Sled dog slaughter sentence appalls B.C. SPCA

[keith1612]

I suppose you can make all the excuses you want for this animal, it's nice to see people proud of his actions.
Blame whomever you want and try and absolve him of guilt.
Any normal person knows he on his own solely killed 50 dogs cruely .
You want to think he's a ok guy good for you.
To me he is murdering trash , enough said.
Defend slime all you want.

You have not read one of my posts have you. shouldnt reply to them if you havent, it makes you look like you are just blabbering for nothing then.

I have never defended him, infact I am angry at him, and all others involved. Those dogs died due to carelessness and misstreatment. There is always more to a story then just one little bit, you have to open your mind and see what else helped cause it. But then again maybe you have a reason not to think that way.
He soley killed them but why? There are things that led up to it, he didnt just go off on a rampage to kill them, he was told to, he tried other methods and those didnt amount to anything,,,
I know there are other options he could have taken and that angers me, so no I do not defend him any bit, but I have read where he did try to help them first and wasnt successful.

I can debate some topics and get involved and heated.
This is not one.
This is complete scum that did a horrific act to me and he is worthless and trash.
There is no excuse for his actions ever and will never be.
To try and pass blame to others is lame and fake, he knew what he was doing as he 1 by 1 killed 50 dogs.
What a waste of life he is, as I said karma.
Hopefully he gets what is deserved in life for his actions, no good person would do it for his reasons ever.

[Roadster]

Well I can get into a heated conversation with you too, or I can say yes, he was wrong but first off the company would have been to shut off their food supply if thats what they did, and didnt provide a proper retirement for their working dogs. Then the systems who should have jumped on it, then him, see he is wrong but he is the last of the line on many things that went wrong here.
He did finish it but who started it? Who wasnt there when he needed them? Again we can point the whole finger at this one guy or we can ask why those dogs were brought there if they werent gonna be of any use sept a few bucks during the olympics and then dumped instead of moved on? Why was there no plan for them after the olympics? Thats where the whole thing might have been a problem to begin with,,, money,,, dogs, no money, suffering or dead dogs. See it yet? So thats what is said to have happened. Am I wrong?
If you plan to have animals working for you then you need to plan for their next move after they are done, not just decide not to feed them anymore. If that was what happened, you dont think that was cruel? Seriously, you missed the first part. You cant do that. They shouldnt have been on that property as hungry dogs. If done then move em on. And if this company did what this guys says then maybe he felt shooting them would be better then his attempts to save them were while they were stuck there going hungry.
Lets ask ourselves. If he couldnt get them help and lets say he quit there instead and didnt do anything more since it seems he did try the SPCA,,, what would have happened to them? They decide they are their own food source and go after each other? Could they get loose? Would they run as a wild pack of dogs? Were they caged and would just lay down and wait till they breathed their last with no one to help anymore?
I definately dont agree with his end choice but what was he to do then if the main system he thought would help didnt and the owners didnt want to deal with them anymore?
I will be honest, I was really angry at him, just him in the beginning when I thought he was the only reason those dogs died, now after learning more about this case I am angry at all them involved (him too) who had a part in this and let it go so wrong for them dogs.
Shooting them because they are of no use is wrong, him.
Cutting off their care and feed because they are of no use is wrong, the company?
Not dealing with their case and attempting to save them is wrong. Dog control of some sort? Animal protections?
I see three possible wrongs here and no matter what you say, if those events are what really happened then there is no one person to blame, this guy likely didnt bring them there for the Olympics. So dont blame just him, there is probably more then you are allowing yourself to look at.

[simnut]

Killing the dogs was not the crime...or the reason this went to court. Euthanizing your own animals is NOT illegal, but allowing an animal to suffer IS! His sentence was based on the nine dogs that suffered when he stabbed them....instead of making it quick by shooting.

Ok, now....for anyone that has worked on a farm etc, euthanizing an animal is part of life......and for the MOST cases, it is done because the animal is sick but there can be other reasons also. I worked on a feed lot where we had over 3000 animals and yup.....you're gonna get sick ones. The worst part of my job was to go "take care" of a steer...yup...just a dumb cow....after trying to get it healthy for a period of time. It's a hard thing to do...even to a "dumb" cow....but is necessary....and someone has to do it. And it CAN be done, quick and humanely.

I'm going to put myself in this guys shoes for a second. He worked with these dogs closely......as a musher has to for a sled team to even work. A working dog needs to be looked after well...or it won't ...well...work! I see the dogs slowly degrading, for what ever reason.....and I for one....it would hurt me to see that. AFter being frustrated by getting no help from others....the order to put them down is almost a "positive" ...meaning that these animals are not going to be hungry any more.....won't be sick any more....and I don't have to walk away when I said NO to leave these poor animals to ugly , unforeseen circumstances......which, could be a whole lot worse than being euthanized. Kind of ironic....I would rather put these dogs down than leave them suffer in conditions that may just get worse......remember....AFTER I've tried to get help for them.

I will put my own dog down if it means ending the suffering of my dog. I won't ask a vet to do it......I will do it. It is the last GOOD thing I can do for my friend in it's lifetime......and, if you REALLY care about your dog.....you probably could too....

Just my spin on things.....

[keith1612]

Killing the dogs was not the crime...or the reason this went to court. Euthanizing your own animals is NOT illegal, but allowing an animal to suffer IS! His sentence was based on the nine dogs that suffered when he stabbed them....instead of making it quick by shooting.

Ok, now....for anyone that has worked on a farm etc, euthanizing an animal is part of life......and for the MOST cases, it is done because the animal is sick but there can be other reasons also. I worked on a feed lot where we had over 3000 animals and yup.....you're gonna get sick ones. The worst part of my job was to go "take care" of a steer...yup...just a dumb cow....after trying to get it healthy for a period of time. It's a hard thing to do...even to a "dumb" cow....but is necessary....and someone has to do it. And it CAN be done, quick and humanely.

I'm going to put myself in this guys shoes for a second. He worked with these dogs closely......as a musher has to for a sled team to even work. A working dog needs to be looked after well...or it won't ...well...work! I see the dogs slowly degrading, for what ever reason.....and I for one....it would hurt me to see that. AFter being frustrated by getting no help from others....the order to put them down is almost a "positive" ...meaning that these animals are not going to be hungry any more.....won't be sick any more....and I don't have to walk away when I said NO to leave these poor animals to ugly , unforeseen circumstances......which, could be a whole lot worse than being euthanized. Kind of ironic....I would rather put these dogs down than leave them suffer in conditions that may just get worse......remember....AFTER I've tried to get help for them.

I will put my own dog down if it means ending the suffering of my dog. I won't ask a vet to do it......I will do it. It is the last GOOD thing I can do for my friend in it's lifetime......and, if you REALLY care about your dog.....you probably could too....

Just my spin on things.....

you are assuming the dogs were starved to the point of life threatening illness.
i dont think i heard any evidence of that.
no if i really cared and loved my animal (which i do my akita's) i would just feed them.
just because this guys lawyers spun a bunch of lies doesnt make them true.
for him to say he tried everything to save the animals he loved but was too lazy to contact the media is the first solid proof he is fabricating for his own gain.
one single phone call saying he would be forced to put them down and reporters would have come running.

[Roadster]

you are assuming the dogs were starved to the point of life threatening illness.
i dont think i heard any evidence of that.
no if i really cared and loved my animal (which i do my akita's) i would just feed them.
just because this guys lawyers spun a bunch of lies doesnt make them true.
for him to say he tried everything to save the animals he loved but was too lazy to contact the media is the first solid proof he is fabricating for his own gain.
one single phone call saying he would be forced to put them down and reporters would have come running.

Could be the guy knew his job would end if he didnt do it and the owner would just let the dogs starve anyway. Everyone looses.
Could be the media option didnt come to him before he did the killings or, maybe that was in his mind as an attempt to destroy his boss. Some people will not do that for fear of finding it hard to find jobs in the future, some will say "to heck with it,,, yer goin on TV Boss"
As Simnut said, "the killings is not the crime here". The real crime here is the starving of the dogs by the owner of the dogs, not the killing of them even tho many may have been healthy, they were on a piece of land doomed to become unhealthy and like Simnut also said, "it is not illegal to kill your own dog when there is a reason and its done humainly" so possibly those thoughts helped this guy decide it was the better choice after trying to help them.
No I personally dont agree with it still, but the real crime is committed when an owner decides his dog will not get another meal and water and care. The authorities have to jump on that when they are told about it or a person might think he needs to deal with it some other way, or,,, as ordered.
Might be once he didnt see the authorities coming in on it he came to the thinking this owner might be right to deal with his dogs as he was so the order stands and Faucett followed through. If your boss told you to do something odd at the job, you would have choices. Do it, or feel its unsafe or wrong and find the proper authority to deal with it,,, now if you called WCB because your boss told you to do something unsafe and no one dealt with it you can think about your bread and butter on the table or walk off the job,,,, bosses control your doings to some point, even your choice to quit or stay in a way,,, cos you have to think whats the best for you, he knows you want your pay,,, bosses can be jerks when they have you to do their dirty work. This might be the case here, I dont know and neither do you.

[Lore]

Roadster,
Read simnut's first paragraph again as I don't
think you understand what simnut was saying
judging by your response.

[Roadster]

Roadster,
Read simnut's first paragraph again as I don't
think you understand what simnut was saying
judging by your response.

What do you think I missed?

If you read his and mine again you will see we both dont think the killing of an ill dog is wrong as long as it done humanely, mind you these werent all ill but Faucett mighta thought they Will be since they are owned by his boss and his boss cut their feed. Who would leave a bunch of dogs to die slowly? Again I dont think I missed anything but I agree this guy had a reason and he thought he would do them better then leaving them there to die slowly. Would you leave a deer out in the woods to die slowly if it was down? Or would you put it out of its missery? No these werent out in the woods,,, or were they? If the owner was allowed to cut their feed and care,,,, and they were in cages,,,,
See? So now if the authorities seemed un interested what should he do? His choice would not be mine, I woulda tried to steal them if no one seemed interested in feeding them and saving them, what I would do with them? Ha,,, thats a hard question,,, maybe drop them off in small groups at SPCA buildings around the Okanagan,,, if I was gonna try not to get my boss in trouble... Maybe try to give them away... Who knows, its a sticky situation he was in and yes he went with orders after he thought there was no options left,,, I hate that he did that but he was the one with the problem, not me. He would know better next time and hopefully these businesses wont do that same kind of thing over money again. Dogs need a retirement place after they serve your business.

This whole thing woulda been better to deal with if say it was Faucett's neighbor who decided not to feed his one dog,,, he coulda stole it and dropped it off at an SPCA if he knew about it, see? One dog and one owner, easy, 50 or more, whats a person to do?
So,,, as much as I dont agree with the outcome, I can see where it looked like a huge problem and again I couldnt kill more then one myself and my head would be spinning and something else woulda come up,,, cant wrap my head around how he did it but we are all different. The real crime is where it all began and businesses have to be dealt with and ordered to have plans when they employ animals for their business. Dogs live something like 11 to 15 years or so and you need to see that they are feed that long somehow even if you give them away to someone to continue their care.

[Lore]

Roadster,
Read simnut's first paragraph again as I don't
think you understand what simnut was saying
judging by your response.

What do you think I missed?

If you read his and mine again you will see we both dont think the killing of an ill dog is wrong as long as it done humanely, mind you these werent all ill but Faucett mighta thought they Will be since they are owned by his boss and his boss cut their feed. Who would leave a bunch of dogs to die slowly? Again I dont think I missed anything but I agree this guy had a reason and he thought he would do them better then leaving them there to die slowly. Would you leave a deer out in the woods to die slowly if it was down? Or would you put it out of its missery? No these werent out in the woods,,, or were they? If the owner was allowed to cut their feed and care,,,, and they were in cages,,,,
See? So now if the authorities seemed un interested what should he do?

What simnut is saying is that the killing was not the crime.
Killing them BRUTALLY and having them SUFFER as he was killing them was the crime.
Please show me any article that says his boss cut off the dogs food.
I have only read that other things were cut back but NOT the dogs food.
If you can show me where you read that I'd love to see it.
Other articles have also stated the dogs were healthy.

[Roadster]

What simnut is saying is that the killing was not the crime.
Killing them BRUTALLY and having them SUFFER as he was killing them was the crime.
Please show me any article that says his boss cut off the dogs food.
I have only read that other things were cut back but NOT the dogs food.
If you can show me where you read that I'd love to see it.
Other articles have also stated the dogs were healthy.

Because I did not comment on simnut's bit about the brutallity in the killings of some of them, part doesnt mean I missed it, not at all, I believe Faucett was charged and found guilty for that part. I commented on what I was interested in, the rest of the case where they were gonna be left to die unfed or uncared for???That doesnt seem to have been dealt with yet as far as I know. I am interested in what brought Faucett to killing them now that he has been charged with it.
Is it not docummented that their feed was cut off? If not then I would be wrong and stand to be corrected, anyone want to show us that again? Wasnt that the reason he attempted to involve the SPCA before he did kill them?
So what was cut back then, their dog poop being picked up, pens being cleaned? Them being walked for exersised? Them being watered? At any rate seems some of them were sick already? Seems somewhere I heard Faucett was bringing in food for them? Am I wrong here?
No matter how you look at it a dog will die if uncared for, they will get sick even if you dump food for them if you are not caring for them, something was cut back, no?
I dont seem to see the owner charging this guy for mistreating or killing the dogs before he (Faucett) himself tried to claim mental issues after being ordered to kill them, seems it was all quite quiet till he spoke and then it was all on his shoulders for killing them, what about what would have killed them slowly eventually?
So,,, if the food wasnt cut off yet,,, Can you get a dog, feed it and not care for it? No the SPCA would be all over you once they find out. Your dog will be gone and will be recieving care and re homed.

[zookeeper]

See? So now if the authorities seemed un interested what should he do?

Free Husky dogs, to good homes.

This ad was posted with the Kijiji mobile app.

[Roadster]

See? So now if the authorities seemed un interested what should he do?

Free Husky dogs, to good homes.

This ad was posted with the Kijiji mobile app.

That would be a nice option if he was authroized to do so,,, was he or was he told to terminate them?

That option only works if the owner would allow them to stay there till all given away but if any part of the care was cut off how can he do all thst, dogs will go to homes but not in day.
Was he to take them all to his home and care for 50 plus dogs till they got homes?

Fawcett admitted in August to killing the dogs in a gruesome tableau over two days following a post-Olympic slump in sales. Court heard he felt forced into the decision when the owners of Howling Dog Tours put an “absolute freeze” on spending, aside from for food and the bare minimum of labour.

At that point, Fawcett was working 150 hours over two weeks to care for the animals and watching their conditions deteriorate to the point where they were fighting and killing each other in their kennel.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/22 ... er-in-b-c/

I find this a tough situation to be in with that many dogs, if it was a few,,,, ya doable... And I ould be all over him for killing them. Yet I still cant agree but he was in a bad situation with his boss who puts food on his table. Its too complicated for us to simply say he coulda, should and woulda.

[Lore]

In this article it says "They weren't getting enough attention or space,etc"
No mention of not enough food.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... le5631636/

In this article it says "When the owners of Howling Dog Tours put an absolute freeze on spending, aside from for food and the bare minimum of labour"
They were being fed.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/22 ... er-in-b-c/

So like I said earlier, can you show me an article that says the dogs were not being fed?
Anything at all.

[Roadster]

In this article it says "They weren't getting enough attention or space,etc"
No mention of not enough food.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... le5631636/

In this article it says "When the owners of Howling Dog Tours put an absolute freeze on spending, aside from for food and the bare minimum of labour"
They were being fed.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/22 ... er-in-b-c/

So like I said earlier, can you show me an article that says the dogs were not being fed?
Anything at all.

Lets get past that since I said I could be wrong, or we could dwell on it anyway if you prefer.
But lets look at a dog thats fed but not cared for,,, if the dogs,,, 50 of them were fed,,, how do you approve feeding a dog, 50 of them,,, and not caring for it/them? You ok with that? Who treats their injuries since it seems they were fighting each other? Who cleans their pens? Who brings them water and walks them? Is it ok to have a dog and Just feed it? If you think so you are wrong.
So lets look at what was cut if not food,,, lets not forget there were at least 50 of them. If the care was cut how does a guy slip in walks for them if he is not paid to be there to do that and was anyone else walking them? Why feed them if not?
Look how angry we got over Shadow and Deisle at RDCO for feeding but not walking and socializing them...
That was two dogs that we know of, this is over 50 dogs.

[keith1612]

What a joke,even though all of BC the courts included know this was a horrific crime committed by a man convicted roadster wants to absolve him.
He was convicted even if given a joke sentence.
Do you not have any care about his terrible disgusting actions?
Why do you want to absolve such filth of guilt?
All you keep trying to do is blame others for his low life action.
Man I can't believe how low people will sink to defend murderous slime.

[Captain Awesome]

No such thing as "murdering" an animal...