My friend was looking after the dog (chihuahua) when the owner was away and took the dog to be x-rayed and saw that the leg was deformed (after being beaten) it had really bad hip problems and the gums on in it’s mouth was completely swollen and the dog had missing teeth (pretty bad teeth for it’s age).

She gets pets such as rabbits/dogs, her last last boyfriend purchased a great dane  (for breeding purposes) he also purchased a corgi  for her as a gift, and she always had her first dog which is a chihuahua (the one with swollen gums and bad hips) and also she had a pomeranian (bought for breeding purposes as well). Eventually they broke up she took all the dogs except for the corgi.

Every single dog in her and his care had broken legs and just wasn’t cared for properly. The great dane was left outside in the cold on the balcony all night in the freezing rain I witnessed it all and tried to let her back in but was unfortunatly caught and was told “just leave her outside” at the time I was “friends” with them. The corgi suffered scars on her head, a broken and severely swollen back leg she was only 3months old. around the 5th month mark they told everyone that the dog had jumped off the balcony and her neck broke in half and she died. The great dane was kicked in the chin with the tip of a shoe so hard I could hear her whimpering.

When they broke up she took the great Dane the pomeranian and her chihuahua. I asked her if I could take the pomeranian and care for it she told me “if you can potty train her you can keep her” which I did potty trained her teach her tricks, gave her a loving home eventually I was dishing out alot of money for the dog so I decided the dog is mine. I registered her and licensed her I have spent more then 1grand at least on all her injuries and rotting teeth.

So we filed animal cruelty against her. I guess I was really hoping for it to be an open and shut case where me and another person witnessed the beatings and abuse but it’s disappointing how me just seeing all of it happen in front of my own eyes wasn’t “proof” enough.

- Unsigned

Hi, I have information on a owner who neglects their dogs, beats and abuses them. I’m not exactly sure how to do this this is my first time. I don’t have proof, a video or picture but I do have eyes and I witnessed this all happening. I also have a friend who saw it happening. Because the owner of the dog was a friend no longer in communication with her though. I called the bcspca for a case, me and 2 other people. Seems that they can’t do anything without actually actually proof of it happening at the moment. All I can do is give them the information I had with what I remember and the time it was around.

Animal Advocates sent this email to the BC SPCA:

This account speaks to the matter of a lack in the PCA Act so that the SPCA can’t charge a person with cruelty based on witnesses’ reports, for example in the below email account and in the matter of the beaten Boston Terrier in Cowichan, where the beating was very public and where there were several willing witnesses.

I don’t know enough law to know if the Hong-Kong’s section 4 could allow also for the seizure of the allegedly beaten animal.  I would hope so.

Can you please reply with any information or opinion that the SPCA has regarding the usefulness of Hong-Kong’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, Section 4 and whether the SPCA is considering, or will consider, asking for an amendment to the PCA Act that would allow the SPCA to arrest the beater and seize the beaten animal?

- Judy Stone, North Vancouver, BC

This story has been updated with more information.

Could Hong-Kong’s Animal Cruelty laws have been used to arrest the beaten Boston Terrier’s owner?

Back story:  April 23, 2013 Cowichan BC: Chris Davies and other witnesses saw a man beating his Boston Terrier (read whole story).  In spite of there being willing witnesses the SPCA was unable to arrest the dog’s beater.
But Section 4 of the Hong-Kong Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance may have made it possible for the SPCA to arrest the terrier’s owner.

Section: 4 Power of arrests, seizure, entry and search
(1) Any senior veterinary officer, any other officer of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department of the grade of Field Officer II and above and authorized in writing by the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation, health officer, health inspector or police officer may arrest without warrant any person who he has reason to believe is guilty of an offence against section 3 or against any regulation under this Ordinance, whether upon his own view thereof or upon the complaint and information of any other person.  

If that means that the police and/or the SPCA could have arrested the Terrier’s beater on the information given by witnesses without there being proof of
distress, then perhaps the section should be added to the BC PCA Act.

~ Judy Stone, North Vancouver, BC

Could wording in the Hong-Kong Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance be used to ban rodeo in BC?  The Honk-Kong law specifies that being “infuriated” and “terrified” are against the law. Rodeo animals are “infuriated” and “terrified” into performing by the use of  goads such as chinches, electric prods, and spurs.  The  BC Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act’s definition of distress (cruelty) does not specify “infuriated” or “terrified”. If it did, could it be used to shut down rodeos in BC?
Hong-Kong Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance Section: 3
(1)   Any person who-
(a) cruelly beats, kicks, ill-treats, over-rides, over-drives, overloads, tortures, infuriates, or terrifies any animal, or causes or procures or, being the owner, permits any animal to be so used, or, by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act, causes any unnecessary suffering or, being the owner, permits any unnecessary suffering to be so caused to any animal.

All the Hong-Kong definitions of cruelty, even “infuriates” and “terrifies”, are generally covered in the BC Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act under its definitions of distress, specifically “suffering” and “abused”.  (http://www.spca.bc.ca/assets/documents/cruelty/pca-act.pdf):
BC PCA Act:(2) For the purposes of this Act, an animal is in distress if it is
(a) deprived of adequate food, water, shelter, ventilation, light, space, exercise, care or veterinary
treatment,
(a.1) kept in conditions that are unsanitary,
(a.2) not protected from excessive heat or cold,
(b) injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or
(c) abused or neglected.

But “infuriates” and “terrifies” may be hard to prove as “distress” in a BC court.  Animal Advocates Society would like to see “infuriates” and “terrifies” added to the above definitions of distress in the BC PCA Act.

Hong-Kong Penalties ….shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of $200,000 and to imprisonment for 3 years.
BC’s  summary conviction penalties are $75,000 and/or 2 years.

~ Judy Stone, Vancouver BC