On March 24th AAS received an email from an SPCA supporter who expressed the opinion that AAS deserved to be sued for reasons that he named in his email. We asked him for permission to post his letter but did not receive it. However, the points he raised are important enough for us to answer them in this public forum.

The writer accused AAS of not reporting on the SPCA's successes. We answered:

Comments on the positive actions of the SPCA appear constantly on the SPCA website and in the general media and the AAS website offers critical comment on the less than positive actions of the SPCA in the hope of bringing reform for those less than positive actions.

The writer criticized us for not understanding that owners of seized animals can apply for a Judicial Review to get their animals back from the SPCA. We answered:

The AAS website has for some time contained a report on Van Dongen v. BC SPCA in which a horse owner successfully established in the Supreme Court of British Columbia under the Judicial Review Procedure Act that the SPCA seized and held his horses unlawfully. We would say that, unfortunately, an application to the Supreme Court is far too expensive for most people and takes far too long to restore custody of the seized animals safely to the owner. Animals aren't cash or drugs or bicycles that can just be stored while the court decides.

The writer criticized AAS for not understanding that it is Crown that prosecutes, not the SPCA. We answered:

The process by which the SPCA causes charges to be laid is well documented. However, in our view at this time crown counsel has not been sufficiently critical of the requests by the SPCA for charges to be laid.

The writer accused us of a libellously misleading title to a post about Shirley Parson's horses which contained the word "seizure" when in fact it was not yet technically a seizure. We answered:

The title has been edited to read: 'Horse owner alleges horse died as a result of its handling by the SPCA'.