getting abused at the whitmore

[Anonymous]

sure..there might be some things people lie about and so on and so forth, but this is a totally different topic you are chosing to argue with me about. There are facts that hold to these, and anyone who starts to read this that knows,well...you are going to be looking mighty foolish because you're wrong. They were GIVEN HORSES BACK...and CASIE'S HORSE WAS TAKEN TO THE VET. There is so much proof of all of this, from pictures, to vet bills, to old rodeo things in MAGAZINES and NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC has my HORSE's PICTURE IN IT that i rode when I was there...AND photo albums, and I could go on. But there you have it. Trust me, they were given horses back, and Splash was taken to a vet.

[Anonymous]

OK, as they say.

[Anonymous]

News Archives

Press Releases

Media Enquiries & Kit

Anim@ls E-Bulletins

AnimalSense Magazine

Public Service Announcements


 News - July 2002
SPCA Welcomes Landmark Conviction in Horse Case

Cruelty Conviction for Two South Okanagan Individuals

BC SPCA Seizes 53 Dogs in Kelowna

Foster Families Needed

Dogs Rescued from Deserted House

Air Canada Jazz Flies to the Aid of Animals

More Choices on Your Grocery Store Shelves

Bears: Understanding the World's Most Legendary Predators


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 22, 2002
SPCA Welcomes Landmark Conviction in Horse Case

Mark Sudweeks has been convicted on two counts of causing distress under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, resulting in a lifetime prohibition of owning or caring for animals and in fines of $2,000 on each count. The case involved 29 starving horses and seven dogs that were seized by the BC SPCA on January 2001 in the Kleena Kleene Valley, 200 kilometres west of Williams Lake. Separate counts were laid for the horses and dogs.

"This is a landmark decision that clearly demonstrates it is entirely unacceptable to cause animals to suffer," says Doug Brimacombe, CEO of the BC SPCA. "The court has imposed high penalties under the Act in this case, setting a precedent for other animal cruelty cases. We are very pleased with the outcome."

Mark Sudweeks, his wife Cheryl Sudweeks and Bryan Tetz, caretaker of the property where the animals were found, were all charged on two counts, under section 24 (1) of the PCA Act for permitting an animal to be in distress. Bryan Tetz was found guilty on one count under the PCA Act and fined $500, and given a two-year prohibition of owning or caring for animals. Cheryl Sudweeks charges were dismissed.

In an earlier court decision, the BC SPCA was awarded custody of the animals and granted $120,000 towards part of the cost incurred for the care of the animals. The Society hopes to place the animals in permanent homes.

The court decision is the culmination of a case that lasted over 15 months. "It's a great relief and I am thrilled that the penalty matches the crime," says Sharon Caddy, Special Provincial Constable and shelter manager for Williams Lake BC SPCA. Caddy was involved in the seizure of the animals and has worked with those in community to rehabilitate the animals.

[Anonymous]

no shit sherlock, Ive read it before. They GOT SOME OF THEIR HORSES BACK! haha. there isnt anything else to say. Sure, MARK was banned from owning them. TOO BAD HIS DAUGHTERS OWNED THEIR HORSES THAT THEY DID RODEO WITH! AND..THEY GOT THEM BACK! for heavens sake..I rode one for over a year!

[Anonymous]

not to mention, the horse I rode is 17 years old, and theyve had him since he was born. Ive seen his baby pictures and all! Ive seen pictures of him and one of the daughters at rodeos with him when they LIVED IN CANADA! Lets do some math...Well the horse is 17, and this whole case thing with the animals happened like 3-4 years ago..HMMM..OLD HORSE! DUH!

[Anonymous]

and also...I WAS IN THE PROGRAM YOU MORON! i know..you could even ask Leah, Annieliese..any of those people who are against the whitmore..They know those horses are from Canada too..that is something that we BOTH KNOW! haha

[Anonymous]

On 2005-06-20 09:05:00, Anonymous wrote:

"



News Archives



Press Releases



Media Enquiries & Kit



Anim@ls E-Bulletins



AnimalSense Magazine



Public Service Announcements





 News - July 2002

SPCA Welcomes Landmark Conviction in Horse Case



Cruelty Conviction for Two South Okanagan Individuals



BC SPCA Seizes 53 Dogs in Kelowna



Foster Families Needed



Dogs Rescued from Deserted House



Air Canada Jazz Flies to the Aid of Animals



More Choices on Your Grocery Store Shelves



Bears: Understanding the World's Most Legendary Predators





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



July 22, 2002

SPCA Welcomes Landmark Conviction in Horse Case



Mark Sudweeks has been convicted on two counts of causing distress under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, resulting in a lifetime prohibition of owning or caring for animals and in fines of $2,000 on each count. The case involved 29 starving horses and seven dogs that were seized by the BC SPCA on January 2001 in the Kleena Kleene Valley, 200 kilometres west of Williams Lake. Separate counts were laid for the horses and dogs.



"This is a landmark decision that clearly demonstrates it is entirely unacceptable to cause animals to suffer," says Doug Brimacombe, CEO of the BC SPCA. "The court has imposed high penalties under the Act in this case, setting a precedent for other animal cruelty cases. We are very pleased with the outcome."



Mark Sudweeks, his wife Cheryl Sudweeks and Bryan Tetz, caretaker of the property where the animals were found, were all charged on two counts, under section 24 (1) of the PCA Act for permitting an animal to be in distress. Bryan Tetz was found guilty on one count under the PCA Act and fined $500, and given a two-year prohibition of owning or caring for animals. Cheryl Sudweeks charges were dismissed.



In an earlier court decision, the BC SPCA was awarded custody of the animals and granted $120,000 towards part of the cost incurred for the care of the animals. The Society hopes to place the animals in permanent homes.



The court decision is the culmination of a case that lasted over 15 months. "It's a great relief and I am thrilled that the penalty matches the crime," says Sharon Caddy, Special Provincial Constable and shelter manager for Williams Lake BC SPCA. Caddy was involved in the seizure of the animals and has worked with those in community to rehabilitate the animals.



 "

Ironic isn't it?  The Suds horses had to be "rehabilitated" only unlike troubled teens, these horses were treated humanely.

What a crock the teen help industry is but as long as their are parents DESPERATE to get back in control of their so-called defiant teens, these programs will continue to exist ... and sadly, abuse their clients (kids) with relative immunity.

[mom2three]

On 2005-06-19 21:50:00, Anonymous wrote:

"two different organizations seized the horses, and they were given 8 of the horses back.

"

Just so you know, in BC only one agency can seize animals, the SPCA. This is fact, I had it confimred, no other agency took in those horses although there were foster families but they could not have made the decision to return the animals. There is no second agency that would have had that power. This is fact despite anything else you may have heard. FACT, LAW.

Does this mean the SPCA does not believe in the charges they laid and returned those horses? WOW. How can they on one hand request a lifetime ban on animal owning and $120,000 in vet bills and yet return these horses to the Sudweeks? I am amazed.

One of two things has happened. 1. The SPCA has cheated BC taxpayers out of 100's of thousands of dollars to prosecute and they recieved some pretty good press they didnt deserve. Seems they owe both the province and the Sudweeks an apology if they suddenly changed their minds or 2. The Sudweeks have lied.

[BuzzKill]

//TOO BAD HIS DAUGHTERS OWNED THEIR HORSES THAT THEY DID RODEO WITH! AND..THEY GOT THEM BACK! for heavens sake..I rode one for over a year!//

Seems to me you are bragging about a technicality that put the horses back in the hands of their tormentors. Happens all the time - but it dam sure aint nuthin to brag about.

//Lets do some math...Well the horse is 17, ..HMMM..OLD HORSE! DUH!//

Are you trying to say it is OK to starve a 17 year old horse?  Is it OK to starve a 2 year old or a five year old? Why is the horse's age even an issue?
And BTW - while 17 isn't a youngster - if the horse has been cared for responsibly, 17 isn't Old. A well cared for horse can live to see 30, so 17 is just well into middle age.

Frankly - I can not get over you people trying to excuse away the obvious gross abuse and neglect of the dogs and horses by the Sudwicks.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-06-20 10:44:00, BuzzKill wrote:

"//TOO BAD HIS DAUGHTERS OWNED THEIR HORSES THAT THEY DID RODEO WITH! AND..THEY GOT THEM BACK! for heavens sake..I rode one for over a year!//



Seems to me you are bragging about a technicality that put the horses back in the hands of their tormentors. Happens all the time - but it dam sure aint nuthin to brag about.



//Lets do some math...Well the horse is 17, ..HMMM..OLD HORSE! DUH!//



Are you trying to say it is OK to starve a 17 year old horse?  Is it OK to starve a 2 year old or a five year old? Why is the horse's age even an issue?

And BTW - while 17 isn't a youngster - if the horse has been cared for responsibly, 17 isn't Old. A well cared for horse can live to see 30, so 17 is just well into middle age.



Frankly - I can not get over you people trying to excuse away the obvious gross abuse and neglect of the dogs and horses by the Sudwicks."

Me either, BK.  

Maybe if we keep saying it enough, these people will get it ....

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE!

Pass the word ...

 :nworthy:

[mom2three]

"The trial judge found that sometime before

January 3, 2001, seven horses escaped or were released from

the south pasture. They were seized by a Ministry of Forests

employee on January 4, 2001, all in reasonable condition."


This quote is from the court transcript and maybe this is what these kids are talking about. These seven were seized by a ministry of forest employee  before the seizure at the Lodge as they were wandering and they obviously were able to find food and water outside of the pasture.

Since he was not part of the SPCA or the RCMP, he would have had to give them to the Sudweeks. He couldnt even turn them into the SPCA since they were in reasonable condition, the SPCA would have  only been able to charge them for their animals being at large since they were at the time in reasonable condition.

 From my understanding of the law, The SPCA could not seize them as the rules of the SPCA clearly state that if an animal has food, shelter and water, regardless as to how it is obtained, it cannot be seized and those horses did obtain those things albeit for themselves. There are cases where well meaning people feed and water neglected dogs who have been told that as long as "someone" is feeding the animal the SPCA cannot step in.

It is a misconception that they have the power to automatically seize any animal they believe the owner is abusing. Even when the animal is wandering around, the most they can do is fine you for the animal being at large unless their physical condition indicates neglect or abuse and even then, they cannot always do something. There are rules.

It would seem from the transcript that 29 horses were seized of the 39. This means some of them were not included in the seizure and those 7 were probably included in the 10 not seized. it does not negate the suffering of the 29 seized that some of them were in "reasonable" condition, but it does is tell you that those seized must have been in frightful condition that they felt they had grounds to seize them! It is not a testiment to the Sudweeks' good care that they were able to keep some of them it just means the SPCA did not have enough power to keep them.

By the time the ruling came down, the horses not included in the seizure were out of the country and out of the jurisdiction of the BC SPCA so they could not be seized. Had they remained in Canada, they most likely would have been as Mark now has a ban against him preventing him from ever owning another animal in BC. That is why you rode those horses. It has nothing to do with them not neglecting them.

I repeat: The fact that some of those animals were "in reasonable condition" does not negate the fact that 29 others were starving. It only means some of them were able to  get free of their barren pasture and found food but they were unfortunately returned to their abusers due to a loop hole in the law. That is NOTHING to be proud of and certainly does not prove 29 horses did not suffer terribly.

[mikeymouse]

mom2three you have no fucking idea what your talking about I was there for that and they were not released we were all at the school building so y don't you get your facts straight, also which kid of yours went to whitmore

[Anonymous]

On 2005-01-27 17:56:00, schacherer wrote:

"I recently posted a part of my story about the Whitmore. I was just reading some of the past articles about the Whitmore and I cam across one about abuse. While I was at the Whitmore I had kissed one of the boys there and we had a marathon group about it. The group started at about 6:30 at night and did't end until about 3:00 in the morning. The next day we were made to get up on schedule at 5:00. Anyways, after the group one of the girls Anneliese came up to me upstairs where I was in the closet room (where I was made to sleep for a week) and she said she wanted to talk to me. One of the things she started out with was "Cheryl told me to come up here and teach you a lesson, and she also gave me permission to do whatever the hell I wanted to  do to you because you and just a little slut and a whore, you are worthless and thats why you do things with boys" after she was finished talking she got real close to my face and spit in it, after that she slapped me on the cheek a couple of times adn then she punched me in the stomache. There was nothing I could do because no body else was around and this girl was about 150lbs or more than me. I was so scared and there wasn't anything I could do about it.

The next time I got in trouble we had gone to Lake Powell and while we were there I stole pills from one of the boys there, they were prescription pills that Mark and Cheryl knew about that he had in his backpack, anyway me and two fo the other girls took them together. When we got caught Cheryl brought us into a room and yelled at me, but the other two girls she said that she felt sorry for so she was hugging them and telling them that she understood. Then she made them leave the room. When they left she started cussing at me and then threw a stack of huge books at me. Then she came up to me  and spit on me and pulled my hair and practically threw me over a chair. Again there was nothing I could do.

There was also another incident with the boys, there was a boy named Tony in the program when I had forst gotten there, he got in trouble for something and some of the boys that were mad at him asked Cheryl if the could beat him up, and she said "what i dont know anything about it if anyone asks" so they took the boy out on the side of the mansion where they park the cars and they (dusty, rob, aaron, cory, brian, and a few of other boys just started kicking him and punching him and they got him on the ground and they hit his head on one of the cars and they were hurting him really bad. He couldnt do anything.

Cheryl doesn't care about anything but herself. I think she takes drugs that don't belong to her. In june of 2004 i fell off of my horse and i broke my ribs and sprained my ribs and i had a few pretty big bumps on my head, i got three bottles of pills, lorotabs, ibproufin 800, and perkasets. they are pain killers, well i didnt take very many of them because my mom said that they werent good for me and plus they made me sick so there were a lot left in the bottles. I went home in july and i moved back to Utah to live on my own in the beginning of August, i went back to the Whitmore to get the pills so I could send them to my mom and there was one lorotab left and about 3 ibproufins, and i wondered where did the rest of my pills go? I had asked Cheryl and she said she didnt know. How is this a good place to send your child when they are missing pills? Mark and Cheryl always leave their downstairs bedroom door open and unlocked, its not hard to go down there and get whatever you want, trust me, i know."

so long ago

[Anonymous]

Why Mickeymouse, you were just there for every little event, huh? JUST HOW MANY YEARS were you locked up...uh I mean enrolled, at the Whitmore?