BC SPCA ‘Experts’ Only

Jones stated the decision to destroy Echo was “based on the extensive behavior experience and
knowledge of our staff and outside consultation.”

My first introduction to the “extensive behavior experience and knowledge” of SPCA expert staff was
when a West Vancouver member told me that Echo was possibly Racist, with a particular dislike for
Asian Women. I suggested that maybe his reactions were toward people who are not ‘dog-aware’, who
happened to be Asians in this case, and can also be due to perhaps cultural background. I am unaware
of scientific evidence that dogs can identify ‘race’, and make judgements based on the ethnicity of
human beings. I did not repeat this to anyone except for my immediate family as I found it to be
unprofessional at best. The Collie Rescue Volunteer is Asian, we now question if that affected Jones’
refusal to transfer Echo. What would the public think if we published this?

When Ellice told me they would “euthanize”, she said Staff concluded that I was not alarmed enough, as
if myself not panicking was a problem? Ellice also incorrectly thought that we had younger children
(Echo was not to be around kids), based on the staff overhearing us referring to “our kids”; my adoption
form clearly states we have 4 adults living in the house. Again, I was concerned about inaccurate
comments. Ellice and Jones were extremely defensive about staff. Jones stated: “they have a
combined 50 years of experience” - this claim was also made to the CR. I have lived with Collies for
approximately 45 years. Our last 2 dogs were Border Collie brothers: we, too, have extensive
experience, which was ignored.

Ellice cited 2 Staff witness accounts of the double-nip: Lisa, and an unnamed member who was “in the
cat room”. About 10 minutes after the incident, I heard Lisa say that she was “still shaking”; we were
not shaking, or nervous. When I noted Lisa’s stressed reaction, Ellice stated that Lisa was “traumatized”
by several past dog bites. I was concerned that a ‘traumatized’ witness could overreact in her
interpretation of events. The other staff member who emerged from the “cat room” said to me that it
“had been escalating” – I wondered what she was talking about. Echo’s excitement had been escalating
in the Reception area, but I suspected that she meant an escalation of negative behavior; note, she was
NOT present at all times during the Adoption. No staff member witnessed Echo and Frank playing fetch
outside. Ellice told me that staff concluded Frank was a “trigger” for Echo: no, Frank was a playmate.
They were playing hard outside, and inappropriately continued the play inside.

On “Aggression”
During the adoption, Echo remained on leash with Frank and myself in the Reception area. It was very
chaotic, and Lisa mentioned that maybe we should take Echo outside, regretfully we did not. As I
focused on the paperwork, Echo nipped my hand but when I looked at him in his eyes, he backed away
and relaxed. I told this to Lisa, she did not respond. I said to Lisa that I thought he was smart enough to
know not to press down with his teeth; It was an attempt to get my attention and there was absolutely
no aggression in this act. No response.

During the adoption process, Echo was over-excited due to the following:

1. The Adoption paperwork took a very long time

2. there was a gerbil enclosure, rats in cages, and caged birds, all moving and making noises and
Echo was constantly trying to get close to them. (photo Attached) Echo did not show any
aggression toward the animals but he was intensely curious.
 3. Frank was bouncing a small squeaky ball very hard and Echo was wildly playing with it and trying
to chase it
4. Echo jumped once at Frank playing too hard, which was when we realized he was too excited
5. One male volunteer kept touching Echo’s face and also once between the eyes with his
knuckles. I mentioned this to staff member ‘Lisa’ and she said something to the volunteer, he
continued to touch Echo, but not as much. Echo ignored him.
6. Lisa fitted easily Echo with a new harness; we commented to her that he was very good at
letting her fit him, trying on several sizes and styles. We said that he likes her, and she smiled
and said that she feeds him. Echo had no fear of this tool, which is much more invasive than a
leash!
7. I noted that Echo was trying to scratch or access his incision where he was very recently
neutered, I asked if he had stitches, and Lisa said that he had been glued. I wondered if he was
in any discomfort? Pain? Could this be bothering him and adding to his excitement? Staff
commented that he “is fine”, I did not dispute this but I did not agree. He was clearly bothered
by the incision area and looked agitated trying to get at it.
8. Echo jumped up to the gate where another small dog was on his hind legs on the other
side. They were sniffing each other’s noses, and again Echo showed no aggression, but really
wanted to meet this dog.
9. The kennel was very noisy in the background, we could hear the Doberman brought in that
morning still barking

We do not excuse the double-nip, but we did not see it as ‘aggressive’, contrary to staff accounts.
However, we do believe that the above list constituted “justifiable provocation” for “aggressive
behavior” as defined below in the SPCA Animal Responsibility Bylaws, Version 3, September 2017, (p.
13):

“Aggressive Dog” means a dog that:

a) has without justifiable provocation displayed aggressive behaviour toward a person

or animal;or

b) has without justifiable provocation caused a minor injury to a person or animal; (13)

The following morning (Saturday), Jones stated that Echo was showing aggression:

"This situation is time sensitive as the dog has shown aggression and redirected on staff so is not
being handled by staff. We wont allow a dog in our care to suffer so I need to make decisions this
morning."
We also suspect that when the staff was refusing to handle him, he was ‘justifiably provoked’ due to the
conditions and obvious stress of the situation, lacking the 5 Freedoms.

“Outside Consultation” – also referred to as the “Behaviorist”

As previously noted, potential “euthanasia” was first mentioned by Ellice within one hour of the double-
nip at adoption, and confirmed less than 24 hours later: there had been no “assessment” and no
Behaviorist had personally seen Echo in that time. If I had not pressed for Regional Management to get
involved, Ellice and local staff would have “quickly” destroyed Echo based on their own interpretation of
the double-nip.

Later that day, Jones told me that Echo would be assessed by a Behaviorist. Jones said she had
discussed Echo with their ‘“best” Behaviorist, Rebecca Ledger, who is “the only one that I trust”. Jones
said “off the record” that Ledger surmised: “it sounds like his brain is misfiring”. This was immediately
concerning to me as it sounded like the judgement had already been made, again by someone who
had not seen Echo in person: at this point Ledger diagnosed Echo on the telephone, based on staff
accounts, and Echo’s history. I asked another professional about this case and they responded, “I am
also not in a position to comment about a dogs behaviour that I have never met or assessed…”. We
asked Jones several times if Ledger ever personally met Echo, and Jones has not answered to date.

The CR noted that Jones quoted Ledger that “it would not be unreasonable” to put Echo down based on
the information she had to date. Jones also asked the CR: if the BC SPCA transfers Echo (10 months
old) would the Rescue commit to lifetime therapy with Rebecca Ledger? The CR found this suggestion
unreasonable, and also further did not trust Jones. CR notes that Jones’ conditions regarding therapy
with Ledger were not ‘Final’. This was another arbitrary condition set out by Jones and another bullying
tactic to tell us and the Collie Rescue that we had no recourse to save Echo.

The ‘condition’ that Echo commit to a lifetime of treatment with Rebecca Ledger was contrary to the
SPCA Animal Responsibility Bylaws, Version 3, September 2017. The Bylaws outline many rules and
recommended treatment options for owners of ‘dangerous’ dogs in any community: they do not
stipulate just one ridiculous law that a 10-month-old pup has to be treated by one certain specialist for
his entire lifetime! We realize that Dr. Ledger is a highly accredited Behaviorist, but are also sure that
there are many others in her field who are capable of the same work. And there are many other
legitimate animal organizations besides the BC SPCA.

After Echo was destroyed, Jones tried to substantiate the claim that Echo would be ‘suffering’ if they
were to let him live because he would be miserable and fearful, unable to enjoy the 5 Freedoms:

“Independent consultation added to understanding Echo better and his fears would have posed
long term welfare compromise given his fear of safety tools such as the muzzle and leash.”

Please look at the Attached photos and video and judge for yourselves. Echo is seen wearing a collar, a
cone, a leash attached to his collar, a leash attached to a harness at the chest that goes over his head
and fastened under the right shoulder, and finally playing while wearing the harness alone. I easily
attached all items except for the cone, I took him walking, running at different speeds, past many people
and other dogs, and I witnessed no anxiety or fear of these tools. We experienced a happy, playful,
curious and overexcited dog. We totally reject claims that this dog had fears of training tools. And, even
if he did show anxiety at the West Van Shelter after we left, he should have been given a second chance
with the CR who wanted to work through those alleged ‘fears’!

On “Dangerous Dog”

According to Jones, “outside consultation” advised the following prediction:

Further, because of his propensity to bite, any municipality where he was placed he would have
been considered a dangerous dog and required both muzzle and leash whenever in public.

We object to predicting that he will be “considered a dangerous dog” based on the SPCA Bylaws:

“Dangerous Dog” means a dog that:

 a) has killed or seriously injured a person;

b) has killed or seriously injured an animal while in a public place or while on private property,
other than property owned or occupied by the person responsible for the dog;

c) has previously been deemed a vicious dog and has since attacked or caused injury to a person
or animal after being deemed a vicious dog; or

d) as defined in the Community Charter S.B.C. 2003 c. 26, as amended; (13)

"Serious Injury" means a physical injury to a person or animal that consists of deep punctures,
lacerations in more than one direction, broken bones or an injury requiring stitches or cosmetic
surgery (14)

The ‘dangerous dog’ designation did not apply to Echo at the time of his destruction, nor was he
designated “vicious”. How does the “outside consult” know that he will be dangerous in the future? As
far as I am aware he did not ever “kill” anyone or cause “deep punctures, lacerations in more than one
direction, broken bones or an injury requiring stitches or cosmetic surgery”. Echo did rip Frank’s jeans,
but as noted above, that does not qualify even under the designation “aggressive”.

On “Euthanasia”

Even if Echo was classified as “aggressive”, or even “dangerous” euthanasia would not have been an
appropriate response according to SPCA Bylaws. We are sickened that Ellice, as the “Manager”, and
then Jones, could make such a decision by claiming that he was ‘suffering’:

5. During or following the impoundment period, the animal shelter manager must, in
consultation with a veterinarian, take an animal to a veterinarian for euthanasia, where s/he
reasonably believes:
o 5.1 immediate veterinary treatment cannot prolong the animal’s life, or;
o 5.2 prolonging the animal’s life would result in the animal suffering unduly, and;
o 5.3 all reasonable efforts to contact the owner of the animal have failed (p. 8).

In our opinion Echo was ‘impounded’ because at the time of the incident, we were his legal owners, and
then forced to cancel the contract. “Impounded” means seized, delivered, received or taken into the
custody of the municipality or in the custody of the animal shelter manager.” (p. 7). Can a dog go from
the photos and video on Thursday afternoon to a state of “suffering unduly” by 11:15 Friday morning?
We do not trust the BC SPCA, and find it hard to believe that the public and your donors would either

We don’t need to recount any more of the bylaws to BC SPCA Directors and the CEO, but we think that
your middle management should reacquaint themselves with the rules so they can live up to your
motto of SPEAKING FOR ANIMALS