"...the SPCA, who are contracted by the District of Maple Ridge to enforce the city’s animal bylaws. Because it was the three-and-a-half year-old dog’s first violent attack, Maple Ridge’s bylaws don’t require the dog to be put down. Barber said he was frustrated the SPCA didn’t do more. “Nothing’s been done. The SPCA says the owner’s going to handle it. Nothing’s been done,” Barber said Monday. However, SPCA spokesperson Lorie Chortyk confirmed Tuesday that the owner voluntarily agreed to have the dog euthanized after speaking with SPCA and police. “They were able to convince her it was the right thing to do, given the severity of the attack,” Chortyk said."
That sounds as though the SPCA left a seriously desocialized large dog with its irresponsible owner for five days while it worked on having her kill her dog, thereby avoiding the publicity of doing what it is paid by Maple Ridge to do - seize and kill biting dogs.
There was a time, not so long ago, that the SPCA may have had a hundred or more of these pet-disposal contracts which paid it to kill dogs, cats, rabbits, birds and other pet animals , taking as much as $5 million a year to do this. In fact, it did almost nothing else but take in and kill those animals it couldn't, or believed it wouldn't, sell, all over BC, studiously avoiding prevention of cruelty. AAS is being sued for saying this even though the SPCA knew the words were true.
We have no idea of how many times the SPCA has applied to kill dogs or has bullied owners into surrendering a dog to be killed during its 60-year dog-catching business. But some have been high-profile enough for us to have been able to document them. One was the Surrey case "Raymond", who bit a man who was beating up his owner, Ed Chase. It became a cause celebre in the media with AAS doing most of the documenting. On the AAS website we wrote:
"The animal welfare agency mandated to protect animals from people is taking money to protect people from animals, and in the process, killing animals rather than speaking for them. Why did the SPCA apply to the courts to kill a dog (Raymond) they hadn't even assessed?
"We believe there a conflict of interest which needs to be examined to determine if the two money-generating actions by the BC SPCA - animal welfare donations and animal control fees - is the conflict that we believe it to be. Animal control contracts is a subject that the BC SPCA seldom mentions, and in fact, when the public became aware of the SPCA's role as the paid dog-catcher/disposer/destroyer in Surrey, it tried to deflect that understanding in a Surrey Now article (link below), and in several radio interviews. What is needed in our opinion is an application through Surrey FOI to find out how many dogs the SPCA has applied to kill in the many decades it has been the paid animal control contractor for the City of Surrey, and in all municipalities where the SPCA has been the paid dog-catcher/disposer/destroyer.
August 1st Surrey Now: "SPCA spokeswoman Corry Anderson-Fennell [stressed] it was the city, not her organization, that asked for the destruction order." Read the Surrey Now. That's a very disingenuous and media-savvy comment. Why did her organization comply with the City's wishes to kill Ray? Did the SPCA speak on behalf of Ray to the City? Did the SPCA act as Ray's advocate or as Ray's paid destroyer? What speaks loudest for dogs in Surrey? Their voices or Surrey's money?
July 23, 2008 the BC SPCA applied to Surrey Provincial Court for an order to kill Ray. Read the Destruction Order application. In our opinion, this paid contractual obligation is not speaking for dogs.
In our opinion, Anderson-Fennell's statement obscures the fact that the SPCA takes money to be the agency that carries out the destruction of dogs - which may or may not be dangerous - for the City of Surrey.