Contradictions and conflicts of interest: the case of a homeless man and his dog

Contracts between the SPCA and municipalities abound, and pretty much all of them have a built-in conflict of interest. As a charity with a mission to protect animals from harm, the SPCA is receiving payment to act as pound operators and by-law enforcers. The contracts make them the agents of government, which compromises their mission and the basic role of an independent charity.

In Surrey, BC, the SPCA is charged with animal control as well as the operation of the municipal pound. On July 23, 2008, they seized a dog that bit a man who attacked its owner, Ed Chase. Ed is homeless. He says his dog Raymond reacted to a legitimate provocation, but the SPCA decided to put him down. Ed has been fighting to get his dog back since then. The city is demanding a $5,000 fine and the SPCA is holding the dog until the fine is paid.  The case was to go to trial April 1. In enforcing the fine and holding Raymond in the pound, the SPCA is stepping aside from its provincial mandate to protect animal welfare. Assuming a neutral position that is not tenable in theory or practice. Like similar cases (Brindi, for instance, though Brindi did not attack a person) where an SPCA has a conflict of interest, the Surrey SPCA is imposing arbitrary constraints on the owner. 

Ed's other dog, Daryl, was unwell: he passed away in October. Ed is now bereft of his two most beloved companions. To his credit he continues his struggle and sometimes comments on the CBC website. 

Ed Chase (read article)

SPCA does damage control:  Surrey Now

"It's going to trial on April 1, 2009," SPCA spokeswoman Corry Anderson-Fennell said later that day, stressing it was the city, not her organization, that asked for the destruction order."

"[BC SPCA spokesperson Lorie] Chortyk said the [$5000] fine doesn't make sense and won't be enforced..."

Anderson-Fennell isn't quoted explaining that the BC SPCA is the City's paid enforcer. It's true that the City makes the rules, but the SPCA takes money to carry them out. It is paid to apply for destruction orders.  But the SPCA doesn't have to take money to control/dispose/destroy dogs... it chooses to.  Surrey could choose to run its own municipal pound and enforcement as so many other municipalities have chosen to since 2001. These new animal control municipalities all improved the standard of animal welfare over that of the SPCA which they replaced.

Lorie Chortyk says the $5000 fine doesn't make sense, yet it is one of the Surrey SPCA employees who told Ed he would have to pay it, and it is the BC SPCA that is taking money to enforce these fines.

What does the BC SPCA have in common with the Nova Scotia SPCA?

At least one thing:  "...the City makes the rules, but the SPCA takes money to carry them out. It is paid to apply for destruction orders."

What is different? The Nova Scotia SPCA does not enforce animal control fines. However, it does charge dog owners $110 if their dogs are picked up as strays, and it charges $25 a day for every day a seized dog is in the pound. And the owner must pay this amount whether or not the dog is released; they must pay before the dog is returned, and they must pay even if the dog is ultimately put down.

NOTE: Ed Chase had another dog, Daryl, who passed away in October. He is allowed to visit Raymond in the pound under stringent rules set by the SPCA.  In his own words:

I asked the spca what my dog Raymond's diet was, his medical records since incarceration, and visiting and taking of video of him. I was informed that I could not have anyone observe interaction between Raymond and I. Anyone showing up with me would be banned to the reception area or their vehicle. 
I was informed I could not take video of my dog, Raymond. 
These heavy handed tactic's are quite typical of the spca and their employer, Dianne Watt's and the city of Surrey. 
What right does the city of Surrey and the spca have to deprive me the opportunity to video my dog, Raymond? 
What if they are successful in this ridiculous debacle, and get my dog Raymond, killed or taken away from me? 
In their own document's, the spca claims the statement of the guy who attacked us to be false. They didn't take a statement from me until three weeks after they negligently seized my Raymond. Some investigation, or more so...lack there of. That man has been in court twice on two counts of assault. I have been sent a " victim's impact " statement by the crown.