From post: http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/3366

At an SPCA meeting in Vernon on Sept. 17/03 BC SPCA CEO Craig Daniell professed his intent to ask for changes to be made to the PCA Act.

The changes he has in mind do not include expanding the definition of what constitutes distress. Mr. Daniell indicated that he would like the Act to allow a more direct process with regards to the SPCA being able to enter properties and seize animals. He explained that the process of seizing animals could be quite complex under the current wording, and that he would like to see the process more streamlined.

Jennifer Dickson
President, Okanagan Animal Welfare Foundation
Vernon BC
**************************************************************************************************

What animal-lover can argue with the SPCA being able to more easily seize animals in distress?

Currently the "complex" wording of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) requires three conditions that must be met before the SPCA can seize animals that are in "distress". ("Critical distress" is a separate designation in the Act which is for cases where the animal is near death and its life cannot be saved and must be seized to put it out of its suffering. We imagine this is so that the SPCA has the legal right of ownership to euthanize animals that have been fatally injured, such as a dog or cat hit by a car and would argue that this is in fact the only time that the SPCA is actually performing euthanasia - mercy killing - not disposal-business killing. There need be no expert opinion in these crtical distress cases: an SPCA agent is empowered to make the decision to euthanise. So seizing for critical distress is not complex.)

The PCA Act defines "distress" as being deprived of food, water, or shelter; injured, sick, in pain or suffering; abused or neglected.

If the SPCA suspects that any animal is in distress, it must do or determine three things before it may seize the animal.

FIRST: It must give the owner of the animal an Offence Warning Notice which is a notice of conditions that the SPCA alleges are causing distress and must be rectified in a timely fashion. [PCA Act: 11. (a)] Typically the owner may be told to provide clean water, or remove feces, get the animal veterinary attention, or provide a longer chain for a chained dog. The SPCA may then return to see that the conditions are being met. If they have not, the SPCA may choose to again warn the owner or may choose to apply for a warrant to seize the animal. Only if the owner cannot be found can the SPCA seize the animal without issuing an Offence Warning Notice.

AAS obtained legal opinion to confirm this and it is also supported in case law: specifically: Between British Columbia Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Plaintiff, and Mark Sudweeks, Cheryl Sudweeks, Shayla Welling, Trinity Bennett, and Jane Doe, Defendants, June 2002.

The BC SPCA Branch Operations Manual says in more detail: "Many complaints may be resolved by issuing an Offence Warning Notice. When completing this form, indicate what the problem is and specify what you would recommend to correct or improve the situation. Allow a reasonable amount of time to implement these corrections or improvements and then make a follow-up visit to ensure that the person is complying with your recommendations." [Unit three, page 3]

SECOND: The Branch Operations Manual makes clear that only conditions of distress may be acted on: that the conditions of surroundings are not relevant or grounds on which to seize: "Do not be 'taken in' by the surroundings of the facilities in which the animals are kept. Cosmetics such as mud, filth, manure, garbage, etc. are all less important in your decision as to whether the animal is being deprived of necessities. The physical condition of the animal and its current health status are the prime factors upon which to base you opinion. All other issues can be dealt with later and by other appropriate officials such as the local Health Officer." [Unit seven, page 15.6]

THIRD: The Branch Operations Manual says: "Remove only those animals which are in a state of neglect or privation." [Unit seven, page 16.4]

These conditions and constraints seem reasonable. They prevent the SPCA from making unfounded seizures which can have the effect of unfairly ruining a person financially, publicly humiliating them, and causing them to have a criminal record. In a just and civil society, based on the rule of law, the police must not be allowed to use their powers arbitrarily and unjustly. If the SPCA obtains more power to seize there is the concern that it can misuse those powers.

The SPCA has made many seizures in the past year in spite of the law's safeguards so we would be interested to know in what way Mr Daniell would like the SPCA's ability to seize "improved".

AAS has been asking for the definition of distress to be improved since 1998. We think that would provide more protection from cruelty for animals than changes that put animal owners at risk of unreasonable seizure and prosecution.