Return to Index Read Responses

Animal Advocates Watchdog

The point at issue is: Could returning animals make it doubtful a court would prohibit ownership?
In Response To: The SPCA contradicts itself ()

In a July 25th email to AAS, Craig Daniell, acting BC SCPA CEO and Manager of Cruelty Investigations, said: "Return of the animals does not affect our ability to ask for a prohibition order" (on owning animals for a period of time if the defendant is convicted).

AAS replied: "You answer only that it does not affect the SPCA's ability to 'ask' for a prohibition order. Asking is not the point at issue: 'getting' a prohibition order is the point at issue."

The point at issue is critical. Could returning animals to the owner influence a court to rule that conditions now satisfy the SPCA and so a prohibition on owning animals is not necessary or even logical?

And why would the SPCA ask for a prohibition on ownership when it is they that have returned animals to the convicted animal neglector? Wouldn't that be a bit silly?

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