It is the ruthless, self-serving way the SPCA is 'doing something' that is disturbing, even frightening. Instead of decently telling the players in the pet breeding/selling industry, "After 50 years of telling you that you are doing nothing wrong and to ignore complaints, that all the rules have changed and here is what we now demand of you and you have a certain length of time to do this list of things", the SPCA suddenly put the boots to their old pals.

The SPCA argues (successfully in court) that it cannot leave an animal 'in distress' where it is, but unless the animal is near death, the PCA Act is clear that the animal ought to be left where it is and changes made on site. In the case of pet stores, the owner can be given 24 hours to make the changes, or the animals will be seized. The animals have grown used to the way they are kept and 24 hours in familiar surroundings is much more humane than the SPCA taking them away to one of its inadequate, diseased facilities where they are subjected to the stress of strangers and strange surroundings.

In the case of this pet store, the SPCA says it gave the owner plenty of warnings and time, so that proves that the SPCA does not have to immediately seize any animals that are not in critical distress. If it is true that the owner was given clear orders and ignored them, then the seizure was justified and the right thing to do. But we have been fooled too many times by the SPCA's press release versions of the truth so we can not form an opinion one way or another.

The SPCA's methods ought to disturb every animal lover and animal owner because it is the same ruthless and self-serving methods that were used against owners in seizures of healthy animals and against animal rescuers who kept dogs and cats in much better conditions than did the SPCA once it seized them. No one is safe if the SPCA chooses - for its own reasons - to target you.

Small breed dogs were kept in feces-filled pens. The SPCA saw this and said there was nothing wrong....