SPCA: And you were complaining about the RDCO?

[janalta]

Kibbs...Just an FYI - any registered charitable organization in North America has to provide all of their financial information to the public if requested.
I don't think they are a scam, just that their adoptions fees are ridiculously overpriced.
People just need to understand that charities are a business...big business, and have well paid staff and executives.
One needs to be aware that when you donate money, a portion of that is always going to go to administration costs and salaries.

[kibbs]

Kibbs...Just an FYI - any registered charitable organization in North America has to provide all of their financial information to the public if requested.

i never use to either i thought they were just mean and judgmental. investigating this forum has raised many questions in my mind .
Remember i'm the guy who figured out the glenmore ufo. Unfortunately i am not an accountant .and even if i did have these documents i could not understand them that is why i was hoping to see someone had done a real audit .i'm sorry if my conspiracy theories are discrediting your very reasonable arguments .I feel all your very good points were completely ignored and wild assumptions made.i truly believe this man was wronged and i thank you for your support of him,
that is why I support The humane society they are all volunteer.

[LordEd]

Yes, the SPCA takes care of homeless pets.
This was not a homeless pet.

Then why was it there?

There is nothing, besides the people here, that says the owners were looking for free care, boarding or medical services.

Then why was it there, with surrender contract signed?

I have said nothing to 'crucify' the SPCA....but I do believe in this case they mislead these owners and failed to provide them with sufficient information on their options and what resources were available to them.

Pick one sentence. One contradicts the other, especially since you are comparing them to the RDCO in the topic subject with a negative connotation implied.

[MAPearce]

Then why was it there?

I believe it was because the pets owners cared about the puppies..

Then why was it there, with surrender contract signed?

Don't know ...But the owners clearly stated that they wanted the dog back AFTER the litter was taken care of..

I suggest someone has an alterior motive...

[797hauler]

I have been away for the holidays and just got back to read and watch this story... heres my input.

We had a rotti that started to drip after a failed operation, we brought him to the spca in kelowna. As we had a child on the way, It would have been unfair to our child to crawl on the floor in his pee drippings. it was said we needed temporary care for him, they DID take him in for 3 days, we went back and got him. and found him a home ourselves....

What the spca did to these folks makes me sick...bunch of liars. I streamed the news video as I dont live in kelowna anymore, The old man said they wrote it on the form that they wanted the dog back, we did the same and got ours back.

seems like they agreed then some *bleep* decided they should keep the dog and re-home it becuase they felt the owners were to old or unable to take care of the dog. funny cause they did a fine job prior to this.

The SPCA should know better. If I were this couple, I would intentially sue the SPCA in kelowna and run them through the court system, and make them spend a bunch of money in legal fees, be it if I got the dog back or not...

[Lore]

A few people here have suggested that this couple should sue the SPCA.
The couple signed over the dog to the SPCA.
There is no way they could win in a lawsuit

[797hauler]

A few people here have suggested that this couple should sue the SPCA.
The couple signed over the dog to the SPCA.
There is no way they could win in a lawsuit

I signed the same form with an exception that we had to pick him up in 3 days (we did)

they wanted to as well....

file away.

the $200.00 would be well worth it, let the judge decide, we all know that wrong information is given out by companies employees all the time...

[Lore]

I signed the same form with an exception that we had to pick him up in 3 days (we did)

they wanted to as well....

file away.

the $200.00 would be well worth it, let the judge decide, we all know that wrong information is given out by companies employees all the time...

What wrong information are you talking about?

[797hauler]

What wrong information are you talking about?

I am talking about ANY company out there. and regarding information and or policies that are in place.

in this case they TOLD and confirmed with the girl that they wanted it stated on the piece of paper they wanted the dog back.

obviously she never did that... and IF she told them they could and she was going to write it on the form. they would have been mis-informed.

Again they did it for us.

[Lore]

I am talking about ANY company out there. and regarding information and or policies that are in place.

in this case they TOLD and confirmed with the girl that they wanted it stated on the piece of paper they wanted the dog back.

obviously she never did that... and IF she told them they could and she was going to write it on the form. they would have been mis-informed.

Again they did it for us.

Obviously your case is alot different than the couples.
I guess they would have to prove the "TOLD and confirmed" part of this story though.
Last time I checked I believe a signed contract trumps a "TOLD and confirmed".

[Triple 6]

We had a rotti that started to drip after a failed operation, we brought him to the spca in kelowna. As we had a child on the way, It would have been unfair to our child to crawl on the floor in his pee drippings. it was said we needed temporary care for him, they DID take him in for 3 days, we went back and got him. and found him a home ourselves....

Why didn't you take him to the vet? Did you have to pay the SPCA? A child on the way, so that child wouldn't be crawling on the floor then? I'm confused. Why didn't you try and re-home him first?

[janalta]

Then why was it there?

Then why was it there, with surrender contract signed?

Pick one sentence. One contradicts the other, especially since you are comparing them to the RDCO in the topic subject with a negative connotation implied.

It was there because the couple was looking for help. The dog had a caring home already...it was not homeless, it was not abandoned, it was not abused or neglected.

Again...the owners were told that the SPCA could help them...help them...not take their dog and sell it to someone else.
They signed the contract believing the puppies would recieve the care they needed and they would then be able to come back for their pet...and were more than willing to pay the SPCA.
They made it very clear that they wanted the dog back and left there assuming that would be the case.

There is no contradiction. It is not crucifiction to suggest that the SPCA mislead this couple into surrendering their pet. What they did to these people was indeed very negative and in my opinion handled very poorly...but I have not trashed the organization as a whole.

[janalta]

Obviously your case is alot different than the couples.
I guess they would have to prove the "TOLD and confirmed" part of this story though.
Last time I checked I believe a signed contract trumps a "TOLD and confirmed".

Not if they were mislead, misinformed, pressured or coerced into signing it

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Do they just want the dog back or the puppies as well ?

[Triple 6]

Do they just want the dog back or the puppies as well ?

I believe just the Fifi.