Notes to the seizure (6) Dr Jacobson again: the horse Cocoa and her foal: a shameful farce (more on the "Mystery of The Creek That Isn't There")

Q One of the other horses that was seized, aside from Sully, was a brown mare with a black tail and mane that was pregnant, correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, for sake of referencing consistency, and again I appreciate that you would have no idea if this is the case, I'm going to refer to that horse as Cocoa, all right?
A Okay.
Q It was your opinion that Cocoa was in distress?
A Yes.
Q What was wrong with Cocoa?
A Well, when the -- after being examined by the veterinarian, her body conditioning score was not adequate and she was pregnant. There was concerns of the debris in the -- in the paddock and also lack of adequate water.
Q Right, assuming there was no creek, correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, that horse, as I understand it, was scored by Dr. Jacobson as a three out of nine, correct, or do you recall?
A Three out of nine?
Q Right. Your Honour may well be aware of this. I wasn't. There's a scale of one to nine with the sort of ideal being five. Is that fair?
A For a horse, yeah, five is the norm, but understand that also a pregnant horse would -- is -- the ideal is a six.
Q Ideal is a six?
A Ideal, yes.
Q I'm going to show you two photos and I'm going to have a couple of questions for you. The dark horse that's in those photographs, can you tell whether or not that's Cocoa?
A No, I can't, sir.
Q Does that horse appear to be in distress?
A Without actually getting close to examine the animal and have a look at it, I can't say if that animal was in distress or not, sir.
*********************************************************************
Q I'm going to show you an additional photograph. It's also got a horse, similar colouring. I'm going to suggest to you that's the same horse taken in October of 2002. Can you tell by looking at that photograph whether that horse appears to be in distress at all?
A Again, sir, without having -- you know, to be able to look at the animal itself and to be there, I can't say. This horse, from the photograph, it might be a bit thin.
Q Might be a bit thin?
A It may be a little thin, but I -- from -- it's hard to tell from the photograph.
Q Now, I'm told in a brief discussion I had with Dr. Mickleson that he did not consider that horse to be in distress. You would disagree with that opinion? When he saw the horse on the 27th of March, 2003. You would disagree with that conclusion?
A I would --
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, I can certainly understand where my friend's going, but the difficulty is that he's asking the witness to give hearsay evidence which is compounded by the fact that it's an opinion from a veterinarian. We may be able to -- do have Mickleson's -- do you have Mickelson's letter I gave you? If I could just have a second, Your Honour?
(INDISCERNIBLE DISCUSSION BETWEEN COUNSEL)

MR. KAAY: Your Honour, if my friend could just rephrase the question?
MR. BETTON: Let me, perhaps, address the issue, Your Honour. It's my submission that this officer/ member of the S.P.C.A. formulated an opinion and I'm simply asking him if there is an opinion from Dr. Mickleson that's different, if he disagrees with that opinion. He's entitled to and it will be a matter of argument to address how that bears on the issues and the fact that there may be different opinions about the condition of a given animal, and I think the question simply put is if that's Dr. Mickleson's opinion or if it was on March 27th, 2003, would you, Mr. Kuich, disagree with that opinion.
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, if I may? The only concern the Crown has here, it's going to require having to get something from Dr. Mickleson because the witness is being asked to comment on Dr. Mickleson's opinion about a different horse.
MR. BETTON: It's about the same horse.
THE COURT: Well, I mean -- sorry. You know, I mean -- perhaps if the witness could be stood down for a second, I might be able to spell it out a little clearer for the court.
MR. BETTON: I'm content with that.
THE COURT: Okay. Please stand down, please. Actually, outside.
(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

MR. KAAY: Certainly Mr. Kuich forms his opinion based on his observations when he goes and Your Honour will get evidence from Dr. Jacobson, and I understand that Dr. Mickleson did examine the animals and there is a letter to that effect and Dr. Mickleson may very well have a different opinion with respect to the condition of that horse than Dr. Jacobson. I think all that the witness can do is -- well, it's really the weight. It's a question of weight is what I'm getting at, Your Honour. I just want to be clear on that. I mean, he could say --
THE COURT: If you want me to accept his opinion and he says that someone disagreed with him, he disagrees with that opinion.
MR. KAAY: Yeah, he could have -- he can understand that Dr. Mickleson may have disagreed, but he can't, of course, give Dr. Mickleson's opinion.
THE COURT: No, no.
MR. KAAY: That's all I'm getting at. It's just a question of weight and I just wanted to be clear on that.
THE COURT: (Indiscernible) your friend put it as a hypothetical.
MR. KAAY: That's all, Your Honour. So just that the court's aware of the weight. That's all.

BRADLEY KUICH, a witness, recalled.
CROSS-EXAM BY MR. BETTON ON VOIR DIRE, continuing:
Q Sir, just so we're clear, then, you would disagree -- if that is Dr. Mickleson's opinion regarding the condition of the horse that we've described and I've referred to as Cocoa, you would disagree? Do I have that correctly?
A I would have to go with the opinion of our attending veterinarian that examined the animal on site and gave me her opinion.
Q And that opinion was given to you on March 27th, '03, as well, correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, the -- I'm sure somebody will catch me if I get my terminology wrong because I don't profess to be a horse guy. The mare that had the foal, there was nothing wrong with the health of that mare, correct? If I'm understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that was only seized because the foal was being taken, or am I wrong about that?
A The foal required the mother, yes.
Q It wasn't because the mother was in distress?
A On the advice of the veterinarian, the horse was taken into our custody because of the foal. I considered the mother and the foal to both be in distress.
Q Why was the mother in distress?
A Because --
Q It was your opinion. You formulated it.
A Well, because of the condition of the -- of the foal. It was -- the foal was a newborn and it required close attention because of its injuries.
Q There are two separate things. I appreciate -- and we'll get to the issue about the foal, but the condition of the mother, aside from the fact that she was the mother of the foal, was fine, wasn't it?
A Well, and the concern of the conditions she was in, too, without adequate food. Or pardon me, adequate water and . . .
Q Again, assuming there was no creek.
A That's right.
************************************************************
A Since our last inspection there had been a newborn foal and it had cuts on all four of its knees. When I asked Mr. Hill what had happened, he indicated that the foal had been born on ice and it had trouble getting up after it was born and had consequently damaged all four of its knees and the knees were bloody and swollen.
************************************************************
Q Now, with respect to the newborn, the foal and the wounds, was there any indicator -- can you describe the wounds at all?
A They were open wounds on all four of its knees, all four legs. They appeared swollen and bloody.
Q Was there any indication that those wounds were being treated at all? Any bandaging or anything?
A I could not see, no. There was nothing. No bandages, nothing.
*****************************************************************************************************
Q Now, would you agree that the wounds on the -- I've heard knees and hocks. Are those one and the same thing?
A I just say knees.
THE COURT: Hocks on the rear and knees on the front.
MR. BETTON: Okay.
Q The knees and hocks, just so we -- had abrasions on the foal, correct?
A There were open wounds, yes.
Q Were they healing?
A I have no idea if they were healing. It would be up to the vet to determine that.
Q I think we talked earlier and agreed that animals get injured. That happens, right?
A Yes.
Q And foals are not the most graceful of animals when they're newly born, correct? They tend to be pretty clumsy at getting up, down, that sort of thing?
A I don't know. Once they've got their feet, they generally get around fairly well.
Q One would expect that if a foal has wounds to its knees and hocks, that some treatment would be provided, correct? That's what you do, right?
A That's what I would do, yes.
Q And I don't know whether you can comment or not, but Hibitane I'm told is a common -- I'll call it remedy for lack of a better word that you use to treat the kinds of wounds that you saw on the foal. I don't know if you can comment on that or not.
A I can't really comment on that.
Q Okay, fair enough. But certainly you would expect the person responsible for the care of such an animal that they would take some steps to ensure that at least once the wounds are there, that they're going to heal, correct?
A If they're properly treated, yes.
Q And one would expect if you see healing, that would be suggestive of the fact that some appropriate steps were being taken. Agreed?
A Yes.
Q Now, it's my understanding that there was indication in all of these wounds on the foal that they were what's been described to me as granulating, and I'm told that that's an indication that the cuts and the wounds are healing. Can you comment one way or the other on that?
A I couldn't comment on that, no.
Q I'm going to ask you to assume for the moment that that is the case, or was the case at the time, and that the wounds were, in fact, healing. Is there more that should be done beyond taking steps to ensure that the wounds were healing?
A I think with consulting a veterinarian, they would be able to tell you what you should do to help the healing process.
Q I mean, it's not the practice of the S.P.C.A. to go out and seize every animal that gets injured, right?
A No.
Q I mean, clearly an animal that's injured in one manner or another is in distress, right? A Yes.
THE COURT: Somebody's getting an antibiotic, are they? I see a big needle either going in your arm or in the foal's rump. I don't know.
MR. BETTON: I'm not sure, Your Honour.
Q But the issue in terms of an animal who's received an injury -- well, let me back up a bit. You're not suggesting at all that anything Ms. Douglas or Ms. (sic) Hill did specifically caused those injuries, right, in the foal?
A I'm not saying they caused the injuries. I'm saying that they were aware of the injuries, though.
Q Yeah. So the issue is what were they doing in response, correct? That's the concern that the S.P.C.A. would have, is to say, "Holy, you've got an animal that's injured. What are you doing about it?"
A That's right.
Q Mr. Hill told you he was treating the animal with Hibitane, right?
A Yes.
Q What was wrong with that?
A I don't know. I can't comment on the healing qualities of Hibitane

This is a shameful farce. Again, the SPCA's chosen vet, Dr Teresa Jacobson, the same vet who was instrumental in the decision to seize a wonderfully healthy mare and her foal in Kelowna and instrumental in the Materi/Collingwood seizure of horses and dogs, has either authorized, or encouraged the seizure of horses that are not in distress, the only legal grounds the SPCA has for seizing animals. We do not have Dr Mikleson's contrary report on the condition of the horses that Dr Jacobson said were in distress, but we will get it if we have to.

The foal had injured knees that were being treated with Hibitane. Unless the foal's knees were badly infected, this is a reasonable way to treat the knees.

The Douglas/Hill lawyer makes the point that the PCA Act was not written to permit the SPCA to seize every animal with an injury or an illness, only those animals in continued distress or animals in "critical distress" (defined as an animal whose life cannot be saved and which must be immediately euthanized to humanely end its suffering), and only after the owner has been ordered to attend to the injury or illness, and has neglected to in a reasonable period of time. If the Act did permit seizure on the grounds that an animal might be in distress in the future or on the grounds of an injury or illness, every owner of an animal in BC would be at risk of seizure by the SPCA. In fact every animal owner in BC is at risk of the powerful SPCA. Except for the SPCA itself of course, which has a history of leaving animals sick, injured, and dying...to just die in an SPCA cell. The SPCA itself is the biggest animal neglector in BC and this has been amply proven. (See "A Prison Camp For Animals" at http://www.animaladvocates.com/Watchdog/PrisonCampForAnimals.htm)

The SPCA's actions give the appearance that it chooses likely victims and grinds them into silence and submission with its expensive lawyers, legal tricks and threats, with years of expensive litigation, threats that the animals will be killed if the SPCA's demands for money are not met, and even with gag orders to keep the victims from telling the media what was done to them and to their animals. Animals that were healthy before the SPCA seized them are sometimes returned on payment or (rarely still) on a court order, in deathly condition, thin, ill, and injured. SPCA ham-fisted hirelings even injure animals during a seizure.

The SPCA abuses the power of the Act, and for that reason the Act must be amended and the SPCA's enormous powers, for which its victims only recourse is many thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees, must be taken away. The SPCA has proven in many ways that it cannot be trusted to act honestly in the best interests of animals.

The courts have naively believed what some Members of the Legislature naively believed when the power to seize was amended in the Act in 1994, that:

The amendments will also expressly state that the offence provision does not apply to activities carried out according to reasonable and generally accepted management practices. They will emphasize that the act must be administered in a way which ensures that animals are treated humanely, while still allowing uses of animals to continue...I stress that the last thing the SPCA wants to do is separate owners from their animals. They want to be able to point out to owners: “This is what you’re doing wrong; you can do it better. We will help educate you.” If must comes to must, then you lay charges; but that is certainly not the first thing any SPCA people I know would ever do.

Many fears were raised in the legislature in 1994 and they are well worth reading as an example of how unwatched and uncontrolled statutory powers are corrupted by law enforcement agencies such as the police and the SPCA if they are trusted instead of watched and controlled by an independent oversight body and where victims have recourse to an independent review body. "Police State" is the term that describes what happens when the police have too much power. No citizen should be complacent that the police are not coming for them. http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/8496

Read Also: Horse seizure ruled unlawful
http://www.animaladvocates.com/seizures/j.vandongen.htm

The SPCA sold the Douglas/Hill six horses plus any foals born after the seizure. Altogether, Douglas and Hill had $20,000 worth of animals taken. (See subpost soon for the money details.)