Animal Advocates Watchdog

A letter from Carol Sonnex

From: GVAC
To: info@spca.bc.ca
Cc: cdaniell@spca.bc.ca
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: Attn: Board of Directors Re: Chilliwack Hobby Farm dogs

BCSPCA
Board of Directors

The return of the previously seized "puppymill" dogs to the Hobby Farm owner is a considerable disappointment.
These dogs were reported to be in poor condition living in unacceptable surroundings without adequate water.
Many of these dogs were found to have painful dental problems and other medical conditions that require intervention.
While under the care of the BCSPCA this was not undertaken. The dogs it appears were returned to the owner with little more than cosmetic changes.

Can the BCSPCA Board of Directors explain why these animals have been returned to the same owner they were seized from suffering from painful conditions?

Can the BCSPCA Board of Directors ensure these dogs are spayed, neutered and medically treated in a timely manner to allow them to enjoy the BCSPCA's Five Freedoms now that they have been returned?

As a member of a spay and neuter society who volunteers many hours daily to encourage population control I feel very discouraged when the BCSPCA returns defenseless dogs to be exploited again and again in a "puppymill". I truly hope you can explain your decision.

Yours sincerely,

Carol Sonnex

Messages In This Thread

SPCA to give dogs back to Chilliwack puppymiller after being paid "seizure costs".
Patricia Best supplies more information
letter to the BC SPCA Board of Directors
Letter to the BC SPCA Board of Directors from Nikki Boechler
Letter to the BC SPCA from Olivia Candille
A letter from Carol Sonnex
AAS will be getting a legal opinion
Legal opinion from Alexander, Holburn, Beaudin & Lang agrees with AAS interpretation
AAS letter to Craig Daniell asking that the SPCA not return the dogs to the puppy miller
Craig Daniell just told AAS that the sum paid by the Chilliwack puppymiller was not $11,000.
well to the SPCA..that I have supported my whole life..I say you are a fraud
The dogs came from a Chilliwack "Hobby Farm", seized May 13/0
More legal questions about custody orders. AAS will be looking for answers
News story - Coast Reporter
News Story, May/03 Chilliwack Progress
Thank God we are making a stand...someone has to...
Foster Home Fallacy
The SPCA contradicts itself
Eileen Drever says the PCA Act made them do it
Six months from seizure to conviction *LINK*
The point at issue is: Could returning animals make it doubtful a court would prohibit ownership?
Can the SPCA expect Crown to accept this case now that the SPCA has said the animals never were in that bad physical condition?
The public needs to know....
In April of this year, I very publicly condemned the Kamloops SPCA
SPCA Double Speak: This place is no benign "Hobby Farm": There is no legal definition of a puppy mill
I will definetly NOT support the S.P.C.A.
How does this solution benefit the animals? Or is the solution not supposed to?
SPCA double speak: justifying returning the Chilliwack Puppy Mill dogs
Is the SPCA going to say that the puppy miller can be trusted to meet its own definition of "responsible guardianship"?
Craig Daniell's "form answer" justifying the return of the dogs
Patricia Josh Best responds
Chilliwack Times, July 29/03
Throw in the Downy, the spin cycle is on. Patricia Best answers the SPCA
Patricia to meet with Craig Daniell
Chihuahua rescue: From what I can gather from talking to Eileen Drever, the SPCA sets its policies and it is due to money, budget restraints, and time.
The meeting was postponed *NM*
SPCA: back to blaming the law for what it does not do to protect animals
Bottom line is - the SPCA chose not to use the law and return the dogs. Why?
As a person who has personally rehabilitated puppy mill dogs for years, I question the "seizure costs"
Damage Control: Will the SPCA reseize the Chilliwack puppy mill dogs?

Share