The Act says (Section 24) that it is an offence to cause or permit distress to an animal.

The Act defines distress as:
(a) deprived of adequate food, water or shelter,
(b) injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or
(c) abused or neglected.

The SPCA has told hundreds of thousands of animal-lovers reporting severe neglect of a dog that distress only means (a).

If the animal was near death, it might (or might not) have used (b).

It has said that the definition of (c) is (a) and (b) which is illogical and evasive; (c) must be something other than (a) or (b).

The Act permits the SPCA to define (c)abused or neglected. All these years it could have been defining (c) as psychological neglect, but it chose to evade its duty to prevent the suffering of chained dogs by the dishonest interpretation of its powers under the Act. Consequently there is no case history of interpreting chaining as an offence under Section 24. Prosecutors and judges have not been educated by the process of the BC SPCA putting cases before it, as to what most citizens now believe to be cruelty. This should have been done many years ago and it must be started now.

This is what AAS has been trying to force the BC SPCA to do for five years. But the powers of the status quo are very powerful.

AAS and the internet and people like you have forced much change already. We just have to keep up the pressure until no one is allowed the cruelty of chaining, penning, garaging, and socially isolating dogs in Vancouver or in BC anymore.