Feb. 10, 2003
The Editor
Kelowna Capital News
Dear Sir
Regarding your story "Wild at Heart" of February 9, 2003:
It is the media's duty to present an unbiased and factual account of current news. I am disappointed that the situation regarding the Kelowna SPCA and the recently euthanized Beaverdell dogs has resulted in such biased coverage on the part of Marshall Jones.
As an animal welfare advocate I too am biased. But I will make a sincere effort to relay only what is factual with regards to this story. Too many tempers have flared over this situation, and too many people have been labelled "radical" and therefore not credible. So facts only:
1.The SPCA knew of Gaston Lapointe's mill for at least 7 years. Why did they not act sooner? Even if for 7 years, all Lapointe's dogs had adequate food, water, and shelter, the SPCA could still have acted under the provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act if the dogs were neglected psychologically, as the PCA Act allows the inspecting officer to define neglect.
2. Since the SPCA had 7 years to prepare for this seizure, why did they not arrange for competant and safe foster homes in which to rehabilitate these dogs? Desocialized dogs only become worse when confined , especially when taken out of their element and confined in a strange place. This is terrifying for them, and will only exascerbate already unacceptable behaviour. If the SPCA knew these dogs would be relegated to 7 months in chain link runs due to lack of foster homes or legal liabilities surrounding placement in foster homes, then it would have been kinder to euthanize them on Lapointe's property, in a place that was familiar to them. Dogs are creatures of habit. They become easily stressed by any change in routine or environment.
3. The SPCA neglected to spay and neuter these dogs in an effort to reduce stress levels by reducing hormone levels. Unaltered dogs fight each other. Unaltered dogs put under stressful conditions could kill each other. All reputable independant rescue organizations spay and neuter their rescues before attempting to integrate and rehabilitate.
4. According to media reports, the SPCA let Gaston Lapointe take an unaltered dog and her pups to Quebec. What is to prevent him from starting another breeding operation in another province? The SPCA also sold him back "Grandpa", his original breeding stock male. How can the very society that is laying charges of cruelty against an individual not only let that individual walk away with animals, but also resell to him an animal they had seized from him under the PCA Act before this individual has gone to trial on cruelty charges?
5. In the 7 years that the SPCA knew of Lapointe's mill, they have never once asked for control of breeding laws or humane treatment of dogs laws that would help to erradicate puppy mills. It is up to the independant animal welfare groups (yes, the "radicals") to lobby government for legislation regarding spaying and neutering, control of breeding, and humane treatment laws. Furthermore, not only does the SPCA not ask for this type of improved legislation, it actually puts a stop to any initiatives put forth by individual animal welfare groups. In 1997, the Animal Advocates Society of BC attempted to amend the provincial PCA act. They attempted to include a broader defintion of neglect, one that would include more humane provisions than just food, water , and shelter. But the SPCA stopped them. They said they were happy with the wording of the actas it was. And to this day we can report cruelty and neglect to the SPCA and receive the same old answer- "as long as there's food, water, and shelter, there's nothing we can do, the laws aren't good enough".
6. It is untrue that the Bach flower remedy "Rescue Remedy" must be given under the tongue. It can also be given in drinking water.
7. The drug "Clomicalm" (clomipramine hydrochloride) is not prescribed in animals as an anti-depressant, rather as an anti-anxiety drug, and is contraindicated in dogs with a propensity to bite, as it removes inhibition, therefore causing dogs who may not normally bite to react in an aggressive manner.
8. How many, if any, of the alleged bite wounds upon staff were reported to the Workers Compensation Board? Is there any record of any bite wounds? If these dogs were not vaccinated for rabies, then the proper authorities should have been contacted. Where is the documentation of these bites? And if there is no documentation, and the staff just "dismissed" them "like the misdoings of a toddler because the dogs just didn't know any better" then why did they later kill them for the very same behaviour? This is very inconsistent. Furthermore, to include in this story a photograph of a person who has sustained a bite wound, totally unrelated to the Beaverdell dogs, is sensationalistic, unproffessional and unfair.
9. I feel this last point to be the most important. If the euthanized Beaverdell dogs were so aggressive, why were volunteers allowed to walk them regularly, and in public places? This makes utterly no sense.
All I ask for is fair, intelligent coverage. That is the media's duty.
If Marshall Jones had visited the Creston PAWS shelter last year he may have had a different opinion. In June of 2002, this small, independantly funded animal welfare organization removed 56 physically and psychologically abused husky mixes from a property in Topaz Creek. These dogs were in far worse shape both mentally and physically than the Beaverdell dogs. The SPCA had known of them for 3 years but did nothing (this is a proveable fact). The Topaz Creek dogs were placed in foster care, not in cages. All those dogs recovered and have been placed in good homes. Same situation, radically different approach. Success, not death.
Please, as media representatives, do your research, and tell ALL sides of the story. At the bare minimum, just tell us the facts.
I do not wish to have to contact the B.C. Press Council regarding your biased coverage of this story, but I will if no attempt is made to relay the facts I have provided above.
From the B.C. Press Council Code of Practice:
"A newspaper's first duty is to provide the public with accurate information. Newspapers should correct inaccuracies promptly"
Please provide the public only factual information with regards to this story. Statements like the one regarding the dog Chewy "He was going to attack, if ever the girl was left alone" are sensationalistic , inaccurate, unproveable, and unfair.
The use of the photograph of the dog bite victim that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Beaverdell dogs is clear subterfuge. This photograph juxtaposed with a story about dogs who were euthanized for being dangerous led myself and other readers who I have spoken to to assume this bite was inflicted by the dogs being featured in the story. Again, this is sensationalistic, unprofessional, and unfair.
I trust you will undertake the task of rectifying the bias of this piece by either publishing my letter or composing a piece of your own that is fair, factual, and unbiased.
Thanking you in advance for your time and attention to this matter.
Jennifer Dickson
Okanagan Animal Welfare Foundation
Vernon, BC