Animal Advocates Watchdog

Sled dog slaughter investigation: Not able to collect all the evidence smells like a red herring

When an SPCA supporter who is also an AAS supporter asked BC SPCA CEO Craig Daniell if charges would be laid against Bob Fawcett, the man who killed the Whistler sled dogs Mr Daniell's reply was "When all the evidence is collected, a charge will be recommended."

"When all the evidence is collected..."

There may be more, but we know of two sources of evidence: forensic evidence and Bob Fawcett's sworn statement. But not being able to "collect all the evidence" could prevent a public trial with the media hanging on every word, where Bob Fawcett's testimony might, at the worst, reveal new information about the SPCA's involvement with Howling Dogs, and at the best remind the whole angry world of how it did nothing to prevent the slaughter and then how it twisted and turned as it tried to escape the world's wrath.

The SPCA/Crown may say that the forensic evidence of suffering was too inconclusive for charges to be accepted. Fawcett can't be charged simply for cutting the dogs' throats. Killing animals by slitting their throats is legal, and if done quickly and carefully, it's more humane than many other legal methods, some practiced or condoned by the SPCA such as shooting abandoned rabbits who may run off to die painful lingering deaths.

What are the chances of conclusive forensic evidence of cruelty according to the law being obtained by digging up the bodies a year later? Probably no chance at all. But why is it needed? Doesn't the SPCA and Crown already have an admission of guilt of cruelty in Mr Fawcett's sworn description of how some of the dogs suffered slow and inhumane deaths (the offence under both the Canadian Criminal Code and the BC Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act). If a vet says that there was no way to prove suffering from the dogs' remains, does that trump Fawcett's statement? "Digging up the bodies" smells like a red herring.

Share