Read how the SPCA applied to kill Ed Chase's dog "Raymond".
|
Home
Donate
Contact Us
"Unchain Our Friends!"
End Dog Abuse
Report an Abused or Neglected Dog
Videos |
|
All Rescue Stories Moonlight Rescues & Happy Endings Dear Old Dogs Cat Rescue Our YouTube Channel |
SURREY SPCA APPLIES TO DESTROY HARRIS PIT BULLS
Click
here to tell us what you think. Should the SPCA be applying to have dogs
killed? Should the SPCA be the paid dog-catcher for municipalities?
Here
is it again. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is
applying to the courts to kill a dog in order to protect the public. The BC
SPCA's P.R. person, Lorie Chortyk, is quoted in the Province article saying,
"The attacking dog will be euthanized if the owner agrees, Chortyk said. If
he doesn't agree, the City of Surrey can go to court asking the pit bull be
euthanized or seek a dangerous-dog designation for it."
If you wish to
write to Mayor Watts and Surrey
Councillors, email the City
Clerk:
jsowik@surrey.ca
August 23, 2008
SURREY SPCA APPLIES TO DESTROY HARRIS PIT BULLS (Read
SPCA application)
As
the City of Surrey's dog control agency, the BC SPCA's Surrey Branch applies for
court orders to kill dogs the City and/or the SPCA have deemed dangerous.
The Surrey SPCA applied to kill Ed Chase's dog 'Raymond' without even testing
him (read stories, video, photos),
and now has applied to kill the Harris pit bulls, one of which may be a puppy.
Why does the BC SPCA have contracts to protect the public from dogs when its
mandate is to protect dogs from the public. If one is still a puppy, would the BC SPCA apply to kill a puppy?
"Anything under a year cannot be assessed as aggressive to
the point of needing to be destroyed. It's a baby and it's doing baby things
... and it's not doing anything that cannot be easily adjusted," said Kathy
Gibson of Custom Canine re the attempted killing of the puppy Cheech by the
Delta SPCA in 2002. (DELTA OPTIMIST: June 23/04: Dog can be tamed,
supporters say Date: Thursday, 24 June 2004, 10:58 am
by Matthew Hoekstra)
Who is the SPCA speaking for? One of the people attacked by the dogs asks that in his interview on CTV (link also shows video of the dogs at the SPCA). Except that he is mad at the SPCA for not protecting him better. So there are dog-lovers who think the SPCA is not properly doing its job protecting dogs, and people who think the SPCA is not doing its job protecting people. So, which is the SPCA supposed to do?
Its mission statement has no mention of protecting people. It used to also have as part of its mission statement "the promotion of animal welfare". It's hard to see how dog-catcher contracts fit the definition of protecting animals or promoting animal welfare.
This is exactly the what is wrong with a dog-protection society being a dog-control contractor. It is exactly what AAS has been saying for ten years is an ethical contradiction, albeit one that is practiced by many SPCAs all over Canada and the U.S. Those SPCAs get both donations from animal-lovers and money from municipalities to control and dispose of dogs, without many of their supporters knowing they do. The argument that the SPCA is a more humane animal-controller and that's why it pursues animal control contracts, just won't wash. The former SPCA pounds, that have been replaced in the lower mainland with municipal pounds or other contractors, all improved animal welfare standards over what the SPCA had provided.
THE SPCA CONFLICTS ITSELF IN THE ATTACK ON 11-YEAR OLD SEAN BAJWA
(Baseball bat beats back bad dogs. Surrey man, 20, runs to rescue of bitten, bloodied 11-year-old Ethan Baron and Ian Austin, with files from Jack Keating, The Province. Published: Tuesday, May 06, 2008)
Here
is it again. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is
applying to the courts to kill a dog in order to protect the public. The BC
SPCA's P.R. person, Lorie Chortyk, is quoted in the Province article saying,
"The attacking dog will be euthanized if the owner agrees, Chortyk said. If
he doesn't agree, the City of Surrey can go to court asking the pit bull be
euthanized or seek a dangerous-dog designation for it."But it is not the City of Surrey that makes the actual applications. It is the City's paid animal controller/disposer, the BC SPCA, that makes the applications for the City. It is paid to do this.
THE SPCA WARNED ITSELF ABOUT THE HARM IT DOES ITSELF
Don't take our word for the mess this conflict of money from two opposing sources causes the BC SPCA. In 2001, the SPCA held public meetings around BC to find out what was making do many people angry and disappointed with it. From the resulting report:
Summary Report & Recommendations
Animal Control
Recommendations
It is the view of the
independent panel that the BC SPCA's reputation has suffered because the
public believes that it has put the business of animal control ahead of
animal welfare. Cruelty prevention, education and advocacy
appear to have an unacceptably low priority, and many participants in
this public consultation are asking whether the BC SPCA can truly say,
"it speaks for those who cannot speak for themselves". The BC SPCA must
decide whether the heart and soul of the organization is based on
business relationships with municipalities or with animal welfare. We
understand the reasons why the BC SPCA became involved with animal
control. However, in our view, animal control is a municipal issue and
should be left to municipalities.
With this in mind, we recommend that the BC SPCA consider getting out of animal control as contracts expire and put additional effort and resources into prevention of cruelty, education and advocacy, which are the foundation of its mission. While there would be a loss of revenue initially, we are of the opinion that the public would be highly supportive of this strategy, and would give the BC SPCA the opportunity to increase revenues through targeted fundraising initiatives.
Yet paid animal control contracts, with the duty to control and destroy dogs, have continued to be aggressively pursued by the BC SPCA.
See City of Surrey/SPCA land deal agreements.
WHY DOES AAS CARE WHO IS THE DOG-CATCHER?
We care because we think it is an ethical conflict for an animal welfare
organization to take money to seize, impound, and dispose of a
municipality's problem dogs. It leads to the organization speaking for
the municipality, not the dogs. What is happening in Surrey illustrates
this clearly. We believe that the SPCA's mandate is to speak for
Raymond, not for the City. We believe that it is the SPCA's mandate to
speak for all dogs, not apply to have them killed at the behest of
municipalities more concerned with liability than animal welfare. We
prefer a BC SPCA that leads the way in animal welfare, not animal
control. What do you think?
If you wish to write to
Mayor Watts and Surrey
Councillors, email the
City Clerk:
jsowik@surrey.ca
Surrey seeks to destroy pack of pit bulls
Last Updated: Tuesday, August 19, 2008
CBC News
The city of Surrey has made a court application to destroy four pit bulls
which are alleged to have viciously attacked people and animals.
The dogs were seized last week after the van of their owner, Hal Douglas
Harris, was pulled over by Vancouver police. Harris was questioned and
released, and police later said they believe he lives in his van.
In an affidavit filed in Surrey provincial court on Monday, the city's
animal control officer, Phil Greene*, alleges the dogs attacked and
injured at least five people and seven dogs and killed at least one dog, in
eight separate incidents in Surrey and on southern Vancouver Island over the
past year.
The documents also indicated that Harris may be the owner of several other
dogs involved in the attacks.
In the first incident in August 2007, the documents allege a total of seven
pit bulls and a Rottweiler attacked a single German shorthaired pointer in
Surrey.
Another allegation in the affidavit claims six or seven pit bulls owned by
Harris surrounded a jogger in a Surrey park in November, until some other
people helped chase them away.
In other incidents, the document alleges several pit bulls belonging to
Harris attacked a short-haired terrier in Nanaimo, two Pomeranians in
Surrey, a miniature American Eskimo dog in North Saanich, and killed a
bichon frise called Tasha in Surrey.
And according to the documents, in one incident in North Saanich the dogs
attacked their alleged owner, who needed 51 stitches after the attack.
A court hearing is set for Aug. 28.
Note: Phil Greene is a long-time SPCA employee who is paid by the SPCA, not the City of Surrey as this article may imply. It is the BC SPCA which is paid by the City of Surrey.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/08/18/bc-pit-bulls-surrey-harris.html
