The Panel recommends that "the BC SPCA needs to create internal species-specific standards and definitions by which it will enforce the Act. A first step would be to more closely define what constitutes distress, particularly the third branch of the definition – “neglect”.

The Panel goes on to say that "We point out that while the interpretation of the statute is ultimately the task of the Crown and the Courts, it is the BC SPCA’s role, in practical terms, to determine what the terms used in the PCA Act’s definition of distress mean."

In the fall of 2002 I asked CEO Craig Daniell, in front of a room full of people, whether he intended to make any changes to the PCA Act with regards to how it defined neglect. His answer to me was that he was happy with the wording of the Act and that he had no intention of altering the definition. So it's not surprising that the BC SPCA, under Mr. Daniell's direction, is not lobbying the provincial government for improvements to its animal welfare Act. Mr. Daniell sells himself as being passionate about animal welfare, and he may just be that. But it confuses me that he is not interested in turning guidelines into laws. Guidelines are only that - just guidelines. They are not laws.

In 1997, Animal Advocates Society lobbied the provincial government to adopt its Humane Treatment of Dogs bylaws, which it had had passed in eleven municipalities, province wide. The BC SPCA actually STOPPED the provincial government from considering improving the Act by adopting these laws. The BCSPCA said it was happy with the Act as it was. At the very same time it was telling people all over BC who reported cruelty that there was nothing it could do, as the laws weren't good enough.

The public is asking for better laws, the Panel is recommending the BC SPCA improve the definition for its own Act, yet the BC SPCA has yet to "raise the bar". What's the holdup?

Interestingly, Mr. Daniell also told me at that same meeting that he was seeking to "streamline" the seizure process. He wanted to make it so that there were less hoops to jump through before an animal could be seized. At the time I thought this was a good thing. Now I have a better understanding of what he was really talking about. In light of the way that the SPCA has been seizing animals under Mr. Daniell's direction, I can surmise that he would begin his "streamlining" by taking out the bit about the "Offence Warning Notice", leaving the net wide open for the SPCA to swoop in and make its glorious media-charged show of "animal welfare". I guess it's really all about what works for the SPCA, not the animals.