Animal Advocates Watchdog

Six months from seizure to conviction *LINK*

The following SPCA press release notes that the horses were seized in January and Shenko convicted in July, a mere 6 months from apprehension to conviction. Why were the foster parents of the 10 dogs told it would most likely be two years that they would be fostering these dogs when court proceedings can move so much quicker?

Additionally, our "injustice" system has deemed this abuser worthy of paying a massive fine of $200.00! The message that this promotes is one of minimizing animals suffering, abuse and value in life.

Kelowna Man Pleads Guilty to Animal Cruelty Charges

July 18, 2003. For Immediate Release: Albert Shenko of Kelowna today pled guilty to one count of animal cruelty under the Criminal Code of Canada, following a cruelty investigation by BC SPCA Special Provincial Constables.

The BC SPCA seized two thorough-bred horses - a mare and a gelding - from Mr. Shenko's property on January 7th, 2003.

"The veterinarian who assisted us with the investigation used the industry standard Body Conditioning Scoring Chart, which rates horses on a scale of one to nine," said SPCA Constable Brad Kuich. "In this case she rated the condition of one of the seized horses at 2.5, which indicates that an animal is emaciated, and the other at 3." Kuich adds that when the search warrant was executed on the property there was no evidence of water having been in the trough, the horses' hooves were overgrown to the point of inflicting pain, and there was no food in evidence.

Despite receiving emergency veterinary care following the seizure, the mare could not be saved and had to be humanely euthanized. The gelding has recovered and is awaiting adoption at an undisclosed location in Kelowna.

In court today Mr. Shenko received a $200 fine and the maximum prohibition of two-years from owning or keeping animals. Craig Daniell, Acting CEO and Head of Cruelty Investigations for the BC SPCA, said he is pleased with the guilty plea but is concerned by the limitation of Canada's current anti-cruelty laws. "It is very frustrating that the maximum prohibition from owning animals that the courts can hand down is two years," he said. "It's not much of a deterrent for those who inflict cruelty on animals."

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