A lot of people won't be happy that the man at the centre of a high-profile animal cruelty court case isn't going to jail.
Animal rights advocates have made their feelings known about the need for a stiff sentence throughout the court process.
That doesn't make the court's decision wrong, however.
It's not hard to see why the Whistler sled dog case inspired high emotion.
The manner in which a number of dogs died at the hands of Robert Fawcett was horrific and inhumane.
That said, there was little to gain in sending Fawcett to jail.
As those in court heard last week, Fawcett isn't a monster. By all accounts, he loved the dogs.
Faced with mounting pressure and bad choices, he made a terrible one, but he was not motivated by cruelty.
Ironically he had hoped to avoid seeing dogs that could not be cared for suffering continued neglect.
The sled dog industry - now subject to greater regulation - has much to answer for about how dogs' lives and deaths turn on bad business decisions. A change, making corporate directors responsible for animals' treatment, was clearly overdue.
Fawcett will be haunted forever by his actions. His mental health is fragile.
Mindful of the emotions provoked by the case, the prosecutor voiced the difference between vengeance and punishment.
It's a distinction that will likely continue to elude many people. Indeed, some people will always harbour ill feelings about the outcome. Such cases tend to have staying power in the minds of the public, the details made fresh each time there is a related case.
But at the end of the day, the justice system did what it could on a sad case for which there was little hope of a happy ending.
