To: Editor, Capital News

Dear Editor:

RE: "Wild at Heart/Dealing with a desperate situation" and "Some animals are not fit for human co-habitation" by Marshall Jones (February 9, 2003)

In the past, the investigative journalism of Marshall Jones has been impressive. His exposes on the Pregnant Mare Urine industry, as well as many other non-animal-related articles, have been meticulously researched and accurately written. This time, however--for reasons unknown--Jones failed to complete his homework. His one-sided article and accusatory column writings seem to portray a surprising lack of knowledge about what led to the recent uproar surrounding the Beaverdell dogs. He makes serious assumptions, publicly, about the motivations of animal welfare, rescue, and rights groups. These allegations are untrue and unacceptable.

If the SPCA in general (not just the local shelter) had demonstrated an impeccable track record of accountability, the public would not even have questioned the killing of those unfortunate dogs. Most of the community would have accepted the verdict, knowing that the best decision had been made. However, years of delayed response to emergency calls regarding animal cruelty, secrecy within the ranks, disposal of employees and volunteers who dared to question policies, and unwillingness (until recently) to examine the benefits of a no-kill policy, led to frustration and suspicion on the part of many animal advocates in our province. (Due to overall discontent with the SPCA, in 2001 the head office of that organization embarked upon a re-structuring of policies, calling for province-wide public consultation.) The stage had, therefore, been set for the recent barrage of protest--i.e. the Beaverdell dog tragedy was the last straw for many animal lovers in our specific community and beyond.

Let's examine the reason why "splinter" rescue groups exist. These groups are entirely volunteer-run, with no paid staff. For many of these volunteers, the work of caring for rescued animals can be overwhelming in intensity. The work never ends. In 1994, TRACS (The Responsible Animal Care Society) was formed because a group of neighbours felt compelled to go public over a glaring scenario of cruelty to horses. The citizens' reason for calling in the media was due to nothing other than SPCA hesitancy to handle the matter promptly. Emaciated horses with no food or water continued to languish in their paddocks, while the only society with legislative clout procrastinated. Public pressure eventually resulted in an SPCA seizure of the horses. TRACS evolved out of this neighbourhood effort; a group of citizens decided that there was a definite need for a "watchdog" group in our community.

Recently, a horse with a broken leg would have endured two to three more days of agony if members of the public had not taken matters into their own hands. With the threat of media exposure looming, the local shelter responded--yet prior to the threat, no investigative officer would have been available for at least two days. Has the situation improved greatly since 1994?

With regard to the Beaverdell dogs: if only one or two people had come forth, accusing the local shelter of killing salvageable animals, we would likely have dismissed the allegations as rumour. However, when six citizens (including a dog trainer) stepped forth, we had to listen. Most of these people provided written documentation of their testimonies, and some went to the length of getting their statements notarized. The strength of their collective argument casts more than a dubious light on the SPCA decision to kill the Beaverdell dogs. Further, other questions still need to be answered: 1)Marshall Jones recounts the assistant shelter manager's experience with a dog that "would have taken her out" had she not fallen. Anyone with dog expertise knows that, in a predator/prey situation, the aggressor will make the final attack when its victim is down. Since the dog "pressed himself into the corner of the cage, watching her", the evidence would reveal a frightened, defensive dog that only wanted to flee a perceived threat. 2)Why the prejudice against neglected canines? My back yard happens to be home to a large, unpredictable animal that will flee when a water bucket is dropped. She was rescued from a situation of neglect, and came to me with a neck injury that made her extremely fearful of humans. Her size and powerful playfulness are now such that, five months later, one might fear that she could inflict serious injury upon a human. She is not a dog, but a huge Belgian cross foal rescued from the PMU industry. TRACS has rescued many such horses over the years. Equine rescue operations seldom spend time entertaining irrational fears about the adoption potential of these large, unpredictable, neglected animals, and focus instead on locating suitable, responsible homes that are fully aware of what they are adopting. Furthermore, why should individual animals be found guilty before they have committed any crimes? In the hands of experienced people, neglected horses--and dogs--can become socialized and adoptable, presenting minimal risk to human safety.

All this said, there is a silver lining in the cloud. I believe that the SPCA can emerge a stronger organization as a direct result of these kinds of crises. With increased public input, and an awareness of community expectations, the society can become a more powerful voice for the animals. Perhaps one day there will be no need for other "rescue" groups, and we will all be volunteers for the local shelter.

As for Marshall Jones and the Capital News, many animal advocates are awaiting a public retraction for the presumptuous and grossly inflammatory comments made in Jones' column. A large, front page Sunday cover story factually and fairly examining the other side of this issue would be in order.

Respectfully yours,
Sinikka Crosland, President
TRACS (The Responsible Animal Care Society)