|
Home
Donate
Contact Us
"Unchain Our Friends!"
End Dog Abuse
Report an Abused or Neglected Dog
Videos |
|
All Rescue Stories Moonlight Rescues & Happy Endings Dear Old Dogs Cat Rescue Our YouTube Channel |
A Lawyer's Opinion
A lawyer's opinion on if the SPCA is using the BC Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to prevent cruelty or not
The person who brought Bear to AAS's attention is Myriam Brulot, a lawyer, who saw Bear (and his then prison-mate) when walking her dog. After weeks of dealing with the SPCA, primarily with the SPCA's pound contracting boss, Brian Nelson, Ms Brulot wrote the following letter to the Vancouver Sun, January 17/00:
"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).
"For several weeks, I have been in contact with the Vancouver SPCA to do something for two dogs in my neighbourhood. They are tied outside to short chains, going for days, if not weeks, without any exercise, often without water, and sleeping in their own feces.
"I saw them many times, always tied and often standing and whimpering in the pouring rain. I called the SPCA, imagining that they would take the matter over from there.
"I was wrong. I am amazed at how long it took the SPCA to act, and how little, if anything, it would have done, had I not pestered it to do more. 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 a animal "deprived of adequate food, water, or shelter", "injured, sick, in pain or suffering" or "abused or neglected".
AAS comment:
Note that the PCA Act actually describes physical neglect (food, water, shelter) but also adds "abused or neglected", leaving that up to the SPCA to define. Did the framers of those words believe that the SPCA would use them to relieve the psychological suffering of isolation and confinement?
"These two dogs certainly were in distress. Yet it is only after much persistence on my part that they have permanent shelter from the rain, though none from the cold, in metal crates no bigger than a walk-in closet. The SPCA continues to tell me that little can be done.
"How many animals are rotting away in backyards today while the SPCA continues to tell us that there is nothing they can do? It may be time to question whether the SPCA is still, in practice,the committed and unimpeachable organization it once was."
(Signed) Myriam Brulot, Vancouver
AAS comment:
We have documented evidence going back 50 years, that the SPCA was no better then than it is now. We have talked to women who 30 years ago were forced to risk all to rescue a dog that the SPCA said it couldn't help. And to women who have been writing letters for just that long, to the heads of the SPCA, and to the Presidents, and to the Boards of Directors, and things have only got worse. And the SPCA stopped AAS from getting the inclusion of a clear definition of neglect into the BC PCA act. No clear definition means that the definition is left to the SPCA, and a thousand times a year they choose to define it narrowly as a lack of food, water, and shelter. And if the neighbours are keeping the dog alive by giving it food and water, the SPCA has said there is nothing they can do. And if the shelter is a tree that the dog has been chained to for years, the SPCA has said that is adequate shelter. AAS has been documenting and recording the SPCA's lack of prevention of cruelty or relief of suffering for several years, and the stories are shocking and revealing.
Also from Ms Brulot:
One thing is absolutely clear - because of the way the definition of "distress" is written, "neglect" has to be something other than inadequate food, water and shelter. While the interpretation of statutes is ultimately a task for the Courts, the SPCA, which is charged with enforcing the statute, is implicitly given the leeway to define the term. The big unanswered question is: How does the SPCA define neglect? If the SPCA does not consider an isolated,unexercised, confined animal neglected, WHY NOT?
The SPCA's answer (or at least Brian Nelson's) is that isolated, confined animals are a dime a dozen in the Lower Mainland.
Two answers to that point: Firstly, it that is the case, then the public needs to be educated. What is the SPCA doing to educate the public that keeping animals in such conditions is inhumane?
Secondly, the fact that there may be many such animals in the Lower Mainland indicates that the SPCA has not being doing its job. It does not mean that the SPCA does not have the power to come to these animals' aid.
I think it certainly can be argued that "neglect" under the PCA act can cover situations like the ones AAS describes, animals who are confined and isolated for a long period of time. I would suspect that an expert in dogs would confirm that they are social, pack animals who are distressed by prolonged social isolation. (See research that confirms this.)
AAS comment:
Only AAS and Mercy Volunteers Society have ever paid for newspaper ads urging people to bring their dogs inside, explaining the social nature of dogs, and asking for improvements to the laws. (See the
SPCA's careful, self-serving ads.) And in fact, rather than trying to educate dog-neglectors, the SPCA actually tells owners of neglected dogs to "ignore the neighbours, they're just trouble-makers." (See how the SPCA stopped AAS from improving the act.)
AAS has spent almost five years carefully documenting evidence going back 50 years, that the SPCA was no better then than it is now. We have talked to women who thirty years ago were forced to risk their safety to rescue a dog that the SPCA claimed it couldn't help. (To read more on this phenomenon, see Release the Hounds, Vancouver Magazine, September 2000, in which women known and assisted by AAS tell how and why they stole a suffering dog.) And to women who have been writing letters for just that long, to the heads of the SPCA, and to the Presidents, and to the Boards of Directors, and in spite of all their selfless work to prevent suffering, things have only got worse. And the SPCA stopped AAS from getting the inclusion of a clear definition of neglect into the BC PCA act. (See how the SPCA stopped AAS from getting a definition of neglect included in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act - the act that governs the BC SPCA and which they are charged to enforce, and how AAS got this irrefutable proof that the SPCA was serving itself - not animals.) No clear definition means that the definition is left to the SPCA, and thousands of times a year they choose to define it narrowly as only a lack of food, water, and shelter. And if the neighbours are keeping the dog alive by giving it food and water, the SPCA has said there is nothing they can do. And if the shelter is a tree that the dog has been chained to for years, the SPCA has said that is adequate shelter. AAS has been documenting and recording the SPCA's lack of prevention of cruelty or relief of suffering for several years, and the stories are shocking and revealing.
