In July 2003, the Victoria SPCA sold two small dogs, Rascal and Bonnie, to persons living on a fixed income. Both dogs needed dental work, Rascal in particular, and the new owners were informed of this. Because the dogs were in need of veterinary care, the SPCA sold then as a two for one deal, for $130.

In October of 2003, Rascal and Bonnie still had not had their teeth cleaned. Cost to do so was estimated at $1600. Victoria SPCA referred the dogs' new owners to Greater Victoria Animal Crusaders (GVAC) for financial assistance.

GVAC referred the dogs to Dr. Ellen Guttormson, of Beacon Cat Hospital, for an exam and second opinion. Dr. Guttormson was shocked that the SPCA would adopt out animals without first attending to their veterinary needs.

Following is Dr. Guttormson's email to BCSPCA CEO Craig Daniell:

From: Ellen Guttormson
Sent: October 30, 2003 8:18 PM
To: Craig Daniell
Subject: FW: Animal Suffering Ignored by the Victoria SPCA
Craig Daniell;

My name is Ellen Guttormson and I am a member of the Victoria Branch CAC. I am also a practicing veterinarian and own Beacon Cat Hospital in Sidney. I am the veterinarian who both examined and euthanized the little dog named Goldie that Carol Sonnex had previously written to you about.

Yesterday I examined the two dogs described in the email below. I must first say that the (names withheld), who adopted these dogs, seem to be very genuine people. They care very much for the dogs and only want to do what is best for them. Unfortunately the (names withheld) have very limited financial resources. I feel that the Victoria branch has done a great injustice to both the (names witheld) and these two dogs.

On exam I found the poodle cross, renamed Rascal, to have dental disease severe enough to warrant extraction of all of his teeth. All of his teeth were very loose with marked tartar, inflammation and infection of both the gingival and periodontal tissues. The odor coming from this dogs mouth was unbelievable. This condition could not help but produce pain of a very significant proportion. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would classify this dog to be better than a 9 in level of severity. To adopt this dog out without first dealing with the dental disease is absolutely negligent. The SPCA is charged with preventing cruelty, not perpetuating it!!!!

After seeing this dog I am ashamed to say that I am associated with the Victoria branch.

The second dog examined was Bonnie. Bonnie had significant tartar, gingivitis and periodontal disease. Although nowhere near the level of severity of the dental disease present in Rascal, Bonnie would still be experiencing some degree of discomfort associated with her condition.

The SPCA must take steps to insure that this sort of situation does not occur in the future.

There were a number of problems associated with these 2 adoptions and they must be addressed. Firstly a much better assessment needs to be done to see that a dog with dental disease as severe as Rascals is properly identified. Secondly the SPCA should either deal with providing the veterinary care necessary, or insuring that the people adopting the dog have the financial resources to deal with the care needed. Finally, if animals are adopted with the stipulation that treatment is required, there must be some sort of follow up to make certain that this treatment has been done.

Both of these dogs are now needing immediate dental treatment-----who is going to help pay to alleviate their pain----I hope that the SPCA will step in,as I feel that there is a level of responsibility-----or do we leave it to the small rescue groups to again try to pick up the pieces?

I hope to hear from you regarding this matter.

Respectfully yours

Ellen Guttormson

Rascal......