'The person who did this was cruel and will likely do it again and could do it to a person next time.'
Well, he has killed someone already. Does that count?
Shocking Animal Abuse.
Windsor man, 51, charged in severe dog-abuse case
Update (10-09-20):
From Windsor man jailed for cruelty after strapping condom on dog:
Anjalo Abeywickrema didn’t know what to do with his new dog, Tyson, a three-year-old black Lab mix that urinated and “humped everything” in his house. So he placed a condom on his dog’s penis and secured it with rubber tubing.
Showing posts with label abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abuse. Show all posts
Friday, May 14, 2010
Monday, October 5, 2009
Goodbye Phoenix and a prayer
From the Humane Society of Durham Region:
On October 2, 2009 Phoenix passed away peacefully, surrounded by the people who loved him most. In the two days prior he had stopped wanting to eat, spent most of his time sleeping and showed little interest in the things that had been giving him joy.
At his scheduled vet appointment on Friday it was decided that the time had come to put him down. His foster parents Tracy and Mike, Debby Houghton the investigator on his case and Ruby Richards, the shelter manager were all with him at the end giving him hugs and kisses.
Special thanks go to the clinic staff who spent so much time working with him and who were in tears at his passing. Thanks also go to the public for all of their support for him during the past few months.
Thanks also to all the media for their help in getting his story out to the public.
We are still looking for leads in his case. If anyone has anything that might be pertinent to this case please call Debby Houghton at 905-433-2022 ext. 2.
Phoenix deserves a thousand tears but do we have tears enough for the thousands of other dogs that have died and will die from the neglect and abuse of their owners, from the atrocious dog killing laws of this province, from puppy millers and mercenary backyard breeders, from hoarders and other well-intentioned psychotics, from medical experimentation in research facilities and veterinary schools, from gun shot wounds and stab wounds and gasoline burns and breaking of bones and dragging behind cars, from being thrown out of windows and hit with hammers and fed poison and scalded with boiling water, and perhaps worst of all, allowed to fade and then die alone in a cage?
There is a Pit Bull at animal services right now who has colon cancer and shits puddles of blood every day in his kennel. It is on pain killers. The owner doesn't care or doesn't know or maybe just doesn't have the resources or the wherewithal to take care of the dog properly. It doesn't matter. The dog is neglected. The dog is sick. The dog should be euthanized but the rules say no, not yet, there has to be a waiting period, a few more days.
The dog stares at me from behind its bars and I can barely look at it as I pass it by to take out the other dogs. This dog, looking out, hoping for a moment of attention of concern of respite of tenderness of companionship and at the same time there is mistrust in his eyes, a fierceness that might lash out. And who can blame it, given these conditions at the end of its life. This dog waits for salvation and the only thing that will save this dog is death. Will someone mourn the loss of it, it's last days of lonely suffering before a meaningless end?
There are thousands of unwanted dogs of all breeds and ages in this province who will die hard deaths and who cries for them?
When we lament the loss of Phoenix, let us also give a thought to the all the others who die unknown, unloved and in silence.
On October 2, 2009 Phoenix passed away peacefully, surrounded by the people who loved him most. In the two days prior he had stopped wanting to eat, spent most of his time sleeping and showed little interest in the things that had been giving him joy.
At his scheduled vet appointment on Friday it was decided that the time had come to put him down. His foster parents Tracy and Mike, Debby Houghton the investigator on his case and Ruby Richards, the shelter manager were all with him at the end giving him hugs and kisses.
Special thanks go to the clinic staff who spent so much time working with him and who were in tears at his passing. Thanks also go to the public for all of their support for him during the past few months.
Thanks also to all the media for their help in getting his story out to the public.
We are still looking for leads in his case. If anyone has anything that might be pertinent to this case please call Debby Houghton at 905-433-2022 ext. 2.
Phoenix deserves a thousand tears but do we have tears enough for the thousands of other dogs that have died and will die from the neglect and abuse of their owners, from the atrocious dog killing laws of this province, from puppy millers and mercenary backyard breeders, from hoarders and other well-intentioned psychotics, from medical experimentation in research facilities and veterinary schools, from gun shot wounds and stab wounds and gasoline burns and breaking of bones and dragging behind cars, from being thrown out of windows and hit with hammers and fed poison and scalded with boiling water, and perhaps worst of all, allowed to fade and then die alone in a cage?
There is a Pit Bull at animal services right now who has colon cancer and shits puddles of blood every day in his kennel. It is on pain killers. The owner doesn't care or doesn't know or maybe just doesn't have the resources or the wherewithal to take care of the dog properly. It doesn't matter. The dog is neglected. The dog is sick. The dog should be euthanized but the rules say no, not yet, there has to be a waiting period, a few more days.
The dog stares at me from behind its bars and I can barely look at it as I pass it by to take out the other dogs. This dog, looking out, hoping for a moment of attention of concern of respite of tenderness of companionship and at the same time there is mistrust in his eyes, a fierceness that might lash out. And who can blame it, given these conditions at the end of its life. This dog waits for salvation and the only thing that will save this dog is death. Will someone mourn the loss of it, it's last days of lonely suffering before a meaningless end?
There are thousands of unwanted dogs of all breeds and ages in this province who will die hard deaths and who cries for them?
When we lament the loss of Phoenix, let us also give a thought to the all the others who die unknown, unloved and in silence.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Phoenix finds a home
From Humane Society of Durham Region:
Phoenix is now stable enough to be placed into a foster home, we have chosen a really wonderful foster home for him and he will go home Wednesday, Sept 9, 3009!
The foster parents are prepared to care for him until the end at which point with consultations with the foster home and veterinarians who are treating him will make the decision when it is the right time.
There is nothing more noble than giving a terminally ill dog a home. The financial costs may be high but more significantly, giving one's heart over to a life so fleeting must surely be the essence of charity.
Thanks to all the people who have taken in these battered, sick or old dogs who otherwise would never have experienced being welcomed into the arms of a good family and who never would have known a day of kindness. There may be no such thing as a good death but at least through the grace of these good people, these dogs are given a few moments of a good life.
Phoenix is now stable enough to be placed into a foster home, we have chosen a really wonderful foster home for him and he will go home Wednesday, Sept 9, 3009!
The foster parents are prepared to care for him until the end at which point with consultations with the foster home and veterinarians who are treating him will make the decision when it is the right time.
There is nothing more noble than giving a terminally ill dog a home. The financial costs may be high but more significantly, giving one's heart over to a life so fleeting must surely be the essence of charity.
Thanks to all the people who have taken in these battered, sick or old dogs who otherwise would never have experienced being welcomed into the arms of a good family and who never would have known a day of kindness. There may be no such thing as a good death but at least through the grace of these good people, these dogs are given a few moments of a good life.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Good news for Phoenix (new pics)
Phoenix's tongue cancer is apparently treatable as is his skin condition.
From The Star:
Medical tests conducted on Phoenix, a severely neglected male chow discovered last Sunday night in Courtice, show that the dog has treatable cancer.
... and ...
Phoenix's skin condition has since been diagnosed and doctors believe it should respond well to medical treatment.
Update pic Aug.26 from Humane Society of Durham Region. Lovely colouring:
Continued here.
From The Star:
Medical tests conducted on Phoenix, a severely neglected male chow discovered last Sunday night in Courtice, show that the dog has treatable cancer.
... and ...
Phoenix's skin condition has since been diagnosed and doctors believe it should respond well to medical treatment.
Update pic Aug.26 from Humane Society of Durham Region. Lovely colouring:
Continued here.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Phoenix video
Warning: graphic
From The Toronto Star:
I'm not religious but this makes me want to pray.
Phoenix is still currently under watch at the Humane Society of Durham Region.
(h/t Borderjack) Reward now at $3700 for information leading to the conviction of Phoenix's ex-owner.
Update: Reward now at $5050.
More here.
From The Toronto Star:
I'm not religious but this makes me want to pray.
Phoenix is still currently under watch at the Humane Society of Durham Region.
(h/t Borderjack) Reward now at $3700 for information leading to the conviction of Phoenix's ex-owner.
Update: Reward now at $5050.
More here.
Chow neglect in Clarington
From The Toronto Star, Neglected dog "worst ever seen":
Animal cruelty investigators aren't sure if a shockingly neglected dog found in Clarington, east of Oshawa, will survive and are offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of its owner.
Other considered titles for this post:
Why we are doomed
Someone needs their kumquats ripped off
I'll throw in another $100 for the tar and feathers
Lynch mob sign up here
Sometimes it's hard not to let the anger boil over, but really, what's important is saving the dog. Everything else is secondary.
Update: Looks like the reward's been upped to $1500.
"He's in horrific condition and in a lot of pain. It's pretty bad," animal cruelty investigator, Debby Houghton, said.
"We see a lot of terrible things ... I've been doing this a long time and this particular case is quite disturbing."
Update 2: (h/t Biscuit) Reward is now at $2500. Please note that there are some pretty graphic photos if you click on the link.
Update 3: Reward at $2600. Video and update here.
Animal cruelty investigators aren't sure if a shockingly neglected dog found in Clarington, east of Oshawa, will survive and are offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of its owner.
Other considered titles for this post:
Why we are doomed
Someone needs their kumquats ripped off
I'll throw in another $100 for the tar and feathers
Lynch mob sign up here
Sometimes it's hard not to let the anger boil over, but really, what's important is saving the dog. Everything else is secondary.
Update: Looks like the reward's been upped to $1500.
"He's in horrific condition and in a lot of pain. It's pretty bad," animal cruelty investigator, Debby Houghton, said.
"We see a lot of terrible things ... I've been doing this a long time and this particular case is quite disturbing."
Update 2: (h/t Biscuit) Reward is now at $2500. Please note that there are some pretty graphic photos if you click on the link.
Update 3: Reward at $2600. Video and update here.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Mark Holland and animal cruelty law
(h/t to redstarcafe for this)
Is Mark Holland the only MP speaking up for animal cruelty laws with teeth? He's the MP for Ajax-Pickering and for five years now, he's been trying to get our animal cruelty laws updated.
From The Mark Holland Update: Provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with animal cruelty have changed very little since 1892 and they are extremely antiquated. This has often made it difficult to obtain convictions against animal abusers, and when convictions are obtained, the penalties are often too light.
My Bill C-373 is a comprehensive bill that not only increases penalties, but also closes off the many loopholes that allow animal abusers to walk away scot-free. There's little sense increasing penalties if you can't convict people. In fact, currently only one quarter of 1% of animal cruelty complaints actually result in conviction!
You may recall that last spring, there were two competing animal cruelty bills being discussed in the media. I know. Two is way too complicated for mass consumption and already the fleeting public attention span was wavering over to Paris' next up skirt underwear photo. And of course that was the strategy behind the introduction of the weaker than water S-213 bill by Senator John Bryden to counter Mark Holland's C-373.
It was a strategy well played because S-213 (name changed to S-203. Why? Why not?) was quickly passed while C-373 sat in a Parliamentary wannabe law line-up never to see the light of day.
Just to give you idea of which bill had the strength to protect animals against cruelty and which bill was a wet noodle: the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) supported Mark Holland's C-373. Hunters supported S-213.
According to Holland, however, not even hunters should have been worried about C-373.
In particular, they object to part of C-373 that would make it an offence to kill an animal, or allow it to be killed, “brutally or viciously.” Nothing in my bill would interfere with responsible hunters who use guns or bows in a lawful manner, so it’s a mystery to me why these groups feel the need to kill animals “brutally or viciously.”
So now we're stuck with S-213 which is basically the same as the old animal cruelty bill except with stiffer penalties, but as Holland said, what's the use of stiffer penalties if you can't get convictions?
Some examples of the utter failure of the current law are here but for a hit-yer-head-against-a-wall look at how it plays out in court, there's this case, summarized from Pet-Abuse.Com (and remember, this is a "successful" example of the one quarter of 1% that resulted in convictions):
October 8, 2006
Didsbury, Alberta
A 19-year-old girl found a female collie-Lab cross, still alive but lying in a pool of blood in the street. Her four legs were bound together with duct tape, a bag was covering her head and there was a tow rope around her neck. It appeared she had been dragged behind a vehicle.
The veterinarian called to the scene said the rope around her neck was so tight it caused one of her eyes to pop out. Her neck, back and pelvis were also broken.
The vet euthanized the dog immediately.
A 100-metre-long blood trail, where she had been dragged behind a vehicle, led to a home where arrests were later made.
Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, and a 17-year-old youth, on October 8, have been charged under the Criminal Code with injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, as well as obstructing police.
Adults convicted of the cruelty charge could face a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine and/or six months in jail.
November 6, 2006 - Brandon Sun
A young man accused of beating his family dog and then dragging it behind a car was confronted by at least 50 people and their pets Monday as he made his first court appearance.
The crowd threw threats and profanities at Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, as he tried to leave the courthouse in the central Alberta community of Didsbury. Haskett and a 17-year-old youth, who can't be named due to his age, are charged with injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.
"We've received hundreds, maybe thousands, of messages from people who are just outraged at the reports," said Tim Battle with the Alberta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The case is in the early stages and none of the charges has been proven.
When an animal is found mistreated, it inevitably raises questions about the people who do such things.
Battle and Randy Lockwood, a senior vice-president with the American SPCA, told resource officers at a safe schools conference Monday in Edmonton that cruelty to animals by young students can be an important warning sign of future violent behaviour against people.
People who intentionally hurt animals are four to five times more likely to commit violent crimes than the general population, Lockwood said.
He also said most offenders start abusing animals when they are still children around the ages of seven or eight.
"It gives the individual an opportunity to experience gaining a sense of power and control through the suffering of others. And if it has no consequences, it's certainly likely to be repeated."
November 23, 2006 - CBC
A young Didsbury man accused of animal cruelty in the dragging death of a dog stayed away from the local courthouse Wednesday on the advice of his lawyer.
"I was concerned for his safety to be honest with you," lawyer Mark Takada said of Daniel Haskett,19, who was surrounded by jeering protesters at his first court appearance.
The two accused aren't the "sadistic brutes" they've been made out to be, Takada said.
The dog was initially accidentally hit by a vehicle, he said. Takada says his client is not responsible for dragging the dog behind a car.
December 11, 2006 - AZ Central
A central Alberta man has pleaded not guilty to a charge of animal cruelty in a case that has shocked much of the province.
Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, was accused of dragging his family's pet to its death behind a car.
Haskett's trial is scheduled for May 23.
April 18, 2007 - CNews
A 17-year-old Alberta youth has pleaded guilty in a horrific case of animal abuse. The youth is also charged with causing death or injury to an animal, a charge that will be dealt with May 10.
An animal lover from Didsbury collected nearly 100,000 signatures on a petition calling on the federal government to strengthen federal animal cruelty laws.
May 23, 2007 - CBC
A 19-year-old in Didsbury, Alta., entered a surprise guilty plea Wednesday on a charge of willfully causing injury to an animal, after a dog was dragged behind a car last fall and found barely alive.
Daniel Haskett had been scheduled to begin trial in Didsbury on Wednesday after entering a plea of not guilty in December 2006.
Police said the dog was Haskett's family pet.
Haskett has been ordered to undergo a psychological assessment before a sentencing hearing on Aug. 1.
The 17-year-old has already been sentenced to house arrest and probation.
May 23, 2007 - Globe and Mail
According to an agreed statement of facts, the chain of events that led to Daisy Duke's death began last October when the teen accidentally drove over the dog after visiting with Mr. Haskett.
Fearing that he would lose his driver's licence and get in trouble from Mr. Haskett's mother, the teen and Mr. Haskett devised a plan to kill the dog and pretend that she had run away.
After various attempts to kill Daisy failed, the two decided to drag the dog out of town to dispose of the body.
Both confessed to not seeking help or checking to see if the dog was still alive.
The teen's attempt to drag Daisy out of town failed when he ran over the dog a second time and snapped the tow rope.
May 10, 2007 - CBC News
A central Alberta man who pleaded guilty in a horrific case of animal abuse involving a pet dog has been sentenced to three months of house arrest followed by two years of probation. The young man will also have to abide by a curfew for nine months after his house arrest is up and do 240 hours of community service.
The young man from Didsbury, Alta., was less than three weeks away from his 18th birthday when he became involved in what his defence lawyer told court was a "poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt."
August 1, 2007 - CNews
A 10-week delay in the sentencing of a central Alberta man who admitted to fatally torturing his mother's dog left animal rights activists disappointed but determined to see the case through to its conclusion.
Incomplete psychological and pre-sentencing reports means the case, which sent shock waves across Canada, will not be closed until Oct. 17 - a little more than a year after Daisy was found barely alive in an intersection of this quiet farming town.
In May, Haskett pleaded guilty to one count of animal cruelty and one count of obstruction of justice for initially lying to police over his involvement in the crime.
In an agreed statement of facts, Haskett admitted to dragging the dog and putting a bag over its head after his 17-year-old friend inadvertently ran over the animal and then hit it with a shovel.
October 18, 2007 - Edmonton Sun
Sentencing for an Alberta man who admitted to torturing his mother's dog has been delayed again after his lawyer quit abruptly yesterday over ethical and professional concerns.
Daniel Haskett, 20, of Didsbury pleaded guilty last spring to one count of animal cruelty and one count of obstruction of justice for initially lying to police about his role in the death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross.
Haskett has until Nov. 5 to find a new lawyer.
March 14, 2008 - Canada.com
Sentencing of a man charged in a high-profile animal abuse case in Didsbury has been delayed yet again.
Haskett was originally set to be sentenced on Oct. 17, 2007, but his lawyer withdrew on the day of sentencing. The case was then adjourned to April 21 for sentencing.
That date has now been pushed back to June 27 due to a scheduling conflict with Judge Ian Kirkpatrick, officials said Thursday.
June 27, 2008 - The Canadian Press
Daniel Haskett had been scheduled to be sentenced to one count of animal cruelty in the torturous death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross, who was bound and dragged behind a car. But his lawyer surprised provincial court in Didsbury by announcing his client wished to change his plea to not guilty.
As Haskett and his family were escorted away by the RCMP, he turned and lunged at a protester who was yelling obscenities at him and his mother.
Haskett, 20, told court he had lied when he agreed to the facts of the case because he wanted the matter to be over with and people to quit harassing him.
December 20, 2008 - The Barrie Examiner
An Alberta man who tried to kill his family's injured pet dog by binding her with duct tape and dragging her behind a car was sentenced yesterday to 30 days in jail.
Daniel Charles Haskett, 21, will serve his sentence on weekends.
So, house arrest for the unidentified youth and jail on weekends for Daniel Haskett and they only got those sentences because they both pleaded guilty. I have to wonder what would have happened if they had both pleaded not guilty. Would they both have simply joined the 99.75% of accused animal abusers in Canada that are never convicted?
On the other hand, imagine the terror the dog went through when these two lads broke its back, then hit it with a shovel, then tried to suffocate it, then taped up its legs and chained it and dragged it through the streets. Imagine its horror knowing that this was being done by someone it trusted, by someone in its own family. Imagine if this was your dog. How does this extreme suffering equate with three months house arrest for one and weekend jail for the other?
Thank you, Senator John Bryden, for that.
Now, let's look at something that will actually do the job properly.
Again, from The Mark Holland Update:
Animal Cruelty: Bill S-213 versus Bill C-373
Both bills increase penalties to a jail term up to five years and unlimited fines for indictable offenses, and up to 18 months jail and/or a fine up to $10,000 for summary convictions. Both also allow the court to make an order prohibiting an offender from keeping an animal and may require payment of restitution. This is the only common ground between the two bills.
• Bill S-213 leaves in place the dysfunctional term "willful neglect" requiring the court to prove motive for neglecting animals. For example, a farmer who starved his sheep despite repeated warnings was found not guilty because the court couldn't prove he intended to starve them. Bill C-373 instead uses the term "negligent" which is defined as "departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use."
• Bill S-213 leaves in place wording that allows stray and wild animals to be killed for any reason, or even for no reason. Bill C-373 makes it an offence to kill an animal "without a lawful excuse." Under common law and statute law, lawful excuses include hunting, fishing, farming, euthanasia, research, pest control, and protection of life and property.
• Bill S-213 leaves in place wording that allows people to kill animals brutally and viciously if the animal dies immediately. For example, someone who ties an animal to a train track can get off by arguing that the animal died quickly and didn't suffer. Bill C-373 makes it an offence to kill an animal with brutal and or vicious intent, whether or not the animal dies immediately.
• Bill S-213 leaves in place different protections for various animals in an illogical way. For example, cattle are in a class of their own, and wild animals and strays are unprotected for some offences. Bill C-373 protects all vertebrates, owned or unowned. It also adds special protection for law enforcement animals, "Brigadier's Law," something that S-213 also fails to do.
• Bill S-213 fails to define "animal." Bill C-373 defines an animal as a "vertebrate other than a human being."
• Bill S-213 leaves animal cruelty in the section of the criminal code dealing with protection of property. C-373 puts animals in a new section, reflecting the modern view that animals should be protected because they are feeling, sentient beings. This change, however, continues to recognize that many animals, both livestock and pets, are property.
• Bill S-213 does nothing to address training animals to fight other animals or betting on such fights. C-373 prohibits these practices.
The most effective thing you can do to help pass effective animal cruelty legislation is to inform yourself about the issue and the different bills and then share your views with your Member of Parliament. Tell him or her you care about animal cruelty and want to see an effective bill passed. Remember that MPs receive hundreds and hundreds of e-mails a day on many issues. A personal phone call to your MP or a carefully written letter with your address to indicate you are a constituent is more effective than a mass e-mail or a petition, but everything helps.
For more information on how you can help pass effective animal cruelty laws, visit these two sites:
Mark Holland - Animal Issues
Stop Animal Cruelty in Canada with effective legislation
Really. Check 'em out. Please.
Is Mark Holland the only MP speaking up for animal cruelty laws with teeth? He's the MP for Ajax-Pickering and for five years now, he's been trying to get our animal cruelty laws updated.
From The Mark Holland Update: Provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with animal cruelty have changed very little since 1892 and they are extremely antiquated. This has often made it difficult to obtain convictions against animal abusers, and when convictions are obtained, the penalties are often too light.
My Bill C-373 is a comprehensive bill that not only increases penalties, but also closes off the many loopholes that allow animal abusers to walk away scot-free. There's little sense increasing penalties if you can't convict people. In fact, currently only one quarter of 1% of animal cruelty complaints actually result in conviction!
You may recall that last spring, there were two competing animal cruelty bills being discussed in the media. I know. Two is way too complicated for mass consumption and already the fleeting public attention span was wavering over to Paris' next up skirt underwear photo. And of course that was the strategy behind the introduction of the weaker than water S-213 bill by Senator John Bryden to counter Mark Holland's C-373.
It was a strategy well played because S-213 (name changed to S-203. Why? Why not?) was quickly passed while C-373 sat in a Parliamentary wannabe law line-up never to see the light of day.
Just to give you idea of which bill had the strength to protect animals against cruelty and which bill was a wet noodle: the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) supported Mark Holland's C-373. Hunters supported S-213.
According to Holland, however, not even hunters should have been worried about C-373.
In particular, they object to part of C-373 that would make it an offence to kill an animal, or allow it to be killed, “brutally or viciously.” Nothing in my bill would interfere with responsible hunters who use guns or bows in a lawful manner, so it’s a mystery to me why these groups feel the need to kill animals “brutally or viciously.”
So now we're stuck with S-213 which is basically the same as the old animal cruelty bill except with stiffer penalties, but as Holland said, what's the use of stiffer penalties if you can't get convictions?
Some examples of the utter failure of the current law are here but for a hit-yer-head-against-a-wall look at how it plays out in court, there's this case, summarized from Pet-Abuse.Com (and remember, this is a "successful" example of the one quarter of 1% that resulted in convictions):
October 8, 2006Didsbury, Alberta
A 19-year-old girl found a female collie-Lab cross, still alive but lying in a pool of blood in the street. Her four legs were bound together with duct tape, a bag was covering her head and there was a tow rope around her neck. It appeared she had been dragged behind a vehicle.
The veterinarian called to the scene said the rope around her neck was so tight it caused one of her eyes to pop out. Her neck, back and pelvis were also broken.
The vet euthanized the dog immediately.
A 100-metre-long blood trail, where she had been dragged behind a vehicle, led to a home where arrests were later made.
Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, and a 17-year-old youth, on October 8, have been charged under the Criminal Code with injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, as well as obstructing police.
Adults convicted of the cruelty charge could face a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine and/or six months in jail.
November 6, 2006 - Brandon Sun
A young man accused of beating his family dog and then dragging it behind a car was confronted by at least 50 people and their pets Monday as he made his first court appearance.
The crowd threw threats and profanities at Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, as he tried to leave the courthouse in the central Alberta community of Didsbury. Haskett and a 17-year-old youth, who can't be named due to his age, are charged with injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.
"We've received hundreds, maybe thousands, of messages from people who are just outraged at the reports," said Tim Battle with the Alberta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The case is in the early stages and none of the charges has been proven.
When an animal is found mistreated, it inevitably raises questions about the people who do such things.
Battle and Randy Lockwood, a senior vice-president with the American SPCA, told resource officers at a safe schools conference Monday in Edmonton that cruelty to animals by young students can be an important warning sign of future violent behaviour against people.
People who intentionally hurt animals are four to five times more likely to commit violent crimes than the general population, Lockwood said.
He also said most offenders start abusing animals when they are still children around the ages of seven or eight.
"It gives the individual an opportunity to experience gaining a sense of power and control through the suffering of others. And if it has no consequences, it's certainly likely to be repeated."
November 23, 2006 - CBC
A young Didsbury man accused of animal cruelty in the dragging death of a dog stayed away from the local courthouse Wednesday on the advice of his lawyer.
"I was concerned for his safety to be honest with you," lawyer Mark Takada said of Daniel Haskett,19, who was surrounded by jeering protesters at his first court appearance.
The two accused aren't the "sadistic brutes" they've been made out to be, Takada said.
The dog was initially accidentally hit by a vehicle, he said. Takada says his client is not responsible for dragging the dog behind a car.
December 11, 2006 - AZ Central
A central Alberta man has pleaded not guilty to a charge of animal cruelty in a case that has shocked much of the province.
Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, was accused of dragging his family's pet to its death behind a car.
Haskett's trial is scheduled for May 23.
April 18, 2007 - CNews
A 17-year-old Alberta youth has pleaded guilty in a horrific case of animal abuse. The youth is also charged with causing death or injury to an animal, a charge that will be dealt with May 10.
An animal lover from Didsbury collected nearly 100,000 signatures on a petition calling on the federal government to strengthen federal animal cruelty laws.
May 23, 2007 - CBC
A 19-year-old in Didsbury, Alta., entered a surprise guilty plea Wednesday on a charge of willfully causing injury to an animal, after a dog was dragged behind a car last fall and found barely alive.
Daniel Haskett had been scheduled to begin trial in Didsbury on Wednesday after entering a plea of not guilty in December 2006.
Police said the dog was Haskett's family pet.
Haskett has been ordered to undergo a psychological assessment before a sentencing hearing on Aug. 1.
The 17-year-old has already been sentenced to house arrest and probation.
May 23, 2007 - Globe and Mail
According to an agreed statement of facts, the chain of events that led to Daisy Duke's death began last October when the teen accidentally drove over the dog after visiting with Mr. Haskett.
Fearing that he would lose his driver's licence and get in trouble from Mr. Haskett's mother, the teen and Mr. Haskett devised a plan to kill the dog and pretend that she had run away.
After various attempts to kill Daisy failed, the two decided to drag the dog out of town to dispose of the body.
Both confessed to not seeking help or checking to see if the dog was still alive.
The teen's attempt to drag Daisy out of town failed when he ran over the dog a second time and snapped the tow rope.
May 10, 2007 - CBC News
A central Alberta man who pleaded guilty in a horrific case of animal abuse involving a pet dog has been sentenced to three months of house arrest followed by two years of probation. The young man will also have to abide by a curfew for nine months after his house arrest is up and do 240 hours of community service.
The young man from Didsbury, Alta., was less than three weeks away from his 18th birthday when he became involved in what his defence lawyer told court was a "poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt."
August 1, 2007 - CNews
A 10-week delay in the sentencing of a central Alberta man who admitted to fatally torturing his mother's dog left animal rights activists disappointed but determined to see the case through to its conclusion.
Incomplete psychological and pre-sentencing reports means the case, which sent shock waves across Canada, will not be closed until Oct. 17 - a little more than a year after Daisy was found barely alive in an intersection of this quiet farming town.
In May, Haskett pleaded guilty to one count of animal cruelty and one count of obstruction of justice for initially lying to police over his involvement in the crime.
In an agreed statement of facts, Haskett admitted to dragging the dog and putting a bag over its head after his 17-year-old friend inadvertently ran over the animal and then hit it with a shovel.
October 18, 2007 - Edmonton Sun
Sentencing for an Alberta man who admitted to torturing his mother's dog has been delayed again after his lawyer quit abruptly yesterday over ethical and professional concerns.
Daniel Haskett, 20, of Didsbury pleaded guilty last spring to one count of animal cruelty and one count of obstruction of justice for initially lying to police about his role in the death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross.
Haskett has until Nov. 5 to find a new lawyer.
March 14, 2008 - Canada.com
Sentencing of a man charged in a high-profile animal abuse case in Didsbury has been delayed yet again.
Haskett was originally set to be sentenced on Oct. 17, 2007, but his lawyer withdrew on the day of sentencing. The case was then adjourned to April 21 for sentencing.
That date has now been pushed back to June 27 due to a scheduling conflict with Judge Ian Kirkpatrick, officials said Thursday.
June 27, 2008 - The Canadian Press
Daniel Haskett had been scheduled to be sentenced to one count of animal cruelty in the torturous death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross, who was bound and dragged behind a car. But his lawyer surprised provincial court in Didsbury by announcing his client wished to change his plea to not guilty.
As Haskett and his family were escorted away by the RCMP, he turned and lunged at a protester who was yelling obscenities at him and his mother.
Haskett, 20, told court he had lied when he agreed to the facts of the case because he wanted the matter to be over with and people to quit harassing him.
December 20, 2008 - The Barrie Examiner
An Alberta man who tried to kill his family's injured pet dog by binding her with duct tape and dragging her behind a car was sentenced yesterday to 30 days in jail.
Daniel Charles Haskett, 21, will serve his sentence on weekends.
So, house arrest for the unidentified youth and jail on weekends for Daniel Haskett and they only got those sentences because they both pleaded guilty. I have to wonder what would have happened if they had both pleaded not guilty. Would they both have simply joined the 99.75% of accused animal abusers in Canada that are never convicted?
On the other hand, imagine the terror the dog went through when these two lads broke its back, then hit it with a shovel, then tried to suffocate it, then taped up its legs and chained it and dragged it through the streets. Imagine its horror knowing that this was being done by someone it trusted, by someone in its own family. Imagine if this was your dog. How does this extreme suffering equate with three months house arrest for one and weekend jail for the other?
Thank you, Senator John Bryden, for that.
Now, let's look at something that will actually do the job properly.
Again, from The Mark Holland Update:
Animal Cruelty: Bill S-213 versus Bill C-373
Both bills increase penalties to a jail term up to five years and unlimited fines for indictable offenses, and up to 18 months jail and/or a fine up to $10,000 for summary convictions. Both also allow the court to make an order prohibiting an offender from keeping an animal and may require payment of restitution. This is the only common ground between the two bills.
• Bill S-213 leaves in place the dysfunctional term "willful neglect" requiring the court to prove motive for neglecting animals. For example, a farmer who starved his sheep despite repeated warnings was found not guilty because the court couldn't prove he intended to starve them. Bill C-373 instead uses the term "negligent" which is defined as "departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use."
• Bill S-213 leaves in place wording that allows stray and wild animals to be killed for any reason, or even for no reason. Bill C-373 makes it an offence to kill an animal "without a lawful excuse." Under common law and statute law, lawful excuses include hunting, fishing, farming, euthanasia, research, pest control, and protection of life and property.
• Bill S-213 leaves in place wording that allows people to kill animals brutally and viciously if the animal dies immediately. For example, someone who ties an animal to a train track can get off by arguing that the animal died quickly and didn't suffer. Bill C-373 makes it an offence to kill an animal with brutal and or vicious intent, whether or not the animal dies immediately.
• Bill S-213 leaves in place different protections for various animals in an illogical way. For example, cattle are in a class of their own, and wild animals and strays are unprotected for some offences. Bill C-373 protects all vertebrates, owned or unowned. It also adds special protection for law enforcement animals, "Brigadier's Law," something that S-213 also fails to do.
• Bill S-213 fails to define "animal." Bill C-373 defines an animal as a "vertebrate other than a human being."
• Bill S-213 leaves animal cruelty in the section of the criminal code dealing with protection of property. C-373 puts animals in a new section, reflecting the modern view that animals should be protected because they are feeling, sentient beings. This change, however, continues to recognize that many animals, both livestock and pets, are property.
• Bill S-213 does nothing to address training animals to fight other animals or betting on such fights. C-373 prohibits these practices.
The most effective thing you can do to help pass effective animal cruelty legislation is to inform yourself about the issue and the different bills and then share your views with your Member of Parliament. Tell him or her you care about animal cruelty and want to see an effective bill passed. Remember that MPs receive hundreds and hundreds of e-mails a day on many issues. A personal phone call to your MP or a carefully written letter with your address to indicate you are a constituent is more effective than a mass e-mail or a petition, but everything helps.
For more information on how you can help pass effective animal cruelty laws, visit these two sites:
Mark Holland - Animal Issues
Stop Animal Cruelty in Canada with effective legislation
Really. Check 'em out. Please.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The caregiver
Bob Tailed Catahoula. Rescued from hoarder and will be sent to Catahoula rescue.Hi. Hello? Yeah, it's me. No, no, I'm fine. Fuck yeah. Everything's fine. Totally. Yeah. Yeah. Fuck yeah. That's all good. Fine. No. No. Yeah, I've been thinking about it. No. Yeah, I know we talked about it. Yeah. Sure. Well, I've been thinking that if I talk to the fuckin landlord. I know. I know. Fuck, I know.
What? The Yorkie? The Yorkie's fine. It had that fuckin episode but it's fine now. Yeah, totally. The Husky's good too. I know. I know. Look, I fuckin know it killed the other one but I'm keeping it away now. It's on its own. No, not in the house. It's in the storage shed. Yeah. No, fuck, of course not. It's in a crate. I don't know. Fuck I don't know. Fuck like, maybe thirty. Like maybe there's thirty out there. The ones in the shed are in crates. I don't know. I don't count them. How should I know? No one else is going to take care of them. What am I supposed to fuckin do?
No. No, you can't have any of them. Because I don't know what you're going to do them, that's why. I don't know that. I don't fuckin know that. That's what you say but I don't know. How am I supposed to know? I don't know what you do. Yeah, so you say.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. Inside the house? I don't know. I don't know. Fuck I don't count them. No. Maybe more. No. No. Yeah, maybe that. Maybe forty. Well, the ones inside aren't in cages. They just walk around so I don't fuckin know. Yeah, the whole house. Yeah, except the big bedroom. Why? Fuck, because the cats are in there. What do you think? Because the fuckin dogs will fuckin kill the fuckin cats if I let them out, what do you think? I don't know. Fuck they're hiding most of the time. I don't know. Yeah, maybe twenty. Yeah maybe. More. Maybe.
Puppies? No. No more puppies. I haven't bred anymore. No, not since that fuckin episode. I don't know. Maybe the fuckin Yorkie had 'em for a night. Yeah, probably just a night. Yeah, she was trying to fuckin nurse them. Fuck yeah. Fuckin psycho. I don't know. All at once. One at a time. I don't know. I didn't see it. Because there's too many fuckin dogs here that's why! There's too many fuckin dogs! But what am I supposed to do? Fuckin tell me. You give me a fuckin plan.
No. No. No. I got to talk to the fuckin guy. If I talk to him, he'll let me stay. I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure. Then it'll be okay. Yeah, how do you know? You don't know. I've been here for years. He's not going to fuckin kick me out. I just need to talk to him. No. No. I don't need a fuckin contingency plan. I'm fine. They'll be fine. Fuck.
What would you do with them? Yeah. How do you know? How do you know? Do you know these fuckin fosters? How do you know they'll fuckin take care of my dogs? What if they, what if they, what if they fuckin abuse them?
No, you can't have the Husky. No you can't have him. Yeah, I know. I hate the fucker. I know. Because he killed my ... . No, you can't have him. Because he was my sister's favorite. He was her dog before she ... No, I have to keep him. I know he's in a cage. I have to keep him.
The Yorkie? No ... I ... maybe. Maybe the Yorkie. No, the puppies are gone. I buried them. Which one? It was the Chihuahua. They belonged to the Chihuahua, to Lucy. Yeah, the Yorkie took 'em. I don't know. I don't know. I guess she just took 'em. One at a time, I guess. I don't know. Yeah, she must've shook 'em. She killed 'em all. Yeah, all of them. Yeah, then she fuckin brought them back to her bed and she fuckin tried to nurse them. Yeah. I saw her, trying to nurse those fuckin dead puppies. I know. I know. Maybe. Maybe you can take her. I've got too many fuckin dogs here. I don't know. I don't fuckin know, okay? How many? I don't fuckin know, okay? I don't know.
And if you take them, then what am I going to fuckin do? Eh? Then what am I going to fuckin do?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
We don't have caves but we do have dumpsters
Toronto Police photoThankfully, the Gido Washa cave is a world away but someone in North York is making do with a dumpster. Sometime in the last day or two, someone put a Lhasa Apso puppy into a box, dropped it into a plastic bag, tied up the bag and threw it into a dumpster up by Yonge and Finch. Here's the article from The Star: Janitor finds 4-month-old pup in condo dumpster
This little guy has been brought to Toronto Animal Services North and is presently listed here under the Lost section with the name Charlie. TAS reports that he's currently healthy and happy.
I somehow doubt the owner will show up, so after holding Charlie for 7 days, he'll be up for adoption unless the police decide they need TAS to keep Charlie longer for their investigation. I hope this doesn't drag out. Charlie deserves a proper home sooner than later.
Continued here.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Animals in film
Maybe you've seen this already but last year, CBC's The Fifth Estate aired "Cruel Camera", a fascinating behind the scenes look at how animals are treated by the film industry and it's far from being all treats and cuddles. This investigative report doesn't have much to do directly with dogs but it does deal with how animals in general are manipulated and sometimes abused on screen for our viewing pleasure. It also ties in with what I'm going to post tomorrow (if I can get around to finishing the piece) about the questionable practice of staging acts of animal cruelty on video as an effective funding incentive used by certain animal rights organizations.
You can watch the whole Fifth Estate's "Cruel Camera" here. Parts of it are sad but nothing too graphic. This program also ties in with the recent news of the "domesticated" chimp who went on a rampage, mauled a person and was eventually shot by police.
You can watch the whole Fifth Estate's "Cruel Camera" here. Parts of it are sad but nothing too graphic. This program also ties in with the recent news of the "domesticated" chimp who went on a rampage, mauled a person and was eventually shot by police.
Monday, November 24, 2008
POS
Vick admits to hanging his dogs.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3718304
The report also states in mid-April of 2007, Vick, Peace and Phillips hung approximately three dogs who did not perform well in a "rolling session," which indicates the readiness of a dog to fight. According to the report, the three men hung the dogs "by placing a nylon cord over a 2 X 4 that was nailed to two trees located next to the big shed. They also drowned approximately three dogs by putting the dogs' heads in a five gallon bucket of water."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3718304
Friday, November 21, 2008
An ear for an ear
From The Windsor Star: Rony Salman, the Windsor man who cut his dog's ears off gets his own ear bitten off in jail.
A.K. abuser loses ear in jail fight bite
As Nelson Muntz from the Simpson's would say ... ha ha.
A.K. abuser loses ear in jail fight bite
As Nelson Muntz from the Simpson's would say ... ha ha.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
And the audience was no better
Every so often, as I surf the internet, I come across something which I consider to be rock bottom with respect to human behaviour. But then inevitably something worse comes along.
There is an on-line petition going round condemning the art of a Costa Rican artist, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc. It's gained so much internet momentum, I find it strange this hasn't been more widely reported in the news up here in Canada.
Supposedly, Guiller, as part of an art exhibit in Managua last year, tied a street dog to the wall of a gallery and left it there for several days without food or water so that people could watch it starve to death - which it did. Or maybe not, because now that Gui has gotten so much hate mail, he's changed his story to say that the dog was actually fed and eventually escaped from the gallery.
In Gu's original statements, he said the piece was dedicated to some crack addict who was mauled to death by a couple of guard dogs after said addict trespassed on private property. Post hate mail, the purpose of the exhibit was changed to try to deflect some of the worldwide condemnation being heaped at Gu's stinky feet. Now the exhibit was apparently meant to highlight the plight of starving, stray dogs, Gu's point being that if the dog was starving outside, no one would have batted an eye but by bringing it into a gallery, the world notices.
Oh, I get it. He was trying to help starving dogs. So where was the donations box?
It's impossible to figure out what is true and what is not. There are lots of pictures floating around of an emaciated, but still alive, dog tied to a gallery wall while young art hipsters look on sipping fancy cocktails. So, at a bare minimum, it seems the exhibit did take place(I'm not posting links to any pictures because they make me ill. If you want to see them, just do a search). The veracity of everything else about the exhibit found on the internet, like most everything on the internet, is open to conjecture.
Whether or not Gu is one sick fuck is debateable. Well, no, it's not debateable. He is a sick fuck but to what rancid depth is he a sick fuck? Anyone who exploits a starving dog for art, regardless of whether or not it was fed and "escaped", regardless of his manufactured intentions, is soulless. As for his few supporters who suggest that Gu has done a service by bringing the world's attention to the stray dog situation in Latin America by chaining and starving a dog to death in a gallery, I can only hope that they don't decide to help out any hungry children.
There is an on-line petition going round condemning the art of a Costa Rican artist, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc. It's gained so much internet momentum, I find it strange this hasn't been more widely reported in the news up here in Canada.
Supposedly, Guiller, as part of an art exhibit in Managua last year, tied a street dog to the wall of a gallery and left it there for several days without food or water so that people could watch it starve to death - which it did. Or maybe not, because now that Gui has gotten so much hate mail, he's changed his story to say that the dog was actually fed and eventually escaped from the gallery.
In Gu's original statements, he said the piece was dedicated to some crack addict who was mauled to death by a couple of guard dogs after said addict trespassed on private property. Post hate mail, the purpose of the exhibit was changed to try to deflect some of the worldwide condemnation being heaped at Gu's stinky feet. Now the exhibit was apparently meant to highlight the plight of starving, stray dogs, Gu's point being that if the dog was starving outside, no one would have batted an eye but by bringing it into a gallery, the world notices.
Oh, I get it. He was trying to help starving dogs. So where was the donations box?
It's impossible to figure out what is true and what is not. There are lots of pictures floating around of an emaciated, but still alive, dog tied to a gallery wall while young art hipsters look on sipping fancy cocktails. So, at a bare minimum, it seems the exhibit did take place(I'm not posting links to any pictures because they make me ill. If you want to see them, just do a search). The veracity of everything else about the exhibit found on the internet, like most everything on the internet, is open to conjecture.
Whether or not Gu is one sick fuck is debateable. Well, no, it's not debateable. He is a sick fuck but to what rancid depth is he a sick fuck? Anyone who exploits a starving dog for art, regardless of whether or not it was fed and "escaped", regardless of his manufactured intentions, is soulless. As for his few supporters who suggest that Gu has done a service by bringing the world's attention to the stray dog situation in Latin America by chaining and starving a dog to death in a gallery, I can only hope that they don't decide to help out any hungry children.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Sin and forgiveness
When I got home, Rocky and Stella greeted me at the door with their usual overjoyed reception despite the fact that I was several hours late with their dinner and their evening walk. How many people would still be even the least bit hospitable to someone three hours late? I sure wouldn't be. In fact, three hours late without a death in the family excuse generally means the person's contact info gets deleted from my address book.
But in dogs, we get a warm reception no matter what the time, no matter what the excuse. Over the past 10000 or so years, we've molded their personalities to adore us. We are their life and their salvation. To the core of their being, dogs need us and want to be with us and will often go out of their way to please us. They will even risk their physical well-being for us. No other species would ever do such a thing for us, certainly not with such consistency.
So then why do we so consistently abandon them, abuse them, kill them?
Sammy was brought into Toronto Animal Services after her previous owner scalded her with boiling water.
In the grand scheme of things, some scalded flesh on an animal is no big deal. They are for us to do as we please and the evil humans do is boundless. Here's the thing, though. With any other animal, including most human ones I'm sure, the wounds from such experiences would create the deepest psychological trauma making it almost impossible to trust again but on Sammy, the wounds went not much deeper than the flesh. After who knows how many years of severe abuse, Sammy still trusts and puts her faith in people. She is a little reticent with strangers at first but she quickly warms to them and gives herself over to them. Not all dogs recover to such a degree but the vast majority do. The vast majority are ultimately forgiving.
In the grand scheme of things, some scalded flesh on an animal is no big deal. They are for us to do as we please and the evil humans do is boundless. Here's the thing, though. With any other animal, including most human ones I'm sure, the wounds from such experiences would create the deepest psychological trauma making it almost impossible to trust again but on Sammy, the wounds went not much deeper than the flesh. After who knows how many years of severe abuse, Sammy still trusts and puts her faith in people. She is a little reticent with strangers at first but she quickly warms to them and gives herself over to them. Not all dogs recover to such a degree but the vast majority do. The vast majority are ultimately forgiving.Sammy has been adopted out to a woman who will look after her and I am sure she will love Sammy and Sammy will forget her past woes and love the woman back. Hers is a happy ending.
The evil humans do is boundless but the forgiveness in dogs is equal to the task.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
