On BCTV and in letters to animal-lovers concerned and upset that the SPCA returned ten severely neglected dogs to their Chilliwack puppy mill owner, Craig Daniell, temporary BC SPCA CEO and Manager of Cruelty Investigations, justified the return by saying that the Society did not want to return the dogs, and blaming the law for being inadequate.

From his letter:
"I can understand your frustrations. It does not seem right, nor fair that seized dogs should be returned the same individual that they were in fact seized from. Please understand though that in these cases, the Society is often as frustrated as the public. We do not want to return animals we have seized. Occasionally, however, they are returned. They are returned because the legislation that we use to seize them in the first place, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, provides a mechanism for owners to claim return of their animals. The legislation currently does not give the Society a right to absolutely refuse to return animals. We can in some cases, apply to the Supreme Court for an order of custody where there are sufficient grounds for a judge to believe that animals lives may be in danger. We have made use of this mechanism on two occasions this year already and will continue to do so.

"Unfortunately, it is a very expensive procedure made difficult to achieve by the fact that the law still considers animals as property, a fact that the Society has been working for many years to change.

"If animals are in fact returned, they are always returned subject to a number of conditions. These conditions are in fact very onerous on the animal owner and are one way of ensuring that the animals receive the care they require. In addition, we also insist on the right of unannounced inspection to check on the condition of any returned animals.

"While I can understand your anger and frustration, I would ask that you also understand that we are not simply abandoning these or any other animals. I would also ask that you write your MLA and ask for an amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act which would make it extremely difficult for animal owners to reclaim seized animals."

_________________________________________________

Mr Daniell has been forced to fall back on the old "The law made us do it" excuse because the SPCA's actions are so indefensible that it needs a villain it can shift the blame to. For decades the SPCA claimed that the reason it was not preventing cruelty was because the law was inadequate. Every year it told many animal lovers reporting animal cruelty, "We wish we could do more, but our hands are tied, the law is inadequate", and the animal went on suffering.

AAS proved it was not the law that was in need of change - it was the SPCA. It was not the PCA Act that was inadequate, it was the SPCA. The PCA Act permits the SPCA to interpret cruelty broadly. On countless thousands of times, the SPCA chose to interpret it narrowly as only a lack of food, water, and shelter. If the animal had food enough not to be dead, if the frantic neighbour was giving the animal water or if the water came from a filthy ditch, if the shelter was a leafless tree, that was good enough for the SPCA. And the animal was allowed to go on slowly starving, or chained in a yard its whole life.

We proved it was the SPCA, not the law that needed improving by investigating and documenting the SPCA for five years and then we built the AAS web site. We put our proof on the site of how the SPCA itself stopped us from getting the improvements to the PCA Act that would have made it stronger. We did not write just our own MLA, as Mr Daniell is urging people do in his letter and in the media, we wrote every member of the legislature. We sent every one of them pages of pictures of chained dogs and told them that the SPCA says the PCA Act is inadequate to help them, and we suggested a more specific definition of "neglect". We got a heartfelt, positive, all parties, response. But the SPCA stopped the improvements by telling the government that the law did not need improving, it was already adequate. And there it died. We have this story and official letters at http://www.animaladvocates.com/spca-stops-laws.htm.

Our opinion was shared by a lawyer who also said it was the SPCA, not the Act: http://www.animaladvocates.com/lawyers-opinion.htm .

Mr Daniell says, "They are returned because the legislation that we use to seize them in the first place, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, provides a mechanism for owners to claim return of their animals. The legislation currently does not give the Society a right to absolutely refuse to return animals."

Of course the law cannot keep another's property indefinitely, so that statement is pretty disingenuous of Mr Daniell and doesn't fool us. The Act does provide a mechanism for the SPCA to have kept the dogs if it had wanted to try. The SPCA can apply to the courts for an order of custody. Mr Daniell is using the old tried-and-true "The law made us do it" excuse again. Sadly, many people will be fooled now as they were for decades. But it is also pitiful that the SPCA has reverted to old excuses under pressure brought on itself by acting in old ways.

If the conditions of severe suffering, ill health, disease, and the way the dogs were kept in cages in a barn in this case do not justify a custody order, what does? That question needs to be investigated: On what factors does the SPCA base its decisions to keep some dogs and return others?

Mr Daniell also makes an old promise, "In addition, we also insist on the right of unannounced inspection to check on the condition of any returned animals." AAS has too many examples of this promise not being kept, even when a court has given the SPCA the right to make unannounced inspections and the SPCA has known that the convicted person is once again mistreating animals. We frankly do not believe that the SPCA can afford the staff to make inspections for any meaningful length of time - its staff are too busy selling or otherwise disposing of hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats a year for pet abandoners.

Mr Daniell has said that a court would be unlikely to award custody to the SPCA unless the SPCA could prove imminent danger to the dogs by returning them.

The SPCA is asking us all to agree that this owner, after what she made dogs suffer for years, can be trusted.