Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Shelley Cuthbert

Court process was against her: ex-kennel owner

The former owner of the Tagish dog kennel has filed a response to a government petition seeking to remove her from Crown land off the Atlin Road near Tarfu Lake.

By Gord Fortin on November 1, 2018

The former owner of the Tagish dog kennel has filed a response to a government petition seeking to remove her from Crown land off the Atlin Road near Tarfu Lake.

Shelley Cuthbert filed her affidavit to the Yukon Supreme Court on Tuesday.

In the document, she admits to have been at that location since late July or early August. She revealed that she no longer has a home.

She claims this is a direct result of the permanent injunction levied against her by Yukon Supreme Court late last year.

The injunction was issued by the late Justice Leigh Gower on Oct. 11, 2017.

This meant Cuthbert could only have two dogs on her Tagish property as pets. Those dogs had to be kept inside from 10 a.m. to 7 a.m. Cuthbert’s Tagish neighbours had sought the injunction.

“I do not have a home any longer as it was ordered by this court that my dogs are not allowed to stay on my titled property in an unincorporated community with no bylaws and that part-time residents, with one couple on tourist visas, had more say over how my property was used,” Cuthbert said in the affidavit.

She explained that she had no other option but to leave Tagish because she would not follow the court order. She faced civil contempt of court over lack of compliance.

She said she faced jail time and risked having her dogs turned over to animal welfare.

In the affidavit, she expresses feelings that the court process was biased against her, citing that there was no attempt to negotiate a mutually beneficial solution to the problem.

This was not the first section of public land she admitted to using.

When she left Tagish, she claims to have used a different site. She did not reveal where this was nor how long she was there in the affidavit.

She does not believe she is doing something wrong, claiming that natural resource officer Jason Colbert told her she could camp in an undesignated area for a maximum of 400 days.

She pointed out camping is defined as “an outdoor activity involving overnight stays away from home in a shelter, such as a tent.”

She explained she uses a tent for her shelter as well as for the dogs. Since the tents can be moved, she argues, that should count as camping.

“Housing is a basic human right,” she said in the affidavit.

Cuthbert said she is not operating a business on the Crown land, because her operation does not meet the definition of business.

To be considered a business, she reasoned, her operation would have to be making money. She claims she has no profits.

She explained that the Carcross-Tagish First Nation (CTFN) pays for the animals that come from its traditional territory. If an animal originates from outside that jurisdiction, there is no compensation.

She explained that her rescue operation is a service to CTFN government, which helps with:

• animal control;

• vaccine clinics;

• transportation for medical emergencies;

• assisting the RCMP on animal issues;

• helping people train their dogs;

• offer education on pet care; and

• spay and neuter transports.

She adds that there are no legislative requirements when setting up kennels.

She claims her dogs are being sheltered to comply with the Animal Protection Act.

Cuthbert said her service is meant to protect people.

“The service is provided to keep these communities safe from dog-related deaths or injuries,” she said.

She next pointed to statistics that showed dogs in enclosures are safer than those that are tethered. She said four dogs were once tethered but now are in an enclosure.

“The dogs residing with me are not a public safety threat,” she said. “These dogs are contained, socialized and only become protective if I am not there and people determine to mock, videotape, take pictures or whatever else they choose to do.”

Cuthbert said she has not received any complaints that any of the dogs in her care bit anyone.

She did mention that animal protection officer Jay Lester pepper-sprayed a tethered dog that lunged at him. She explained she was at a loss for that behaviour, as Lester had been at the site several times without a problem.

This specific dog, she revealed, is now in an enclosure.

As for the reported dog feces, she said it’s picked up and hauled away.

Cuthbert argues she has not caused a disturbance to the area, citing that a bear and multiple moose have been shot in the vicinity. Wolves have also been around.

She said the dogs have roamed, but none have left the immediate area. She explained that those dogs were all friendly, and that a feral dog would not approach a person.

“All dogs are now contained in enclosure including the feral,” she said. “I can catch them at any time I wish. It just takes longer when they’re not contained in an enclosure.”

She added she is not aware of any complaints as a result of her dogs roaming and causing trouble.

Cuthbert feels the noise complaint, reported to the government, is doubtful.

She explained the resident claims to hear the dogs barking approximately 1.2 km away. She feels that is unlikely, as the distance is filled with trees and a ridge.

She added that she has affidavits stating that the dogs are quiet.

She claims to have caught someone taking pictures and video of the dogs while she was gone.

She feels all the attention her case has received has caused people to form a mob mentality against her. This has put her and the dogs at risk of injury or death, she said.

The government’s petition has yet to be heard in court.

Comments (23)

Up 1 Down 1

Jason on Nov 18, 2018 at 9:38 pm

No one mentions the fact that the supposedly more equipped dog trainers and carers in this area almost exclusively use shock and pain to "train" dogs. I don't blame her for not wanting her dogs to go to a shelter or other rescue when most people are still tormenting animals and calling it "training". Every time someone wants to keep their dogs out of unskilled hands, they are immediately labeled with the Scarlet H "Hoarder". A weaponized word used to take the rights of citizens away.

Up 3 Down 1

Beverly Sembsmoen on Nov 11, 2018 at 5:12 pm

She is using C/TFN for her own goals. Our Elders negotiated Agay Mene Natural Environment Park to protect critical caribou habitat. Those dogs do not meet that goal, and in fact hinders it! I will stand up for what was negotiated. Will you? Let the Mae Bacher Animal shelter do their thing regardless if that woman likes the MB Society or not.

Up 3 Down 4

Comments on Nov 7, 2018 at 4:59 pm

Interesting how long the comments on a story like this stick around. The media is not helping by sensationalizing Shelley's story that really only affected about ten neighbors. Not saying Shelley is without blame, not saying I would want to live beside her, but I just don't understand the continuous berating of her in the media.
What IS really interesting about her story is how despite the lack of laws or bylaws in Tagish, she was discriminated against (my opinion) in being restricted to only two dogs when no one else in Tagish is restricted in the same way. How does that work? Maybe that's the REAL story here. Maybe it's Tagish that needs to get their poop in a group and get working on some bylaws so the rules apply equally to everyone!

Up 9 Down 9

Joseum Wales on Nov 6, 2018 at 1:00 pm

If they go in and move her out would there be a court order to take and somehow deal with all the dogs?

Hope it will not be like the reindeer slaughter.

Up 37 Down 2

yk dude on Nov 5, 2018 at 5:37 pm

Bronco. Shelley is camping out next to two existing titled parcels with tax paying residents. She moved into THEIR area not the other way around.
Your comments are inaccurate.

Up 9 Down 40

Joseum Wales on Nov 5, 2018 at 3:21 pm

Heh Joseum Wales (Nov 1, 2018 at 4:07 pm)

Very astute post and I cannot understand how the legal system keeps coming after this woman.
Yes, Poor woman is being persecuted in a modern day witch hunt.
Yes, When will contemporary justice prevail?
Maybe there will be a happy ending but it will take someone giving away secluded land for Shelleys rescue program.

Up 17 Down 6

Josey Wales on Nov 5, 2018 at 6:31 am

Hey hang on.....great post, seriously...well stated.

Up 15 Down 64

Bronco on Nov 4, 2018 at 12:48 pm

People, don't move next door to a dog kennel if you don't want dogs barking near you. You have wasted a lot of Court time and YOU should be compensating Shelly for legal costs! Investigate the area you want to move into first. Don't destroy someone who is making a difference just because you didn't do your homework.

Up 76 Down 11

Hang On A Moment on Nov 4, 2018 at 12:03 am

"She explained that SHE HAD NO OTHER OPTION but to leave Tagish because she WOULD NOT follow the court order. She faced civil contempt of court over lack of compliance. She said she faced jail time and risked having her dogs turned over to animal welfare."

A dramatic statement, considering she CHOSE:
- not to comply;
- to abandon her home;
- to refuse to send any of the dogs to Mae Bachur (a no-kill shelter)

What a narcissistic God complex! She determines that in her indisputable opinion they're un-adoptable...yet it's OK for her to adopt them. Whitehorse is a very dog-friendly town, lots of experienced and committed trainers, and warm-hearted and knowledgeable people who adopt and work with their dogs. But ONLY SHELLEY knows about dogs...each and every one!

In her indisputable opinion it's better for the dog to live in packs (so good for human socialization trainers) in a fenced area or in dog crates
Living in the bush in winter conditions. SO much better than Mae Bachur with their own run, a heated space, vet attention if needed , and - oh yeah! A chance to find a home in a house to bond with people.

This is a situation where I truly wish the dogs could talk.

She is a hoarder, which is often rooted in a need to feel like an unparalleled expert, hero and martyr to a cause. I'm sorry for her problems and she needs mental health treatment - at the very least, for the sake of the dogs.

Up 50 Down 6

Groucho d'North on Nov 3, 2018 at 10:45 am

Absolutely, the court process was against her. It was employed to try and get her to see the light and adopt a more humane approach to keeping all those dogs. The way she was doing it was not good for her nieghbours, for her or for her dogs. She is flailing to try and justify how she wants to conduct her life with dogs and clearly, her views do not mesh with what is considered to be appropriate for quality dog care. Her heart may be in the right place, but much more is required to do it right.

Up 64 Down 8

For the teary-eyed on Nov 2, 2018 at 2:17 pm

There is no way Shelley should be given her own facility out of public money. I'm putting that out there right now as I see sympathetic posts saying 'the government should help her, they caused the problem'.

As the ED of the Humane Society Shelley was fiscally irresponsible and refused to follow the Societies Act. She is the last person who should be given her own shelter on the public dime.

As for the 'punitive' court order, there is a long history that led up to why the court order was so detailed. Shelley would not comply / follow steps to remedy the situation unless it was right down to the wire and there was no way whatsoever that she could wiggle out of it.

As for, 'she did nothing wrong or illegal', Shelley rode on the 'Well, they can't stop me. There are no bylaws out here.'

Not giving a bleep about her neighbours for starters, and completely ignoring laws about nuisance, danger, disturbance, and depriving others of their enjoyment of their property. She had 70 often-unsupervised, fenced in dogs on a small lot in a neighbourhood.

She has a lot of practice at presenting her side of things, and only her side of things. In many episodes in court on a number of different issues.

At one point she used the letters, 'SPCA', for her 'rescue', until she was told to stop inferring that she was running an SPCA. This should be an indication of Shelley's relationship with the truth. She is very practiced at carefully selecting and presenting a fabricated reality to people. Watch out for people like that. It's not a joke or a witch hunt, read the history. Keep your head screwed on and don't be fooled.

From 2012: "Cuthbert also operates a home business called Any Domesticated Animal Rescue/SPCA. “I run a business. My business is rescue and boarding dogs, which is perfectly legal, and it is a registered business,” Cuthbert said."

She had nothing to do with the SPCA, but used their name for her business. Are you starting to 'get it' yet?

Up 15 Down 47

Agree on Nov 2, 2018 at 1:41 pm

I agree the court process was completely against her. I agree the judgment was particularly punitive and unfair.
If only our courts would deal with criminals in the same punitive way!
Poor Shelley is getting a worse rap than the Yukon's latest convicted murderers. She's been treated horribly.
It's not the first time I've seen a judgment coming out of the Yukon Courts laced with personal dislike for someone as opposed to applying and seeking justice in accordance with the laws. It's shameful and unfair.
Shelley, CTFN is probably your best bet. Talk to them about a little piece of land somewhere. They've got a great subdivision near the Carcross Corner that was built years ago and is not being used by their people yet. Maybe you could set up camp there.

Up 42 Down 4

Concerned on Nov 2, 2018 at 1:05 pm

How much is this all going to cost in the end? Courts, time and tax payers money.

Up 33 Down 48

Shawn Hughes on Nov 2, 2018 at 9:59 am

She helped us with our dog when nobody else could and our dog was re-homed successfully. Let’s not forget that she’s providing a service for which there’s no alternative in the Yukon. Before judging perhaps we should consider solutions. She makes a lot of valid points. Would be nice if she had some support and a proper facility somewhere. I hope a compromise can be reached.

Up 28 Down 42

CJ on Nov 1, 2018 at 8:13 pm

I'm sure I'm not the only person who found the court decision startlingly punitive. Only allowed two dogs, with a curfew, in a rural community. Didn't that make a lot of property owners in the area non-compliant? I still don't understand it. Honestly, you read decisions about violent crimes that show more compassion towards the defendant.

Without blaming the law if she goes rogue, neither did it go a long way towards mitigating an already stressed situation. There's lots of dog mushers with more than 50 dogs who aren't given the kind of scrutiny that Shelly was. She doesn't endear herself, and she's paying a very high price for it.

I admit, I wouldn't want her setting up camp next to me, either. It's a volatile situation. The brain trust at YTG needs to put their heads together and come up with something more in line with reconciling the opposing realities than forcing a showdown, which is something she seems ill-equipped psychologically and financially to deal with.

One of the newspapers wrote a more favourable account about the state of the dogs (I can't remember which paper). It's certainly true that dogs are in need of care in the territory. But they handled the Ross River situation, for example, better than this.

Up 55 Down 18

concerned citizen on Nov 1, 2018 at 5:07 pm

Thank you @Yukonet for having common sense .Clearly this woman is a dog hoarder. The dogs need to be rescued and rehomed and the sooner the better. The weather is not getting warmer any time soon.

Up 34 Down 27

BnR on Nov 1, 2018 at 4:57 pm

"Poor woman is being persecuted in a modern day witch hunt.
When will contemporary justice prevail?"
Joseum Wales, WTF are you talking about......

Up 41 Down 14

Herman Kaglik on Nov 1, 2018 at 4:56 pm

Another “Trevor” all over again! And she was behind that as well, was she not?

Up 21 Down 20

... She hit the nail on the head on Nov 1, 2018 at 4:54 pm

Without getting into the arguments/discussion;
There was no solution provided. What did you expect to happen? The courts/neighbours never worried about her welfare; simply pack up and leave. You're going to have a reoccurring problem if you never find a solution.

I think this "problem" is too big for one person to handle. No, the government/courts shouldn't have to step in and give her land far away from anyone with a compound. But at the same time... making a decision that leaves her in the exact same predicament.
what did you expect?

Up 74 Down 10

Old timer on Nov 1, 2018 at 4:19 pm

"She explained that the Carcross-Tagish First Nation (CTFN) pays for the animals that come from its traditional territory. If an animal originates from outside that jurisdiction, there is no compensation."

Smart girl..throwing a first nations twist into the puzzle of complexity. YG will form a whole new department just to handle the situation..a win win for everyone..more jobs, more families, equates to a larger population which in turn equates to a larger welfare cheque from Ottawa. The new branch can be called "DOG" Department of Growling"!
This story could easily push the "Trevor the dog" story off the podium.

Up 102 Down 9

Old timer on Nov 1, 2018 at 4:08 pm

"She explained that the Carcross-Tagish First Nation (CTFN) pays for the animals that come from its traditional territory. If an animal originates from outside that jurisdiction, there is no compensation."
Sounds like she has a working relationship with CTFN - why not set up shop on a chunk of their land?

Up 29 Down 108

Joseum Wales on Nov 1, 2018 at 4:07 pm

Poor woman is being persecuted in a modern day witch hunt.
When will contemporary justice prevail?

Up 115 Down 17

Yukonet on Nov 1, 2018 at 3:28 pm

If this lady says she is in dog rescue... and she re-homes them with the appropriate person... why is there no notices or advertisments of this? It's an unknown organization run by one person... seems like she would rather just keep collecting dogs then finding them homes.

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.