Burned by the SPCA

By Robyn Chambers - rchambers@chilliwacktimes.com

Sechelt resident Patricia Best feels she's been burned by an organization that she has happily supported for years.

Two months ago, Best, her sister, daughter and several other individuals living in the coastal community agreed to serve as foster parents for 10 dogs-basenjis, Chihuahuas and a miniature pincher-seized by the SPCA from a farm on Keith Wilson Road in May. The dogs were in poor health requiring medical attention for hookworm, tapeworm, fleas, dermatitis and diarrhea, one canine needed dental care for badly abscessed teeth and gums. Best believes the dogs, nine of which were unspayed females, were used for breeding purposes.

But last Thursday the foster parents were told by the SPCA to bring the dogs back as they were to be returned to the owner.

Now she's concerned the SPCA is not looking out for the best interest of the animals.

"All these dogs were female, all these dogs were bred to death," she asserts. The SPCA says the farm was not a puppy mill, but Best remains unconvinced.

"The dog that I had, an eight-year-old Chihuahua, had been bred and bred and bred. The nipples were an inch long because that is all they do."

"The dogs were afraid of everything," she said. "I don't want people to think the illusion of foster parenting these dogs is some fuzzy little experience, it's not. These dogs are like wild animals they have been kept in cages..."

She says the foster parents would have purchased the dogs if they had been given the opportunity.

Judy Stone, president of the Animal Advocates Society, wonders why the SPCA didn't pursue an order for custody of the animals that would have enabled the dogs to stay in foster care until the case was decided.

But Craig Daniell, acting CEO for the B.C. SPCA and general manager of cruelty investigations, argues winning a custody order is not that straightforward. He said the organization did not apply for an order because it would have to have proven the animals were in imminent danger.

"In this particular case we can not conclusively say these animals are in imminent danger. The conditions they were seized from were unacceptable, but those conditions have drastically improved to the point where we believe the animals can be on that property so we do not believe we have the grounds for getting a custody order."

Daniell added the SPCA would not have returned the animals if the conditions had not improved and the owner had not indicated a willingness to comply with SPCA demands.

The owner, who can not be identified because they haven't been formally charged although a file on the case was forwarded to Crown counsel for consideration Friday, made a request under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for the animals return. To repossess the dogs, the SPCA requested the owner pay for the medical care the animals received, the cost of seizure and transportation, and improve the animals' living conditions-all of which were followed, said Daniell.

"In this case we indicated the reasons for the seizure and many of those reasons were addressed by the animals' owner. So we can't now find new reasons to keep the dogs," said Daniell.

The owner further submitted to unannounced weekly inspections to ensure quality care. Daniell didn't specify for how long that would continue except to say for, "a significant period of time."

But for Best, it's too late to restore her faith in the SPCA.

"We brought these 10 dogs into the community, we loved these dogs back to health, they were in horrible, horrible shape and we're so appalled they are being sent back to the breeder. I take it very personally, it's not about keeping the dogs, it's about keeping the dogs safe," she said.