Animal Advocates Watchdog

Serious 2006 infractions should have resulted in a seizure in 2010 or at least some hlep

Serious 2006 infractions should have resulted in a seizure in 2010 or at least some hlep

This is from Global News on-line, Weds, Feb. 2/11:

"The BCSPCA issued 65 orders against Howling Dog Tours in January 2006 regarding health and welfare of its sled-dogs."
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE ORDERS.

"But because the company made all of the required changes, the SPCA was powerless to seize the animals and did not have the authority to shut down the business."
OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS NOT A CHANGE IN PRACTISE AS BOB FAWCETT CALLED THE SPCA IN 2010 TO COMPLAIN REGARDING THE CARE OF THE SLED-DOGS.

"The orders the SPCA made in 2006 related to dogs being tethered for too long on chains and not getting enough exercise. Other orders were written after dogs were found to be emaciated, lacking dental care and there were concerns about the dogs' housing and lack of socialization."
THIS SORT OF COVERS EVERY ASPECT OF THE CARE OF THE DOGS, WHY WERE THEY NOT SEIZED AT THE TIME? IS THERE NOT A LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF CITATIONS THAT THIS BUSINESS COULD RECEIVE? WHY DID THE SPCA NOT THINK THESE DOGS WERE AT RISK?

"The SPCA was dealing with Fawcett at the time, who was the general manager and a director with Howling Dog Tours. He is now under investigation for animal cruelty."
WHY WOULD BOB FAWCETT CALL THE SPCA IN 2010 TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CARE AND CONDITIONS OF THE SLED-DOGS WHEN HE OBVIOUSLY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS? WOULDN'T THE SPCA THINK MAYBE HE WAS NOT PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK?

Share