Clearwater woman argues to get her dog back — but not her 10 cats
A North Thompson woman has managed to get her dog back after it was seized by the BC SPCA but not her 10 cats.
According to an April 11 BC Farm Industry Review Board decision, Kristi Gerigk had two dogs and 10 cats seized in February when she and her mother were both unexpectedly taken into hospital.
The decision says Gerigk's son-in-law alerted the BC SPCA that the pets were at the rural property near Clearwater and was concerned about unsanitary and hazardous conditions for the animals. One dog, Meeka, had open sores and was unable to walk.
When the BC SPCA turned up the next day, Meeka was dead, and the other dog, Willow was lying next to its body.
The BC SPCA told Gerigk, who was still in hospital, that the animals had to be seized and she could apply to have them returned when she was out of hospital.
However, when Gerigk was out of hospital and applied to get the animals back, the BC SPCA said it was not in the animals' best interests to be returned.
The BC SPCA said one of the cats had to be put down, most had mild dental disease, one had a broken tooth, and six had dandruff.
The dog, Willow, was nervous and unsocialized, but other than a few minor issues, was in good shape.
Much of the BC SPCA's argument not to give Gerigk her animals back was because of the state of her home.
The 10 cats only had two litter boxes, and there was a buildup of urine and feces in the home. The vet also referred to flea infestations and concerns about tapeworms.
BC SPCA vet Dr. Megan Broschak said Gerigk should not be allowed access to any animals or pets.
Gerigk's daughter and son-in-law also testified, stating she shouldn't get the animals back.
However, the Review Board said there was animosity between them, and it couldn't give their evidence much weight.
Gerigk admitted her home was in "absolute disarray" and that she'd been struggling the past year.
She said she knew the state of her home was unacceptable and that it smelled of urine and feces. Gerigk said that when the BC SPCA arrived, the pets had been inside for three days, because she was in hospital, and that accounted for some of the mess and urine and feces, as the dogs couldn't leave the house.
"She believed the rest of the animals were in good condition before her hospitalization and that none were suffering," the decision reads.
Gerigk said that the dog Meeka was 18 years old and frail and had been unable to walk for six months, but she couldn't afford to have the dog euthanized.
She explained the lengths she took to make sure the dog was as comfortable as possible.
Gerigk said since the animals were seized, she was working very hard to clean the house and submitted a lengthy list of improvements she'd made.
"(She said she) took full responsibility for what had happened... she admitted that she was wrong, that she should have taken Meeka to the veterinarian but did not, and stated that she would seek veterinary support in future when it was needed," the decision reads.
While the BC SPCA painted a picture of deployable conditions, the Review Board saw it differently.
"In this case, the circumstances that led to the animals’ distress at time of seizure were complex," the Review Board said. "All parties acknowledge that the unsanitary conditions in the home... placed the animals in a situation of distress. That distress was exacerbated by the unexpected hospitalization of their caregivers, leaving no one to look after the 10 cats and two dogs."
The Review Board said that while the BC SPCA talked of "flea infestations," fleas were only found on two of the 10 cats, and none on the dog.
"With the exception of one cat that was euthanized due to a uterine infection and other complicating medical conditions, all of the remaining animals were found to be in generally good shape," the Review Board said.
Willow the dog was found to be in "ideal" shape.
The Review Board said while the vet talked about tapeworms, the tests all came back negative.
The BC SPCA also argued Gerigk didn't have sufficient income if the animals were returned to her.
However, the Appeal Board ruled that the organization provided no evidence of this.
The Review Board ruled that Gerigk had expressed remorse and taken full responsibility for the conditions the animals were in.
Gerigk was allowed to have the dog back, but the cats were surrendered.
"While (Gerigk) had obvious difficulty looking after the 10 cats and two dogs, the (Review Board) is confident that (she) has the skills and capacity to look after Willow," the Review Board ruled. "(Gerigk)is the only owner the dog has known, and Willow will be better off in familiar surroundings with the person to whom she has provided, and from whom she has drawn, emotional support all her life."
Ultimately, Gerigk got Willow back and was ordered to pay $5,828 in costs. The Review Board stated that she is not required to pay the costs before the return of Willow.
To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.
We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. SUBSCRIBE to our awesome newsletter here.
