guy thinks that taking dogs from their owners and forcing the families to pay shipping costs to exile their pets to other provinces or else the pets face death falls within a "net of reasonableness"?

I think someone is mistaking a net of reasonableness with a sac of bullshit.