Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

CANINES’ LIVES AT STAKE – If she doesn’t challenge the court injunction that would effectively eliminate her Tagish dog rescue, says Shelley Cuthbert, seen above in 2012, many of the dogs at the facility would die.

Dog rescue owner will appeal court order

The owner of a Tagish dog rescue plans to fight a Yukon Supreme Court order that would effectively shut down her operation.

By Emily Blake on October 17, 2017

The owner of a Tagish dog rescue plans to fight a Yukon Supreme Court order that would effectively shut down her operation.

Yukon Supreme Court Justice Leigh Gower recently ruled in favour of a permanent injunction prohibiting Shelley Cuthbert from keeping more than two dogs on her property. It also requires that the dogs be kept inside between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Cuthbert, who owns and operates Any Domesticated Animal Rescue and Boarding Kennels, was given four months to comply with the court order.

But she said she plans to appeal the decision.

“This has a huge impact not only on my livelihood but on my dogs and my dogs being priority,” she told the Star Monday.

If she didn’t fight the injunction, she said, many of the dogs at the rescue would die.

The operation is currently home to around 60 dogs. Cuthbert said she has a core group of around 50 dogs that include her personal pets, her daughter’s dogs, working dogs and “unadoptables.”

Need experienced owners

Cuthbert explained these dogs may be adopted to experienced owners, but they could relapse into bad behaviours if they are not managed properly.

“I am not going to be sending them south so they can die in a stranger’s arms because they’re going to act out,” she said.

Cuthbert added that she has worked with these dogs over the years to keep them and the public safe.

“When you’re an animal owner, you commit to those dogs forever,” she said.

While Cuthbert represented herself during trial, she plans to find legal representation for the appeal.

She said this is possible through the support of rescue groups and animal advocates.

“They agree with the view of ‘why should these dogs lose their homes and their lives because they bark?’ ” she explained.

Justice Gower’s decision comes after six property owners in Tagish Estates filed a civil nuisance suit against Cuthbert in November 2016.

They testified that barking dogs, the smell of dog feces and sounds from a generator have kept them from enjoying their properties or sleeping at night.

Cuthbert, meanwhile, argued the dogs do not bark constantly, and that she has taken steps to mitigate the problem.

She noted there are dog mushers and hobby farms in the area and said she feels she is being singled out.

Cuthbert also argued the rescue offers a vital service lacking elsewhere in the territory.

Gower found that it was “more likely than not” that the six landowners “suffered a substantial interference” with the enjoyment of their properties due to the dogs barking. He also said that while the barking may not be constant, it is “incessant”.

But Gower was not satisfied that the smell of dog feces nor the sound of the generator were more than a “trivial interference”.

He noted that Cuthbert provided good evidence that she keeps her property clean, including 122 photographs and 137 videos of her dogs and property.

“In virtually all of the numerous videos and photographs which I have reviewed, I do not recall noticing any dog feces,” he wrote.

Gower also found that while the rescue provides a public service, the benefits are outweighed by the negative impacts on its neighbours.

“In this case, it cannot be said that the harm being suffered by the plaintiffs is their fair share of the costs associated with Ms. Cuthbert providing a public benefit,” he wrote.

It also came to light during trial that Cuthbert has suffered harassment since she opened the rescue in 2012.

This has included damage to her fencing, her electric fence being cut, vehicles “drag racing” in front of her property and her truck getting egged.

Two of her dogs have also died mysteriously.

As well, Cuthbert has found golf balls that were hit or thrown into her dog pens.

During trial and in conversation with the Star, Cuthbert lamented the negative public response stemming from media coverage about the rescue.

“I just can’t tolerate that right now; this situation is bad enough,” she said.

The dispute landed in court as the unincorporated community of Tagish does not have the authority to pass zoning nor bylaws.

Also, territorial legislation doesn’t regulate dogs nor barking on properties.

Drafting a local area plan is currently underway in Tagish, and once that is approved, zoning will be implemented.

But any prior land use will be grandfathered, or exempt from new regulations.

Comments (27)

Up 24 Down 1

Animal person on Oct 23, 2017 at 1:59 pm

As someone who has worked with dogs with behavioural issues, I know first hand that it's impossible for one person (Shelley) to provide appropriate care to 60+ dogs. The best thing that could happen is 60 experienced dog handlers stepping up to take in those problem dogs and work with them one on one. I can't see Shelley letting them go, though. It's scary to think how this could all turn out for those dogs. But really, could it be any worse than it is now? Does anyone know what happened to the Beaver Creek cats Shelley took to her property?

Up 8 Down 27

To the naysayers on Oct 22, 2017 at 8:35 pm

There are alot of naysayers on here but still no facts. Fact one - dogs are well cared for and dogs move on when ready. Shelley refuses to send them to whomever. Since when is that a bad thing. She does not operate like other places "adopt to whoever wants a dog for them to be returned or rehomed or worse" I would rather deal with a responsible rescue shelter that takes responsibility seriously and takes the time to find right homes. Fact two - dogs are taken to vet when necessary. All are spayed and neutered vaccinated and dewormed. Fact three - she is fighting for the rights of the dogs and her property use. What would people do if you lost your property rights and dogs? Oh I forgot nothing right. Fact four - she operates with a generator that is power. Fact five - she hauls water like many others in Tagish that is not a crime. Fact six - dogs are well socialized with dogs and humans. Ask the people that lived at her place for 8 months. Fact seven - place is clean and always been inspected every year which she posts. So at the end of the day, I would fight too. Whether there is a lawyer is yet to be seen and if people have thirty grand in their back pockets kuddos to you. However normal working people don't and have to find ways to get the money to fight for their rights and in this case the dogs. Stop judging and start reading the facts or go there for yourself.

Up 15 Down 9

jack on Oct 22, 2017 at 3:53 pm

Shelly is the typical "rescue" these days; if you want a dog from these "rescues" you need to comply to the following;
- you need to be home all day, you cannot go to work
- you need to have a large house for the dog, no condo, no mobile home, no 2 bedroom house
- you need at least 3-4 acres of maintained land
- it needs to be fenced with quality 6 to 9 foot fences
- must have einstein proof locks
- you must be able to feed the prime steak 2-3 times a day
- you must earn more than 100K
- they will inspect your property every month
- the dog stays as a guest, the "rescue" still owns it

and thus no dog will be adopted, all humans are not good enough for them...

Up 31 Down 9

Move on Girl! on Oct 22, 2017 at 2:57 am

Find an area away from neighbours, Shelley. Use the money you are raising for lawyers bills to fight the verdict to instead invest in a better shelter in a better location.

Some people can never be wrong. This reminds me of the last time Shelley was in court when she was the administrator at the Mae Bachur. She fought and fought and fought. That time it came down to her not following non-profit bylaws. Who cares what's on paper! Who cares what the legislation says!

Is there a diagnosis for that?

Up 35 Down 6

Tagish Resident on Oct 22, 2017 at 2:44 am

There are an awful lot of comments from people with no idea the magnitude of this situation. First, Shelley has been offered help many times to re home dogs that she has rescued, she refuses too allow any to go, or very few, she does not rescue them, she has no running water or power on this property, the dogs are kept in pens and suffer lack of human interaction and most are feral, and many need one on one attention. She does not currently have enough money to care for the dogs she has properly, and the dogs are suffering.
She is appealing a supreme court decision but does not have the 30K needed for a lawyer, things will drag out and these dogs at this 'rescue' will continue to suffer. The very BEST thing that could happen is for intervention and the dogs that can be re homed be given the chance to get a real home. People really have to quit believing everything they are told and stop offering opinions on things they know nothing about.

Up 34 Down 8

Capers on Oct 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm

This is a case of one land owner not taking any steps to manage the nuisance that her dogs were causing for her neighbors. The community of Tagish has no bylaws around numbers of dogs which is why the dog rescue was there in the first place. The court case was a complaint by the neighbors who could not enjoy their right to their land. If the dog rescue owner had of managed the number of animals and taken a more active approach at limiting the level of disturbance, then the judge may have found an alternative ruling. The injunction is a result of one owners disregard for the adjacent land owners. As such a good service to these animals is now lost because the people involved could not settle this without going to court. Personally, I think 60 dogs is too many no matter how good the intentions.. How sad.

Up 30 Down 10

in support of neighbors on Oct 20, 2017 at 2:30 pm

Fact of the matter is the court made a decision, and the community should be able to rest assured that they can anticipate going back to normal and get better, but instead shes wasting more money, and time trying to drag it back through court again.
If she really cared about the animals she would be investing the funds she has for other proper shelters so they can help with taking over care of the dogs.
She is just trying to desperately hang on to the animals instead of letting them move on in their lives as well.
The fact is she has known for months that she had the potential to lose the case she should have been already re-homing potentially adoptable animals not continuing to accept more and play the pity game now of what am I supposed to do with them.
I hope the dogs get the actual help they need and the community can finally have some peace and enjoy their properties whether or not they live out there the entire year. They own their property and should not have to deal with having her next door in a residential area. She should have anticipated that people may not want a business like this next door.

Up 18 Down 29

Joe on Oct 19, 2017 at 7:38 pm

So pple need to wake up. It appears everyone wants the service and it is needed but where is the help? Just to wake everyone up the Selingers have left for Austria for six months, Angerers don't live on their property, Landfried will be leaving soon for a few months, Midler lives in Whitehorse and comes out once in awhile as her child goes to school there, and McGraw has never made an appearance in the area until last year. Btw Cuthbert did do mediation in 2012 but the mitigation was refused. That wasn't even mentioned in the decision document. But I know the reporters remember and I was there so why is that info missing. It appears the old boys club is back in force

Up 18 Down 15

Kraka on Oct 19, 2017 at 6:30 pm

Too many dogs in the Yukon as it is, crapping all over the place, not getting exercised enough. For some reason when people come to The Yukon they gotta have a big dog cooped up in a condo. Whitehorse should have a ONE dog limit.

Up 18 Down 7

Groucho d'North on Oct 19, 2017 at 5:35 pm

I see numerous parallels with how society deals with it's cast-offs, the two-legged kind as well as the four. Many are supportive of somebody helping them, but do it in a manner and place that does not intrude on my peace and quite. Trevor the dog and Mike Nehass are not that far apart in the eyes of many of our friends and neighbours and policy makers.
We wring our hands and tsk, tsk about what is the right thing to do, but at some point our morality falls behind our desire for a quality of life that does not include the hard moral dilemmas we are witnessing here. So hide them away somewhere to be unseen.
Yes there are regulations about noise levels, but there are no regulations about compassion and preventing suffering such as this situation involves with dogs who would otherwise be dead or roaming the streets. Maybe culling them is the solution, but that is something our community is not ready to discuss rationally.
Spay and neuter your pets.

Up 33 Down 8

Anie on Oct 19, 2017 at 5:28 pm

Michelle said "this is not about Shelley". Respectfully, it is absolutely about Shelley. The judge determined that her behaviour harmed her neighbour's quiet enjoyment of their property. Another, more responsible neighbour may have many more than 2 dogs because this is not a precedent to "2 dogs only" rule. It is the judges determination that this particular individual should not have more than 2 dogs because she has proven to be totally uncaring about her neighbours. It is, as I said, totally about Ms Cuthbert. The higher and noble cause of caring for unfortunate animals does not absolve her of her responsibility to other people.

Up 7 Down 34

Max Mack on Oct 19, 2017 at 5:28 pm

Shelley should counter-sue everybody and their "dog" (excuse the pun). And hire the best lawyer money can buy to do it.

There are other ways this could have been dealt with. Government is sitting on its hands because their preferred "partner" (Mae Bachur) has the political clout, connections, and most of the funding.

Don't get me wrong. I live in Riverdale, where many people think it's ok if their dogs bark for hours on end. It's maddening. But, this entire situation could have been dealt with quite differently.

Up 30 Down 5

find a place away from other humans on Oct 19, 2017 at 3:51 pm

The solution is....find a place away from other people living nearby. Out towards Mendenhall for example...or down the Carcross Road where you are totally away from neighbours....I live in a neighbourhood where people are disrespectful and let their dogs bark, run around and poop on neighbours lawns. Not cool. I am a property owner and we walk our dog and clean up her messes. Shelly cannot expect to live around a whole community of people and have them just 'tolerate' all of the noise of that many dogs. People who own properties have rights too--rights to enjoy their land peacefully. Dog kennels of this size are not suited to residential country neighbourhoods.

Up 13 Down 16

CJ on Oct 19, 2017 at 1:42 pm

I understand some of the reasoning behind the court decision, but the outcome seems punitive, rather than just. The number of dogs is a lot -- too much -- for a five-acre lot, but restricting her to two has no relationship with a norm, except for the City of Whitehorse, which I believe includes people living in condos. And keeping them inside for prescribed hours. Why? And it ignores the plight of the dogs that the decision puts them in. Then there's the matter of priorizing the "they were here first" status of the plaintiffs. Wouldn't many of us love to have that weigh in to decisions on land use. Which it does not.

It's a winner-takes-all decision, and it sets a precedent for other dog owners that is sure to come up. It needs to be appealed.

Up 11 Down 19

Kip on Oct 19, 2017 at 11:07 am

Ridiculous to prohibit dogs from going outside between 10 pm and 7 am. Does this apply to everyone in territory or are they discriminating. Ruling doesn't seem to work for everyone's work schedules. Surely we can't be the only household in the territory whose dog requires going out to do business between 10 pm and 7 am

Up 24 Down 96

Southerner on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:09 pm

Hang in there, Shelly!
So, if you are only allowed two dogs, so should others with dog teams etc follow SAME rules! Some certainly do not understand kennels and rescue society for animals or have hearts for them. Some people have nothing better to do than cause commotion and yap, need to get on with life and volunteer and do good in this world. Help things along, not make it worse!
If they so wanted, you could have their assistance and I'm sure things could be workable. Totally disgusted with some northerners!

Up 45 Down 42

drum on Oct 18, 2017 at 8:45 pm

How many dogs are the people in Tagish allowed to have? Shelley should not be told to only have two if her neighbours are allowed more.

Up 38 Down 65

Michelle on Oct 18, 2017 at 5:29 pm

This is not about Shelley and "her" dogs. Shelley offers a vital service to the community. She gets calls from many, including RCMP to come to the rescue of neglected, abused dogs and injured. Providing a rescue service does mean that she has many dogs on her property. I think some creativity would allow her to still operate the rescue (to the advantage of us all, including the dogs), and satisfy The Six. BTW, Why don't we ever see photos of The Six? Why has the media chosen to make Shelley the villain? The issue of all these dogs needing to be put into a rescue is truly a territory wide issue. Mae Bachur is not enough, clearly.

Up 35 Down 44

Charles on Oct 18, 2017 at 4:41 pm

@north...absolutely agree, the 2 dog limit is ridiculous for that area. That's the limit in W'horse & many move out of limits so they can have a few more & Country Residential allows more than two. 50-60 + is too many, but the 10.00 pm-7.00 am blanket house arrest is dumb. How many of these 6 complaining neighbours are summer only residents?

Up 33 Down 12

Rorex1983 on Oct 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm

@north_of_60
Someone very well could take their neighbor to court and site this as case law if they had 3 or more dogs. This is simply neighbors escalating a complaint in the legal process that's not discrimination it's every citizen's right.

It is one thing to be slightly over the legal limit it is another to be 30 times over the legal limit. By that logic if someone did 45 kph in a school zone and I do 900 kph in the same school zone if the police pull me over but not them it's discrimination. See how absurd that is?

Up 47 Down 8

CountryRes on Oct 18, 2017 at 2:27 pm

North_of
Why should it apply "equally"? This was a one off. She didn't break any law, it was a civil suite. Now, if Tagish area wants to change their zoning and include max dog numbers, I suppose that might be something, but there are plenty of people who keep dogs for mushing that don't seem to have any issues. I have a neighbor who mushes, they have about 15 dogs that I rarely hear. 80 dogs is a whole other level.

Up 83 Down 16

Katrina Schultz on Oct 18, 2017 at 1:15 pm

People need to put themselves in the position of the people that took Shelley Cuthbert to court. These people owned their properties before Cuthbert moved into the neighbourhood. If it was you that owned the property and someone moved in with more than 50 barking dogs would you really be so sympathetic about the situation? I own a property over near the beach in Tagish and can hear these dogs barking so I can only imagine what these poor property owners have to listen to on a constant basis living right next door. Anyone with respect for others would have never chose a property right next door to others and put a bunch of barking dogs on it.

Up 28 Down 48

June Jackson on Oct 18, 2017 at 12:25 pm

Tagish wants Ms. Cuthbert gone, perhaps, instead of paying expensive lawyer fees, they can meet with Ms. Cuthbert and help her to go. If the community helps her to purchase a property that will permit her to carry on with an enterprise that is obviously very important to her, she can sign her property over to the community to help cover the costs, and everyone wins..

Personally, even though I understand both sides of this story, I find it hard to condemn someone who is just interested in animal welfare and doing the best she can..

Up 60 Down 9

James Jordan on Oct 18, 2017 at 11:52 am

I agree, living next to all that ruckus must be a nightmare...

Up 86 Down 37

north_of_60 on Oct 17, 2017 at 9:03 pm

If Shelley Cuthbert is prohibited from keeping more than two dogs on her property, then that prohibition should apply equally to everyone in Tagish, otherwise it's discrimination, not justice being served.

Up 94 Down 22

ProScience Greenie on Oct 17, 2017 at 5:20 pm

Unless you're out on a quarter section or so of land 50 dogs is just too many dogs. Not sure why the kennel owner and supporters don't get why there is a problem with so many dogs in that spot. Kind of rude.

Up 54 Down 62

Miles Ocean on Oct 17, 2017 at 5:02 pm

I think the community should find a place for her and her dogs.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.