Rick Sargent of Victoria was the president of the Board of Directors of the BC SPCA until May, 2004, when he stepped down. In August Mr Sargent also resigned his personal membership in the SPCA. His reasons can be read here: http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/6365.

Mr Sargent and I had an interesting conversation on October 8th in which many issues were discussed, one of which - the question of what the mandate of the BC SPCA is - to protect animals from people, or to protect people from animals? Mr Sargent's letter to the Board of Directors of the BC SPCA (below) raises some questions that AAS raised with the SPCA beginning in 1998 with letters to the SPCA which were never answered, and in 2000 when AAS created its web site, specifically to get the support needed to force the SPCA to adhere to its mandate to protect animals from people. Our opening web pages addressed the conflict of interest of an animal welfare and cruelty prevention Society being the paid dog catcher/disposer (killer), and we have never stopped pointing the conflict out - it and the other conflict, which is the policy of unlimited surrender (which the SPCA dishonestly calls animal welfare when it cannot be anything other than another form of paying animal control because of the resultant killing of thousands of unwanted pets a year). It was clear to us then and it is still clear, that the SPCA only reforms under the pressure of bad publicity (loss of donations) and so we were forced by the SPCA's stubborn refusal to stop killing for animal control money, to risk being sued by the enormously wealthy SPCA. If being sued and having our day in court so that we can speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, is the only way to make the SPCA do animal welfare, then that is what must happen. It will take some $300,000 away from animals, but that appears not to bother the SPCA, even though it cries poor all the time.

Mr Sargent's email to AAS and letter to the BC SPCA Board of Directors:

Dear Judy,

Further to our conversation today. Here is the letter I sent to the Board of Directors of the BC SPCA via Cowichan Director Red Lawrence in August. I have never had any response, maybe your readers can answer these questions? Feel free to post it as I believe this question speaks to the very heart of the animal welfare movement: do we represent people or do we represent animals? Do we corrupt our mandate when we indulge in animal control and pound keeping?

Rick Sargent

August 24, 2004
Dear Red,

Further to our discussion six weeks ago. I have now collected my thoughts on the issues of assessments and risk and propose the following 6 questions to you and the Board. The questions have been numbered [*]. If I have the basic facts on the Cody story wrong, please tell me and I will correct them. .

A short time ago I saw on public television the CEO [AAS: Craig Daniell], the COO [Robert Busch] and the Manager of Animal Welfare [Nadine Gourkow] talking about the SPCA's "moral obligation" to protect the public from dangerous dogs. In addition, I read numerous newspaper articles where the Manager of Community Relations [Lorie Chortyk] was quoted referring to this same "moral obligation". These statements were in support of the Society's justification to kill a dog named "Cheech" in Delta. So my first question is where does this "moral obligation" come from ? [1]

I have been unable to find any reference to said "moral obligation" in the Cruelty to Animals Act, nor any reference in our Constitution and Bylaws, in the two years I was on the Board I am unaware of any policy that was created that would establish such an obligation. If anyone knows of where in the legislation, bylaws or policies (approved by the Board) upon which such a "moral obligation" is based could you please advise me.[2]

If, as I suspect, there is no basis for this "moral obligation" why do our senior managers proclaim such in public? [3]

I personally believe that the Society has no obligation to protect the public from dangerous dogs. In fact, our Society's moral obligation is to speak for the dog. In our legal system even the most vile criminal is innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to the best available defence. So who speaks for those who can't speak (defend) for themselves if not the SPCA? [4]

Last year a dog named Cody was arrested by animal control officers working for the SPCA in Ladysmith, for biting another dog. Cody was then incarcerated without bail at the Cowichan SPCA shelter where over a period of time he became the shelter pet. The Town of Ladysmith was determined to have Cody killed and hired a lawyer to get a destruction order (same lawyer as works for the City of Victoria). With some assistance from a student lawyer, the owner was able to get a postponement of the hearing to allow time to get an expert witness. That witness I believe was Gary Gibson (Custom Canine) who was able to impress the judge of both his credentials as an expert on dogs and that Cody was not a significant threat to reoffend. Cody was discharged with a warning. So where was the SPCA in all this? [5] I heard that the shelter staff wanted to speak on behalf of Cody but they were forbidden by management to do so. In any event the lawyer for the plaintiff told the judge that the SPCA had no expertise in these kinds of matters. The Society clearly missed a chance to become a recognized authority. The catch 22 here is you become a recognized expert by defending dogs in court and the dead ones never get to court.

If the SPCA has any moral obligation it is to defend the Dog. Protecting the public is a duty of Animal Control. I think that the Society is in a conflict of interest when it puts the "public" ahead of the animals.

Some of the Board and the management may disagree with the logic as I have presented it here: if there is some rationalization to support the SPCA's killing dogs who might be dangerous, I would like to hear their argument.

My second concern is how does publicly declaring "a moral obligation" to protect the public from dangerous dogs and by describing our testing tool as " the best science" and properly "verified" and by defining the Society's assessors as experts, reduce the Society's liability from litigation.[6] I understand that there are now two lawsuits against the Society on this very issue. I can imagine the plaintiff's lawyer waxing eloquent on the SPCA's failure in it's "moral obligation" to protect his client. And where would this claim come from? From the CEO and other senior managers of the SPCA as heard on public television - the lawyer will probably show the judge the clip.

It is clear that an issue which the Board should be concerned is how the Society manages its risks. I am not aware that there have been any risk management studies, legal opinions or representations from the insurer that would shed light on this issue. I know that there were discussions between myself and others last year but we were so involved in fighting [other SPCA] fires that this issue fell through the cracks. I do believe that relying on assessment tools, assessors, and by advertising our "moral obligation" will only serve to increase our risks and the size of the settlements.

The Board should order an arms length risk management study for the Society - there are experts who do this. The Board should also get an opinion from the Society's insurer and the Society's lawyer on these risks and on the advisability of making unnecessary public claims to obligations and to standards which may not exist.

Please forward my letter to your colleagues

Best wishes on this most difficult of issues.

Sincerely,
Rick Sargent, Past President