Revolving dogs: how many times can the SPCA seize animals, collect thousands from the owner in costs, get more thousands in donations by milking the sad story in the media, return the animals to the owner, seize again, milk it again, etc, etc?
On may 13, 2003, SPCA Special Constable Eileen Drever seized dogs from Chilliwack breeder, Karen Raffle, from conditions that were described in the media this way: found in a small, dark, barn and included six Chihuahuas and two basenjis. They were confined to Vari kennels, chicken cages with wire floors, and a partially-folded exercise pen. It was a hot day, and they had no water. Three of the animals, two female basenjis and a male Chihuahua, were in such poor shape, they were not released from hospital until May 16.
One of the basenjis and the Chihuahua had such badly-infected and abscessed teeth and gums, that after the teeth were removed, you could see through to the sinuses. Also, the Chihuahua's jaw had fractured from the infection.
In July 2003, the SPCA got $12,000 from Karen Raffle and Raffle got her dogs back. When the SPCA didn't get away with this (AAS exposed it on this board, on TV and in the press), it blamed the PCA Act for making it return severely neglected dogs to the neglector. The SPCA was lying. The Act says the exact opposite.
The BC Supreme Court said in Regina v.Montroy (1997), the SPCA may retain custody of the animal even though the owner has paid the costs incurred by the SPCA in caring for the animal, and despite the fact that the owner has requested the return of the animal. (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/97/06/s97-0617.txt)
Eileen Drever was the investigator in the Montroy case and attended this court, as did AAS. She knows full well that a court precedent was set in that court that determined that the SPCA did not have to return animals to owners from whom they had been seized. Yet she is quoted saying in the Coast Reporter on July 26/03 that the SPCA had no choice but to return Raffle's dogs to her. In plain words, she is lying.
From the Coast Reporter, July 26/03:
Eileen Drever, the SPCA senior animal protection officer who seized the dogs, said they have no choice but to return the animals. In the meantime, however, since the woman has paid the fee for costs associated with the seizure and has met conditions to ensure the dogs' welfare, the Chihuahuas must go back, as laid out in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
AAS got a legal opinion from Alexander, Holburn, Beaudin & Lang that says the opposite. It says that the PCA Act does not require that the SPCA return seized animals - even if the owner pays the SPCA's "seizure costs". Nor does the Act stipulate that if the owner makes improvements that the SPCA must return the animals. (http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/3062)
In July, 2003, AAS fed this story to Global of the dogs being returned by the SPCA to conditions that Drever described this way when the SPCA was milking the seizure for donations: "The dogs were kept in small, filthy cages, and several were suffering from different types of illnesses."
On Global, Craig Daniell told the same lie, but in a more lawyerly way. He said that "the Act provides a mechanism for owners to claim return of their animals."
Of course it does, in fact it is nonsensical to imply that the Act would prohibit someone from applying to get their property back, so Daniell is only stating the obvious, but in such a way that the opposite conclusion would be inferred by most people hearing him say this. Daniell knows full well that the SPCA does not have to give animals back, even if the owner applies and even if the owner pays the SPCA's (always blatantly inflated) seizure costs. We think that the words Daniell chose were deliberately misleading.
In this letter to an angry former SPCA supporter, one of the women who rehabilitated the dogs the SPCA placed in their foster care with untreated illnesses, and infested with fleas and worms , Daniell repeats the lie.
From: Craig Daniell
To: pjbest@telus.net
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: Please Read and please respond.....help these dogs....
Dear Ms. Best:
Thank you for your email expressing concern about the return of a number of dogs previously seized in the Chilliwack area. I can understand your frustrations. It does not seem right, nor fair that seized dogs should be returned the same individual that they were in fact seized from. Please understand though that in these cases, the Society is often as frustrated as the public. We do not want to return animals we have seized. Occasionally, however, they are returned. They are returned because the legislation that we use to seize them in the first place, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, provides a mechanism for owners to claim return of their animals. The legislation currently does not give the Society a right to absolutely refuse to return animals.(http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/3109)
Here is the link to all previous posts on this story http://www.animaladvocates.com/Watchdog/ChilliwackPuppymill.htm