From prior post: http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/3119

Mr Daniell said, "In addition, we also insist on the right of unannounced inspection to check on the condition of any returned animals."

Very clever. Mr Daniell makes it sound like the SPCA has not unfeelingly abandoning dogs to a person who so badly treated her dogs that the SPCA had grounds to seize them.

The dogs' owner told AAS that the SPCA came once after returning her dogs to her, to make an inspection, and she told them to get off her property - as her lawyer advised her.

Unless and until the owner is convicted in court of "causing distress in an animal" the SPCA has no legal right to keep inspecting. If the owner is convicted, then the court may decide to permit the SPCA to do inspections.

But the SPCA itself now approves of this owner, or why would it have returned her dogs to her, especially knowing that it can't ensure that the dogs are treated more humanely?

And does returning the dogs compromise the SPCA's ability to ask the Court for a prohibition on animal ownership? Does it compromise the SPCA's ability to ask the Court for the right to unnanounced inspections? It was willing to return the dogs when it had no right to unannounced inspection after all.