Clear Full Forecast

New Rules Give SPCA More Teeth

By Submitted Article

Monday, April 07, 2008 03:43 AM

by Kathi Travers

It's been nearly a month since the Honourable Pat Bell, Minister of Agriculture and Lands, brought forward changes to address several short comings of PCA Act (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). This is a giant step for the animals of British Columbia.

The BC SPCA, which is the only animals welfare agency in British Columbia that has the authority to enforce cruelty laws and present cases to Crown Counsel for prosecution, has been crusading diligently for over two years with its End Animal Cruelty campaign. The organization collected over 50,000 signatures.

Changes to the Act take effect now! With over 4,500 complaints alone investigated last year, Marcie Moriarty, General Manager of Cruelty Investigations for the BC SPCA, is thrilled with the changes which  will allow Special Constables the ability to respond much faster where animals are in distress as well as present stronger cases which should result in much a higher rate of convictions when presented to the Crown.

The changes to the Act:

·         Expand the definition of distress beyond “inadequate food, water and shelter” to include animals who are deprived of adequate ventilation, space, care or veterinary treatment.

This is particularly significant in cases involving overcrowded puppy mills, animals deprived of veterinary care and other cases where officers have not been able to intervene unless an animal was in critical distress.

·         Enable BC SPCA constables to obtain a warrant to seize an animal using the telewarrant system.

This is a life-saving change for animals in distress in remote locations. In the past officers in remote areas have sometimes been forced to delay helping an animal in distress because a judge was not available in the area to issue a warrant. With the ability to obtain a warrant via telephone, BC SPCA officers can enter property and act immediately to help an animal in distress.

·         Increase the maximum penalties handed down under the PCA Act from $2,000 to $5,000 and to $10,000 for a second offence.

In the case of repeat offenders, such as puppy mill operators, the fines will now be a significant deterrent.

·         Increase obstruction of justice penalties in animal cruelty cases from $100 to $2,000.

This provides a significant deterrent to individuals, such a pet stores owners and breeders who refuse to let the BC SPCA inspect their facilities and others who obstruct the investigation of an SPCA constable.

·         Enable BC SPCA constables not only to search for evidence but to seize evidence of an offence.

Logistically, it has been difficult in the past to obtain the two warrants needed to seize evidence (one PCA Act warrant to search the property and a second warrant under the Offence Act to seize the evidence). Any evidence found without the second warrant could not be used in the prosecution of an accused animal abuser. Under the new bill, evidence discovered under the PCA Act warrant would be admissible in court.

The BC SPCA is a leader in animal welfare in Canada and continues to strive to protect and enhance the quality of life for the animals.

Kudos to Pat Bell for jumping on board for this important legislation and leading the way in making it happen. 

    
Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

I'll give Pat Bell credit where it is due, because I think in this legislation he was spot on. On fish farming, among others, I think he is wrong.
Yes, kudos for sure! A very good deed done by him for sure.
:)
Go chase down your circus's Kathi
Obstruction of justice? does that mean i cant ask to see the warrant? The people who support this nonsense do so because it doesnt affect them. SPCA employees are not trained law enforcement personnel. They often have little or no experience with the animals they are dealing with. Why would people approve of giving them powers that we so often complain about when used by the police (who are rigourously trained)? Easy, because it is easy to give away the rights of others.
The SPCA, like other advocacy groups uses extreme examples of abuse to push for broad powers. It is hard for people to disagree with their cause when presented with such atrocious examples. However, when they come in and take your horse away because they think you should have got the vet in to treat that cut on its flank, or maybe take your family dog because you dont brush it enough or its daytime kennel is too small then you will suddenly wonder how these people got authority to do such things. Those of you who give people sweeping powers and do not expect them to ever be, shall we say 'used inappropriately' dont read the news much i guess.
This is a recurring theme these days, as ever I suppose. In order to prevent trajedies we overcompensate. Agencies are given the power to remove your pets, or your property, or even your children without the due process you would expect if you were charged with even a minor crime. The arguement that it is worth giving away rights and checks and balances if it saves a life or an animals life really only applies when it is at the expence of other people.
"However, when they come in and take your horse away because they think you should have got the vet in to treat that cut on its flank, or maybe take your family dog because you dont brush it enough or its daytime kennel is too small"

Can you cite an example of this happening?

You raise an interesting point with respect to taking children away. I think if the standard were the same for animals, a lot of people would not have them. The two are simply not comparable from what I can tell.

Speaking about reading about incidents where authorities could have done something but did not, consider the situation with the 3 kids in Merritt. Parent arrested, let go, uttered threats, nothing done, kills kids.......

So, when does one go in to protect one group of people while taking away the rights of another? How do you "train" people for that? How do you determine who has the foresight in such cases and will not piss anyone off?

If you are that smart, how about applying for positions which will put you into those situations because, as you say, your superhuman talents are badly needed out there.

As far as the BCSPCA goes, you have to remember that unlike police and auxilliaries as well as family services staff, the SPCA is funded through private donations.

So, they have been given a responsibility under law the same as the others, but they have not been given the funds. Rather a strange situation which is different from other provinces.

I suppose we could leave it to the police. Then we'll have a situation similar to forestry roads which are not policed by them even though they are public highways. Why not? They do not have the funds.

What's you solution? Laissez faire?
I support public funding for the SPCA.

I also think Caramacil makes an excellent point in the above post that I hadn't fully considered. I guess the hope is that common law develops over time taking into consideration past precedent to form the basis of the limitations of this law by a higher legal standard than this statute itself.

If someone had money and wanted to entertain themselves they could create the situation to challenge the law, thereby establishing the laws limitations in ways that it could hypothetically infringe on other laws like the constitution or bill of rights. Most likely any abuse will take place on those that won't have the funds to keep this law in check and that is when media and blogs like this will have to step up IMO.
Give the power they need to them after the proper training to help protect abused animals , the percentage that choose to abuse this given power....fire and charge them an even bigger fine. (no suspended with pay garbage either)

The abuse of animals has gone on for far too long.
They also need to clean up their own house first, in my opinion...