Prepared by
the Rabbit Advocacy Group of bc
C
2005, Sue Collard & Carmina Gooch
If the
material in this report is reproduced in part or in full or
cross posted on any internet site we request that the authors
be credited with their work.
PROPOSAL
This proposal supports those made by other
groups including VHS, AAS and the many letters written by
individuals over the past decade. In particular our submission
addresses with specific reference to companion rabbits
three areas of concern raised, by the Vancouver Humane Society
(Animal Welfare in Vancouver. A Report from the Vancouver
Humane Society, 2003):
(1) broad
animal welfare problems of protection, care and treatment
including spay/neuter legislation
(2) pet store
regulation including standards of animal care in pet stores,
the provision of species appropriate environments in stores,
and the provision of care information to customers at the
point of sale; and
(3) methods
using for dealing with “problem” populations of either wild or
feral and domesticated animals, including rabbits.
As the VHS proposal noted, increasing
public concern over the care and treatment of animals has
occasioned a regulatory and legislative void that has been
left for local municipalities to deal with. Equally obvious
is that public perception of broad and companion animal
welfare and corollary animal control issues for dumped
“domestic pets” is also changing with: increased awareness of
broadly environmental considerations; increased attention paid
to the humane treatment of all animals; and the solicitation
of a greater diversity of opinion in decision-making
processes.
As the point of sale and the point at which
consumers are supposed according to bylaw provision to
be provided with information adequate to the care of their
purchases, pet stores are certainly implicated in the many
instances of neglect, surrender and abandonment that affect
thousands of companion rabbits. To simply say that they are
responding to customer demand in supplying rabbit livestock,
or to suggest that responsibility for companion animal care is
solely the responsibility of the owners or of municipal
governments is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of
the pet industry.
Responsibility is a central concept that
informs our proposal. While we agree that there are
irresponsible owners, there are also irresponsible pet
businesses. The many individuals and groups who deal with
animal rescue, sheltering and rehabilitation, as well as
animal control, cannot be expected to fill in the moral,
practical and fiscal void that exists between the two
solitudes of individual and business responsibilities.
However, municipal governments can help regulate this
situation through the enactment of progressive and proactive
policies that support all human stakeholders as well as
enhancing current animal welfare provision.
As regulation appears to be a necessary
evil, and as current regulation has not been as effective as
it could in protecting the welfare of companion rabbits in
either the chain of sale and resale or in the protections
offered to the consumer, we propose that each of the Lower
Mainland municipalities opt for the most elegantly simple
solution and prohibit the sale of live rabbits - or better
still any live animals - from pet stores. While our focus is
specifically on rabbits it should be noted that many of the
points discussed apply to more familiar companion animals
(dogs and cats), to exotics (birds, reptiles, hedgehogs, sugar
gliders, hedgehogs, ferrets) and to “starter” or “pocket pets”
(guinea pigs, rats, hamsters, degus, mice), all of whom
continue to be sold from a number of locations across the
municipalities.
Because rabbits are “common” animals, their
care and well-being is thought self-evident. As we will
indicate, this is far from true and companion rabbits do
suffer and die because of prevailing misconceptions and
inaccuracies that are not being corrected by the pet industry,
and are not or cannot be addressed in current municipal pet
store legislation. A primary concern of this proposal, is
then one of companion rabbit welfare. A secondary
consideration is that current bylaws allow for little in the
way of consumer protection. If live animals are to be sold
as a “product” surely the municipalities must agree that it
would be in the best interests of the public if some
guarantees were written in to their purchase, as it is with
puppies and kittens.
We believe that, in the absence of
municipal agreement on a moratorium or prohibition on the sale
of live animals from stores, our concerns around both
companion rabbit welfare and protection and consumer
protection can be addressed by strengthening and expanding
extant bylaws provision to:
-
enshrine conditions of humane treatment
that are on a par with current animal welfare rather
than pet industry recommendations;
-
expand existing clauses to include
specific reference to rabbits;
-
strengthen and expand those clauses
relating to information required to be provided to
purchasers.
Rather than being specifically directed at
any one municipality we believe that a coordinated policy
across municipalities is required. It is common sense and an
all too frequent occurrence that the point of sale and the
eventual location of the problem (whether this be road kill, a
dumped animal, or shelter or rescue group surrender) are not
necessarily the same. One city’s laxer bylaws on the sale of
animals or provision of appropriate care and education should
not be allowed to become another city’s problem.
Current bylaw provisions
Our research indicates that as the
situation currently stands there is no bylaw provision
specific to rabbits in any of the bylaws we accessed, and some
municipalities appear to have no by laws governing the sale of
any livestock from pet stores, for example, West Vancouver.
As such, rabbits are covered under general
but not specific provision in current municipal regulations.
These provisions typically cover points such as: the necessity
for quarantine areas for sick animals, the necessity for
qualified veterinary attention, the use of trained and
knowledgeable staff, the establishment and maintenance of a
Pet Register to record all transactions where animals have
been acquired or disposed of.
Some bylaws do contain specific requirement
for birds and exotics, and some contain specific clauses that
relate to dogs and cats only. For example, the City of North
Vancouver by laws indicate that with specific reference to
dogs and cats “pet establishments” are required to maintain
the name of the supplier, breeder or method of acquisition,
the date of purchase or acquisition, and a description of the
animal purchased or acquired (The Corporation of the City of
North Vancouver, Bylaw No 7040, Section 8 “Records of
Purchase, Sale or Acquisition”.)
We are uncertain what if any principles
govern the selection of which companion animals require
specific legislation, and to some extent we believe that the
current bylaws’ silence on rabbits and small animals reflects
something of a prejudicial hierarchy of “acceptable” pets.
Rabbits and small animals suffer from their commonness, from
their relatively easy acquisition, and from an amazing lack of
consumer education and awareness in ways that dogs and cats do
not. We do not believe that they and their companions should
therefore suffer from lesser protections, lower standards of
care, or the knowing or coincidental perpetuation of
misleading and out of date information. Ignorance is no
defence on the part of individuals or businesses.
In
particular, we request that existing bylaws be amended and/or
strengthened in the following areas:
1.
In common with current
information on rabbit welfare, enhance animal welfare
standards provided to rabbits in stores through bylaw
specification on the following:
(a) increased
cage size - the rabbit should be able to make at least 3 hops
or the cage should be 4 times the body length , the rabbit
should be able to stand upright in caging on its back legs
,with a minimum cage size of 4’ x 2’ for a single or paired
BABY rabbit;
(b) a
systematic use of environmental enrichment items such as
suitable toys (cardboard rolls, organic apple twigs and
digging boxes);
(c) a
systematic use of “safe houses“ for the rabbits to retreat to
when they choose in order to enable rabbits to engage in
species specific crepuscular behaviour;
(d) the
housing floor should be covered to provide sufficient traction
for rabbits to move around and engage in a normal range
of movement, and where shavings are used as flooring aspen
shavings are preferable as both pine and cedar can cause
problems;
(e)
littermates should not be split up where possible, but careful
consideration should be given to multiple housing of baby
rabbits in larger octagonal cages in order to ensure that no
crowding takes place; and
(f) rabbits
should be fed a diet that mimics as closely as possible their
diet in the wild including hay as a staple, in addition to the
more commonly seen commercial pellets, as hay provides the
long fibre necessary to a healthy gut and teeth. Care
should be taken to ensure that their diet in the store
resembles what they are used to, and new food items including
hays should be introduced gradually.
These recommendations introduce specific
housing and enrichment requirements for rabbits to replace
general recommendations.
2.
Pet Registers should
include all pertinent information regarding their acquisition
of rabbits including the name(s), addresses, and where
pertinent business licence information of the breeders,
brokers or any other person from whom rabbits are obtained,
the names of the wholesalers, the time in transit from
breeder/wholesaler to the store site.
This recommendation extends the same
requirements to rabbits as those for dogs and cats, puppies
and kittens. It expands requirements to include transit time
as transit is a frequent stressor – if not killer – of pet
livestock.
3.
Rabbits placed in stores
should be veterinary certified as healthy by a qualified and
experienced rabbit veterinarian at the time they are placed in
the stores.
This recommendation expands some existing
bylaws covering cats and dogs to include rabbits (for example
the City of Richmond bylaw 7538 12.6.2)
4.
People who wish to
purchase a rabbit from a store should be provided with the
history of their purchase including age, sex if it is possible
to determine this, breed or breed mix, the name of the
breeder, and the point of origin of the rabbit.
This recommendation introduces a new
element into bylaws in the interests of consumer protection
and consumer choice.
5.
Adequate information about
rabbit care congruent with latest animal welfare findings
including, feeding habits, exercise patterns, and the need for
social contact must be prominently displayed and provided to
purchasers at the point of sale, including the fact rabbits
should not be sold as outside “hutch” animals, including
the necessity for spay/neuter in order to ameliorate
behavioural and known health issues with rabbits.
This recommendation strengthens and expands
existing bylaws on the provision of information to purchasers.
(We have included consideration
of rabbits as hutch versus indoor companions in the interests
of optimum welfare conditions for rabbits and for the reasons
mentioned in the attached report)
Background: The Pet Industry and the Public
In our opinion, removing live animals from
sale is congruent with improved animal welfare standards, with
increasing public concern with animal welfare issues,
and in the long term is more fiscally prudent. If there were
no live animals sold from pet stores there would, for example,
be no need for bylaw enforcement regarding the sale of live
animals, no cruelty and neglect investigations of stores by
Special Constables or the RCMP, and no need for the pet
industry to spend time and effort on the research into and
monitoring of bylaws in Canada and elsewhere, or in lobbying
to allow for yet more animals to be kept in captivity.
For example, the Pet Industry Joint
Advisory Council (PIJAC) website “Legislative News” section
states the following with reference to Quebec: “Changes to the
province’s wildlife regulations were finally published in the
official gazette on October 30th. The changes will
allow for the ownership in captivity of sugar gliders, African
pygmy hedgehogs and kangaroo rats. Changes come into effect on
November 14th and mark the end of numerous years
of efforts on behalf of PIJAC Canada and its Quebec division
to bring about these changes” (our emphasis). PIJAC would
seem directly involved in lobbying at the provincial level and
keeps an effective watch on municipal bylaw issues throughout
Canada, as is congruent with its primary mission to “represent
and promote the interests of all segments of the pet
industry”.
Whether or not it chooses to acknowledge
its equally valid and pressing responsibilities to both the
public and the animals it sells is somewhat less certain.
There is little doubt in our minds that as the industry body
responsible PIJAC and by extension the pet livestock industry
is complicit in the ongoing problems of companion animal
welfare. While we are aware that PIJAC has worked on such
issues as approaches to animal control as a stakeholder in the
National Companion Animal Coalition, it should be noted that
this document was directed toward the municipalities’ needs to
enact by laws, rather than to the pet industry per se, and
that animal control issues tend to focus on dogs and feral
cats.
In brief, it would appear that PIJAC sees
animal control issues – the end point of a chain stretching
from breeders to dumped, neglected or abused companion animals
- as either ones of personal responsibility on the part of the
“pet owner” or of local government. This begs the questions of
where and how the pet industry is accountable, and to what
extent it is accountable for actions whose origins lay as much
in the purchase of live product as they do elsewhere. It
also begs question of whether or not the public purse should
pay for problems that, with respect to rabbits, small animals
and exotics are certainly not being addressed by pet industry
in any formalized way.
While it is not within the scope of
municipal governments to address some of these broader issues
we believe it is possible for the municipalities to have a
positive effect on the overall standards of companion animal
care from point of purchase to eventual home through careful
consideration and the enactment of proactive bylaws at the
point where animal welfare, pet industry and consumer concerns
meet, the pet store.
The costs of dumping and animal rescue:
passing the buck...
I was talking with someone over a
photocopier as is common these days, when the topic veered
toward people and pets. The person I was talking with
explained that she and her husband lived on a dairy farm and
that over the years they had had innumerable animals dumped
off at their barn including litters of kittens as young as 3
weeks old, a series of dogs, and the occasional small animals.
This person went on to explain that she and her husband
personally had the animals checked and given appropriate
treatment by a veterinarian and then placed them with suitable
homes. This increasingly common story indicates both the
prevalence of pet dumping and the costs that are borne by
individual members of the public.
In our opinion, there is little doubt that
the unfortunate combination of a ready supply of “pet rabbit
stock” with (1) a lack of specific regulation on standards of
rabbit care, (2) lack of education on and awareness of the
ethology of the rabbit, and (3) the lack of a coordinated
policy and by laws governing the sale of live animals at
stores contributes to the ongoing surplus of unwanted
“pet rabbits” that are regularly dumped at shelters, thrown
out in parks, abandoned in apartments or are otherwise left
for “someone else” to care for. With rabbits you might say
this is literally a case of passing the buck, and to complete
the pun yes it does cost doe.
Breeders and pet stores: the ready supply
of rabbits
Our ongoing research into rabbit breeders
in BC indicated that in 2004 - 2005 there were over 30
breeders of pet stock rabbits listed on readily available web
sites, with about 10 meat rabbit breeders listed, some of whom
also bred pet stock.
http://www.tsukiyo.org/BreederDir/State/britishcolumbia.html
http://www.bunnyrabbits.org/rabbitbreeders/canada/britishcolumbia.htm
There
are also a number of local producers in the Vancouver area who
do not necessarily list on the internet. At least one person
in Vancouver placed a classified ad on a breeder for
sale/wanted page asking for four does and a buck, at least one
person in Maple Ridge was advertising fryer rabbits for sale
at $15.00 each, and another person in Langley was asking for
“white fryers”. BC also is the home of the Canadian Centre for
Rabbit Production and Development (Surrey) run by Robert
McCroskey, who has continued a campaign over the past 5-10
years to increase awareness of meat rabbits.
Actual figures are probably well in excess
of this number. Breeders will frequently refer interested
buyers to other breeders who may not be internet listed, and
for every formal breeder there are innumerable backyard
breeders and/or people who either knowingly or in ignorance
let their rabbits breed.
While
there may seem be many “good breeders” based on text and
pictures available on individual websites, there appear to be
a number of breeders whose breeding environment falls short
of optimum standards for animals or who advertise they “cull”
or in one instance “cull heavily”. As breeders are quick to
point out, while culling for breed and other imperfections
does not necessarily mean that animals are killed, in some
cases there is little doubt that a failure to conform to type
means certain death (a sign that breeders operate
with
a more totalitarian mentality than most Canadians are comfortable
with). And as these pictures from breeder websites
indicate, a life as a “breeder
rabbit” confined to a rusty wire bottomed cage in a shed, with
little else but water and pellets is far from congruent with
the past decades of research into rabbit welfare.
Our research also indicated that for some people breeding is a
lucrative business, one whereby the animals’ well-being is of
little or no relevance. They appear to be nothing other than
commodities selected for short term saleability and maximum
profit: several rabbit breeders were also involved in breeding
other animals, including dogs and guinea pigs. And, as a brief
aside, several breeding businesses were started or run by teen
girls, many of whom go into business with their parents, or
start a breeding business as a result of 4H involvement, a
possible area for further consideration and intervention.
From the website of Susan A. Brown, DVM, on humane
requirements for housing rabbits:
http://www.hrschicago.org/dietcarefr.html
ENVIRONMENT
Cage
House rabbits should never be kept completely confined to a
cage. Exercise is vital for the health of the rabbit. All
too often we hear well meaning, but poorly informed, people
describe rabbits as easy to keep because “they can be caged
and don’t take up much space!” This idea has led to many
rabbits being caged most of their lives with the distinct
possibility of developing both physical and behavioral
disorders. They are designed to run and jump and move about a
large area.
To
confine a rabbit to a cage exclusively to a cage can cause
several problems:
¨
Obesity – caused most often by a diet too high in calories
coupled with a lack of exercise
¨
Pododermatitis – Inflammation of the feet caused by
sitting in a damp or dirty environment
¨
Poor bone density - Rabbits that are continually confined
to a small cage can exhibit marked thinning of the bones which
may lead to more easily broken bones when handling
¨
Poor muscle tone - If the rabbit can’t exercise, the
muscles, including the heart, will be underdeveloped and weak
¨
Gastrointestinal and urinary function - A rabbit that sits
all day in the cage with little exercise can develop abnormal
elimination habits
¨
Behavioral problems - Continually caged rabbits can
exhibit a wide range of abnormal behaviors including lethargy,
aggression, continual chewing of the cage bars, chewing fur
(obsessive grooming), and destruction of the entire contents
of the cage.
A cage
can be used as a “home base” for part of the day or it can be
open all the
time
within an exercise area. The cage should allow the rabbit to
stand up on its hind legs without hitting the top of the cage,
provide a resting area and space for a litter box.
Animal Welfare Institute
http://www.awionline.org/Default.htm
http://www.awionline.org/farm/standards/rabbits.htm
Excerpt: Housing
a)
Housing must allow for social interaction and include physical
substrate for digging, playing and hiding. Rabbits must be
able to make normal postural adjustments, including sitting up
on hind legs and exhibit normal behavior such as hopping,
digging, hiding, grazing, grooming, sun bathing, dirt bathing,
and exploring.
Excerpts: Space Requirements
a)
Housing should always be sufficiently sized to allow normal
postural adjustments with freedom of movement and adequately
enriched to prevent boredom.
b)
Housing shall be sufficiently spacious to allow all animals
three hops in one direction, allow the rabbits to move around
and feed and drink without difficulty, enable all the rabbits
to lie on their sides at the same time without overlaying
another rabbit, and be of sufficient height to allow the
rabbits to sit upright on their hind feet without their ears
touching the top of the hutch or cage. Rabbits need sufficient
space to hop around not just turn around. They need enough
space to allow them to spread out, particularly if it gets
hot. It is essential that they are not crowded.
From breeder to pet store
In the US individual small breeders will
sell to wholesalers who in turn sell their product to stores.
The mortality statistics for rabbits in transit to stores is
high, with an estimated 20 – 30% of rabbits dying before
reaching their end journey. Further numbers will die due to
the stress of early weaning for sale, and transitions in
environment from store to their new “owners” home. Both US and
UK newspapers have featured stories about the inhumane
treatment excess or sick pet store rabbits receive including
suffocation and beating to death. It would perhaps be
optimistic to think no such abuses are occurring in Canada.
To date we have been unable to obtain
information on where local pet stores obtain their stock. We
know from anecdotal evidence that some small store owners are
approached by individuals whose rabbits may have had a litter.
This would not answer the question of where larger chains like
Petcetera obtain their rabbits.
The issue of “sourcing” becomes one of
interest to municipalities when it overlaps with public health
issues, or where it possibly affects other businesses.
Certainly rabbits can carry some, albeit few, zoonotic
diseases, but incidences of disease transmitted by rabbits are
extremely rare. Certainly there is provision in existing
bylaws for reporting sick animals when and where zoonotic or
transmittable diseases are suspected, and for segregating sick
animals.
However, while
stores are required to keep records of where they obtained
their livestock, there is no requirement that this information
be passed on to consumers. This makes obtaining accurate
information about ones’ purchases virtually impossible.
Caveat emptor is impossible in the absence of a
requirement for adequate information to be given to the
consumer, because it is impossible to make an informed and
rational decision based on an absence of information.
For example,
it would be impossible under current bylaws for people to have
any idea of where their rabbits came from, unless this
information was voluntarily provided. This makes it impossible
to check if their rabbit came from a reputable breeder, or a
breeder or business who had been previously cited for animal
cruelty or neglect. Similarly, if rabbits are not checked by
an experienced rabbit veterinarian it would be hard to
determine how healthy the rabbits are which means that
consumers may well be purchasing sick stock.
With specific respect to rabbits, the
provenance of the supply going to large scale stores is a
possible concern. There have been a number of spontaneous
outbreaks of viral hemorrhagic disease (VHD, also known as
rabbit hemorrhagic disease or RHD), a lethal calicivirus
introduced as a rabbit control measure in Australia and New
Zealand, in rabbits in the US. At least one of these
outbreaks took place at a wholesaler where rabbits were being
temporarily housed prior to being shipped out for sale.
http://www.vhdcoalition.org/victimsaccount.htm
Obviously it would be prudent to establish
that any rabbits that might be imported from the US for sale
were free from signs of VHD, or had at least been vaccinated
for the disease. More importantly, as an issue of consumer
choice, people should be able to determine for themselves
whether or not they would prefer to buy “livestock” that
originates from countries where VHD is present. To date, we
are not aware of any outbreaks of VHD in Canada. As the RHD
(rabbit hemorrhagic disease) website and subsequent breeder
concerns indicate, RHD can pose a huge threat to breeders who
have spent years developing lines for show and sale, outbreaks
have generally involved circle culls of hundreds or thousands
of rabbits, and the disease itself appeared to present in a
far more painful and lingering way than initial Australian
government reports suggested.
Pet store purchases
In addition to readily accessible breeders
there is an appalling number of pet stores in the province
that sell live rabbits, including the Petcetera chain with 16
stores in BC, 10 of which are in the Lower Mainland, a number
of Pet Habitats, and several small independent shops that will
sell a variety of animals from puppies and kittens to spiders.
Petcetera
frequently sells sale priced and appealing baby bunnies for
$29.95, and prices for pet rabbits we have observed at a
variety of locations usually appear to be anywhere from “free
with cage” to approximately $60.00, with some breed specific
breeders selling breeding stock to other breeders for $80.00 -
$125.00. The relatively low cost of rabbits in comparison to
dogs and cats makes them appear a cute, fuzzy, easy to care
for, and cheap alternative to puppies and kittens.
Animal Advocates Society
http://www.animaladvocates.com/rabbits/index.htm
In recent years there have been several
instances in the Lower Mainland where pet stores have been
investigated for operating with insufficient levels of care
for the animals temporarily in their charge. In addition, a
large number of breeders have had animals seized.
At least one of these stores, the Burnaby
Pet Habitat was the subject of complaint for a large number of
years, and eventually had its animals including rabbits seized
by the SPCA in 2005, pending an investigation
Elaine O'Connor
The Province Thursday, May 05, 2005, Pet store owner charged
with failing to provide proper care Animal protection agency
says numerous complaints have been made over dirty, crowded
cages
A Burnaby pet store owner will appear in court next month to
face charges of animal cruelty after a B.C. Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals bust.
Thomas Peters, owner of Pet Habitat in the Brentwood Town
Centre, is accused of failing to provide proper veterinary
care for a sick animal and keeping animals in substandard
conditions.
"Over the past five years we've received numerous complaints
on this pet store," said senior animal protection officer
Eileen Drever.
The agency claims a sick puppy was found "with its ribs
visible, lethargic and depressed, with laboured breathing" and
birds were found with overgrown nails in dirty, crowded cages.
One bird had a broken leg. Rodents were kept in cracked fish
tanks.
"The problem with this gentleman is we have advised him over
and over again to seek immediate veterinarian care for any
sick or injured animals and he has failed to do this," Drever
said.
But Peters, who has owned the store six years, disputes the
claims, and accused the B.C. SPCA of going overboard with a
spate of inspections at pet stores in the region.
"I think basically, the SPCA had a vendetta against all the
pet stores," he said.
"We welcome them to come by, but all of a sudden there is a
big change [in standards] and they don't even tell us what's
going on, they just say this is wrong, that's wrong."
He explained the ill animal was a wire fox terrier with a
cold. It was eventually put down.
"It was under treatment here in the store, and they said that
I had to take it into the vet and they figured because I
hadn't taken it that I hadn't been doing treatment in the
store and that was considered neglect."
Peters has been summoned to appear in court on the charges
June 2. He plans to dispute the charges.
If convicted of animal cruelty under the B.C. Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, he faces up to six months in jail, a
maximum $2,000 fine and a prohibition on owning or keeping
animals.
Peters said pet store owners have asked the Pet Industry
Joint Advisory Council of Canada (PIJAC) to intervene and
clarify care standards with the B.C. SPCA.
Other
pet stores are being allowed to expand to further locations
despite being previously investigated and cited for
substandard conditions for the animals they sell. For example,
the Maple Ridge Mr. Pets has announced the opening of another
store at a Commercial Drive location this fall.
About
Mr. Pets (from newspaper advertisement)
Mr. Pet's began in 1996 as a small pet
supplies and fish store in Port Coquitlam, and quickly
branched out to include another store in Maple Ridge in 1997.
With the success of these stores well under way, Mr. Pet’s
also started a small wholesale company in Port Coquitlam. The
Port Coquitlam and Maple Ridge retail stores quickly outgrew
their spaces and expanded to better serve their growing
clientele. The expansion of the Maple Ridge store included a
second story with small animals, fish, reptiles and other
exotics. In 2002, another store opened in Mission to serve the
farm industry and quickly excelled as a feed and pet supplies
store. Not long after, the growing Port Coquitlam-based
wholesale company moved to Mission and merged with the retail
store. With future plans to add more stores in British
Columbia, Mr. Pet’s will be coming soon to a neighborhood near
you.
Mr. Pets
1714 Commercial -- Opening Soon
East Vancouver BC
Telephone: (604) 872-0115
THE PROVINCE, 150
animals seized from Maple Ridge pet store January 7, 2005
A Maple Ridge pet-store operator promised yesterday to improve
conditions at his store following the seizure of 150 animals
by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Greg Penno, co-owner of Mr. Pets, said the failure to respond
to earlier SPCA warnings was the result of the busy holiday
season.
"It was a small, little incident that kind of escalated into
something larger," said Penno, whose company also has outlets
in Mission and Port Coquitlam.
The SPCA had previously given the pet store a formal warning
over overcrowding, lack of proper perches and having water
dishes instead of water bottles for the small animals. The
lack of compliance resulted in the seizure of 24 birds, six
rabbits and 120 rodents. Charges are pending.
"I'm investigating why that [complying with SPCA rules] didn't
take place," said Penno. "I'm quite upset by that. We're going
to rectify these issues."
The SPCA said the store had been visited "repeatedly" and told
to make changes.
"We had been working with the manager or owners of the pet
store and they failed to comply," said Eileen Drever, the
SPCA's senior animal-protection officer.
The seized animals are being cared for at an
SPCA shelter.
Again, though not specifically covered
under bylaw provision for pet stores, municipalities could
further support animal cruelty and neglect investigations of
pet store businesses by introducing provisions that support
the suspension of business licenses for pet store operators
convicted of cruelty or neglect, and by making the issuance of
new licences where the business and the proprietors are
substantially the same subject to stringent licensing
requirements.
Pet store marketing and misperceptions
about rabbits
In our opinion a
key issue in rabbit welfare and for the interplay between
rabbit welfare and municipal bylaws is the misperception that
rabbits are small “starter pets” suitable for young children
and who require minimal attention, minimal housing and care,
and who are relatively short lived. The reality is far
different. Some rabbits are larger than small dogs (15 -25lbs)
and when properly cared for they live on average as long as a
large breed dog (8-12 years, with some rabbits living as long
as 17 years). Their sale as “starter pets” speaks to
misleading pet industry marketing and calls into question the
adequacy of current pet store regulations in operation in
municipalities, specifically clauses that require
purchasers to be provided with written instructions on the
proper care and feeding of their purchases. Any instruction
should be drafted by, or in conjunction with, well-informed
rabbit welfare groups or personnel.
This is partly because there are no
guarantees as to the adequacy of the information provided.
However, many consumers will take tacit cues from the
environments they see modelled in the stores’ own use of
certain types of housing and the presence of absence of foods,
enrichment items and litter boxes. As the municipalities are
well aware, those stores that care enough will most likely
model their care and provision of livestock on PIJAC
standards. Equally well known is the fact that PIJAC standards
lag behind animal welfare practices and therefore cannot stand
as an adequate model for companion animal standards.
One example would be the continuous use of
limited size smooth bottomed “fish tank” housing for rabbits
in many stores. Anyone who has owned or lived with a companion
rabbit knows that rabbits are extremely reluctant to move on
surfaces that provide them with little or no traction (for
example, my rabbit will not run on the tile floor in my
kitchen). Rabbits caged on these types of surfaces may
therefore be deprived of a normal range of movement.
Perhaps there might be a minimal
justification for this if their stay in the store were of
short duration, but the same bigger and “older” rabbits are
occasionally seen for a month or so in stores. With rabbits in
particular there appears to be some confusion between housing
and “product display”. In addition, nothing is known of what
happens to those rabbits who are not sold. Are these rabbits
returned to the wholesaler or breeder? If so, what happens to
them at this point? Does “dead stock” translate into dead
animals? And should consumers have a right to know this?
In perpetuating the inaccurate portrayal of
rabbits as an inexpensive starter pet, pet stores promote a
picture of companion rabbits that is not only financially
inaccurate but also exacerbates continuing misunderstandings
of the complex needs of companion rabbits. Would that
inexpensive pet store bunny seem as attractive to impulse
buyers if they knew that it required 12 years of specialized
veterinary care, required spay or neutering, could not be kept
as a caged animal, or developed other habits such as chewing
electrical cords?
Our observations and those of the House
Rabbit Society indicate that bylaw provision to the contrary,
little or no information is provided to buyers when they
purchase rabbits. In “The Plight of Pet Rabbits” (www.PETroglyphNM.org)
Margo de Mello, a Director of the HRS notes “No pet store that
I know provides any sort of pre-sale counselling and education
to potential purchasers.’ We have certainly had little success
in obtaining even basic rabbit care information from stores
selling pet livestock, for example, and when obtained the
rabbit care information appeared to comprise a shopping list
for product that was mostly inadequate to the needs of a grown
rabbit or that epitomized minimalist standards, as the
attached information indicates.
Further problems occur when rabbits are
sold or adopted as “hutch animals.” We have seen numerous
instances of what can only be termed animal neglect (benign or
otherwise) based on this common myth. To give a recent example
from our experiences, a neighbour “rescued” a rabbit from a
building where it had been kept outside on a balcony in an 18”
cat carrier for approximately 3 months. This young rabbit was
extensively urine stained and showed a number of signs of
distress including excessive grooming. Balcony rabbits are a
common experience for anyone who has been involved in rabbit
rescue or welfare activities.
An isolated life outside is inappropriate
for a social animal that commonly lives in groups, and is as
least as inappropriate as chaining a dog outside on a
permanent basis in part because of the equally limited range
of movement hutches provide. Again, we believe the
perpetuation of the “hutch animal mythology” reflects current
but changing cultural prejudices around companion animals: if
it is inappropriate to keep dogs chained outside permanently
it is equally inappropriate to keep rabbits penned outside on
a permanent basis.
In the UK the “Pet Advisory Working
Committee on Rabbits Report” made a number of observations
regarding rabbit welfare that are pertinent here. First, in
applying the widely adopted “Five Freedoms” standards for
assessing animal welfare to domestic rabbits, they note that
the “freedom to express normal behaviour” indicated that
domesticated rabbits should have the companionship of other
rabbits or “substantial daily contact” with their owner that
includes a minimum of an hour of human-companion animal
interaction including petting, grooming and play. The House
Rabbit Society, a US based charity with a number of
international chapters that has been operating for close to 20
years, further suggests that indoor rabbits require
significant periods of exercise time, usually 3-4 hours of
free run time per day. While we agree that exercise time is
important, even more important is the fact that when animals
are kept separately and are not allowed to interact with their
“owners” it affects the quality of the human-animal bond,
leading to increased surrenders.
Although this report allows for hutch
living they indicated that for full- grown larger rabbits
hutch size should be approximately 6-7’ and they mention an
additional exercise area that is “as large as possible.” We
have seen no caging of this size for rabbits in local pet
stores, and most “starter cages” are a scant 2’ in length.
Hutch living is not recommended as outside rabbits can be
subject to predation by determined predators, most hutches are
insufficiently well constructed to provide adequate shelter,
many are of an inadequate size, and outside rabbits are more
subject to neglect and disease.
A third and related issue, which we will
not address here, is the current failure to define what
constitutes the skill, knowledge, ability and training
necessary for the humane care of pet store rabbits. Bylaws do
contain general provision under the Duties of Pet Store
Operators to ensure that animal care attendants are adequately
educated in these respects (for example, City of Richmond By
Law 7538, 12.1.1 (a)) However, our experience suggests that
lack of specification leads to variability in application,
with the degree of knowledge demonstrated by staff varying by
considerable degrees.
From
pet stores to ferals
There is little doubt that if permissible,
rabbits will continue to be sold from pet stores and by
breeders in increasing numbers. Rabbits are the third most
popular mammalian pet in the UK, the US and other parts of the
world, such as Japan. Pet industry figures indicate a growing
market for both rabbits as livestock and for rabbit supplies,
including an increasing pet rabbit speciality food market. In
some EEC countries there was a 10 – 15% increase in revenues
from the sale of pet rabbits and supplies over a five-year
period and a slow but significant increase in revenues was
projected to continue. While good for the pet industry, there
are no signs that this is good for the rabbits. We can only
expect rabbits to become more popular and as they do, we can
only expect to see more problems with dumping, rescue and
control.
We can confirm that some pet store rabbits
that are sold eventually make their way to local rescue groups
or to shelters. To cite just one example, Vancouver Rabbit
Rescue and Advocacy listed at least one such rabbit on their
website, Timmy. This rabbit was eventually purchased by
Vancouver Rabbit Rescue and Advocacy. Timmy was sale priced at
the Grandview Petcetera because he has a medical condition
that requires ongoing veterinary attention every couple of
months, maloccluded teeth. We are aware of several other
instances of pet store rabbits making their way to rescue
groups, some after only a matter of days. In at least one of
these instances people attempted to return their latest
impulse buy to the store, without success.
Pet dumping and the “shelter” situation
Many other rabbits continue to be dumped at
well known dump sites such as Jericho Park, Richmond Hospital,
and underneath the Skytrain line in North Surrey. Only a very
small percentage of these rabbits will live to survive, let
alone be captured by animal control officers and rehomed
through pounds/”shelters”. The SPCA’s aged and outdated
buildings
and mobile structures have too little space
for too many animals and the situation for rabbits and small
animals is particularly bad.
For example, we are aware that despite a
“no-kill” policy in operation at SPCA facilities, healthy
rabbits are certainly under threat of being put to death as
unadoptable when, in fact, the issue is whether they can be
moved fast enough. Over the past year there have been a number
of listings on the Brindleweb Pet Rescue web site that
indicate SPCA rabbits are at risk when the numbers get too
high or if they’ve sat too long.
From the
Brindleweb messageboard
http://www.brindleweb.com/rescuebb
Subject: Re: a lot of rabbits to be killed by a shelter?
"Rabbit Hutch"
Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject: Rabbits to be
put to sleep.
One of the local animal shelters will be putting to sleep half
of their bunnies.
We need help to
place 12-14 ASAP.....
There
is a lot of chatter on Brindleweb about rabbits that may be
killed for space at the Richmond SPCA.
Zanes
zoo Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:59 am
...If
they are to be destroyed then something needs to be done…
Rabbit
Hutch Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:20 am
I did call head office the day I found out and posted about
the 12-14 rabbits.....not even a call back....very
disappointing indeed
....sadly this
is *why* I got into small animal rescue....I never had a small
animal....I was a dog walker.
http://brindleweb.com/rescue/index.html
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:08 am by Small Animal
Rescue Society
He
died in my arms. Thank God someone found him and brought him
in
Rabbit groups have also heard from members
of the public who are unhappy that the SPCA has appeared
unable or unwilling to capture stray or dumped rabbits.
Perhaps this is an issue that should be addressed by
those municipalities
that have agreements with formalized groups around animal
control.
However, many groups suspect that because
of a second prevailing belief about rabbits, - that they can
easily be released into the wild and will rehabilitate quickly
–
increasingly
large numbers of rabbits are simply
being dumped, so that the numbers of rabbits that end up at
“shelters” or at rescue groups represents only a fraction of
former “pet rabbits”. In turn, the dumping of unsprayed or
neutered rabbits contributes to established, and in relatively
rare cases, new feral rabbit colonies.
A rabbit’s breeding cycle is 31 days, some
rabbits will breed as young as 15 weeks, and rabbits can be
impregnated again within 24 hours of giving birth... Given the
prevalence of dumping and the rapid breeding cycle of rabbits,
mandatory spay neuter regulation for companion rabbits sold
to individuals is as essential as spay/neuter legislation for
cats, and information regarding the necessity for
spay/neuter must be provided at the point of sale.
Rabbit Rescue and Rabbit Control Issues
The need for a more comprehensive approach
to dealing with the issues surrounding companion rabbits is
indicated in the fact that there are a burgeoning number of
rabbit rescue groups in the Lower Mainland. Companion rabbit
rescue and rehabilitation by small independent rescue groups
accounts for the majority of rabbit rescue in BC. For example,
one small group, the Small Animal Rescue Society (SARS)
www.smallanimalrescue.org has
consistently had more rescue rabbits listed for adoption on
the Petfinder site than the total combined rabbits listed for
all Lower Mainland SPCA Branches. This figure was derived by
simply counting the numbers of rabbits listed for adoption on
the respective Petfinder pages on 3 separate occasions over a
6-month period.
While not completely accurate, it is
certainly significant that the general scope of the findings
were the same each time the numbers were examined. In this
instance the costs of caring for dumped and surrendered
rabbits is borne by small groups operating with highly limited
budgets and a core of dedicated volunteers who will offer
temporary foster homes until animals can be adopted.
In the Lower Mainland there are already 3
groups who deal either specifically with rabbit rescue or
whose work deals with a large number of rabbits. And given the
many categories of use that rabbits inhabit – companion
animals, experimental animals, meat and fur animals,
endangered species -- we estimate that there are over 20
groups in BC’s Lower Mainland whose mandate could include
rabbits, including 8 SPCAs, 2 City Animal Shelters, 3 specific
rabbit and small animal societies/charities, 3 Humane
Societies, and anywhere between 6 and 20 other groups whose
work has supported rabbit welfare or rescue initiatives, or
have worked on issues that involve rabbits, including Animal
Advocates Society, Action for Animals in Distress, Fur Bearer
Defenders, the Kensington Foundation, the Pacific Animal
Foundation, Pets in Need, the Vancouver Foundation and others.
An educationally based program to deal with the issue of feral
rabbits in park lands in the Gulf Islands has already been
supported by the work of the Shell Environmental Fund.
Larger groups like the SPCA and Humane
Societies occupy a more ambiguous place in animal welfare and
control measures. SPCAs as well as other “shelters” are, in
our observations, not set up to adequately care for the
existing large number of rabbits and small animals that are
homeless or routinely given up. For example, the Vancouver
SPCA – the one that takes the largest number of rabbits of all
the SPCA branches – has only one small room allotted to
rabbits and pocket pets alike, and no dedicated exercise run
space for rabbits. A number of the cages are of limited size
and are unsuitable, even as temporary habitation.
Situations at other branches are worse, and
yet the numbers of rabbits and other animals relinquished on a
daily basis continues. Certainly we have heard of times when
some SPCAs practice limited surrender i.e. they will state to
members of then public who have the forethought to ask about
bringing in a rabbit for surrender that there is no room.
Larger branches will also refer individuals to smaller
independent and volunteer-run rescue groups, which in turn are
“overstressed” with a wide assortment of rabbits awaiting good
homes.
In BC, SPCAs and Humane Societies also bear
a burden of animal control work including the capture of loose
animals, in addition to being responsible for animal cruelty
investigations. The tensions between animal welfare and animal
control approaches are by now well documented so we will not
dwell on them here. However, until and unless the situation
changes it seems inevitable that some part of the costs for
these activities will be paid for by municipalities through
animal control and disposal contracts with these larger
organizations.
Animal control beyond lethal measures:
changing public solutions
Municipalities, then, directly bear the
burden of large scale animal control measures because they are
the ones who tend to pay for large scale animal control
initiatives. In turn, animal control measures usually involve
lethal solutions (shooting feral dogs for example, poisoning
rats, or trapping urban wildlife) that are condemned by
members of the public, in part due to changing public
perceptions around animal welfare.
A recent British study on grey squirrels
that has applications here indicated that when surveyed most
respondents preferred non-lethal methods of “pest control”
over other alternatives (“Valuation of Immunocontraception
as a Publicly Acceptable Form of Vertebrate Pest Species
Control: The Introduced Grey Squirrel in Britain as an
Example.” Http://www.ncl.ac.uk/clsm/people/mark_shirley/squirrels%)
As the authors note, control of pest species is an emotive
issue. However, their results indicated a favourable response
toward the use of immunocontraceptive approaches to pest
control from a variety of interest groups, as it was perceived
as both effective and humane
One local example of a feral rabbit
situation and of the negative publicity that lethal solutions
generate is the well known attempt by Victoria Hospital to rid
itself of a “feral rabbit” problem by hiring people to shoot
the rabbits. This case was widely reported in BC and beyond,
and public pressure at least allowed for time to mount an
attempt to rescue and then rehabilitate these rabbits. Similar
issues with feral rabbits have been reported throughout the
Pacific Northwest, including cases in California, Oregon and
Washington, as well as Alaska.
Even countries where rabbits have caused
large scale problems, such as Australia,funding and solutions
are moving toward more humane methods of control of rabbit
populations including research on various forms of
immunocontraception delivered either through an engineered
myxoma virus or in feed. (See, for example, “Plants that
make rabbits sterile.”
HTTP://wwwcomm.murdoch.edu.au/synergy/0303/rabbits.html,
“Virus could sterilise Australia’s rabbits.”
HTTP://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2647
). Work on immunocontraception is also being
supplemented by research into other non-lethal forms of rabbit
control including the development of repellents and visual
scaring devices (See for example the UK’s DEFRA final project
reports for project codes VCO414 and VCO218. The total project
costs for these two projects were close to 1/2 million pounds
sterling)
Perhaps these changes have been fuelled by
the growing awareness, particularly among groups that deal
with feral colonies of former domesticated pets, that lethal
control measures are ineffective where the root problem is not
animals but humans dumping animals. In many circumstances, the
quick fix promise offered by lethal solutions prove
ineffective as many feral colonies are also opportunisitic:
when populations are removed, other animals move to take over
territory, or fresh animals are dumped at sites. Effective
solutions to animal welfare and animal control problems are
moving toward an enhanced focus on public education and a
parallel move away from lethal solutions, in large part as a
response to public pressure.
Animal
welfare paradigms:
changing public perceptions
The past 30 years have seen a slow paradigm
shift toward improved animal welfare standards for all
animals, including farmed animals, zoo animals, experimental
and companion animals, and rabbits fall into most of these
categories Both proposals for improvement and the specific
implementation of improvements have been diverse, ranging from
such things as:
-
UBC’s Animal Welfare Program submission
on Bill C51 which referencestreatment of cephalopods such as
squid and octopi
-
European and Canadian foci on certified
ethically farmed (meat) animals
-
anti-tethering recommendations for
companion dogs implemented in Vancouver
-
and improved standards for the treatment
of experimental animals including the EECs moratorium on the
use of some Draize eye testing
Additional emphasis has been placed on the
psychological well-being of animals. Psychological factors now
form part of considerations provided by shelters in their
assessment of the companion animals that pass through their
facilities, and there have been a number of studies on the
minimalization of stress factors for meat, research/lab and
companion animals. For example the work of Temple Grandin on
minimalizing stressors for slaughterhouse beef is well known.
More locally Nadine Gourkouw’s (BC SPCA) studies back up other
model programs whereby the provision of “houses” or safe spots
in cat caging for surrendered cats improved “shelter”
adjustment time. This would naturally apply to rabbits as
well as they are a prey animal with a well-developed sense of
flight. Such housing is commonly used by rabbit
rescue/welfare organizations and the District of North
Vancouver’s animal shelter.
The
growing interest in animal welfare and rights is further
reflected in the fact that animal rights issues form a common
part of philosophy curricula at the post secondary level, and
that animal rights law is taught in many law faculties across
the world. Certainly interest in animals rights is indicated
when groups such as the University of Victoria Student Law
Society organize a forum on animal rights and when Canadian
Law faculty indicate animal rights as part of their specified
areas of interest.
This
paradigm shift is equally reflected in the language we use to
discuss those animals we share time and space with. For
example, the phrase “companion animal” is replacing use of the
term “pet”. In turn this can be argued to indicate a slow
progress toward the replacement of notions of “pet ownership”
with those of “(companion) animal guardianship” with its
concomitant acknowledgement of a benign stewardship in
relations with all animals.
Rabbits and broad welfare issues
Within
this diverse spectrum of animal welfare activities, rabbits
occupy a unique niche as the only common pet in the West it is
culturally acceptable to eat (this is not to say that no other
people keep as pets animals that might also be eaten). Having
said this, we would like to point out that there are in fact
no laws against eating your cat or dog and in fact there was a
recent cruelty case in Eastern Canada that was based on
someone cooking and apparently consuming a pet cat.
Broad welfare initiatives for companion
rabbits and an increasing awareness of the millions of rabbits
kept as household “pets” have spurred an increasing focus on
welfare issues directed toward rabbits and have certainly
shifted rabbits toward the privileged category of companion
animal we do not eat. Groups such as the Animal Welfare
Institute cite a growing list of research done on welfare
issues like group housing and environmental enrichment, the
House Rabbit Society has drawn attention to the similarities
between puppy and rabbit mills in discussing rabbits and the
pet store industry, and decreasing numbers of rabbits are
being used as experimental animals in Canada, with CCAC
statistics indicating that approximately 14,000 rabbits were
used for experimental purposes across Western Canada.
Similarly, local statistics on the numbers of rabbits farmed
in BC indicate an overall decline in the BC meat rabbit
industry.
Local
and international press regularly carry stories about rabbits,
including the plight of dumped domestic rabbits and ferals,
and cruelty to rabbit cases. There have been several instances
in the past couple of years where the University of Victoria
has received mention as a site of instances of rabbit cruelty,
and other local press coverage has discussed the plight of
Jericho Beach bunnies. In turn the relatively recent Animal
Cruelty web site (http://www.Pet-Abuse.Com)
lists numerous instances both in the US and internationally of
rabbit abuse cases, the majority of which deal with neglect
and abandonment, although the vast majority of Canadian rabbit
cruelty cases are not listed on this site. In brief, there are
an increasing number of groups now turning their attention to
rabbit welfare issues.
Animal welfare issues and local politics
More
recently there have been a number of submissions to city
councils on the issue or issues of animal welfare in the
municipalities. For example, in 2004 the Vancouver Humane
Society submitted a report to Vancouver City Council on
enhanced animals’ welfare legislation in BC that covered a
diverse range of issues including the sale of exotics, pet
store legislation, urban trapping, and pet overpopulation.
The recent coverage of the Cloverdale rodeo was also presented
within an animal welfare paradigm. The Lower Mainland houses
many of BC’s 130-140 registered charities that deal with
animal welfare, advocacy and conservancy issues, as well as
many additional provincially registered non-profit societies
and other less formal or not specifically Canadian groups,
such as PETA.
These
signs indicate animal welfare continues to be a topic for both
local and provincial politics and that rabbit welfare is
becoming more prominent as rabbits become better known as
companion animals, better understood and cared for through
ongoing research into rabbit welfare and health, and as their
treatment as public pests in some parts of the world comes
under public scrutiny and trends toward humane versus lethal
pest solution.
While
these broad issues may seem at first distant from the minutiae
of bylaw provision governing the treatment and sale of live
animals from pet establishments, we suggest the unevenly
drafted and applied levels of specification provided in
bylaws, with additional guarantees placed around the health
and well being of puppies and kittens but not rabbits or small
animals is logically confusing and in need of timely
amendment. Such amendments would be congruent with the
increased acceptance of rabbits as companion animals on a par
with dogs and cats, and with the growing awareness that many
of the conditions that affect the sale of puppies and kittens
also affect those of rabbit kits. Amending bylaws to specify
levels of care for rabbits would enhance overall welfare
standards for pet livestock, would provide additional
protection for consumers, and would be a proactive step in the
acknowledgement that animal welfare is an issue of public
concern.
Last
month the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce presented the
2005 Best Business Award to Natural-Plus Pet Supplies,
a successful business of 10 plus years that does not sell live
product. Instead, the owner and staff have focused on
“innovative pet health trends” and have “aided in educating
the community on the latest nutrition, alternative health care
and pet behaviour.” This is an example of the older style pet
livestock business being replaced, due in large part, to
public awareness and demand of a more progressive and
enlightened animal welfare orientated industry.
|