WELFARE - Why Does Canadian Animal Cruelty Legislation Keep Failing?

Canada’s animal cruelty laws are far behind the global standard, and in fact Canada received a “D” on the global animal protection index.

A private member’s bill attempting to modernize Canadian animal cruelty legislation recently failed, the latest in a long string of proposed updates to the law that have failed to pass.

Why do proposed bills to update and modernize Canadian animal cruelty laws keep failing?

Canada is a country that prides itself on being progressive.

A recent Globe and Mail article said that, “The Canadian mandate that might have been called passive is now recognized as a policy of deliberate kindness and inclusion. Polite, maybe, but not without purpose.”

But this kindness seems not to extend to animals, a fact that stands in stark contrast to Canadian values in other areas.

According to the Canadian Federation of Human Societies, Canadian animal cruelty laws are positively Victorian, with current legislation that has not kept up with global standards since its introduction in 1892.

Cathy Thomas, past Executive Director of the Calgary Humane Society, worked with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies for over a decade while they attempted to spearhead an initiative to update the legislation.

She remembers struggles finding a champion in the Justice Minister, and bills dying during parliamentary prorogation or being caught up in omnibus bills.

But it wasn’t just process and procedure that got in the way.

Thomas says, “[One] issue was finding wording that would recognize the use of animals by all the various user groups - livestock, research, hunting, competition, etc. If you think of things like trapping, laying hens, feed lots, transportation, veal crates, gestation pens for sows, research practices (think of all the rats and mice), zoos, chuckwagon racing and rodeo, movies, show jumping, and more, a huge range of interests. [As well as] regional differences across the country, and the urban/rural divide.”

Even this doesn’t capture the full extent of complexity and resistance, or explain why bills continue to fail despite the fact that, according to Animal Justice, 92% of Canadians polled support updating the animal cruelty legislation.

Particularly given the link between animal abuse and domestic violence, strengthening these laws would help Canadians in multiple ways.

A 2012 study, by Antonio Verbora, of the politics of animal cruelty legislation in Canada found “the Canadian legal system continues to struggle in terms of how animals should be conceptualized in the law (i.e., as property or as sentient beings)” and this difficulty in conceptualization became a polarizing issue between political parties.

Resistance to animal cruelty legislation seems to frequently hinge not just on the concerns noted by Thomas regarding diverse stakeholders, but also a more visceral anxiety about the humanization of animals if legislation moves more towards treating animals as sentient beings rather than property.

This theme was, according to Verbora’s study, apparent in the majority of the parliamentary debates regarding bills to modernize the legislation.

Perhaps federal legislators can follow in the footsteps of the province of Quebec where, in 2015, legislation declared animals sentient beings with biological needs. 

While this is a giant step forward for Quebec, the law does have some weaknesses as it
completely excludes wildlife in captivity, farm animals, exotic species and zoo animals.

Whether the resistance comes from industry groups, parliamentary processes, or existential anxieties, if the majority of Canadians support change is it time for Canada to catch up when it comes to animal cruelty legislation?

By Tiffany Sostar

Tiffany is a writer, editor, academic, and animal lover who came late to her appreciation of pets. At 18, a rescue pup named Tasha saved her from a depression and she hasn't looked back. She has worked as the canine behaviour program coordinator for the Calgary Humane Society, and was a dog trainer specializing in working with fearful and reactive dogs for many years. She doesn't have any pets right now, but makes up for it by giving her petsitting clients (and any dogs she comes across on her frequent coffee shop adventures) extra snuggles. 

 

LEGISLATION - Updated Animal Cruelty Bill Defeated...Again

The decades-long lobby to amend Canada’s animal cruelty laws hit another dead end this week.

A private member’s bill from a Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine - Bill C-246, The Modernizing Animal Protections Act - was defeated at second reading by a vote of 198 to 84.

Bill C-246 sought to ban the import of shark fins, as well as the sale of cat and dog fur in Canada. It also aimed to amend Criminal Code provisions related to animal abuse, negligence, fighting, and bestiality.

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS), along with animal welfare organizations across the country, have been calling on the government to make changes to the animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code of Canada for over 25 years.

“While countries all over the world have updated or enacted effective animal cruelty legislation, Canada remains in the Victorian era with a federal animal cruelty law that was introduced in 1892,” the CFHS website states.

The long and winding road to change the laws began with Bill C-17 in 1999, which died shortly after it was tabled when an election was called.

The Liberal government reintroduced the bill several times and it repeatedly died because of prorogation of parliament.

In 2003, Bill C-10B got the hopes of animal lovers across the country up as it was supported by all parties in the House of Commons, but the Senate blocked its passage.

Multiple bills have been tabled, read, debated and Bill C-592 even passed second reading in 2014 but did not become law.

The defeat of C-246 was yet another setback for those lobbying for better protection for animals.

“I’m very disappointed that our Parliament didn’t stand up for animals today and refer the bill to committee,” said Barbara Cartwright, CEO of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.

“Animals are going to continue to be open to sexual abuse, stuck in fighting rings and being neglected — all without enforcement being able to do anything about it because of the way the legislation is written. As the representative for SPCAs and humane societies across the country, it’s a sad day.”

Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, pointed out that 92 percent of Canadians surveyed want stronger animal cruelty laws.

“The fact is we can’t continue to treat animals like tables and chairs. Our cruelty laws need to be strong enough to be able to punish people to the full extent of the law when animals are abused,” Labchuk told iPolitics, noting Canada has some of the worst animal cruelty legislation in the western world.

In fact, the World Animal Protection Organization’s Animal Protection Index, released in 2014, gave Canada a ‘D’.

They cited a number of issues including: the outdated legislation; rules around farm animal transportation that allow animals to go for two days without food, water and rest; and inconsistent protection for wild animals.

Leading the way on the index with ‘A’ ratings were the U.K., Switzerland, Austria and New Zealand. Canada ranked below developing countries such as Brazil, India and the Philippines.

Judging by the number of times animal welfare organizations and individuals across the country have supported new legislation, circulated petitions and called for change, the defeat of C-246 will not be the end.

It’s clear after 25 years of effort, the push for change will continue.

LEGISLATION - Proposed California Law Aims to Save Pets in Hot Cars

A proposed California state law called the ‘Right to Rescue Act’ (AB 797) would permit concerned citizens to save an animal believed to be in danger ‘by any means’.

(Citizen breaking window to remove dog from hot car, Ontario, 2016)

The act ‘provides legal immunity for a person who damages a car in a good faith effort to save an animal from dangerous conditions while trapped in a hot car.’

The act is a joint venture by the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the Humane Society of the United States.

Authored by Republican assembly member Marc Steinorth, he asserts there has been very little opposition to the bill but there is some concern that criminals will use it as an excuse to break windows.

“My only concern is sometimes people will jump the gun, so to speak, and just want to go in there and get the animal out without first giving themselves an opportunity to evaluate the situation or have someone in an official capacity evaluate the situation. But I like the idea that we can help them sooner than later,” he said, adding that waiting for law enforcement to arrive may be too late for the animal.

It's possible crime could lead to the inadvertent rescue of a dog trapped in a sweltering truck, as is the case in a recent instance where thieves broke into a car parked near a Chicago pub to steal a laptop – and wound up freeing a dog trapped in the sweltering vehicle where the outside temperatures had reached into the 80s (likely around 120F in the vehicle).

In order to be granted immunity, the person must be in compliance with the following:

Determine the car is locked or there is no other reasonable method to remove the animal from the vehicle; have a reasonable and good faith belief that the animal is in imminent danger if not immediately removed; contact law enforcement prior to entering the vehicle; use no more force than necessary to enter the vehicle; and, if the person does enter the vehicle, the person must remain nearby with the animal in a safe location until law enforcement arrives. The person may not leave the scene.

The bill follows closely acts enacted in Florida, Michigan, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

This year has seen other states enact such legislation.

In Ohio, former 2016 Republican presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich signed Bill 215 in March, allowing people to break animals and children in distress free from hot vehicles; the bill comes into effect at the end of August.

A similar bill was passed by the Massachusetts Senate in June.

By Lindsay Seewalt

Lindsay is an experienced journalist and mother of three whose heart and home is always open to a four-legged friend. With her Corgi, Angie, as household editor-in-chief, Lindsay gives back to the animal planet through the written word on anything and all ado about pets. She is passionate about topics regarding animal welfare and responsible pet ownership, which she aims to instill in both her readers and children to be compassionate animal lovers who are conscious and considerate that furry friends around the globe deserve a voice.

LEGISLATION - New Jersey Bill Will Ban Declawing

A proposed law would make New Jersey the first state to ban declawing of cats.

Assemblyman Troy Singleton has sponsored legislation that would add onychetomy, the medical term for declawing, to the list of criminal animal cruelty offenses.

Veterinarians that perform the surgery and people who seek it out would face a fine of up to $1,000 or six months in jail. Violators would also face a civil penalty of $500 to $2,000.

Declawing done for medical reasons would be exempt from the new law.

Most people have their cats declawed to protect their property from scratching, however, rather than for medical reasons.

Declawing traditionally involves the amputation of the last bone of each toe - something many animal organizations feel is inhumane. If performed on a human being, it would be like cutting off the tip of each finger at the joint.

The American Veterinary Medical Association states, “declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively or when its clawing presents a zoonotic risk for its owner(s).”

The Humane Society of the United States “opposes declawing except for the rare cases when it is necessary for medical purposes, such as the removal of cancerous nail bed tumors.”

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association is currently conducting a membership consultation about their domestic cat declawing policy.

If New Jersey passes this legislation, it will be following in the footsteps of a variety of countries around the world.

Declawing traditionally hasn’t been as common in places like Britain, where it was outlawed in 2006.

Many European countries prohibit or significantly restrict the practice, as do Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Turkey.

In the U.S., New York State also has pending legislation to ban the practice, and cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Burbank, Berkeley, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills already have bans in place.

LEGISLATION - Law Prevents Local Governments from Regulating Pet Stores

Arizona Governor, Doug Ducey, recently signed a bill that takes away the ability of cities to prevent pet stores from selling commercially bred animals.

Taking effect August 6th, the law immediately voids existing regulations in cities like Phoenix and Tempe where pet stores are only allowed to sell rescue and shelter dogs and cats.

The new legislation does require pet stores to ensure they are obtaining their dogs and cats only from breeders who comply with standards set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

For many, though, the USDA standards are not good enough.

Tucson councilman Steve Kozachik called the standards “an absolute farce.”

“The USDA is in business to inspect meat in Safeway, not to protect the welfare of dogs in stores,” he said. “The governor needs to understand that by signing this bill he’s embracing ‘puppy mill’ standards that the USDA has admitted in its own documents that they are unable to enforce.”

The new law imposes penalties on pet store owners who do not take steps to ensure that their animals are from breeders that the USDA considers acceptable.

However, a pet store can argue that it conducted a search of USDA inspection reports and did not find violations.

Read the full story.

LEGISLATION - Bill Proposed to Help Dogs in Hot Cars

The B.C. NDP are hopeful that the Christy Clark government will take a bill proposed to assist animals in distress seriously.

The Distressed Animal Act 2016 was proposed by New Democrat MLA Selena Robinson in last week’s legislature ‑ with the objective to be passed before summer – and would grant bylaw enforcement the authority to seize distressed animals from hot vehicles with improper ventilation, even breaking vehicles windows when necessary to do so.

“We cannot have another summer with animals dying while left alone in hot vehicles, it is time to act,” Robinson said last week, adding that the bill has widespread municipal support.

According to Robinson, the BC SPCA received 850 reports of animals left unattended in hot vehicles in 2013 and 1,000 reports in 2014.

While police officers have the authority to assist animals in distress, Robinson said these resources may be better spent elsewhere; presently, the 26 BC SPCA animal protection officers often have to call on the police to assist with animals in hot cars.

The legislation would amend the Motor Vehicle Act, the Community Charter and Vancouver Charter to ensure safer transportation of animals in vehicles and would require that animals are provided with proper ventilation and protection from extreme weather when being transported or are left unattended in vehicles.

According to the bill, adequate ventilation means access to airflow through a space of at least 500 cm squared; and extreme temperature is defined as 27 degrees Celsius or higher in an enclosed space; temperatures above that can feel like more than twice that hot to a dog in a confined space with no airflow.

The B.C. SPCA has a section devoted to pets in hot cars on their website, outlining the dos and don’ts over leaving pets unattended in (hot) vehicles, including emergency veterinary care resources and symptoms that pets are experiencing heat stroke.

They caution pet owners to not rely on air conditioning systems in vehicles, which can malfunction when left unattended.

By Lindsay Seewalt

Lindsay is an experienced journalist and mother of three whose heart and home is always open to a four-legged friend. With her Corgi, Angie, as household editor-in-chief, Lindsay gives back to the animal planet through the written word on anything and all ado about pets. She is passionate about topics regarding animal welfare and responsible pet ownership, which she aims to instill in both her readers and children to be compassionate animal lovers who are conscious and considerate that furry friends around the globe deserve a voice.

China's First Welfare Codes for Feed Lots, Slaughter Houses

China will have its first draft animal husbandry and slaughtering standards code by June, according to the Chinese Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), which is working with 30 domestic livestock breeding and slaughtering enterprises to draft the standards.

As reported by Mark Godfrey on GlobalMeatNews.com, the code will cover pigs, poultry, sheep, beef and dairy cattle, and is being driven by a demand for quality and food safety as well as animal welfare concerns.

Historically, animal welfare hasn’t been a high priority for China, but awareness has increased in recent years.

Read the entire story here:

http://www.globalmeatnews.com/Safety-Legislation/China-s-first-welfare-code-for-feed-lots-slaughterhouses-due-in-June

B.C. Government to Strengthen Laws Governing Cat and Dog Breeding

The B.C. government recently announced it is beefing up its animal cruelty laws to better safeguard vulnerable cats and dogs from irresponsible commercial breeders.

Under its Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the province will set out rules outlining stringent practices for breeders in both kennel and cattery operations.

“Animal cruelty is unacceptable,” says Premier Christy Clark. “We’re taking another step towards stopping those cat and dog breeders who don’t provide adequate care. Together with the BC SPCA and key stakeholders, we will develop a system that supports responsible pet breeders in B.C., and targets the ones that aren’t.”

Housing, ventilation, food and water, care and supervision, as well as behavioural needs, socialization and transportation will be covered under the Codes of Practice, which enhances existing rules and sees B.C. boast the toughest provincial penalties in Canada aimed at protecting animals.

Under the Act, charges can be laid against anyone who causes suffering or distress to an animal with those convicted facing maximum penalties of $75,000 and up to 24 months imprisonment.

“British Columbians deserve the certainty that companion animals sold in our province are born and raised in a secure, caring environment, and we will be bringing in changes to help ensure it,” Jane Thornthwaite, MLA for North Vancouver-Seymour says. “We’ll be working with the BC SPCA, veterinarians, reputable breeders, and other stakeholders to see how we can best target commercial dog and cat breeders who do not provide appropriate care to animals.”

Legislation highlights include requiring “prompt and adequate veterinary care (be) provided” for dogs who are “sick, injured, in pain or suffering” - and for cats, “veterinary care is provided at the first indication that the animal is not well.”

It also calls for daily cleaning and sanitizing, minimal spacing requirements for housing for dogs and cats and requires written procedures for animal care be posted and thus available to personnel at all times.

The rules rely on the Canadian Veterinary MedicalAssociation’s Codes of Practice for both kennel and cattery operations as generally accepted management practices for cat and dog breeders in the province – a move commended by Craig Daniell, chief executive officer of the BC SPCA. “British Columbians are passionate about animal welfare. Recent events have reinforced the public’s desire for regulation of breeders to prevent animal suffering,” he says.

Consultations are underway to look at everything from breeder licensing and inspection regulations in the development of new laws to assist the SPCA monitor and take action against irresponsible breeders.

Legislation amendments are anticipated in 2017.

While the government encourages people to report any events which may be in contravention of laws and regulations, Catherine King, breeder and owner of Splendent Standard Poodles, says citizens can play a part in preventing animal abuse “by only purchasing from recognized breeders who treat their animals with the love, care and respect they deserve.”

In 2011, the province introduced enhancements to animal cruelty laws with higher penalties and greater accountability stemming from the reported mass killings of 100 sled dogs.

By Nadia Moharib
Nadia Moharib is an animal lover who has adopted everything from birds to hamsters, salamanders, rabbits, fish and felines. She has written about all-things-pets for years and was a long-time editor of a pet magazine in a daily newspaper which featured a Q & A column, Ask Whit, penned by her pooch (ghost written, of course.) The serial dog owner lives in Calgary, Alberta and most days can be found at a dog park picking up after her rescue pooch, Scoots.

Recommended Changes to Minneapolis Animal-Related Ordinances

Council Member Andrew Johnson of Minneapolis believes that changes in the city’s animal-related ordinances will be beneficial and a “huge step for those who care about animal issues.” Johnson worked on recommendations with Minneapolis Animal Care and Control officials and Citizens for Minneapolis Animal Care. The recommendations help define the responsibilities of pet owners and the city shelter.

                               

Minneapolis does not allow residents to own reptiles but these recommendations may allow reptiles as licensed pets. Rabbits are currently licensed pets but that may no longer be necessary. Ferrets will still require licenses due to their requirement for up-to-date rabies vaccinations.

Some of the recommendations support practices that are currently being developed. The city shelter has been fostering relationships with other rescue organizations in order to reduce the number of animals being euthanized. Minneapolis Animal Control Deputy Director, Caroline Hairfield said, “Our goal is to be able to adopt or transfer to other facilities all animals who are healthy and placeable in the sense of being mentally and physically treatable.”

Johnson also wants the city to change the way wild animals are euthanized. Currently injured wild animals are euthanized in a gas chamber (article did not state which gas is used). Johnson would like wild animals to be euthanized in the same way domestic animals are, by lethal injection.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE