Look what the cat dragged out: ‘Heated emotions’ prompt Richmond animal rescue CEO to step away from Chilliwack Animal Safe Haven

Board of Directors doesn't exactly ease tensions post accusing group of 'malice' ' harassment' 'false rumours' and they're bent on 'destabilizing' the Society

March 6, 2026

Those paying attention to the debacle over the past six months at the Chilliwack Animal Safe Haven Society will have noticed that while Society members, volunteers, and staff are accused of malfeasance, intimidated into signing NDAs, and threatened with RCMP investigations, the Haven’s new leadership isn’t keen to answer direct questions about why they are doing what they are doing.

I asked via email for someone from the Haven’s new leadership, preferably board president Katherine Lemond or executive director Bernadette Maguire, for an interview. Crickets.

I similarly asked Regional Animal Protection Society (RAPS) CEO Eyal Lichtmann to talk. More crickets… until Thursday when he emailed me, but that was only after he announced he was stepping down as a consultant for the board due to “misinformation” and to avoid further distractions. 

What was somewhat odd was to see his announced resignation in a 1,500-word screed 90 per cent of which was about the article I posted about the conflict on Feb. 27, 2026.

Below is his 1,500-word message in full, each paragraph after which I comment with clarifications, explanations, noting some of his inaccuracies, all with a dash of sarcasm.

I said that he said he resigned in that post but, to use a journalism reference, he buried the lede. In 1,500 words, it wasn’t until the 19th paragraph and 1,300 words in that he says what should have been the first sentence: “To eliminate any misunderstanding regarding my role, I have formally stepped back from my advisory involvement with the Safe Haven.”

I commented about this post from March 2 online, then on March 5, Lichtmann finally responded to my Feb. 23 email request for an interview, with a convivial message that indeed led with the newsy news, albeit it with a different wording, suggesting he stepped away as a consultant “because of the heated emotions related to Haven.” 

“I understand all the emotions related to what is going on with Haven, and I believe it should be left to the local people and membership to make their own determinations,” he also said.

He said RAPS never had any intention of amalgamating or taking over the Haven’s property. He also offered to provide me a full tour of RAPS “to showcase what we are doing in assisting the animals and people in the community.”

Lichtmann even gave me a flat apology a la Vancouver Mayor Ken Sims, for “getting personal on matters.” By Friday, the Haven’s management had not edited or removed the defamatory statements against me. If they had, I would have slunk into the cedar hedges like a Homer Simpson meme, but since they didn’t, I thought I’d still share Lichtmann’s post with my responses below. 

I did follow up to his email with some questions and comments, including that given that the majority of folks involved in the Haven are women, some felt like he was involved in an epic exercise in mansplaining and gaslighting. I also asked if before the backlash he originally had plans to become the executive director, and I asked if the RAPS-friendly Board members will similarly step down.

He said “no” to the first question, that he had no “interest, desire or design” of becoming the executive director. As for the RAPS board members, “yes, anyone that has been or associated (sic] with RAPS, I believe, are stepping away,” adding that is the intent, but it is up to them.

Then on Friday (March 6) morning, in an announcement posted online, the Haven announced the three members formerly connected to RAPS, Ayelet Cohen, Chris Kamachi, and Rebeka Breder, did indeed resign.

At the end of the statement, there is an email address to contact for media inquiries, an email address I sent a request to 11 days prior, Feb. 23, 2026, and never received a response. Since the Haven board wouldn't and apparently won't answer my questions about their threat letter to the shelter manager while she is on medical leave, about dismissals, and what led to the resignations, and since Lichtmann responded about his role after he already resigned, the best I can do is respond to his public post.

I’m not so vain as to think my opinion matters. I’m an outsider, just trying to tell the community what’s going on. This is just my opinion. 

The paragraphs below in regular font are from Lichtmann’s post on the Haven’s website posted on March 4. The ones following in bold-italics are mine.

By the Regional Animal Protection Society (RAPS) Eyal Lichtmann, Richmond, BC

A recent article authored by Paul J. Henderson regarding the Regional Animal Protection Society (RAPS), its CEO Eyal Lichtmann, and the Chilliwack Animal Safe Haven Society presents a narrative that is, in RAPS’ view, materially incomplete, heavily one-sided, and lacking critical factual context.

There is a reason why journalism regarding controversies might appear “heavily one-sided.” It’s because the one side complaining about the one-sidedness refused to respond to a request for an interview, i.e. to answer questions about their side. 

Given the seriousness of the claims and the reputational implications for multiple individuals, including Carol Reichert, Martin van den Hemel, Ken Johnston, Ena Vermerris, Nicolette Joosting, Chloé MacBeth, Christy Moschopedis, Camilla Coates, Katherine Lemond, Bernadette Maguire, Ayelet Cohen-Weil, Rebeka Breder, Chris Kamachi, and Robyn Wilson, RAPS believes it is necessary to respond clearly, directly, and on the record.

One of those people is deceased. I spoke to two of those people for my story. I pointed out the new Board’s bullying and intimidation led to resignations and medical leave of four of those people, so do you think that those seven people would like to see you speaking on their behalf? As for Lemond and Maguire who are apparently now running the show, can you speak on their behalf? As for the three former RAPS board members inserted into the Haven board, doesn’t that quack of a takeover? Society members are wondering, if all you did was act as a “consultant,” why are three RAPS people suddenly and still on the Board? (I don’t know who Robyn Wilson is.)

At the center of Henderson’s article is a highly charged narrative suggesting that RAPS is engaged in a “hostile takeover” of the Safe Haven. That claim is false. RAPS was invited to provide advisory support, nothing more. The role was consultative, focused on governance, financial discipline, and animal welfare best practices. At no time did RAPS seek ownership, control, or influence over the Safe Haven’s assets, land, or operations beyond sharing expertise. The repeated suggestion otherwise is not supported by fact.

I didn’t invent the narrative, just shared it from the dozens of Society members and volunteers and staff members who, again, sorry for the ongoing metaphor, saw something that walked and quacked like a duck so they called it one. As for “at no time did RAPS seek control,” well that’s kind of the point of the article, to ask the question if this is the direction it is heading?

Maybe “at no time” just hasn’t happened yet... although, now that the RAPS folks are out, has the coup been defeated?

In fact, RAPS twice over the past month has had its veterinarians visit the Safe Haven’s shelter to provide free veterinary care to dozens of cats and hugely discounted dentals for cats at the RAPS Animal Hospital. The sharing of resources, for the betterment of the cats, is what collaboration between animal rescue organizations should be and RAPS’ involvement with the Safe Haven has always been about the health, safety and betterment of the cats.

OK, sure. I know nothing of this. But why are you uniquely qualified to swoop in from Richmond with RAPS veterinary care?

The article relies heavily on language designed to provoke concern, phrases such as “fox into a henhouse” and speculation about ulterior motives tied to land value or expansion plans. These are not substantiated conclusions; they are narrative devices specifically designed to create derision and fear. RAPS has stated unequivocally: there is no plan to build a hospital on Safe Haven land, and no intention to take over the organization. These assertions were made clear by RAPS at the open house held by Safe Haven on February 17, 2026, which Henderson would or should have been aware of, and which he totally ignored.

Nothing shared by me or told to me by Society members or victims of what went down in Richmond is “designed to provoke concern,” it was to “reflect concern.” The “derision and fear” is already there, as pointed out by so many members/volunteers/staff. If you are here as a consultant and a saviour in a white hat, isn’t it your responsibility to answer questions? Look at what is actually happening at the Society? Respond to concerns honestly and truthfully?

Much of the article further attributes serious claims against the Safe Haven Board and management of bullying, intimidation, wrongful dismissal, and governance misconduct, without presenting verified findings, due process outcomes, or balanced context. RAPS cannot and will not comment on specific personnel matters within another organization. However, it is important to note that organizational change, particularly the introduction of formal governance, financial oversight, and human resource practices, and appointing qualified new management, often generates resistance amongst staff who previously had free reign to utilize organizational resources and make their own decisions. That resistance by staff should not be mischaracterized as evidence of wrongdoing by the Directors looking into establishing best charity organizational practices.

This is where the one-sidedness is indeed a problem. Do you see how if people are being criticized for bullying and intimidation refuse to respond to requests to comment, all one can write is that they refused to comment?

And this: “[I]t is important to note that organizational change, particularly the introduction of formal governance, financial oversight, and human resource practices, and appointing qualified new management, often generates resistance amongst staff who previously had free reign to utilize organizational resources and make their own decisions.”

Sounds very familiar to what was said in 2016 in Richmond, almost like you plagiarized your own words.

The article also asserts that board appointments at Safe Haven were improper or contrary to bylaws. This reflects, at best, an incomplete understanding of nonprofit governance by Henderson and that he has neither read the Haven bylaws nor the BC Society Act, which are further acts of journalistic negligence on his part. Under the BC Societies Act, boards are permitted to appoint directors to fill vacancies, subject to the Haven bylaws. Presenting this as inherently improper action risks misleading the public about how charities are lawfully governed and an attempt to mischaracterize the professional actions of the Board of Directors.

I’m told the board appointments were improper and contrary to bylaws, so either someone is wrong or someone is lying. I am indeed no expert, but if you could explain how it is proper and lawful and professional to appoint seven directors when no more than three should be appointed to replace those who stepped down, rather than elected at an AGM? And if that is incorrect and it was legitimate, is it proper to appoint three former RAPS board members who don’t live in Chilliwack?

Henderson, in an interview with the Vancouver Sun, June 07, 2023, stated the following about having been fired as the Editor of the Chilliwack Progress, and that he has experienced personal attacks and harassment in his 17 years of covering the community. “I have thick skin and I don’t let it bother me, usually. It is, however, hard on my wife, and it’s hard to understand the level of hatred and vile behaviour out there.”

Thank you for digging up something from my past and including a passive-aggressive ad hominem attack.

However, and unfortunately, this is actually what Henderson is doing to the current Board of Directors, RAPS and their families.

Not at all true. Do you see how sharing news to the community about the behaviour of the directors and the intervention by RAPS is not at all the same? Don’t shoot the messenger.

In addition, the article singles out individuals, such as Ayelet Cohen-Weil, Rebeka Breder, and Chris Kamachi, using terms like “loyalists” or implying conflicts based on prior associations. This form of improper journalist characterization substitutes insinuation for evidence and disregards the public statements put out by the Safe Haven Board about the professional skills these people bring to assisting the Safe Haven Board. Professional affiliations do not constitute misconduct, and such framing does a disservice to individuals who have contributed their time and expertise to animal welfare and who have gone out of their way to assist the Safe Haven. And none of them have been dismissed for professional misconduct like Henderson, who purports to be a fair journalist.

As for “…improper journalist characterization substitutes insinuation for evidence and disregards the public statements put out by the Safe Haven Board,” I think it was fine and proper, and the insinuation stands. If the newly appointed Safe Haven Board with its RAPS members who are under your direction as a consultant say the walking and quacking is not a duck, don’t Society members have the right to ask questions and point out that they still see a duck?

As for ad hominem attack number two: “dismissed for professional misconduct,” that’s inaccurate, was corrected via legal action, and is, psst, defamation. But let’s not let the truth get in the way of a narrative, eh?

The narrative advanced by Carol Reichert within the article similarly requires context. RAPS disputes the suggestion that the organization has declined under its current leadership. Since 2016, RAPS has undergone a documented transformation: strengthening governance, stabilizing finances, modernizing infrastructure, and significantly expanding veterinary capacity. Lichtmann inherited over $1 million in debts and negative cash flow at RAPS after Reichert’s reign as CEO, which nearly financially bankrupted the organization and where around $800,000 was due to veterinary bills owed to local veterinarian hospitals. The current leadership at RAPS has grown the organization to $8.5 million in sustainable operations, saving thousands of more animal lives annually. These are true facts about an organization with advancement and growth in animal welfare.

Is there a difference between “requires context” and saying RAPS founder Reichert and all your many other critics over the years are simply “wrong?” And while two personal attacks on me are fun (one more to come), I don’t think you should go after the woman who founded RAPS and devotedly ran it for decades before you took over. I shudder to think what some involved might say about Ena Vermerris.

The creation of the RAPS Animal Hospital has enabled both high-quality care for RAPS animals and millions of dollars in subsidized veterinary services for the public. These are measurable outcomes, not subjective interpretations. These are the tangible benefits RAPS offers people in all of the municipalities across the Lower Mainland.

I think you spelled “Richmond” wrong.

Claims raised by Martin van den Hemel regarding “questionable accounting” and “sketchy fundraising,” as well as commentary involving Ken Johnston, are presented in the article without supporting findings from regulators, auditors, or legal proceedings. Allegations are not evidence and repeating them without substantiation risks creating a false impression of wrongdoing.

Important question: Are these former board members, one a respected newspaper publisher the other is former MLA, wrong or are they lying? It has to be one of those two. Which is it?

Similarly, highly emotional cases, such as those involving “Rocky” and “Rhoda”, are presented in a manner that omits critical context. RAPS’ position is clear, made public and posted on its website: medical decisions are made by licensed veterinarians, not executive leadership at RAPS, and financial assistance policies are structured to ensure sustainability and fairness across all cases. These policies exist to protect the long-term viability of animal care services, even when individual situations are difficult.

Unanswered question: Why did you refuse to greenlight the funds to pay for veterinary care after thousands were raised to help this homeless man’s dog? Is that also a lie, because it was the veterinarian who said it, and she had/has a very strong professional incitement not to lie about veterinary care. 

The article also raises concerns about membership activity and participation in Safe Haven governance. RAPS supports lawful member engagement. However, governance decisions must ultimately be guided by bylaws, statutory requirements, and orderly process, not by speculation or attempts to delegitimize participation. The accusations applied to the Safe Haven Board regarding the sign up of members are similar membership drive actions taken by the other side wanting to dismiss the existing Board.

Except one is a membership drive in Chilliwack to get the local community involved in the local Chilliwack Haven. Why have you created a membership drive in Richmond? 

Between your arrival (one quack), your installation of RAPS people on the Haven board (two quacks), and a Richmond membership drive to flood a Chilliwack charity (three quacks), very reasonable, calm, intelligent people tell me they think they see a duck. 

Of particular concern is the article’s use of speculative theories, such as property acquisition motives, presented alongside factual reporting. Suggesting a “more plausible explanation” without evidence blurs the line between reporting and conjecture, leaving readers with conclusions that are not grounded in verified fact. And these assertions were dispelled by the Haven Board, and RAPS’ representative at the Town Hall Meeting, a fact that Henderson left out. Therefore, this is nothing more than attempts to instill fear and mistrust with the public.

“Without evidence.” Again, if you would answer my questions, maybe Society members would be able to find out what is actually happening to this charity instead of being forced to read between the corporate-speak and wade through the gaslighting. 

Are you asking all the many critics to just listen to the Board ‘splain to them that the Board is not doing what it appears the Board is doing? Having driven out here from Richmond, how surprised are you to learn that the people in the Fraser Valley aren’t just chewing on corn cob pipes on the porch waiting to be rescued from themselves?

RAPS also notes that Paul J. Henderson has publicly stated he was previously removed from an editorial role earlier in his career. RAPS will not speculate on the circumstances of that situation. However, readers are entitled to consider the importance of rigorous standards, balance, and verification in reporting, particularly when serious allegations are involved.

Third ad hominem attack. I’ve never not had to pay for living expenses, but apparently I’m living rent-free in your head. 

Again, I have nothing directly to do with this situation, I am just the messenger hearing and sharing concerns from the vast majority. (And why would you say you “will not speculate on the circumstances” of my role as editor of the newspaper after already, inaccurately, having done so twice?)

As for balance and verification, let’s have the president and/or the ED answer some questions to balance and verify. On a message on March 6 they say, for media inquiries, email info@thesafehaven.ca, an email address I did exactly that on Feb. 23 and heard nothing back.

Ultimately, this situation should not be reduced to narratives, personalities, or speculation. The real issue is ensuring that animal welfare organizations operate with strong governance, financial accountability, and sustainable practices that protect both animals and the public trust.

“Dear ChatGPT, this is OK, but next time can you make me sound less like a bloviated shill?”

To eliminate any misunderstanding regarding my role, I have formally formally stepped back from my advisory involvement with the Safe Haven. This decision was made solely to prevent further mischaracterization and distraction from the underlying issues that the Safe Haven Board is independently working to address.

Aaah, white knight syndrome, swooping in to save the Haven from its own Society members, volunteers, and devoted staff, falling on a sword. Maybe this heroism will be recognized with a plaque or a bench, you know, one of those things they didn't do for Ena Vermerris after she passed away and despite her contributions? 

RAPS remains focused on its mission: helping animals and the people who care for them. The organization will continue to operate with transparency, accountability, and a commitment to best practices, principles that are essential to any modern, responsible charity and what is required to care for the cats properly and effectively.

OK.

As CEO of the Regional Animal Protection Society (RAPS), I urge the public to approach recent claims with discernment; to seek complete, verifiable information and to distinguish between evidence-based reporting and narrative-driven speculation.

This is where we agree 100 per cent. I’ll keep telling people the truth based on the information and the evidence, and if you answered some of my questions before stepping down, maybe that would have helped Society members and Chilliwack residents figure out what the narrative really is. Opacity through corporate-speak and social media posts with FAQ graphics and comments turned off does not make for good access to “verifiable information.”

Decisions about the future of the Safe Haven must be grounded in facts, not misinformation. The organization belongs to the community, it is yours to protect or, if misled, to risk losing. We are confident that a fair and informed review of the evidence will demonstrate that the current Board of Directors is composed of ethical, dedicated professionals who are working diligently to implement best practices in governance, financial oversight, and animal care.

“The organization belongs to the community, it is yours to protect or, if misled, to risk losing.”

I have to say that "risk losing" sounds like a threat or a promise or at least mansplaining.

RAPS stands for transparency, accountability, and measurable impact. Our track record reflects that commitment.

Blech.

To better understand the depth and scope of our work, and the standard of care and innovation we bring to animal welfare, we encourage the public to visit our websites and watch our television series Pets & Pickers, available on CTV Wild and Crave TV.

I don’t think anyone interested in this subject cares about a reality show.

Lichtman’s lengthy post was followed by comments posted on behalf of the Haven’s board of directors. 

They aren’t exactly conciliatory in the expression of sadness that the RAPS CEO is stepping down, citing “harassment” and “malice” and “rumours” from Haven members and volunteers.

“To eliminate any misunderstanding with Eyal’s role with the Haven and due to significant harassment, that he has experienced both online because of unfounded rumours, the Haven Board and Eyal agreed that this step is in the best interests of both parties at this time….

“To clarify for those that might have missed this information, RAPS is not taking over the Chilliwack Animal Safe Haven. RAPS is not interfering with the Haven’s governance or trying to take over our land. These are false rumours started in malice by a group of individuals bent on overthrowing the current board and destabilizing the organization by any means possible.”

What remains left unanswered, is why are so many people upset about what is happening at the Chilliwack Animal Safe Haven, at the facility, among staff, volunteers, and at the Board of Directors for the society? Is everyone else wrong and the two remaining board members and the new ED are right? 

What would be the conspiratorial motive for the board president, vice-president (veterinarian) to resign, the vet tech to resign, for the shelter manager and assistant manager to go on medical leave, and for dozens of members to form Facebook groups and demand an EGM and ask for transparency? 

If Chilliwack residents are supposed to believe that two or three people are doing the right thing, and everyone else is wrong and filled with malice, intent on "destabilizing the organization by any means possible," I’m sorry, but as an outside observer, that's clearly bullshit.

The Board ends its missive answer a question no one asked, “What are we asking our community now?”

Answer: “Please refrain from harassing staff, volunteers, and donors from either organization.” 

Not exactly at group hug stage yet. 

-30-

Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation so I can continue this work.

Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social