This trial is not based on an infraction of an animal-ethics law as the ethics of animal welfare is not yet law anywhere, nor even agreed upon by the two sides in this issue: Those who gain financially from the business of disposing of unwanted animals (pounds and animal-disposal contracting "humane societies") and those who feel compassion for helpless animals but who do not gain by disposing of animals (mainly academics, clergy, philosophers, and journalists).
This trial is to decide if, by giving the impression that they were going to take compassionate care of the animals that trusting people gave them, PETA employees are "guilty of cruelty to animals and of obtaining property by false pretences".
Obtaining animals by appearing to be sincerely trying to rehome them is the way that the pet-shuffling/animal-disposing business works, and it is worth many millions of dollars a year to many so-called animal-welfare societies, some of which pay their employees handsomely, even outrageously. But if the animal is killed because the society won't pay for its vet care or its rehabilitation then the society is in the pet-shuffling/pet-disposing business in our opinion.
The pet-shuffling business is defined by some or all of:
Cheap kennels and cages. Limited or no vet care. Limited or no rehabilitation. No home checks. No follow-up phone calls. Paid contracts to control and dispose of stray animals and dangerous dogs.
Some pounds are better than others. The Capital Regional District pound does home checks. It works with Greater Victoria Animal Crusaders which pays for the vet care and rehabilitation of the pound's sick animals or its difficult dogs.