(The following is a slightly edited version of Gail Moerkerken's letter to the BC SPCA asking if it intends to prosecute the man who had fifty-six dogs chained to trees outside Creston, BC)
October 11, 2002
The Board of Directors,
BCSPCA
Re: Creston Crisis
In July 2002, Creston PAWS (Pet Adoption and Welfare Society) rescued fifty-six dogs that had been chained in the mountains around Creston for up to three years by a Mr Myers whose intention had been to use the dogs in a sled-dog business. During this three-year period the SPCA had been notified many times by Creston PAWS, neighbours, Hydro line workers, and other community members, of the abuse, neglect and horrific conditions that these companion animals were subjected to. The SPCA chose not to act on these very real complaints and concerns. Marg Truscott, the local SPCA field agent commented to Vicki McDonald, the president of PAWS, “Well, what can we do? We can’t just kill ‘em all”, and “You can’t fault a fellow for having a dream”!
The BC SPCA should be charged with dereliction of duty by failing to enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) and should have apprehended these animals that were clearly in distress.
This was the largest rescue conducted in British Columbia by a group of volunteers who had the courage to force Mr Myers to surrender the fifty-six malnourished, medically neglected and traumatized dogs into PAWS care and control.
The SPCA, as the largest and most responsible agency for animal welfare in the province did not intervene in one of the most disgusting cases of animal abuse in recent history.
The Society relinquished its duties to a small group of volunteers from PAWS to carry out the SPCA mandate that ensures animals live by the Five Freedoms, stated in the BC SPCA Animal Care Guidelines. This document states that animals should have, at minimum, five essential freedoms.
· Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition
· Freedom from discomfort
· Freedom from pain, injury and disease
· Freedom from distress
· Freedom to express behaviour that promoted well-being.
These fifty-six dogs did not experience ANY of these SPCA Five Freedoms. The question begs to be asked, why were these animals not apprehended from Mr Myers by the SPCA with due diligence?
Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition. The PAWS volunteers stated that the dogs diet included road kill and garbage. How does this relate to the stated policy that all dogs must have access to quality and adequate food, and meet basic nutritional needs? This food was not palatable, not free of debris and was contaminated. These animals had no dishes and were fed on the ground. When water was available it was kept in filthy buckets, which were often over-turned and bone dry. Mr Myers did not live on the site and only visited the chained animals at most, once a day, and often not for forty-eight hours or more, resulting in the fact that a supply of fresh water was not provided.
Freedom from physical and thermal discomfort was not provided. Their shelter included the trees they were chained to and small dens they had dug out of the dirt. They suffered through extreme weather conditions with no protection from the elements.
Tethering. In the SPCA’s Dog Care Guidelines it is stated that tethering is unacceptable as a permanent method for preventing a dog to roam outside the property. This writer would suggest that three years of tethering should be viewed as permanent! The Creston dogs were chained twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and their chains were often wrapped completely around trees or tangled in the underbrush leaving them pinned until such time as the owner returned. They were consistently exposed to predators and were vulnerable to heat, cold, wind, rain, and snow. The ground was littered with metal and trash. Their chains did not allow for adequate separation between feeding, eating, sleeping and eliminating areas. These dogs had no opportunity for exercise and were not attached to a swivel, which would allow these abused animals slightly more freedom.
Freedom from emotional distress. All of the Creston dogs were deprived of human contact, were exposed to harsh and inhumane treatment, were emotionally neglected and traumatized. As the rescue began, these dogs demonstrated a low propensity for social interaction, excessive anxiety, fear, and abnormal behaviour.
Freedom from pain, injury and disease. While chained in the mountains, these dogs exhibited signs of illness, behavioural challenges and injury. A few examples include; Duchess, who had a large, open wound in her side that required extensive vet intervention and drainage tubes, Dude, who had a gash on his upper front leg the size of a two dollar coin, River, whose chain had to be “peeled” away from his neck as it was embedded in his flesh and Cap, who had a large oozing wound on the top of his head. Others had open, raw, and bleeding maggot-infested wounds from the chains around their necks. Many had skin conditions, diarrhea and were prone to vomiting. None had vaccinations nor were any of the 56 dogs spayed or neutered. No vet care was provided to these animals by their abuser. These animals also demonstrated maladaptive behaviour by trembling, shaking, whining, licking, sudden shedding and a lack of interest in play, food and their surroundings.
Freedom to express behaviour that promotes well-being. The Creston dogs did not experience free play, play with humans, safe exploration of different areas, human companionship, or mental or physical stimulation.
It has now been clearly noted that the BC SPCA’s Five Freedoms were not met and the SPCA did not pursue apprehension of animals suffering from severe and on-going neglect.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) was not executed in the Creston Crisis and it is stated in section
(11) that if an authorized agent is of the opinion that an animal is in distress and the person responsible for the animal
(a)does not promptly take steps that will relieve its distress, or
(b) cannot be found immediately and informed of the animal's distress, the authorized agent may, in accordance with sections 13 and 14, take any action that the authorized agent considers necessary to relieve the animal's distress, including, without limitation, taking custody of the animal and arranging for food, water, shelter and veterinary treatment for it.
The Animal Advocates Society’s web page quotes lawyer Myriam Brulot on the SPCA’s interpretation and enforcement of the PCA Act…. “"The real issue is not whether the law is strong enough, but whether or not the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is committed enough to make use of it” and continues with, “. The SPCA told me repeatedly that the law does not give them the power to act. Yet the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act gives the SPCA a lot of power to help animals "in distress". That is defined as an animal "deprived of adequate food, water, or shelter", "injured, sick, in pain or suffering" or "abused or neglected". Ms. Brulot goes on to state, “One thing is absolutely clear - because of the way the definition of "distress" is written, "neglect" has to be something other than inadequate food, water and shelter. While the interpretation of statutes is ultimately a task for the Courts, the SPCA, which is charged with enforcing the statute, is implicitly given the leeway to define the term. The big unanswered question is: How does the SPCA define neglect? If the SPCA does not consider an isolated, unexercised, confined animal neglected, WHY NOT? And finally, Ms. Brulot notes, “I think it certainly can be argued that "neglect" under the PCA act can cover situations like the ones AAS describes, animals who are confined and isolated for a long period of time. I would suspect that an expert in dogs would confirm that they are social, pack animals who are distressed by prolonged social isolation.
Mr. Ray Marshall, a BC SPCA Director, contacted PAWS several times with questions and information, and still no legal action has been taken against Mr Myers. At a BC SPCA Regional Directors’ meeting, the Regional Director for the Kootenays requested and received a unanimous vote that the SPCA support PAWS by assisting with the vet bills incurred from this rescue, which is an indication that the SPCA acknowledges responsibility for the lack of immediate intervention and apprehension of the fifty-six dogs within the prolonged three-year time frame.
As of this writing there has not been an official investigation report provided to PAWS, there are no charges laid, and Mr Myers is currently the owner of four unspayed female dogs and numerous cats. An argument may be made that Mr Myers is mentally ill and did not understand the degree of his neglect, but for the sake of the animals that are at extreme risk of becoming additional neglect statistics, Mr Myers must be prevented, in some way, from owning animals ever again.
It is also understood that an SPCA representative from Cranbrook is doing bi-weekly home checks of the abuser. How unfortunate that she phoned this person to inform him that she was coming!
As a person who spent six weeks sitting in the field at Big Dog Rescue assisting with the socialization and rehabilitation of thirteen Creston dogs and being a new guardian to one of the dogs, I can and do speak from personal experience regarding this situation. There is little doubt that the SPCA caused additional harm to all these animals by its lack of action. Does this not suggest that the SPCA should itself be charged with animal neglect!
The SPCA has been promoting its reform by conducting community consultation panels, reviewing policies and procedures, implementing new strategies and ensuring the donating public is well aware of the Society’s forward movement.
The Creston Crisis argues in the face of the SPCA reform. The Society’s lack of legal action, the refusal to intervene on behalf of fifty-six starving, and severely neglected animals demonstrates that reform of the largest animal welfare organization in British Columbia is simply smoke and mirrors to ensure the donating public continue to support high end salaries, expensive retreats, additional Head Office staff and glossy publications promoting the “wonders” of the society who “speak for those who cannot speak for themselves”.
Proof has been provided that the SPCA does NOT speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, but many others do. The voiceless do have hope with those who take action, who encourage legislative change, who provide rehabilitation to those on death row and who consistently press the SPCA to serve those who are in need - the animals, the very reason for the SPCA’s existence!
I anticipate a positive response from you indicating that the following actions have taken place:
· Crown counsel has been approached regarding legal action against Mr Myers
· A formal investigative report will be compiled and distributed to all interested parties
· The animals currently in “distress” at Mr Myer's home be removed without further delay
· The field operations staff member be replaced with a skilled and knowledgeable representative.
Gail Moerkerken,
PAWS supporter
Former SPCA Member