It is so much easier for all involved just to do nothing. This is evidenced by the statement "when all the evidence is collected..."
No more evidence will be collected. It is just hoped that the public's memory of the incident will fade.
As for Bob Fawcett's excuses? You, have got to be kidding me. If the King of Canada told me to kill just one dog I would have told him to kiss my ass. And kill 100? By hand? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY would have done that chore unless they were mentally ill. A ten year old would have known to call the SPCA and the MEDIA to report that request. The old adage "He's not sorry he did the killing, he sorry he got caught" applies here.
What needs to be done is that the name of the owner (yes, I read in the paper that he 'didn't know this would happen' - again, I'm assuming he means the getting caught part) should be made clear to everyone,and the name(s) of his compan(ies)as well. He also wrote that all the dogs that were killed were "old and sick". Really? How very convenient, and odd that ALL the dogs killed were old and sick. He went on to make it sound like he'd done them a favour.
People learn when they are hit where it hurts most, and in this guy's case, it's his wallet. Killing the dogs was all about money.
What's his name again? And his companie(s)? Make that well know to everyone and that guy will never make another dime in B.C.