Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

RESCUE DISPUTE CONTINUES – Shelley Cuthbert, owner and operator of Any Domesticated Animal Rescue and Boarding Kennels, is calling witnesses to defend her facility in Tagish.

Witnesses testify in dog rescue owner’s defence

The sounds of barking dogs rang through a Yukon Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday.

By Emily Blake on September 21, 2017

The sounds of barking dogs rang through a Yukon Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday.

The echoing noise could be heard from several videos taken inside Leopold Selinger’s cabin in Tagish. He recorded them to demonstrate what he and several other residents say is a nuisance from a dog rescue in the area south of Whitehorse.

“They were so loud that I couldn’t sleep at night. I woke up and couldn’t go back to sleep,” Selinger testified in German via a translator.

Yesterday was the second day in the trial that will determine the future of Any Domesticated Animal Rescue and Boarding Kennels.

Graham Lang, the lawyer for six Tagish land owners who have filed a lawsuit against owner and operator Shelley Cuthbert, finished presenting evidence in the case.

His clients say the rescue does not belong in a residential neighbourhood as barking dogs and the smell of dog poop have kept them from enjoying their properties. They want the court to prevent Cuthbert from keeping any dogs on her property.

They include Selinger and his wife Edeltraud, who bought their retirement property, now located behind the rescue, in 2001.

They spend six months every year there, from April to October, in order to relax.

Selinger noted that he suffers from health problems after retiring from a “nerve-wracking” career and that his doctor recommended finding somewhere quiet to stay.

But problems began when Cuthbert moved into the neighbourhood in 2012 and opened her facility, he said.

Along with the barking, the rescue also smells bad, he claims.

“The smell is being carried into our house,” he said. “We cannot sit on our patio, or open the windows, or eat outside. It’s impossible.”

Selinger testified that in 2013, he placed urinal cakes on his property, about two feet from the fence line, to try to address the problem.

Cuthbert said one of her dogs died after eating one.

Selinger also testified that he tried insulating his bedroom window to muffle the sounds of barking, but that has been ineffective.

And in 2012, he met with then-NDP MLA Kevin Barr, who proposed a privacy fence be constructed from materials from a community ice rink that was being dismantled.

But when he learned that the fence would be on his property and he would be responsible for its upkeep, Selinger refused.

“Of course I don’t want that on my property because I don’t have dogs,” he testified. “Why should I have to do that?”

On Wednesday afternoon, Cuthbert began calling witnesses to testify in her defence. They told a very different story than her neighbours.

They claimed that the dogs are well-behaved and that Cuthbert’s property is well-kept.

They also said that Cuthbert provides an important service and has been harassed following negative media attention about the rescue.

Karen Richardson testified by phone from Kitchener, Ont. She stayed on Cuthbert’s property for nine weeks in a motor home beginning last March.

She testified that the dogs only bark when there’s an animal or someone on the property, and that they quickly settle down.

“Once they got used to us being there, they didn’t bother us; we became friends, actually,” she said.

And she even adopted a dog from Cuthbert.

“He’s wonderful; we’ve had no issues with him at all.”

She also said sleeping wasn’t a problem, as most of the dogs are kept inside at night. And smells weren’t an issue either.

“I was quite surprised considering it was a lot cleaner than most dog parks I’ve been to.”

The biggest problem Richardson said she witnessed was harassment.

She detailed one night when a loud long horn from a passing vehicle woke her up.

“That scared the crap out of me.”

And she said a couple times each day, vehicles would pass, honking their horns and “flipping the bird.”

Michelle Parsons, the executive director of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, also testified about the dog-catching contract between Cuthbert and the First Nation.

She testified that it is a vital service for community safety, as stray dogs eventually pack up.

As an unincorporated community, Parsons said, they “ping-ponged” between different governments to find a solution to the problem. She said she “honestly doesn’t know” what they would do without the rescue.

Parsons added that the rescue also assists with vaccines, quill removal, and education on proper dog care

The issue over the dog rescue has landed in Yukon Supreme Court as it does not violate any criminal laws nor territorial regulations.

In Tagish, there is no land-use planning that regulates the number nor type of animals that can be kept on properties. As well, the noise bylaw doesn’t address animal sounds.

But under case law, the rescue may be found to be a nuisance, even if its use is lawful.

In July, the Yukon Supreme Court ruled against an injunction that proposed imposing a limit of five dogs on Cuthbert’s property. Lang had argued this would provide his clients relief before trial.

But Justice Gisele Miller found that granting the injunction would cause undue hardship on Cuthbert. She noted it would not give her enough time to find placements for the 60 dogs in her care and that she would be forced to euthanize many of them.

“The relief to the applicants would be very short-term, and devastating on Ms. Cuthbert economically and psychologically,” she found.

Comments (11)

Up 6 Down 2

yukon56 on Sep 27, 2017 at 4:27 pm

Robert Scott are you insane? Would a compromise of sorts work? What if the crown could find a more remote piece of land for Shelly's animal rescue? Who do you think the crown is, it is US. Why should we all be responsible for this problem?

Up 2 Down 2

Tony on Sep 27, 2017 at 2:33 pm

Community gal you obviously are very misinformed about how things work. My understanding of your daughter's dog is he had 3 bite history, two towards children alone. I witnessed her surrendering the dog but did not go to court due to media frenzy. As far as I am concerned, you once again are misinformed and only believe what you want to believe. Besides, every mother will believe their child before strangers.

Up 13 Down 5

Community Gal on Sep 26, 2017 at 6:26 pm

So one person with 80 dogs, many admittedly with behavioural problems. I am trying to do the math. I recently dog-sat and I spent over an hour every day walking the dog and another 15 minutes a day feeding and petting him and letting him in and out. He was well behaved with no behavioural problems, before or after. One person cannot possibly hope to address the needs of 80 dogs in her care, no matter how kind-hearted she is. Grooming, walking, socialising all take time, a lot of time. My math says a minimum of one hour per dog per day so one person should have a maximum of ten dogs in her care to ensure the dogs are not forming their own pecking order behaviours.
My daughter boarded a dog there and he came back with bites on him and he showed aggression he did not have before. She took him back to Shelly for help and Shelly gave the dog away, against my daughter's wishes. She said the dogs work out their own pecking order and her dog would have found his place after awhile. Her outfit reminds me of the old days when handicapped children were warehoused in crowded dorms with minimal care and little affection. They did not thrive.

Up 22 Down 3

olddog on Sep 23, 2017 at 12:37 pm

What about the law of disturbing the peace?

Up 11 Down 29

Yukon Watchdog on Sep 23, 2017 at 10:35 am

The law is the law, is it not? Since Shelley is not breaking any laws, she should win this case, should she not? Let's hope the judge checks the law before arriving at his conclusion. This doesn't belong in court; this belongs in the local LIC office.

Up 16 Down 13

Yukon Watchdog on Sep 22, 2017 at 11:55 pm

How refreshing to hear the other side of this story. These comments certainly appear to be more balanced and realistic than the last story. Obviously the service is needed. Perhaps a different location should be considered; I certainly wouldn't want it next door to me, but I sure hope the judge doesn't fall for the over-sensationalizing of some of the plaintiffs.

Up 31 Down 6

ProScience Greenie on Sep 22, 2017 at 6:32 am

There is no way 60 plus dogs isn't going to be a big issue there or in any other similar neighborhood. You have to have a screw loose to deny that.

While some mushers with a small team are not an issue when it reaches the dog hoarding level like this it's time to be located on 40 acres out in the middle of nowhere.

Up 21 Down 6

Robert Scott on Sep 22, 2017 at 1:46 am

Would a compromise of sorts work? What if the crown could find a more remote piece of land for Shelly's animal rescue?

Up 13 Down 27

That's pathetic Mr. Lang on Sep 21, 2017 at 11:34 pm

I'm very disturbed that Mr. Lang thought it would be reasonable to ask that a rescue eliminate 55+ dogs to relieve his 5 clients. If you chose a fairly unregulated area of the Yukon because you felt it suited your needs, you should be intelligent enough to understand others have the same privilege.
Shelley is doing something a lot of people would not, she's dedicating herself to those who don't have a say or voice of their own. There is zero profit to be made in her endeavour and she gives 1000% percent of herself to these dogs, training, feeding, maintenance of their living facilities etc. I've been to her rescue many times and I've brought my dogs there for kenneling and will continue to because she deserves the business... because she is so much more than a business! She truly cares about the well being of the animals in her care, and she is in no way allowing these dogs to run wild or cause havoc on her neighbours. She is simply doing an amazing thing in an area that allows her the ability to do so. If her neighbours have a hard time sleeping now, but see no issue sleeping sound at the thought of all of those dogs being displaced or euthanized, then they aren't the type of people I give two sh*ts about to begin with!

Up 26 Down 8

JC on Sep 21, 2017 at 5:58 pm

I totally agree with Selenger. I too lived in a neighbourhood where dogs kept me awake at night. It would always start with one dog, then within seconds all the others joined in. This would happen several times during the day and night. Any little noise would set the dogs off. There are plenty of places outside the city limits where dog pounds could be set up. Not in the City or close to neighbourhoods. No excuse Shelly Cuthbert.

Up 33 Down 2

BB on Sep 21, 2017 at 4:41 pm

Can we all, as a territory, find a more appropriate place for this shelter? It is all of our problem that there are so many dogs in need in the Yukon. Change the animal welfare laws .. that would be too fundamental though right? So let's at least deal properly with the symptoms of the disease.

If there is a woman willing to basically flush her life down the toilet (by most people's standards) for dogs, spending all her money and spare time on them, and sharing her home with them, we should honour that and not look the gift horse in the mouth so to speak. (look for her flaws that means)

I appreciate 100% what her neighbours are going through, as well. I agree with them and recognize their plight.

But there is a solution! And for the cost of this court time, we could probably have bought Shelly a big lot nearby, but with no neighbours. She could sell her house and use the proceeds toward rebuilding, and I bet a lot of people would kick in to help build this dog shelter somewhere else where no one is left to deal with the noise and smell and feeling threatened, (I do assume they are being sincere in this). And where Shelly does not find herself hated and harassed, with her life splashed in the news on a regular basis. Let's get on with it.

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.