We left off on our last page discussing briefly how there is a Conflict of Interest in Cassia Bryden being employed by Hillside Kennels Animal Control. This writer felt as though there is a need to clarify this position. Animal Rescues are often known to work in conjunction with Animal Control Agencies (pounds). Rescues often acquire ownership of dogs that they feel could be offered an opportunity to find a home that is made for them. Rescues are suited to do this work because that is their mandate. Animal Control agencies are just that, they are meant to control animals, in regards to population , and in terms of stray and running at large. In some cases, with local SPCA shelters, they do provide Animal Control services as well to the areas that the service.
In this particular situation, Cassia who is employed by Hillside Kennels, runs her own Animal Rescue. On the surface this looks like it would be an ideal combination. The rescue could pick up slack where the Animal Control Agency might not be able to do so. This does however become problematic, when there is an abuse of the system and animals are held and obtained illegally. It’s problematic when protocols are broken to ensure the agent gets the animal to put through their rescue. Working actively against owners in prohibiting them from providing ownership, by making themselves not available, not returning calls to make arrangements, from lying and manipulating the issues surrounding the matter.
Once an owner comes forward with documentation claiming ownership, Animal Control is obligated to return the animal. The only exception to this would be suspected cases of animal abuse and neglect where they could legally hold an animal. With Hillside Kennels, they do not have power or jurisdiction to enforce any allegations as such. They would report to a by-law enforcement officer who would then conduct an investigation into the matter. Any animal under this type of investigation would be held by Hillside Kennels, for an undetermined amount of time until the investigation was completed. The end result would either be, grounds for the abuser to be charged or the animal is returned to the owner. In the case with Asap, we can confirm once again, there was no investigation pending or completed, by OPP or By-Law Enforcement.
Cassia Bryden has every motivation to selectively choose any incoming animal to Hillside Kennels that she knows she can profit from putting through her Animal Rescue. She is in a place where she can and has abused her position to illegally obtain dogs by relying on the fact that the average owner is not aware of their rights. Cassia can use whatever justification she wants in order to keep the animal, but the fact remains…it is still an illegal action. Hillside Kennels actions, as the employer are complicit in this.
Yes, emails are being sent to the Municipality. While there is information being provided in those emails about Cassia, they truly are covering Hillside Kennels misconduct. The Municipalities are responsible to the citizens who chose to elect them, and ultimately are the ones that make the decisions in who they contract their services to. Emails, should and will be continued to be sent to them.
Every other comment in these posts are misleading and only being said to further incite her followers and friends. However, so many things to pick apart here.
First and foremost the most glaringly obvious. The upholding, kindness and complete understanding for the “ex” and presenting him as the redeemable party involved in this matter. Cassia and her minions make it very clear that their opinion is that the breeder is responsible for what happened to Asap. And yet, it was the “ex” (who is the co-breeder) that directly placed Asap in the situation that allowed harm to come to him. Why are they extending time, kindness, and understanding to the “ex”, who by their own reasoning should be responsible too. Why do they not have the same energy for him as they do with for the Breeder? If the breeder is as they like to so portray, an irresponsible backyard breeder who is greedy, then by extension so is the “ex”.
Cassia and Hillside have been told on multiple occasions that Asap’s Sire did not try to kill him. Many, many times. They have had absolutely no desire to investigate that claim, to find out if it was true. It’s an absolute disregard, for the breeder informing them that Asap is male dog aggressive.
Neither dog harmed or injured each other in the incident of aggression that took place. But it was enough for the breeder to know that it was no longer possible for them to remain is the same residence. Allowing her “ex” to take him, was the responsible thing to do at that time. Truly failing to understand this minute detail, is absolutely a failing on the behalf of someone indicating they are a trainer. It has been indicated several times, that Asap would not be returning to reside with the breeder, however since the breeder raised him from his very birth for almost 3 years of his life she does know him best. She is an experienced handler of Dogo Argentinos and addressing their needs.
While Asap would be residing with family members, the breeder has extensive contact and resources available to her working with people that are certified in canine obedience, rehabilitation and behavioral training. Asap does not require basic obedience training, as he already has this structure in place. Asap requires professionals that are equipped to handle any trauma that may result from what happened to him. It is only then, can Asap be rehomed to home that is truly worthy of him.
The rest is just simple pettiness, but it certainly does speak to the character of the staff employed by Hillside Kennels (who is contracted by the Municipalities …just in case I failed to mention that previously)