It is bad enough that the BC SPCA cannot seem to get a grip on cruelty seizures - the Silvia Rutledge and Karen Raffles seizures are a testimony to that. But what is worse is that seized animals are becoming collateral damage, betrayed, not rescued, by the BC SPCA.

Let's look at the recent history:

In July of 2002, the BC SPCA seized 46 dogs from Gaston Lapointe's property in Beaverdell. In October 2002, Lapointe was told he could get his dogs back for $16,000. He did not have the money, and the BC SPCA proceeded to kill 32 of 46 dogs, that we know of. The seizure was highly publicized, donations flowed in, dogs were killed. Those dogs were collateral damage.

In the spring of 2003, the BC SPCA made 3 more well publicized seizures, from puppy mills in Silver Creek, Falkland, and Princeton. Because such an outcry had arisen over the culling and killing of the Beaverdell dogs, the collateral damage is impossible to assess with regards to these three seizures, as the dogs were scattered about branches all over the Okanagan, many hidden from public view for months and months.

One puppy miller surrended a fraction of his dogs (likely those who were in the poorest health and not producing) to Kamloops SPCA in March of 2003. Kamloops SPCA managed to kill two of them before public outcry stopped any more from being killed. Brenda and Tamra were collateral damage.

In May of 2003, the BC SPCA seized 10 dogs from puppy miller Karen Raffles. The dogs were placed in foster homes, and all did well. In July 2003 the SPCA removed all 10 dogs from their foster homes and returned them to Raffles, unaltered. Raffles' lawyer revealed that the SPCA received $12,000 for the return of the dogs. How can a Society that purports to prevent cruelty let a bunch of innocent little dogs go from cages to loving foster homes where they livedas loved family members for over a month, then return them to their cages and life of breeding and exploitation? The SPCA did not kill these dogs, but it returned them to a life of suffering in exchange for money, and that is collateral damage.

In July of 2003 the BC SPCA seized 130 animals from Silvia Rutledge and shortly thereafter, returned all but one, a reindeer, for $5,000. This return in particular disturbs me, as I have a deep concern for the exploitation of exotic animals, and many of Rutledge's animals are exotics. The SPCA told her to clean up her facility, she did, and the animals went back for $5,000. They became collateral damage.

I understand that seizures cost a great deal of money. But I also understand that the PCA Act allows the BC SPCA to sue for seizure costs while NOT returning the animals to the abuser. And should the abuser refuse to pay and demand their animals back, the BC SPCA can apply to the courts for an Order Of Custody. And I'm no rocket scientist, but I can't imagine that returning animals to an abuser would make for a convincing case before Crown, in the event that the BC SPCA chooses to pursue the prosecution of said abuser.

The SPCA claims that animals are returned only after improvements are made, but isn't that kind of like returning a child to an abusive parent who promises never to do it again? How can the SPCA be sure that the abuse won't happen again? It can't. And it needs a warrant to enter premises if the owner does not voluntarily permit inspections, so how "unnannounced" can any inspection be?

It's unfortunate that money makes the world go 'round, but it's a fact of life, and seizure costs are a fact of life. I don't begrudge the SPCA having to recoup its costs. It's when it uses animals as collateral damage - seizes and kills or seizes and returns to the abuser - while claiming to be "speaking" for them, that I get very upset.

How can the BC SPCA better serve abused animals instead of writing off so many as collateral damage? Well, phasing out unlimited surrender and pound contracts, and devoting all resources to rehabilitating seized animals would virtually end the killing of seized animals. And by sticking to its guns - applying for an Order of Custody if need be - while at the same time suing for seizure costs, would serve the animals, punish the offender, AND pay the bills.

Then, and only then, will the BC SPCA be able to realize honest prevention of cruelty, and be true to its mandate. No more collateral damage Mr. Daniell. Please. No more.

Jennifer Dickson
Vernon BC