Mr Daniell said, "Firstly, the RCMP, not the SPCA, was the enforcement agency responsible for investigating this case and making a decision regarding the recommendation of charges."

Comment: The RCMP doing an investigation does not prevent the SPCA from doing its own. The SPCA is the lead investigator into animal cruelty in this province. Only where no SPCA constable is available might the RCMP have to do the investigation - not the case in Prince George. Or where the SPCA permits cruelty for so long that people give up complaining to it and start complaining to the RCMP and the RCMP give up on the SPCA too and act.

Mr Daniell said, "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."

Comment: Daniell says that the shooter cannot be charged, but read the PCA Act to see if you agree...

(2) For the purposes of this Act, an animal is in distress ("distress" is the crime) if it is

(a) deprived of adequate food, water or shelter,

(b) injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or

(c) abused or neglected.

(3) For the purposes of this Act, a person responsible for an animal includes a person who

(a) owns an animal, or

(b) has custody or control of an animal.

The shooter had custody or control of the dog when he shot it and left it in pain and suffering and he can be charged. And it could be argued that for the owner to give his dog to be shot and then not to view the body to make sure it was dead and not in pain and suffering was to commit the offence under the PCA act of permitting the dog to be "in pain or suffering".

Read the PCA Act at http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/P/96372_01.htm

Compare this reasoning with the recent case where the SPCA took three dogs away from their family because the dogs had been attacked by a porcupine and although the family immediately started begging for temporary financial help or any other help, from the SPCA as well as vets and others, the SPCA took the dogs, accused the owners of letting the dogs suffer 30 hours, and has said it is going to lay charges. The SPCA has milked this story for all it is worth in the press and TV, making this family look like monsters.

Mr Daniell made the same excuse in the case of the Christmas terrier that was allowed to suffer critical distress in an SPCA facility, when he said that the SPCA manager (who certainly had "custody and control" of the terrier, was not the "owner" and so charges could not be laid against him for permitting pain and suffering (and ultimately death). See "A Prison Camp for Animals" Vancouver Sun
http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/5161