This is from the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT : RSBC 1996, CHAPTER 372

SECTION 24

Offence

24 ( 1) A person responsible for an animal who causes or permits the animal to be or continue to be in distress commits an offence.
( 2) Subsection ( 1) does not apply if the distress results from an activity that is carried on in accordance with rreasonable and generally acepted practices of animal management.

Is not tethering sled-dogs on short chains, with no off time, and with rain barrels for shelter accepted practices of treatment of sled-dogs? Also, could the BCSPCA not say that using a gun to euthanize sled-dogs was not an accepted method of disposing of them? From my understanding shooting sled-dogs to get rid of them is fairly common.

So, why doesn't the BCSPCA use its influence and time in a better way, to amend this portion of the PCA Act? Could they not define "generally accepted practices of animal management ," in a clearer fashion, thus to make it easier to protect sled-dogs?

The BCSPCA knows that sled dogs in general are in distress. It knows that they are kept outside (or with only a pretence of shelter) in sub-zero temperatures. The SPCA says that a person who causes or permits an animal to be or continue to be in distress commits an offence. So, if the BCSPCA knows that sled dogs are living in distress, and since they have the right to remove the dogs from the situation, are they not committing an offence? They are permitting the dogs to live in distress by their inaction.