Interesting. In the newspaper article below, notice that the SPCA is having to sue for seizure costs. That means that the owners refused to pay and so they don't get their animals back. When owners pay, they get their animals back as in the cases of Silvia Rutledge of Do-Little Farm gets her animals back http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/2943 and SPCA to give dogs back to Chilliwack puppymiller after being paid "seizure costs". http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/3014

Giving animals back to alleged abusers is a tacit acknowledgement by the SPCA that the owners are capable owners. In that case, the SPCA could have given an Offence Warning Notice/Order (a list of things that the SPCA demands be done or animal may be seized) instead of making a seizure.

Giving animals back may make a successful prosecution next to impossible. How can the SPCA ask the courts to prohibit someone from owning animals if the SPCA itself has given the accused some animals?

If it wasn't as plain as the nose on your face how the "prevention of cruelty to animals" business works before, it is getting clearer all the time. Seizures create income in two ways: Donations from grateful animal lovers, and billing for seizure costs, which may be very profitable if inflated.

The Daily News, Kamloops SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2003

"Taken animals were suffering, judge is told

By Robert Koopmans
Daily News Staff Reporter

Four horses and a donkey seized from a Pritchard farm by SPCA investigators in early 2003 were poorly fed and “in distress”, a B.C. Supreme Court judge heard Friday.

SPCA Const. Brad Kuich testified he arrived at the Duck Range Road property of Shaynee McDougall on March 7 with a search warrant in hand, intent on taking the animals into custody.

“It was imperative to take some swift action to help these animals as soon as possible,” he said.

Kuich was called to investigate after complaints form McDougall’s neighbour about the health of the animals and the conditions in which they lived.

He said he had visited the site two days previously and found the animals without food or water in an area littered with car parts, loose wire and other debris.

One of the horses had an injury to its leg after it apparently got tangled in a barbed wire fence, he told the judge.

“The wound was gross,” Kuich said. “Chunks of flesh were missing. It was a open, gaping wound.”

Kuich was testifying on behalf of the SPCA at a civil hearing initiated by McDougall and her husband Gary Clark. The two are suing the SPCA for the return of their animals, as well as damages, claiming the SPCA was not justified to act in the manner it did.

McDougall and Clark have not been charged with criminal offences. Despite that, their animals have not been returned.

Both are adamant the animals were well-cared for and properly fed.
Clark told the court he fed the animals two or three bales of hay every other day. As well, there was a creek on the property from which the animals could drink.

The SPCA is countersuing McDougall for the cost of the care the animals have received while in its custody.

It’s not known when Justice Richard Blair will decided the case.”