May 21, 2004

To: News Directors and News Editors

The BC SPCA has received a significant number of telephone calls, emails and letters during the past week regarding the case of the Great Dane who was rescued by the Prince George SPCA after being seriously wounded in an attempted euthanasia. While we understand and empathize with the concern and frustration being expressed by Prince George residents who are calling for stronger punitive action against the individuals responsible, I believe the public may not be fully aware of the details of the case as it relates to current anti-cruelty laws and the reasons for the decisions that were made. I would appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of these details.

o Firstly, the RCMP, not the SPCA, was the enforcement agency responsible for investigating this case and making a decision regarding the recommendation of charges. After gathering and analysing all of the evidence, the RCMP concluded that key elements and pieces of evidence necessary to successfully obtain a charge under the Criminal Code of Canada were absent, including the proof required under the Criminal Code that the shooter wilfully intended to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on the animal. (In this case the intention was to euthanize the animal.)

o Several important elements that would be required if a conviction was pursued under the provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act were also absent in the case. Under the PCA Act, it would be possible only to pursue charges against the owner of the dog, not the shooter. To support the charge that the owner “permitted an animal to be in distress” it would be necessary to prove that the owner had prior knowledge when they handed the dog over to the shooter that the first bullet would not euthanize the dog as intended. In both of these cases, the RCMP determined that there was insufficient evidence to pursue a charge. While we all outraged by animal suffering, the RCMP, like the SPCA, must make decisions based on whether or not the hard evidence exists to support a charge by Crown Counsel under our existing anti-cruelty laws.

o The money accepted by the SPCA from the owner and shooter to help cover the cost of the dog’s care was not “in lieu” of prosecution. The SPCA does not engage in “deals” where cruelty investigations are concerned and the RCMP’s decision regarding lack of the evidence was unrelated to any support provided for the care of the dog. The SPCA used the money to ensure that the dog received the prompt veterinary care necessary to save its life.

o The SPCA’s concern is for the on-going welfare of the dog. He is recovering well in foster care and arrangements are currently being made to transport him to a rescue group in Oregon which specializes in the care, rehabilitation, and training of deaf Great Danes. We are confident that the dog will receive wonderful care under the auspices of this organization and will be placed in a loving home which can provide for his special needs.

A particularly frustrating factor in this case is that the dog could have been surrendered at any time to the SPCA shelter for care. There is no reason why an owner should resort to such measures to end an animal’s life if they are unable or unwilling to care for their pet.

As a Society dedicated to the prevention of cruelty to animals, we at the BC SPCA understand the emotional response to the suffering of this beautiful animal. However, I urge the people of Prince George to channel their outrage over this situation into the fight for stronger anti-cruelty laws that make it easier for enforcement agencies such as the RCMP and the SPCA to pursue criminal charges.

Craig Daniell, CEO, BC SPCA