page created  2004, edited Nov 2006

The Graham Seizure, April, 2003
The PCA Act  says healthy animals must not be seized and even sick animals can be left onsite and improvements made to the care and site. 
Leaving animals onsite is sometimes far more humane than moving them.
If animals are seized, "seizure costs" can be demanded by the SPCA.
Return to SPCA seizures home page


On April 15, 2003, the SPCA seized 20 healthy, happy, clean and groomed Lhasa Apsos, 6 puppies, a cat, one pug dog, two sheep, and an old cross breed dog,  from award-winning Port Alberni Lhasa apso breeders, Ron and Heather Graham.  Two of the puppies died after being put in the almost chronically-diseased Port Alberni SPCA  where they caught Parvo. More dogs died while in the SPCA's "care".  They were all subjected to extreme distress BY the SPCA by being put in concrete cells, some intact males together, and exposed to disease, noise, strangers, strange dogs, dietary changes, and rough handling. For the dogs to be taken from their home and subjected to these horrors is nothing less than animal abuse by the SPCA.  The PCA act allows the SPCA to leave animals in their familiar environment and demand improvements on site.  In many SPCA seizures, that is the humane thing to do.  But no hugely inflated "seizure costs" could be demanded as ransom to get animals back in that case.  There would be no media interest so no flood of donations from animal-lovers. The SPCA demanded more than $100,000 from the Grahams whose only asset is their small, rural home. 

The Grahams were presented as monsters in the media and in court and in their community. Heather Graham had to be hospitalized because of the horrors of that morning - her house full of uniformed strangers, the media (illegally brought by the SPCA), RCMP, vets and SPCA hangers-on.  Even now, SPCA harassment goes on with invasive inspections by Irene Towell - the same SPCA officer who took Heather's healthy, happy dogs from her, stopped Heather from letting the dogs out of their night-crates for hours, and when the dogs soiled the crates, used that as evidence of distress in court to criminalize and disgrace Heather. Towell and CEO Daniell made Heather out to be a monster.  Towell was honoured for doing this by a special award from Daniell.   Towell's inspections were accompanied by intrusive staff and RCMP who crawled under the Graham's outbuilding and made insulting remarks about Heather being a pack-rat. Every time the SPCA attacks Heather, her heart and blood pressure are dangerously affected.  One BC lawyer has opined that he might make a specialty of protecting victims of the SPCA.

The Grahams won over 500 ribbons for their dogs.  Real animal abusers do not win ribbons.  The SPCA called the Grahams puppymillers.  Real puppymillers do not have only one or two litters a year.  Most of the Grahams dogs were pets that the Grahams were too kind to kill or get rid of. The pug was a rescue that was on heart medicine.  In fact, the Grahams had ten years of vet records that proved they gave better care to their dogs than the SPCA does. The SPCA kept the seized sheep in a pen on gravel! The cat was a homeless stray that the Grahams took in and was happy and healthy. 

The PCA Act actually says that the owner of the animals must be given a chance to correct the "alleged distress".  The SPCA, by stopping Heather from letting her dogs out of their crates, created the distress and then criminalized the Grahams for the distress that it had caused.  The Grahams could not afford legal representation and the court believed the SPCA's highly questionable "evidence", such as there being no clean water (the Graham's rural property is not serviced)  when Mr Graham had pointed out to Towell (during the seizure) a 45 gallon drum of fresh water he had just brought with him from work, as he does regularly. There is many more shocking details of SPCA actions than we have to the time to relate.  Read letters below.


Healthy pups eating high-quality food until the SPCA seized them.  Two pups died of SPCA induced parvo


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graham dogs being played with by the
neighbour kids.  The SPCA said in press releases
that the Grahams operated a puppymill


The daily morning bath to clean any dogs that got
soiled at night


Residents of the mentally-challenged facility
visit the Grahams' dogs


Graham dogs being walked by neighbour kids


Ron Graham in bed with some of the dogs


Visiting the handicapped.  Port Alberni SPCA manager, Irene Towell, is talking to Heather.  It was Towell who had inspected Heather for years, always giving her the all-clear, who suddenly seized all her dogs and pups -- ought of the Graham's home -- with the media in tow.


 

 

 

 

 

 

Dogs being visited by handicapped kids in a
program Heather took part in for years


Dog being treated for itchy skin

More pictures of neighbour children playing with the
Graham's dogs


Playing in the snow


The Grahams had a very large fenced area for the
dogs to play in.  The door to the house was usually
open so they could come and go as they pleased


Heather's dogs also took part in a program of
visiting people in care homes


Ron Graham playing the sausage game

This is the SPCA's dishonest press release showing a dog from a previous seizure next to the press release on the Grahams
May
2004
Puppy Mill Operators Sentenced

Individuals at the centre of three high-profile SPCA investigations involving BC puppy mills were sentenced in court recently. Ron and Heather Graham of Port Alberni received a lifetime ban on keeping animals as well as a $2,500 fine after being found guilty of causing distress to 30 dogs, including 28 neglected Lhasa Apsos. The dogs, which were seized by the SPCA in April 2003, were found in tiny plastic crates too small to allow some of them to stand or even sit up. The dogs were underweight, grossly matted with their own excrement and urine, and several had serious, untreated medical and dental problems at the time of the seizure.

 


This photo, next to the item about the Grahams, is of one of the Elliott's dogs. The SPCA permitted TV to show the Elliott's badly neglected dogs when airing news about the Graham seizure, even a year after the Graham's seizure.

Also in Port Alberni, Cliff and Ellie Elliott pled guilty to causing distress to animals, following the SPCA’s seizure of 36 Lhasa Apsos from their property last January. The Elliotts received a five-year ban on keeping animals and were ordered to pay restitution to the SPCA for veterinary and rehabilitation costs.

The staff at the Port Alberni SPCA, with support from local veterinarians, groomers and volunteers, nursed the neglected dogs back to health and has found new, loving homes for them.

Be Kind to Animals Month

The truth:  The SPCA subjected the healthy, happy Graham dogs to extreme cruelty and neglect, even causing the death of two pups from SPCA-caused Parvo virus!


To the Honourable Geoff Plant, Attorney General
PO Box 9044, Stn PROV GOVT
VICTORIA, BC,
V8W 9E2, Canada

EnquiryBC@gems3.gov.bc.ca

 Date: 31st January 2005

 Dear Minister,

 Re: The necessity of amending Section 1(2) and 11(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in order to clarify the intent of the legislation.

 I am writing you as I have grave concerns pertaining to the administration of justice using the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.  I am asking that your office look into this matter with a view of amending said legislation so as to prevent the kind of happenings I am drawing your attention to below and which brings the administration of justice into disrepute. This pertains to an action under Sections 1 (2) and 11 (a) of said Act by the BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, hereafter called BCSPCA.  As the courts now interpret said legislation it defeats due process and gives to the policing agents arbitrary powers against which defendants of little means in a small town are essentially helpless. To put it plainly, the court, unwittingly, has legitimized what is in essence small-town terror, in which officials can exercise questionable judgment to the detriment of citizen against which they have no recourse. As in the case in question it leads to more than wrongful conviction and grave injustice. It also imposes great public costs, without fulfilling the goal of the legislation. None of this can be in the public interest. It also raises the question to what extent legal zeal shall be allowed to override basic morality and elementary decency.

The tragedy I am referring to can be followed up in detail in the records of the SUPREME COURT of BRITISH COLUMBIA, between: BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS and: HEATHER GRAHAM AND RONALD GRAHAM, No. L 032120, Vancouver Registry, as well as in the records and transcripts of Regina v. Ronald and Heather Graham, Crown File No. 26668 in Port Alberni. There is additional material available in support of the Grahams.

The Grahams are an elderly couple of retirement age, living in great rural poverty and most limited income in Port Alberni. Their passion was dogs shows, in which Mrs. Graham won some 522 awards registered with the Canadian Kennel Club. Their operation had been inspected by the BCSPCA on numerous occasions without any request for change. However, relationships did sour – no small matter, Mr. Minister, in a small town! Mrs. Graham, aware of the couples age and infirmities, was winding down operations when on April 15th 2003, they were suddenly raided by the SPCA and charged under federal as well as provincial legislation in criminal and provincial courts. The raid was televised and reported on in print with the Grahams accused of running a puppy mill (a charge denied by the judge presiding over Regina v. Ronald and Heather Graham), while the Grahams were pilloried publicly and repeatedly juxtaposed on TV to filthy dogs that did not belong to them. The RCMP was part of this unseemly spectacle, although it was also the RCMP that deserves some praise, as it was Constable Shaun Clark who saw to it that Mrs. Graham was properly hospitalized when she broke down over the public abuse she had suffered as well as the loss of her dogs to which she and Mr. Graham were closely attached. The Grahams cashed in their small RRSP to defend themselves, which, for that year, raised their income above the limit to receive legal aid. The Grahams went into debt with a “loan to payday” lender, as they could raise no loan with regular banks. This money also ran out and they were faced with two said court cases without legal representation. As a neighbor I was asked to help out, but which disqualified me by the rules of the court to be material witness for the defense. My professional and academic expertise does cover the matter of health and animal behavior and well-being, in addition to which I have kept and trained dogs for two decades and had then known the Grahams as neighbors for some eight years. The Grahams were thus deprived in court of both, legal and material expertise. In reviewing the Crown’s material against the Grahams I was not merely appalled at the lack of professionalism as evidenced by a plethora of errors, but by the fabrication of evidence. I damaged the Grahams’ case by pointing out to the Crown that their its was based on a remarkable spectrum of false witnesses, questioning whether it was in the interest of justice to proceed with such flawed evidence. I was assured that my findings – dismissed as mere “theory” - could be tested in court. However, they were not! Crown counsel ably avoided the incriminating evidence, thereby protecting his witnesses against perjury. Clearly, by this very action, he agreed with my findings that his witnesses had presented to the Crown false witness in order to incriminate the Grahams. We were promised a fair trial, but such was not the case, as not even the veracity of witnesses could be tested, in large part due to my ignorance of court procedures and the refusal of Crown counsel to allow me to introduce corrective measures. As a senior scientist I had never cross-examined a witness in my life let alone acted as an advocate in court (though I have acted as an expert witness in cases here and in the United States). When I pointed out to the judge important background matters, Crown counsel reminded the judge that my evidence must not be taken into account under any circumstances, an indication that judgment could not be equitable if what I spoke to was damaging to the Crown’s case. The SPCA’s own veterinarians reported that the Grahams’ dogs were healthy, as also attested to by the Grahams’ veterinarian. However, technically, if the animals are healthy then the environment they live in is also healthful – no matter how unusual or even obnoxious it may appear to us. And on this matter, Mr. Minister, based on decades of academic and professional work, I am the judge. And the Grahams did keep their dogs, in large part due to rural poverty, in admittedly quite unusual circumstances. The attempt to criminalize the Grahams failed, but they were convicted under provincial legislation, fined, deprived of their animals and are exposed now to court-sanctioned loss of elementary privacy. I had warned in writing Crown counsel that he was heading for wrongful conviction which, in my judgment, was achieved. A private person, distressed over the perceived injustice, financed legal counsel to examine possible appeals and handle the case in Supreme Court. An appeal on procedure was not possible; an appeal on substance was not allowed. It is important to note that all the false witness we pointed out is part of the sworn affidavits submitted to the Supreme Court by the BCSPCA, and exposed as such in the counter affidavit submitted by the Grahams to Supreme Court plus exhibits. Such material was, to our knowledge, not examined by a judge of the Supreme Court as the Grahams were counseled to settle out of court. There are also the transcripts of Regina v. Ronald and Heather Graham. There is, therefore, extensive documentation in your hands. Mr. Minister, may I suggest that we are dealing here not merely with a miscarriage of justice, but with a scandal.

All this could have been avoided had the BCSPCA acted as – upon plain reading of the legislation and as interpreted by independent counsel and by lower courts – due process demands under Sections 1(2) and 11(a) of the Act, namely, that the investigating officer supply the Grahams with a notice detailing what was wrong with their setup and demand due attention to matters raised in a reasonable time. Such never happened. The Grahams had been assured by too many previous SPCA inspections, and no reasonable person could have foreseen that the SPCA found criminally objectionable what it had approved for 13 years.

Mr. Minister, the Act needs clarifying via amendments, because as it now stands it allows capriciousness, questionable judgment to supersede elementary justice, let alone common decency. And such is offended by attempting to criminalize unfairly essentially helpless citizen over an utterly pathetic triviality. And please consider the cost of it all to the public, not only the court costs, but the long term costs to the public of depriving impoverished elderly people of their means of existence and their chief enjoyment and social standing in the twilight of their life.

Sincerely,
Valerius Geist, PhD., P. Biol.
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science
Appended electronically: Graham’s Supreme Court Affidavit

 Re: Section 11 (a)
cc. Gillian Trumper, MLA
Ken McRae, Mayor of Port Alberni
Judy Stone, President, Animal Advocates society of BC


April 2/04

For six months, from November 2003 to April 2004,  AAS  defended Craig Daniell's  cover-up of egregious corruption and cruelty by employees because we wanted to give him a chance to clean the SPCA up.  To expose what we knew would only have weakened the SPCA .  We told Mr Daniell, at that time, the new Manager of Cruelty Investigations, that we wanted a financially strong SPCA so that he had the money to start to prevent cruelty. 
 
We begged the SPCA, beginning five years ago, to reform, warning that it could collapse if it didn't because the internet was going to prevent it from fooling the public any longer.  It was so flagrantly corrupt and there was a growing body of astute and connected critics that were not going to go away and that only honest animal welfare could save it.
 
By our charge of corruption we meant ethical corruption, but the corruption that the  media and the public can easily understand is financial corruption and that was exposed within months of AAS beating off threats by SPCA  lawyers, who tried to scare us into removing references to corruption from our web site, by the revelation of the Vancouver SPCA's CEO's $204,000 secret salary.
 
The release of the Community Consultation Report in November 2001 was a moment in time when the SPCA could have chosen to straighten up and fly right, but it chose to overlay the status quo with bigger and better P.R. and more money spent on the fact cats at the top, instead of better animal welfare.
 
And since November 2003, when it ramped up the PCA Act and began making media-attending seizures, in the process inflicting distress and cruelty on many of the seized animals, the SPCA has worsened. 
 
I think there is still a bit of time for it to save itself but it will take vision and imagination and there appears to be none of that at the SPCA.
 
For six months, from November 2003 to April 2004,  we defended Craig Daniell's  cover-up of egregious corruption and cruelty by employees because we wanted to give him a chance to clean the SPCA up.  To expose what we knew would only have weakened the SPCA .  We told Mr Daniell, at that time, the new Manager of Cruelty Investigations, that we wanted a financially strong SPCA so that he had the money to start to prevent cruelty. But the scales were dropped from our eyes when in April 2004, Mr Daniell hammered small-scale Lhasa apso breeders, Ron and Heather Graham of Port Alberni, to a pulp.  The Graham's dogs were all healthy, lived inside the house with the Grahams, produced one or two litters a year and had won over 500 ribbons.  Craig Daniell is responsible for the financial ruin, the psychologically-destroying public vilification, and the ruin of the Grahams' lives.  The buck stops with him.
 
He permitted the juxtaposition of photos of severely neglected dogs with press releases about the Grahams.  He permitted TV to do the same.  He allowed the media to attend the seizure.  He allowed the Port Alberni to put the Grahams' dogs into its chronically diseased pound where two of the pups died of SPCA contracted parvo.  He allowed the Grahams to be criminalized in court and disgraced in their community. He tried to sue the Grahams, whose only asset is their tiny, rural home, for over $100,000.  And just what was the dreadful cruelty the Grahams were destroyed for?  The Grahams kept some of their dogs in crates overnight (while some slept on their bed), and put dogs in crates when visitors and clients came so that the noise wasn't deafening.  Millions of people put small dogs into crates to sleep, and the SPCA keeps dogs and cats in "crates" 24/7 for months.  But it made great TV because the SPCA raid caught Heather in bed and some of the crates still soiled.  When Heather tried to let the dogs out to relieve themselves and to bathe any that had soiled overnight, as she did every morning, the SPCA stopped her.  With the house full of noisy strangers, and locked into their crates for hours, all the dogs soiled themselves, and then the SPCA took photos of that and used the photos to convict the Grahams of cruelty and demonize them in the media.