[Newsbot]

Title: Man who killed sled dogs asked SPCA for help on two separate occasions
Category: Misc CDN
Posted By: Curtman
Date: 2011-02-03 16:52:47
Canadian

[Gunnair]

SPCA has stated that the guy approached them in Jun/Jul, months after the cull.

[Yogi]

Gunnair Gunnair:

SPCA has stated that the guy approached them in Jun/Jul, months after the cull.

Senior animal protection officer Eileen Drever confirmed she was contacted last spring by the man, but can’t recall if it was in April or May. The cull happened on April 21 and April 23, 2010.

[andyt]

Lots of confusion about whether he asked for help before or only after the killing. Also whether he was ordered to do this. What's clear is that he did contact the SPCA some time after the killing to express concern about the dogs that were still living at the site. The SPCA phoned his boss, who assured them everything was OK, and that was the extent of their investigation, the dropped the issue. It seems lots of people had a role to play in all this.

What's also clear to me is that sled dog operations running three hundred dogs should not be allowed - way too much potential for abuse. He says he did protest them having so many dogs, but the owners wanted to have them on hand just in case business picked up. Sled dogging should obviously not be a large scale commercial operation. If one guy wants to have a team or two, that's a different matter. I used to think sled dogging was really cool. After this, you couldn't pay me to go on it.

[Prof_Chomsky]

You know, the fact that this corporation was allowed to profit on a business model that is essentially based on maximizing profits by housing dogs in overcrowded pens then destroying them when the market no longer supports their use is pretty despicable.

...but pick apart the employee's story for a second. This guy must have an extra chromosome or something because who in their right mind steps into the middle of the dog pen with several hundred dogs and just opens fire? You'd think he would have told his employer they needed to pay to have them euthanized, or at a minimum, taken 1 dog at a time to a quiet location and done it quickly. But this guy took it upon himself to start the mass slaughter of 100 dogs with a shotgun by walking into the middle of the pen and just opening fire while the dogs tried to kill him for their own survival...

Want to lay odds that when this guy's identity is finally released they find out his mother is also his sister?

[Choban]

What kind of iodiot would do something like this, I myself would quit that job and then use all my resources to prevent it from happening, theres so much wrong here it's scarey

[andyt]

His identity has been released - The Province is not keeping it secret. He's in hiding because of serious death threats.

He does seem a bit of a stupe, but he was caught in a bind as well. He owned part of the company, had to sell the rest during the recession, so there was a financial driver for doing this. He definitely bears a lot of responsibility for what happened, but so does the majority owner who told him to do this, as well as the SPCA who apparently gave him the brush off. Maybe even the vet who refused to euthanise healthy dogs. If a company is going broke, you can't expect it to just keep looking after dogs - there won't be any money to do so. Personally I think the answer is to strictly limit the number of dogs one out fit can have - to something like 12 or so. That way if they do go bust, the rest of the industry should be able to absorb them or at least the SPCA take them.

[Curtman]

This one is interesting too...

Company dealt with 65 SPCA orders in one month

$1:

The BC SPCA issued 65 orders against Howling Dog Tours in January 2006 regarding the health and welfare of its sled dogs. But because the company made all the required changes, the SPCA was powerless to seize the animals and did not have the authority to shut down the business.

...

The orders the SPCA made in 2006 related to dogs being tethered for too long on chains and not getting enough exercise.

Other orders were written after dogs were found to be emaciated, lacking dental care and when there were concerns about the dogs' housing and lack of socialization.

"We'd go and do an inspection and an order to fix something was always complied with, so the dogs couldn't be taken into protection [of the SPCA]," said Marcie Moriarty, head of the SPCA's cruelty investigation division.

The SPCA was dealing with Fawcett at the time, who was the general manager and a director with Howling Dog Tours. He is now under investigation for animal cruelty after killing the dogs in mid-April 2010.

...

[Zipperfish]

OK, so now begins the pass the blame game. This "let's find a way to blame the government" thing is a rather unflattering Canaidan trait.

The animals are the responsibility of the owner. The SPCA kennels are already full--what are they supposed to do with a hundred unadoptable sled dogs? And just because the SPCA says no doesn't mean you go out and slit their thrioats in front of the other dogs. Nothing, I mean nothing, makes that OK.

As for WorkSafe--I am wondering about them. The manner in which these animals were killed is clearly an offence, so why did they not report it? They are citing medical confidentiality. What if it had been people being tossed into a mass grave? Would medical confidentiality have applied then?

[andyt]

And what is a company that's losing money supposed to do with those dogs? At some point they would just be abandoned there as company funds run out. That's why I say big collections of dogs shouldn't be allowed in the first place, or put up a hefty security deposit for each dog. But the vet should also have agreed to euthanize the dogs - better that than what happened.

[Prof_Chomsky]

Zipperfish and andyt are both entirely right.


The only addendum I'd add is that dogs are NOT a commodity like grain or rice. When a company goes bankrupt and owns living animals they have a responsibility to care for them even if they go bankrupt. Government regulation or not, you shouldn't have to rely on the government to pass specific laws for every possible moral dilemma, especially when it’s one so CLEARLY wrong.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

And what is a company that's losing money supposed to do with those dogs? At some point they would just be abandoned there as company funds run out. That's why I say big collections of dogs shouldn't be allowed in the first place, or put up a hefty security deposit for each dog. But the vet should also have agreed to euthanize the dogs - better that than what happened.

If the company can't afford to keep the dogs, they should have them euthanized by a vet. I repeat, in no circumstance is it OK to massacre them in the way this was done. I wouldn't be opposed to the sled dog operations having to post some kind of surety up front to cover costs in case they abandon ship.

[andyt]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Zipperfish and andyt are both entirely right.


The only addendum I'd add is that dogs are NOT a commodity like grain or rice. When a company goes bankrupt and owns living animals they have a responsibility to care for them even if they go bankrupt. Government regulation or not, you shouldn't have to rely on the government to pass specific laws for every possible moral dilemma, especially when it’s one so CLEARLY wrong.

Except the company that goes bankrupt has no more existence or funds to look after those animals. And their owners are protected by limited liability legislation. So the govt should step in here and pass some laws. Which sounds like a possibility since Campbell has asked a vet to make an inquiry into the industry.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

And what is a company that's losing money supposed to do with those dogs? At some point they would just be abandoned there as company funds run out. That's why I say big collections of dogs shouldn't be allowed in the first place, or put up a hefty security deposit for each dog. But the vet should also have agreed to euthanize the dogs - better that than what happened.

If the company can't afford to keep the dogs, they should have them euthanized by a vet. I repeat, in no circumstance is it OK to massacre them in the way this was done. I wouldn't be opposed to the sled dog operations having to post some kind of surety up front to cover costs in case they abandon ship.

They did ask the vet to do so, and he refused to put down healthy animals. Guess they should have tried more vets till they found one that would. Also, Fawcett was vice president of PRIDE (some dog sledding org) until they kicked his ass out over this. They say he never approached them for help. I'm thinking this guy was having mental problems before this all started - supposedly he really cared for the dogs.