A sick girl and her hurt dog make no decision easy

It took a week, but the Winnipeg Humane Society decided to bite back on Thursday.

In a letter to the editor, the organization's CEO, Bill McDonald, stated I had presented a one-sided view of an event in a column that attracted the wrath of readers in general and some humane society donors in particular (A sick little girl, her dog and a heartless decision, Nov. 24).

At the heart of the story are a 10-year-girl with inoperable cancer, her little dog that was hit by a car and the humane society veterinarian who was involved in the pet's care.

The story starts in late September. The girl's father had the dog on what he calls an "invisible leash" -- meaning voice control -- when the dog took off after a cat and was hit by a car. The next day, he surrendered the dog to the humane society for care because he was out of work and couldn't afford to take it to a private vet. Seven weeks later, the humane society, having tried to treat the dog, decided to euthanize it without telling the family.

When the father surrendered the dog, he had hoped to eventually have her returned because, given what his little girl and her dog were both going through, they needed each other.

But Dr. Erika Anseeuw, the humane society's director of animal health, told the father the little girl's pet wouldn't be returning, essentially because she felt the family couldn't afford to look after it.

Or so she told the father and later told me.

Instead, the dog -- which suffered fractures to its pelvis and was having trouble bearing weight on one leg -- was given to a foster family and seen at the humane society for assessment and treatment over the following four weeks.

Anseeuw told me she was quite moved by the family's situation.

"However, my responsibility as a veterinarian is to the animal. And I could not, regardless of how sad the situation is at home, and how that child felt, I could not send that dog back home."

With that said, and the column written, there was no shelter for the humane society. Somehow, it had to tell more of its side of the story. And presumably more of the reasoning than they shared with me initially.

Bill McDonald's letter to the editor said the column had put the Winnipeg Humane Society in a difficult position, because the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act prevented them from fully explaining how the dog came to be in their care.

Having said that, McDonald went on to reveal this.

"The dog was brought to the WHS more than 21 hours after sustaining an injury to its pelvis."

By the time the letter appeared, I had already received a call from a humane society board member who would later suggest I talk to people who live in the family's neighbourhood if I wanted more of the story they couldn't tell.

So late Thursday, I dropped by the Tyndall Park neighbourhood where the family lives, going door to door in the area immediately beside and behind the family home. Only one neighbour said they knew anything about the dog being hit and they didn't want to talk on the record.

I found the official story, instead, from the Winnipeg Police Service.

Responding in an email, a police spokesman said the humane society had received a call from neighbours who were concerned a dog had been struck by a vehicle earlier in the day and was still lying on the owner's back deck, yelping.

Because it was late when they got the call, about 11 p.m., the humane society asked police to drive by and take a look.

"A general patrol unit attended at about 1:45 a.m. and found a dog lying on the back deck," the police statement continued. "The dog was quiet, and appeared stable and sleeping. The humane society had advised that if the dog appeared stable it could remain at the address until morning. That's what the crew did."

And now we know the rest of the story.

Except the dog owner's.

He said Anseeuw didn't suggest she thought he was a bad owner when they spoke over the phone, and she didn't bring up the subject of why he had taken so long to bring the dog in, or anything else about what happened that night.

But had she done so, he would have told her that after he determined the dog could stand and her injuries weren't life-threatening, he placed her in her doghouse beside the back door. And he decided to leave her there and check on her periodically, because he was afraid to tell his daughter -- who had to go to the hospital the next morning -- that her dog had been hit. Which is also why he didn't take the dog to the humane society until later that afternoon.

Did her father make the right decision? Did the veterinarian?

That's for you to judge.

But given what we know now, neither decision could have been easy.

How could they be, when they involve a sick little girl and the little dog she lost?

gordon.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition December 3, 2011 B1