|
|
This is a transcribed version of a very important radio interview by CBC Yukon's Nancy Thomson, about the Dawson City-area dog shootings in April of 2006. The interview was conducted on June 27, 2006. It is unfortunate that CBC does not have a very good policy about archiving interviews which may be of great lasting importance to its audience - items that quickly disappear into the ether. Another criticism of CBC nationally, is that there are many links on the various CBC web sites, for news stories that have expired, and cannot be read, unless I presume, one goes through a certain amount of bureaucracy to obtain them. America's National Public Radio, by comparison, is much better at archiving radio interviews. This was an excellent and very moving interview conducted by Ms. Thomson. It should be specially noted that, at the end of the interview, Ms. Thomson makes a broad statement that Yukon mushers do cull/kill dogs. CBC Yukon 'Lunch Break' Interview Intro (Nancy Thomson): RCMP in Dawson City are continuing their investigation of a man who shot 50 of his dogs last spring. The case has shocked people who work with the Dawson Humane Society. Aedes Scheer is past president and a long time member of the society. She's on the line now. Thomson: This sounds like a horrific case. Can you give us a bit of the history here? Scheer: Sure. In late April, 2005, the Humane Society received some barking complaints and we referred these on to the municipal bylaw officer, but then, by May the complaints had changed into complaints about the poor state of the dogs and how they were kept, and we counted 43 dogs at that point. The recommendation from the veterinarian was to seize all 43 dogs [but] this posed a logistical nightmare for us as a very small humane society. How are we to house and feed these animals? We just didn't have the resources, the money to do this, so we seized the six worst animals, and in fact some of them we had to actually cut flesh to remove the chains from around their necks [WARNING - graphic image], and charges were successfully laid through the city bylaw and interestingly enough, this was the only time through this entire case that charges were successfully laid. Thomson: And this was... the date again? Scheer: This was about May 30th by the time the charges were being laid of last year. So then after that the dogs were moved outside of city limits. Thomson: When you say they were moved outside of city limits, how did that happen? Scheer: Well if there's going to be charges laid under the municipal bylaw, then move where the municipal bylaw doesn't touch them. Thomson: So you're saying, in other words, the owner of the dogs? Scheer: That's correct. So then in September through the winter there were more reports that came in to us, and each time the complaints came into us, we'd notify the RCMP, and under the Animal Protection Act in Section 22, they informed the owner and allowed the owner an opportunity to make changes or become educated on the situation, and it just cycled through that sort of scenario for awhile and then finally there were charges that were laid and we had a court date in fact in February. Thomson: And what were the charges? Scheer: Off hand, I'm not a hundred percent sure, but it was under the Animal Protection Act - for neglect - no provision of adequate housing. Thomson: So the animals were then living in very marginal or neglectful conditions? Scheer: Yes. It was very cold and the housing that had been provided - for many dogs there wasn't any housing. There wasn't straw. What housing that was later provided were 45-gallon steel drums with one end chopped off which isn't necessarily the best housing at minus 40, but these charges wound up being dropped because in the course of attempting to educate the owner, all these improvements were made and the veterinary report reflected improvements and the charges were dropped and unfortunately the humane society wasn't informed of this until we were actually sitting in the court. Anyways, we did involve three local mushers, well respected, knowledgable dog handlers over that winter and at that point the dog numbers increased to about 67 with possibly more small pups, and the comments from the mushers were that there were just too many dogs and if this is a mushing yard, then where are the sleds and harnesses and the mushers recommended that there be nylon collars instead of chain, that there be wooden houses instead of these steel drums, to have greater separation of the males and females, because they were just producing swacks of puppies. There was no evidence that feces had been picked up. The ground was completely covered with feces and they wanted to ensure that there was vaccinations and de-worming being done. Thomson: And were the animals being fed and watered adequately? Scheer: Well apparently, and there may have been some assistance from neighbors also feeding the animals and it's hard to really pick out contributions there, but the dogs actually were not in that bad physical condition. It was just that there were so many of them and the housing and the living conditions where quite marginal. Thomson: When did your concern for the animals escalate? Scheer: Well, in April there were fresh complaints coming in again about the dogs and the yard and so we went on April 12th to have a look at this and there were 56 dogs at this time in the yard and various puppies. The yard was in the throes of spring thaw and about half the dogs were up to their bellies in melted snow and melted feces. They couldn't lie down. They were constantly on the move on the ends of their chains. Their food bowls in the steel drums were filled with guck. Two dogs in particular needed medical attention so we conservatively thought that at least fifteen of the dogs could be seized and these were the moms and the pups and the injured and the sick. We notified the RCMP. They started to work on securing a warrant. They informed the owner under Section 22. They requested a veterinarian to examine the dogs and the vet actually wasn't available at the time and the Act says that two reputable citizens or a peace officer, if a vet is not available, can make the assessment but apparently judges and lawyers prefer a veterinarian's input, so the vet was available the next morning and the two of us went out first thing in the morning on April 13th [to see if] there had been changes made. The dogs had been methodically shot and dragged into a pile and the owner was sitting on the pile waiting for us. Thomson: So he shot all of the dogs? Scheer: He shot all of the dogs. Thomson: And was sitting on the pile of carcasses? Scheer: Yes. Thomson: What was your reaction at that point? Scheer: I think it's fairly safe to say that I was in a pretty good state of shock. I don't know if that image will ever really leave me actually. Thomson: Did you have a conversation with the owner at that point? Scheer: A little bit. But we recognized that this was a very dangerous situation and we left the area almost immediately. Thomson: Did he say anything? Scheer: Yes there was a bit of an exchange and we just didn't... Thomson: What did he say? Scheer: If I can't have them, no one can. Thomson: And you were accompanied by the veterinarian at this point? Scheer: That's right. Thomson: And what did you do after having a few words with the owner? Scheer: We got out of the area immediately. Went straight to the RCMP. Reported what we had found, informed our shelter coordinator and started to go from there, and I had sincere concerns about the frame of mind of the owner, that if you are provoked to shooting all of your dogs that there's some emotional fallout from this, and so I was concerned for him or anybody else who might be around him. Thomson: So what did the RCMP do? Scheer: I'm not sure - you'd have to ask them. There's really nothing in the laws that say you can't shoot your dogs and other than, say, littering or some sort of environmental charges, because there's some debris and steel drums still left in the area and then a big burn pile where the owner burned the bodies of the dogs. Thomson: So that's how he disposed of them? Scheer: Yes. Thomson: And, so looking at the legislation that is currently in place, the Animal Protection Act which is the Yukon legislation, is there anything within that act that would apply to this case that would lead to charges, I suppose? Scheer: No - and other than say, on the matter of shelters and perhaps on feeding - REGULAR feeding, it's just that the definition of distress in the Act is very loose. There's no clear standards of care and so what ends up happening is that the definition of distress ends up resting on someone's personal opinion. We all need clear-cut definitions, and I'm going to refer to it as standards of care, and also what's needed is we need an addition of something preventing animal hoarding. Thomson: And hoarding is, I suppose is when you have substantial number of animals that aren't being kept for a specific purpose. Scheer: Yes. Animal hoarding is pretty much defined by four characteristics in the behaviour and that's the failure to provide minimal standards of sanitation, space and nutrition and care, and then the inability to recognize the effects of that failure to provide these things for the animals and human members in that group environment, and then obsessive attempts to accumulate or maintain that collection of animals even though everything is just going to hell, and then the denial or minimization of problems and the living conditions for the people and animals. And so hoarding is well defined, but the problem is it is not often included in animal protection acts, and the way most animal protection acts are written, any attempts to charge on the basis of cruelty in the face of hoarding typically fails because it doesn't encompass that marginal treatment. Thomson: What about the fact that the owner here - and it appears to be a fact that's without dispute, has shot, killed fifty-odd dogs? Is that against the law? Scheer: No, I don't believe so and I think that would be very difficult to deal with or to prevent in the Yukon, because there's really only a few communities in the Yukon that have veterinarians and so to euthanize an animal, to insist that it be done by lethal injection, that's going to be tough for most places in the Yukon. The usual way to euthanize an animal outside of those centres with veterinarians is to shoot the animal... Thomson: But I'm thinking here about the scope - the quantity of animals that have been killed. Scheer: Well, I'm not a lawyer. I know little bits of these acts, but I couldn't tell you. I don't believe there's anything saying that it's against the law to shoot that many animals. Thomson: I'm wondering about the owner of the dogs - do you know if he now has more dogs? Are you familiar with his situation right now? Scheer: I don't really know. There's speculation that there may be more dogs. I haven't seen evidence of that. I would certainly encourage him not to have more animals, but yes, there's nothing preventing that. Thomson: Getting back to the situation of you watching over the dogs over the course of a year and then ultimately seeing their demise, as an animal welfare advocate, somebody who's been involved with the humane society, what does this leave you with when you do come upon a situation where you're looking at this mass killing. What are you left with? Scheer: I guess the thing is that we're always so hung up on two legs-four legs, and the distinction between humans and animals and that's just a matter of posture and how someone treats animals, I think, there's probably something not far off on how that person treats people, and so this is symptomatic of a much larger problem and I think as a society we're falling down unless we make animal abuse situations a priority. I just think it's such a much bigger problem. Thomson: Thank you. [Second part of interview with RCMP officer, Dan Gaudet] Intro (Nancy Thomson): RCMP in Dawson City have been investigating Jim Foesier. He's the owner of the fifty dogs that were shot this spring. Sgt. Dan Gaudet is with the RCMP detachment in Dawson City - we've reached him there. Thomson: Sgt. Gaudet, can you tell us what is currently happening with the investigation into Mr. Foesier? Gaudet: We commenced an investigation back in the fall of 2005 and that investigation is currently on-going at this point. Now, our investigation led us to proceed under the territorial Dog Act because these incidents did happen out on the Dempster Highway outside the city limits of Dawson. We did respond to another incident back in April dealing specifically with the death of over fifty dogs out on the Dempster Highway. Now we gauged our response accordingly with respect to that particular situation as well. Thomson: And so what is happening with that? Gaudet: Well, that matter is still open. Our file is still under investigation. I can tell you that as a result of that particular situation, there has been no official charge laid against Mr. Foesier as a result of the deaths of the dogs at this stage of the investigation. Thomson: And is that likely to occur, a charge under the current Animal Protection Act? Gaudet: Well, if you look at... our response is gauged both by the provisions of the Criminal Code as well as the Territorial Dog Act. Unfortunately under the Territorial Dog Act it would be very difficult in this case to proceed by way of a charge to prove the basic elements of the offence needed to secure a charge and conviction. Thomson: And what about Federal legislation? Gaudet: The same thing falls under Federal legislation, which is obviously more stringent. As well, we have to look at Criminal Code definitions, elements of the offence and we have to be satisfied that we can prove all the elements of the offence, in order to proceed by way of a charge, and at this point we are running into some difficulties with respect to securing all these elements of the offence. Thomson: And if Mr. Foesier were to be charged under the Federal legislation, what would be the charges that would be presented to him? Gaudet: There are several sections under the Criminal Code. The charges would obviously be dependent on what elements could be proven, so as far as a specific section, I can't give you one right now. It would depend on what elements could be proven. Thomson: So at this point then, your investigation is on-going? Gaudet: The file is still open. We do have some other issues that we need to take a look at, but suffice it to say our file is open. Thomson: And so the investigation is continuing or is it merely a case of the file remaining open? Gaudet: Well, at this [point], there is not much more left that we can explore. However, we are looking. If there is some more information that we receive that would help us out, then by all means we'll look into that but for now we're running into some difficulties at looking at any type of process to be pursued with Mr. Foesier. Thomson: Can you elaborate on those difficulties? Gaudet: How long do you have? Right at this point, I can't comment on the difficulties or on the issues at hand. However, we're just going to try to work through what we have here. Thomson: Does it have to do with the way the current legislation is written? Gaudet: The legislation under the Territorial Dog Act obviously does... there are issues that we're trying to work around with that, but for now I can't really comment on what problems we're running into. Thomson: I suppose the bottom line here, presumably Mr. Foesier doesn't dispute the fact that he did kill over fifty of his animals. Is that currently against the law either Federally or Territorially? Gaudet: Well, the impression upon reading the Territorial legislation, if a person destroys an animal in a humane way for a particular purpose, then it can be interpreted as being not an offence in itself, and that is an issue that we're looking at now as part of the current Territorial legislation. Thomson: And so at this point we can say that you do have the file open, but you do need more information, I suppose, before your investigation continues. Is that correct? Gaudet: That's a fair assumption - yes, Nancy. Thomson: From the perspective of the police and enforcing legislation, do you see anything in the Animal Protection Act that could be strengthened or toughened up in order to avoid this type of case happening again? Gaudet: I guess Nancy, you know each case that comes up can be treated as a learning experience, and if there are any issues that come up such as this that there's a grey area or a vague area in any particular type of legislation, it's always something that our local politicians can take a look at to see if it can be amended, remedied, or made better, and there's always room for improvement in any piece of legislation in my opinion. Thomson: Thank you. [Third part of interview with Tanya O'Callaghan, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies spokesperson] Intro (Nancy Thomson): As we heard, the RCMP in Dawson City has a file open on the deaths of at least fifty dogs in the Dawson City area. The Humane Society in the city says the animals were shot by their owner in the spring. The incident points to holes within the Yukon's current Animal Protection Act, and it raises questions about hoarding and the general care of all animals under the Act. Tanya O'Callaghan is with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. Her group keeps a close eye on animal rights legislation across the country and she's in Ottawa. Thomson: I wonder if you can just briefly lay out for us the Criminal Code or Federal provisions that might come into play in a situation like this. O'Callaghan: Sure. The current provisions within the Criminal Code that deal with animal cruelty are over 110 years old and mostly they deal with the issue of willfully neglecting an animal and with the issue of someone killing someone else's animal and making it suffer, causing suffering and distress to an animal. Thomson: So is there anything within that legislation that would address hoarding such as it appears that this is a case of someone having an extraordinary amount of animals that aren't kept for any specific purpose? O'Callaghan: No, and this is actually a great case to point to one of the biggest failures in the current legislation. We would think that neglect could apply because obviously often people who are hoarding animals simply neglect their animals because they can't care for how many they have, but unfortunately the way that the Criminal Code is worded right now, Crown prosecutors, or those people who are laying charges have to prove willful neglect, which is almost an oxymoron which is extremely difficult to prove, so it makes it almost impossible to lay charges under that. You would have to prove that a person intended not to give water to their dogs on purpose and maliciously, etcetera. Thomson: When was the last time the Federal legislation was amended? O'Callaghan: There were some slight amendments made in the 1950's, but those were more wording, some legal aspects to it, but the actual legislation is identical, give or take, to what it was when it was first drafted in the 1890's so we're long overdue and Canadian society has changed incredibly especially on how we view animals, and the current legislation talks about cattle separately from other animals. It doesn't apply to wildlife or to an owned animal, so there have been horrific cases against stray animals. There was one in Toronto a few years ago when art students video-taped a cat being skinned alive and charges can't be laid for killing an animal that's un-owned, so there's certainly huge loopholes in the current legislation. Thomson: Now, according to the Dawson RCMP, and also according to the Dawson City Humane Society, there's currently no legislation, either within the Yukon Animal Protection Act, or within the Criminal Code that would prohibit or bring charges against an individual who was, for example, to kill fifty dogs that they owned? O'Callaghan: That's correct, and part of it is that animals are property and right now they're treated, under the criminal code, as any other piece of property. Certainly in the amendments that we would like to see put through in the Criminal Code, one of the amendments would be to move the animal cruelty provisions out of the property section and into their own section. Animals can still be owned by people. That wouldn't change. But I think it would demonstrate how animals are viewed. They're not like a table, car. They're not that kind of property, but also people do have the right to do what they want to their animals. One change we would like to see brought to the legislation is to make it an offence to kill an animal with brutal or vicious intent, so owners could still euthanize their animals or do what they want with their animals as long as it's not brutally or viciously. Thomson: In this case, and I know it's actually difficult to talk about a specific case and one that you heard about second hand, does the quantity of animals that were killed come into play at all? O'Callaghan: Unfortunately not. Definitely we're more concerned with the manner in which they were killed, so that it be a humane death first and foremost, but also the reason behind it. We certainly don't support defenceless killing of animals, especially if it was to be done and it sounds like it could have applied as a brutal or vicious manner, so certainly the number itself isn't a factor but more the why or the how. Thomson: So the number isn't a problem for anyone? O'Callaghan: Not per se, under the current legislation [nor] would it be per se, under the new legislation unless the number was sort of factored into whether it was a brutal or vicious death. Thomson: How familiar are you with the Yukon's Animal Protection Act? O'Callaghan: Certainly I've had a chance to read it. I'm not familiar with its application, but certainly with what it contains. It's quite similar to a lot of Provincial animal welfare legislation in Canada. Thomson: And do you see any glaring inefficiencies or inadequacies within that act? O'Callaghan: Well, certainly it seems to cover the issue of neglect and distress a lot better than the Federal Criminal Code which as I mentioned earlier requires willful neglect, which we would like to see disappear, and I'm not sure how the Yukon legislation has been applied - whether it's been applied with that same idea of willful neglect but it doesn't seem to be included in the letter of the law for sure. Thomson: And do you think that this is something.. I'm just wondering what listeners might be thinking if they hear of this case - a dog owner who's kept animals, it sounds like, in marginal conditions and then decides to dispose of them en mass, and that's within the letter of both Territorial and Federal legislation. Is this something that you hear happen much? Have you heard of cases like this? O'Callaghan: Well, sometimes we do hear about some cases of livestock, for example, where farmers were simply no longer able to care for their animals so they euthanize them. It's not a very common occurrence as pet owners. I think most animal lovers, most pet owners try to adopt out animals they can no longer care for, or find other arrangements or euthanize through a veterinarian. We do hear of a lot of really unfortunate cases of animals that are killed with absolutely brutal intent or vicious intent, and no charges can be laid against them. Thomson: So what would be the best thing to happen in this case from your perspective, from the Canadian Federation of Human Societies? O'Callaghan: I certainly hope that this case is yet another one that highlights the failures of the current legislation - and that I think everyone would agree that this is a pretty appalling situation, but there is absolutely nothing in the current Federal law that makes any of it really a crime, so certainly we hope that this'll be a wake up call for the Canadian public and hopefully for Parliament to see the failures of the law, and encourage them to do the right thing and pass the amendments that we would like to see, through. Thomson: Now this raises the question, one last question here, and that is the Yukon is a large dog mushing community and kennels usually entail several scores of dogs. It's a fact that it does occur within a community. I don't think it's something that's discussed a lot, but mushers DO cull animals, and is that provided for with any legislation that you're aware of? O'Callaghan: Yes, certainly, as I mentioned in the Criminal Code, an owner of an animal can euthanize their animal humanely and that can include shooting, if it's done correctly, as gruesome as it sounds. What we don't accept is just the vicious killing for malicious intent, or with vicious intent, of an animal. It's different than an owner, who, like I said, can no longer care for their animals or who are simply euthanizing their animals for personal or humane reasons. Thomson: Okay. Thanks. |