This week has been a hard week for any dog owner. Earlier this week, I saw the story on CKNW that last year, 100 sled dogs in Whistler were inhumanly culled. This story quickly went viral once more info came to light and outrage quickly followed when people found out Howling Dog Tours Whistler, owned by Outdoor Adventures Whistler, ordered the killing of 100 dogs in April 2010 after a post-Olympic downturn. This story only came to light because the employee who carried out the task has been granted compensation by Worksafe BC after developing post traumatic stress disorder for having to kill the 100 sled dogs over a two day period.
I am not going into the details as they are graphic but to give you an idea, the employee ran out of ammunition at one point and had to use a knife to kill an aggressive dog. Marcie Moriarty, general manager for cruelty investigations with the BC SPCA told CTVBC it's technically legal to shoot an animal, as long as it dies instantly. But continued to state "That most certainly did not happen in this instance". Moriarty added that lethal injections supervised by a veterinarian would have been the more humane way to cull the dogs. Sadly, that did not happen either.
Now a lot of people have jumped the gun and to make an informed decision, you need all the information. The guy that had to carry out this gruesome task went to the SPCA twice for adoption assistance for the dogs and was denied assistance both times. Once before the slaughter in question and a second request in September of 2010 as they still had more dogs. The SPCA admitted they didn’t realize the dogs would be brutally slaughtered and would have stepped in had they known. But instead, they told the man the dogs would not make good pets and were not adoptable. The following is from the Vancouver Sun article explaining the second request plea for help to Senior animal protection officer Eileen Drever:
The second time the man approached the SPCA was through an email dated Sept. 10, 2010 — nearly five months after the cull — asking if the SPCA would take some of the remaining dogs in the pack, which before the cull numbered about 350.
The Sun has obtained a copy of that documentation, which states: “I understood from Joey that there were to be some dogs going to you for adoption? Is that indeed happening? Or should I just show up with a truck full so they can get off the chain and get some attention, exercise, stop fighting, etc....I am happy to bring some down to stop cruelty they are going through here.
“This is me as a bystander (I am off due to injury to both arms). I am the only one who has made any effort to move dogs. We still have almost 60 dogs too many, and a new litter of pups to be given away. Can you please give me a call so I know something can be done. It’s breaking my heart.”
Drever replied five days later, apologizing for taking so long to respond as she had not been in the office.
In her email, dated Sept. 15, 2010, she wrote: “I just informed Joey that after consulting with an animal behaviourist/veterinarian we have reached the decision these dogs are not adoptable. I will however conduct an inspection of the facility.”
Drever did not end up doing the inspection in the fall. However, she did go on Tuesday along with two other SPCA animal cruelty investigators to look into the deaths of the 100 sled dogs in April. She said it was not necessary to take the remaining 150 dogs into protection.
Now it is understandable that the SPCA did not take the dogs. Why should they be responsible for helping a business when that business should have had contingency plans in place for the dogs should a downturn occur. Plus 100 dogs is a lot for any SPCA shelter to take, let alone a smaller community. If they needed to be moved, who should absorb those costs? The SPCA? The company that can no longer provide for the dogs? Even if the SPCA took the dogs, probably most would have been euthanized (but at least it would have been humane). It should be noted this guy also has 65 previous orders written against him in the past with respect to care. One would think the SPCA might have gotten involved before than?
First Offense for 0.05 in a 5 year period:
It's been awhile since my last post due to being busy with work and other things. But now i feel the need to share my 2 bits on another issue that irks me and finally measures are being introduced to reduce/eliminate drunks on the road and severely penalize the ones that still drive drunk. 


Recent comments