You and Myriam make an interesting argument. However, I think an important of element of the story is missing i.e. where is Justice System in all this. For example, when Myriam mentions “The real issue is not whether the law is strong enough, but whether or not the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is committed enough to make use of it. (Beef up laws to protect animals, Letters, Jan. 7).” I would be interested to know what she means? Has she seen the level of evidence that the SPCA Special Constables have presented to the Crown Counsel? Has there been any opinion as to why so many cases have not been approved to go to trial? This is the area I’m interested in. Also, why did Myriam go to the Vancouver Regional “operational” office and not go to Brimacombe at the BCSPCA Provincial Office? – I would assume that the PCA Act would be within head office’s jurisdiction? Also, I would be greatly surprised if cruelty investigation and the Society's abysmal track record wasn't in Brimacombe's new vision package? With Brimacombe's great love of consultants and lawyers I would think this issue would have been at the top of his agenda? He's had 6-7 years to think through this issue. IMO don't you think by now "HE" would be the one to know how to beef up the laws and work out the cracks?

Also Myriam goes onto say:
“The SPCA told me repeatedly that the law does not give them the power to act. Yet the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act gives the SPCA a lot of power to help animals "in distress". That is defined as an animal "deprived of adequate food, water, or shelter", "injured, sick, in pain or suffering" or "abused or neglected."

It appears to me that the Act gives the SPCA Special Constables the power to give “immediate” help to distress animals (maybe even removing the animal away from “the owner” for a short period of time), but just like police officers it does NOT have the power to “make” Crown Counsel approve the charges, schedule court dates (which can take an excruciating long time to happen), and ultimately hand down an appropriate sentence? So, who is at fault? (a) Crown Counsel that is not interested in clogging up the justice system with low priority animal cruelty cases OR (b) the SPCA who does not want to spend the money on legal fees and the SPCA Special Constable’s investigative time to do the job properly?

Another interesting point, during the CFHS/BC SPCA Saving Animal Lives: Programs for our Future, May 3 -7, 2000 the Justice Institute of British Columbia Police Academy announced to the conference that is was only just in the development stage of creating a five-day course on animal cruelty/abuse investigation skills. A draft outline for the course was presented at the conference.

Does this mean that the current module for training SPCA Special Constables on animal cruelty/abuse investigation is outdated, or maybe they have only just realized how totally useless it is? If so, it has taken a long time to figure that out!

Taken from the VRB 1999 and 2000 SPCA Factsheet.
In 1998, the Vancouver Regional Branch of the BC SPCA:
• Found homes for 9,174 animals
• Returned 4,558 animals to their homes
• Rescued 3,534 animals from harm
• Seized 137 in danger of losing their lives
• Investigated 4,081 complaints
• Conducted 486 inspections of facilities housing animals
• Took 4 cases of suspected animal abuse or neglect to court
• Obtained 3 convictions in cases of neglect and cruelty
• Travelled 586,408 kilometres in accomplishing the above

In 1999, the Vancouver Regional Branch of the BC SPCA:
• Found homes for 9,441 animals
• Returned 4,385 animals to their homes
• Rescued 2,371 animals from harm
• Seized 58 in danger of losing their lives
• Investigated 3,296 complaints
• Conducted 258 inspections of facilities housing animals
• Took 7 cases of suspected animal abuse or neglect and cruelty
• Obtained 6 convictions in cases of neglect and cruelty
• Travelled 538,558 kilometres in accomplishing the above

INTERESTING EH!