On Friday, August 8th, Emma Vandewetering, AAS Animal Bylaws Researcher, heard a radio ad for a family fair to be held at the North Shore Auto Mall, in the City of North Vancouver which was featuring Silvia Rutledge's Do-Little Petting Zoo as one of the crowd attractions.

Rutledge had 130 of her animals seized June 26th for neglect. AAS investigated her farm in Maple Ridge in 2001 and documented what we considered extreme abuse. We reported it to the SPCA, but it did nothing, as it had done many times in the last ten years. (See the AAS web page with photos at: http://www.animaladvocates.com/do-little.htm)

Two weeks later she had them back. The SPCA took $5,000 in "seizure costs", saying that Rutledge had "improved" her conditions.

This put Rutledge and her defenceless animals back in the animal-exploitation business.

Vandewetering immediately phoned the Mall manager and told him Rutledge's history. The manager made a phone call to a Maple Ridge newspaper and a few other sources to check the facts and cancelled Rutledge's services.

The SPCA says, as it always does, that returning animals to an person who the SPCA considered was causing "distress" to animals, does not preclude it from pursing a criminal trial. But might it compromise the outcome? How seriously would a judge consider giving someone a criminal record who the SPCA now considers has learned their lesson? The SPCA must consider that Rutledge has learned her lesson or it would not return animals to her, would it?

How likely is the SPCA to even ask for, much less get, a prohibition on ownership of animals in the future if it considers that the owner is now good enough to be given their animals back?

AAS has written more on this subject of returning animals when the SPCA's seizure costs are paid, in previous posts on Rutledge at http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/2943 and http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/2860 and on the return of a Chilliwack puppy miller's dogs after she paid $12,000 in seizure costs: $10,000 for board when the dogs were almost entirely in the care of free foster homes: http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/3149