From: Lana Simon
To: Lorie Chortyk
Cc: Bonnie Bischoff (E-mail) ; Carla Maruyama (E-mail) ; Craig Daniell ; Gail Peterson (E-mail) ; Howard Gray (E-mail) ; Karen Holland (E-mail) ; Kim Evans (E-mail) ; Kris Bowen (E-mail) ; Mary Lou Troman - President ; Meredith Thornton (E-mail) ; Norma LePage (E-mail) ; Peter MacKillop (E-mail) ; Phyllis Gregg (E-mail) ; Red Lawrence (E-mail) ; Tina Kanahele (E-mail) ; Vanessa Lycos (E-mail) ; Vicky Renneberg (E-mail)
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Cheech

Dear Lorie:

Thank you for your email reply.

I believe the SPCA has handled this particular situation very badly on every front by its intransigent attitude. Because a life is at stake here, every effort must always be made not to euthanize and, if there is doubt about a particular animal, then I would have expected the SPCA to be flexible and allow a time extension so that many more parties could re-evaluate.

This particular case turns the media spotlight on the SPCA's questionable decisionmaking based on a much-criticized assessment procedure. Using your standard temperament test, how is it that the dog was assessed as adoptable in the first place when your email reply to me states that he has "shown a dangerous level of aggression towards people at the shelter"? The dog has been at the Delta shelter less than two months. Cheech passed his initial assessment test(s) and was listed on Petfinder as an adoptable dog, so the SPCA WAS prepared to adopt him if a home had come along promptly. He would already be out in the community. If the SPCA is now saying that he isn't an adoptable dog and is a danger to the public, then why were you prepared to adopt him out previously? Either the assessment test is flawed or not enough time is allowed for a full rehabilitation to properly assess behaviour temperament before deciding on adoptability status.

For anyone with common sense, it is clear that placing an animal in a shelter environment and kennelling it for many hours/weeks will greatly add to its stress levels. In many cases, rehabilitation may take months and progress may be incremental. There can and will be good days and bad but a general indication will emerge that improvement is being made. Since Amanda Muir (an experienced dog handler) and the Delta shelter workers felt there was evident rehabilitation progress being made AND the veterinarian chosen to euthanize Cheech agreed that the dog should be given more time, I find it extremely cold and indifferent that SPCA Head Office would not postpone any decision on euthanasia.

You state, in your reply email to me, that Amanda Muir has an "emotional attachment" to the dog. Amanda acted in very professional manner last year during her crisis. I'm sure that, although she would have compassion for an animal that is to be euthanized, her professionalism would not be compromised if she honestly felt the euthanasia of Cheech was in the public's best interest. I hardly think that Amanda would place her emotional feelings above the safety factor of the general public especially since she has endured a vicious dog attack herself. Amanda has proven her integrity and I feel strongly that the SPCA Head Office should have taken into account her assessment of the dog, the other Delta SPCA workers and the veterinarian's opinion. The official temperament assessors are NOT the daily hands-on caregivers of the dog. This one factor alone makes a substantial difference to any assessment outcome.

The BC SPCA, which is charged with the welfare of animals in our Province, has not given a good account of itself in this incident. There was considerable room here for showing a flexible attitude, liasing with experienced employees in a co-operative manner and dialoguing with rescue groups.

Sincerely,

(Mrs.) Lana Simon

North Vancouver, BC