Dear Editor,
The killing of one dog simply because it is of no use to your business is unacceptable; the massacre of 100 dogs is an atrocity.
On January 31, 2011 Outdoor Adventures at Whistler (OAW) released a statement in response to the public outcry, and pending BCSPCA and RCMP’s investigation into the slaughter of 100 sled dogs. The statement begins by denying any knowledge of “the regrettable and tragic events regarding the cull of animals at Howling Dog Tours Whistler Inc. [and that further]...”OAW did not instruct the General Manager to carry out the call in the manner described in the [WCB] report”.
I would first like to take issue with their use of the word “cull”. Culling is the process of removing animals from a group based on specific criteria; either to reinforce desirable characteristics or to remove undesirable characteristics. In this regard, perhaps OAW can clarify what characteristics they were attempting to reinforce or remove from dogs who, were it not for the economic downturn, would still be performing physically superior tasks.
OAW goes on to state that they were “aware of the relocation and euthanization of dogs at Howling Dogs in April 2010 but it was [their] expectation that it was done in a proper, legal and humane manner.” As an active animal advocate, I have no recollection of a call to the public or rescue organizations for assistance in ‘relocating’ these dogs. Perhaps, OAW can be more specific on the exact efforts that they and/or Howling Dog made in their attempts to place these dogs.
Further, by their statement above, they do admit to approving the policy to kill those dogs who were not located. Let’s be honest, while perhaps ‘legal,’ there is nothing ‘proper’ or ‘humane’ about killing perfectly healthy dogs simply because they are no longer profitable.
While OAW claims to have the authority to instruct the General Manager of Howling Dogs to remove and kill the dogs, they go on to deny any operational control of the company.
“While OAW has had a financial interest in Howling Dogs for 4 years the operational control of the company remained with the employee referred to in the WCB ruling who was the General Manager of Howling Dogs at the time of the incident.”
Again, perhaps OAW can clarify how they have the control to instruct the General Manager in what he should do, but have no control over in how he does it. From a solely business perspective, one would assume that OAW would be as concerned with how things are done as they are with what is done. Ultimately, both impact the bottom line.
It is also not clear to me how OAW can claim that they only found out about these events on Jan. 28 after reading the WCB ruling, when, by their own admission, “Not long after the events of late April, the employee in question ceased managing the business. This employee continues to get our support as he heals from his injuries and illness.”
While it is not clear what they mean in terms of support, it is written in the context that the employee is receiving financial support from OAW. Are we to believe then that, after years of employment, OAW not only accepted the resignation (or absence) of their General Manager, but they also provided him with ongoing financial support without any knowledge of the reasons behind his ending his employment and ongoing health issues?
Excuse me if I am remiss in believing that any company would provide ongoing financial support to an employee on leave without any questions asked.
Finally, the statement ends with a list of the changes that have occurred, since May 2010, all of which sound very positive, but raise a couple of questions.
1. If OAW was not responsible for the Howling Dogs operations and thereby unaware of the atrocities that were committed, why is it that a month after this massacre, sweeping changes were supposedly put in place?
2. What conditions were the dogs living in prior to these changes? (One changed identified creation of an open-pen style kennel where dogs are not tethered or chained).
I suppose it is not surprising that OAW is not taking any responsibility for their part is this tragedy; my only hope is that they are held criminally responsible for their reprehensible acts.
In closing, let it be said that I have no sympathy for the General Manager, who has now claimed himself a victim. He could have refused to do this. He could have contacted rescue organizations and asked for help — believe me, they would have come.
He could have and he should have called the BCSPCA and the RCMP.
Howling Dogs... how fitting, as we can only imagine the cries of the 100 who suffered so greatly.
Kathy Powelson
Paws for Hope
VANCOUVER
