The bottom line is this - the SPCA did not have to return the dogs without a fight.

It could have applied to the courts for an order of custody. Craig Daniell argues that courts tend to make it hard, and that the SPCA would have to show that the animal was in "imminent" danger if returned. He argues that case law (what judges have decided in the past which influences what judges decide in the present) shows that judges tend to favour the owner.

Courts are only influenced by law enforcers insisting on taking cases to court in spite of difficulties. That is how case law changes. Daniell knows this: he is a lawyer, and AAS and Daniell have spoken several times about the need for the SPCA to "raise the bar" on what the justice system perceives animal cruelty to be. Case law is not going to change if the SPCA never challenges it. Prevention of animal cruelty is going to stay in the dark ages if the SPCA chooses to accept payment and return animals rather than challenge the courts by applying for a custody order.

Daniell says that the SPCA has applied twice this year for orders of custody. We have asked him which cases it did this in, but have not yet had a reply. We are curious to know how much worse the conditions were in those cases. According to the SPCA itself and its vet, these dogs were in as bad condition as the worst we have documented, both their physical health and the conditions they were housed in. The SPCA successfully got two custody orders, so that is two precedents it could have used to argue for custody in this case.

Bottom line is - the SPCA chose not to use the law and return the dogs. Why?