Animal Advocates Watchdog

As a person who has personally rehabilitated puppy mill dogs for years, I question the "seizure costs"

Reports detail that the BC SPCA returned ten dogs to a puppy mill, unaltered, for as much as possibly $11,000.

The SPCA claims that $1,000+ per dog is to cover the costs of the seizure.

As a person who has personally rehabilitated puppy mill dogs for years, I am familiar with the average veterinary costs involved in bringing puppy mill dogs back to optimum health.

The primary cost is for sterilization. Females range from $110-150 to spay, males $100-130 to neuter. (But none of the dogs was sterilized, they were returned intact to the breeder)

Deworming $10-20.

Defleaing $10-20.

Other parasites (i.e. ear mites) $10-20.

Grooming, if not done by myself, or in the SPCA's case, a volunteer, $30-50.

Veterinary physical examinations $40-60

Often puppy mill dogs are in need of dental work, as was reported with regards to the Chilliwack dogs. An average dental workup runs between $175-300. This would include anaesthetic, scaling and polishing, extractions, and antibiotics. These dogs' teeth were very small and very rotten and would have come out easily.

So, to add costs together generously, the SPCA MAY have spent $450-500 maximum in each of these dogs. We know none were sterilized, so cost of sterilization is not included. And we have not heard that every dog needed the most expensive (dental) work done.

It is doubtful that the SPCA spent $450-500 per dog on rehabilitation costs, but even if it did, that still leaves $600-650 per dog unaccounted for if the $11,000 figure that the SPCA gave the foster families is close.

The dogs were placed in foster care almost immediately, so the SPCA did not want for cost of food or suffer from occupied kennels that could better be filled with marketable dogs, unfettered by legal ties and ready to sell.

Worst of all (for the dogs), the BC SPCA did not even have the expense of applying to the courts for an order of custody.

In my opinion, the SPCA has betrayed these dogs by returning them, has ripped off not only the foster families who cared for them, and the donating public who doles out cash to the SPCA to truly help them, but also the owner who had to fork out as much as possibly $11,000 to the Society For Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in order to have the animals returned, unaltered, so that she can continue to exploit them for her own gain.

So everyone profits here I suppose, except the dogs and the selflessly devoted foster families who were forced to send them back.

What a shame.

Jennifer Dickson
Okanagan Animal Welfare Foundation
Vernon BC

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