Craig Daniell told us last night that the puppymiller is not Marcie Ryan. And that the sum paid to the SPCA is not $11,000. (AAS found that the puppymiller's name is Karen Raffles.)

Whatever the sum, it must be substantial for the Sechelt SPCA temporary manager, Tim, to have named that figure to several of the foster families.

We found where the dogs came from...

10 dogs seized May 13/03 from a "hobby farm" in Chilliwack.

From the Vancouver Sun, May 15/03

'The dogs were kept in small, filthy cages Drever said, and several were suffering from different types of illnesses. Also, while all had food and water available to them, there was hardly any water. "And if there was water, it was very little and very, very dirty", Drever said.'

Yesterday, AAS obtained a legal opinion as to whether the PCA Act requires the SPCA to return animals . The legal opinion agreed with our interpretation. It said that the SPCA does not have to return animals to owners - even if the owner pays the SPCA's seizure costs.

Nor does the Act say that the SPCA must return animals if improvements have been made.

In other words, the SPCA could have been paid for its seizure costs and still have kept the dogs. The dogs could have stayed in their happy foster homes.

AAS has pictures of some of the dogs in their foster homes. It is heartbreaking and infuriating that they have been taken from the love and happiness of foster homes that could have become permanent homes, and were returned to a breeder - back to cages and no life to start the cycle of breed and sell all over because the foster families say that the dogs were not sterilized.

If the SPCA does not recommended to Crown that charges be laid in this case, or makes a very weak case that Crown will turn down, this can give the appearance that the SPCA will leave you alone if you pay, and ruin you if you don't. It gives the appearance that the SPCA is not about animal welfare, but about money. That is why we will be watching to see if charges are recommended and if a prohibition of ownership is made.

We do not know what amount was finally agreed upon for the owner to get his or her dogs back, but this whole thing begs the question, why would the owner pay possibly as much as $1000 per dog to get them back, especially as they have infections, rotten teeth, enlarged vaginas, and other diseases and conditions?

The return of these dogs is far more serious than the return of Silvia Rutledge's animals, as the SPCA, after 106 years of existence still has no facilities for impounding the various species seized from Rutledge, and her animals would be better off in her "improved" conditions which are at least familiar.

But for the SPCA to take dogs away from happy foster homes and return them to the person who was so neglectful that the SPCA seized them, is outrageous and raises questions that must be answered.

AAS will be following this case to see if the SPCA asks for charges to be laid, and if it does, just how good a case for prosecution it makes in its report to Crown, and if there is a trial and a conviction, what the SPCA will be able to do to get the dogs back, now that the SPCA has, in effect, approved of this breeder.

Craig Daniell, in an email to AAS, justified the return of animals on the grounds that case law shows that courts are likely to find that the owner, by making improvements to the physical environment, can have their animals back. But there was also physical suffering, illness and disease conditions of the dogs in this case that would make a stronger argument for the SPCA being awarded an order of custody. The SPCA said it would "raise the bar". The way to raise the bar is to argue strenuously before the courts for a higher standard of interpretation of the Act. By not applying for a custody order for these dogs, the SPCA has accepted the bar where it is.

It is too bad that a large sum of money is muddying the perception of the SPCA's motives. The money may have nothing to do with the SPCA's decision not to apply for a custody order and to return the dogs, but the SPCA's actions admit of the appearance that it may have.