Categories
News/Blog

Vote for a kinder world in the B.C. local elections

Municipal elections are coming up. Will you cast your vote for a kinder world for animals?

On October 15th, municipalities in B.C. will hold their elections of local government and school boards. The weeks leading up to this election are the perfect opportunity to advocate for better protections for animals!

Candidates for mayor and council are listening to the concerns of residents and laying out their platform. By writing to the candidates and asking questions in local debates, you can:

  • Let the incoming local government know that animal welfare is a priority for residents
  • Find out where candidates stand on protecting animals
  • Help to build a community that is kinder to all species by helping to elect animal-friendly candidates

Get updates and alerts about local elections in B.C.

This action has now ended.

Thank you to everyone who signed up for updates and who advocated for animal protection during the election. The VHS will continue to work with successful candidates to build a kinder community for all species who live here.

See more campaigns

Contact your local candidates to express your support for animal-friendly policies

Let your candidates know that animal protection is a priority to the residents they hope to represent. Below is an email template you can copy and customize when you reach out to your candidates by phone, email, or social media.

I am writing regarding your local election campaign. As a resident, I would like to express my support for bylaws and practices that consider the welfare of animals and the many people in our community who care for them. 

I encourage you to support policies that protect the well-being of animals, including:

-	Supporting pet-friendly affordable housing
-	Reducing animal-based food purchasing
-	Supporting an end to the use of animals in entertainment
-	Ending the keeping of wild and exotic animals who suffer in captivity

I would be interested to hear about your platform commitments related to animal protection. Please reach out if you can provide any details about how you will support kindness toward all species if elected.

Thank you.

Tip: To find your local candidates, visit your municipality’s website or search for “[Your municipality’s name] local election 2022”. You can find the list of candidates in Vancouver here.

Attend local debates and ask questions.

Wild and exotic animals (animals not native to B.C.) kept in captivity have complex needs that aren’t being met in cages and tanks and that are crucial for their physical and mental well-being.

Asking questions at mayoral debates and other local events helps you to learn where candidates stand on animal protection issues, and lets candidates know that animal welfare is a priority of residents.

Below are some suggested questions covering a range of municipal policies.

Animals in captivity

  • Wild, exotic animals have unique needs that cannot be met in captivity. If elected, will you support ending the keeping of wild and exotic animals in permanent captivity for the sake of entertainment and education, in favour of genuine rescue, rehab and release programs and wildlife conservation efforts?
  • Currently, provincial Controlled Alien Species legislation only restricts the private keeping of certain animal species, while many animals that are not suitable for captivity fall through the gaps. For instance, provincial laws do not prohibit the private keeping of zebras. Municipalities have the power to introduce positive lists, which proactively only allow animals that are evidenced to be a suitable fit for domestic environments. Would you support a positive pet list approach?

Animals in Entertainment

  • As we learn more about animal welfare, more people are opposing the use of animals in entertainment such as rodeos and sled dog tourism. If elected, will you support ending the use of animals for entertainment purposes in favour of animal and family-friendly events?
  • The presence of horse-drawn vehicles in urban areas poses a risk to horses, pedestrians, and drivers. Montreal has already banned horse-drawn carriages. If elected, would you support a move away from horse-drawn vehicles?

Farmed Animals

  • Municipalities take a stance on dietary choices when they purchase food for meetings, events, and concessions, or offer food-related funding. The City of Vancouver has already committed to exploring a 20% shift toward plant-based foods, which will help to decrease emissions, cut food purchasing costs, and save animal lives. Would you support a similar commitment to increase plant-based food purchasing?

Companion animals

  • British Columbia is experiencing a housing crisis, and many people with pets are finding it extremely difficult to find affordable housing. If elected, will you support ending the “no pets” rental policies?
  • During the flooding crisis in late 2021, many families with pets were left without adequate accommodation options. Would you support emergency planning that considers animals, including companion animals?

Wildlife

  • There are significant gaps in provincial legislation around rodent poison use, as many animal protection and wildlife rescue organizations have pointed out. Would you support a full ban on dangerous rodenticides being used on municipal property?

Vote on or before October 15

Your vote counts! You can use yours to speak up for animals on voting day or at advance polls. You can find details about advance polling dates, voting locations, and candidates on your municipality’s website.

Categories
News/Blog

Podcast: “Dangerous dog” laws

All episodes

Dogs have a meaningful place in many families across Canada; but what happens if a dog is deemed “dangerous”?

In this month’s episode of The Informed Animal Ally’s series on animal cruelty, animal law lawyer Rebeka Breder joins the Vancouver Humane Society’s Amy Morris and Chantelle Archambault to discuss “dangerous dog” laws, including how a dog is deemed “dangerous”, and what happens as a result.

Note: This written interview has been edited for length.

Rebeka Breder portrait

Animal Law Lawyer

Rebeka Breder practiced for more than a decade in a Vancouver law firm specializing in animal law and civil litigation before becoming a founding lawyer at Breder Law, Western Canada’s first law firm to focus exclusively on animal law. She is known as a trailblazer in developing Animal Law in Canada for over a decade. 

Municipal bylaws

A group of pitbull puppies run in the grass. Pitbulls are still considered a dangerous dog in some laws, evidence to the contrary.

Chantelle: Can you tell us a little bit about what dangerous dog laws are and your experience defending dogs who are deemed “dangerous”?

Rebeka: Yes, there are really two main areas. There’s the municipal bylaws and dealing with “dangerous” or “aggressive” dogs. And there are provincial laws that deal with the same issues.

So when it comes to the municipal level, which is at the city level, those types of cases often arise when people are out walking their dogs. And there are some kind of incident between the dog who’s being walked with another dog or the dog with another person. And those types of cases also range so much.

It could be anything from dogs kind of being dogs and playing in a dog park; and there’s a dog who is very possessive over his ball and another dog tries to take that ball away and then the dogs start fighting and one of the dogs gets injured.

Or a person trying to break up a fight between two dogs at a dog park and then the person gets injured.

Or let’s say a person is walking their reactive dog. And I’ll just pause here to say that there’s a very big difference between reactive dogs and truly aggressive dogs. So when you have reactive dogs on a leash walking in an on leash area—in other words, in areas where dogs are supposed to be leashed, like on a street—and then you have someone walking their dog not on leash and the dog that off-leash dog run up to the dog who’s leashed and then the reactive dog barks and reacts, and then the other off-leash dog gets aggressive and then there’s a fight that starts, then the question is, well, whose fault is it?

And very often I could tell you that whichever dog caused the injury, regardless of the circumstances, is more often than not considered guilty, even though the dog guardian who was walking their dog on leash didn’t do anything wrong. I had a recent case like that, so it’s kind of top of mind.

Or this one where there were puppies off leash in an area where they were supposed to be on leash, walking to an off-leash dog park. At some point, one of the puppies allegedly jumped and attacked a child. I’m going to focus on that as an example.

The woman got upset because her kid fell. My client’s dog was four months old and looks like a pitbull. The police ended up coming. The child was seen running around and not injured. So what ended up happening was that the woman complained to animal control, animal control then brought charges for bylaw infractions for dog off leash and a dog biting, attacking, and injuring.

There was a trial. What it came down to is whether what happened was a dog attack. If you’re found guilty of allowing your dog to bite attack or injure, then that causes complications for the dog guardian and the dogs, because that’s a huge strike against the dog on his or her file. If there’s another incident, it gives stronger grounds for the city to seize the dog and put the dog on death row.

So just going back for a moment to this case that I was talking about with the puppies playing, and it came down to whether in this context of play, if there was some contact between the puppy and the child, was it an attack?

We, first of all, argued that there was no contact, but if there was contact that it wasn’t an “attack”. Maybe the puppy jumped on the child because the puppy was on his way to get the ball, saw a kid, got excited, jumped on the child. The kid was 18 months old and didn’t have stability and fell, but it wasn’t an attack. The dog didn’t bite the child.

I was essentially making the argument that the whole purpose of these animal control bylaws is to prevent actual aggressive dogs from harming the public. It would be a huge mistake if courts started penalizing dogs in the context of play or penalizing dog guardians in the context of play, because that’s not what these bylaws are designed for.

Luckily, the court ended up agreeing, and so we have good case law now that talks about how an “attack” in the context of play is not an attack.

Now that said, I’m just gonna pause here to say, it still does not give dog guardians the right to let their dogs free wherever they want to. I’ve learned just from having a reactive dog myself a number of years ago, that out of respect for reactive dogs who don’t appreciate other dogs coming into their personal space, that we need to respect each other’s spaces.

So again, in a summary, in the municipal context, when we’re dealing with so-called aggressive dogs, usually it’s either fines or a combination of fines and a guilty plea where a dog is deemed to have bit attacked or injured a person. So that’s kind of in the municipal context.

Provincial laws

A dog in a kennel. Dogs seized due to dangerous dog laws can be held for months while waiting for a trial.

Rebeka: In the provincial context, there are barely any laws. There are two provincial pieces of legislation in B.C., the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter. The community charter covers all cities in British Columbia, except for Vancouver. The Vancouver charter deals specifically with Vancouver.

And within both of those acts, there are only 10 to 11 provisions dealing with “dangerous dogs”. It’s certainly a far cry from having a complete code or rules dealing with these types of situations.

There’s a definition of what a dangerous dog is; it’s basically a three part test.

One is whether an animal control officer had reasonable grounds to believe that a dog will likely injure a person. Another one is whether the dog went off his or her own property and injured another animal. And then the other part of the test is whether the dog is likely to cause serious injury to another person.

Serious injury isn’t defined. There is no requirement that any qualified professionals are involved in this.

If an animal control officer believes that a dog meets a definition of dangerous, they do have the power to come and seize a dog and put the dog on death row. That said, and a lot of people don’t realize this, is that when animal control officers show up at someone’s door, they actually don’t have the right to just take your dog. They have to have a warrant; that is one of the provisions in the provincial legislation.

What happens more often than not, and I’ve seen it many times in my cases, they tell the dog guardian, you have to give your dog. People don’t know their rights, so they give their dog up to animal control. The dog ends up at the shelter for months, if not well over a year until the matter is actually heard in court.

Then it’s a whole trial process with witnesses, experts, with a judge. It’s a long, emotional, stressful, expensive process. And often it comes down to a “he said, she said” type of thing.

In these cases really fundamentally what would I focus on? The bulk of our case has to do with what a qualified animal behaviorist has to say.

And so the expert comes into court to explain what she believes really happened. And then just as importantly, if not more importantly, explains to the court what the management plan should be for this dog and whether the dog guardian is willing to follow this management plan.

What a management plan essentially is, is we put together a plan to make sure that an incident like that doesn’t happen again. And that would usually involve things like muzzling, if that’s what’s required, or a change in diet, to some temporary medication to help deal with anxiety, to property, making sure that there’s proper fencing, to dog training. That dog training is just as much for the dog guardian as it is for the dogs. And really keeping up with making sure that the welfare of the dog is good.

And in all of my cases, I could tell you that I’m yet to lose a dog in any of these cases. I really try to surround myself with individuals who know more than me in this area who could help the dog and the court to explain that this dog is, is not a threat to the community.

So you have these provincial laws, which as I said, there’s barely anything in there. There’s a definition of dangerous dog. There’s a requirement that you need a warrant. And then there’s a provision that allows an animal control officer to bring an application, to put a dog on death row. And other than that, there’s nothing else really of substance in there.

The judges in the past have allowed dogs, even though they have been designated as “dangerous”, to be returned on conditions, which in my cases was essentially the management plan put into the form of court order. So it was enforceable if the person breached any of those or breach of a court order, and then there, there could potentially be consequences. I can’t speak from experience what those consequences would be, because none of my clients have ever breached them as far as I know. So we never got to that point. It always worked.

And in 2019, all of that changed when the highest court in his province said these conditional orders are not allowed. If a dog is deemed dangerous, the dog has to be put down. Or if the dog is not an unacceptable risk to the public, then the dog is returned back to the dog guardian.

In the last couple of cases that I’ve been involved in that have gone to trial, we focused on the expert testimony and that the dog does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public. And we’re able to show that with the use of expert evidence.

In the eye of the beholder

A beware of dog sign on a personal property fence.

Amy: That was really helpful, Rebeka. And it brings to mind a couple tangents that we can chat about. The first one that brings to mind is the question of “livestock”. There’s a section in the Livestock Act on dogs causing injury or damage, that essentially states a person may kill a dog if the person finds the dog running at large and attacking or viciously pursuing livestock. You mentioned these definitions of terms.

So what is “viciously pursuing” and how can someone define that if they’re alone on their property, and they’re the only one observing it? It leaves it up to the layperson to make a decision as to whether or not they’re allowed to kill a dog.

Rebeka: Yes, exactly. That reminds me of another tangent, which is that the City of Vancouver is in the process of amending its animal control bylaws. There are a number of changes that are going to come into effect as of January 2023.

One of them has to do with the definition of an aggressive dog. Right now, and I’m paraphrasing, an aggressive dog in the City of Vancouver is essentially defined as a dog that has either bit, attacked, or seriously injured another dog or person, or has the propensity to do that.

The new definition is going to include some of that, but it is also going to include a dog that exhibits “aggressive behavior”. The way the City of Vancouver is defining aggressive behavior is any action by a dog that reasonably threatens a person or domestic animal and includes snarling growling, or pursuing a person or domestic animal in a hostile manner.

So there are number of issues there. First and foremost, it is so subjective. And I have already seen it in my cases where there’s someone who either doesn’t like dogs, or is scared of dogs, or is scared of pitbull type of dogs.

The dog runs up to the person who’s scared of that dog, not in an aggressive way, but just to say hi. You have two totally different perspectives on the dog’s behavior, coming from the dog guardian and the person who doesn’t like the dog. Then it’s up to animal control to investigate.

More often than not, they side with the alleged victim. And that’s going to go to court and cost dog guardians time, money, stress.

So that definition really concerns me, because it is so subjective. What does hostile manner mean? Again, it’s in the eyes of the beholder. What does pursue mean?

I could see that what the city’s really trying to do is nip the problem in the bud, so to speak very early on so that once truly aggressive behavior is detected. They’re trying to educate the public to deal with the issue. I’m worried that it’s going to have a countereffect and that in some cases, it will work, but in many cases, it won’t.

On that note the Vancouver definition, and any other definition that I’m aware of dealing with aggressive dogs or vicious dogs or dangerous dogs, does not require the involvement of a qualified professional in making that determination. So it’s essentially animal control officers who are enforcement officers, not animal behaviorists, yet they are put in positions where they are legally allowed to designate a dog as aggressive or dangerous, which could have very serious implications for the dogs and for their guardians.

Usually that means that the dog can no longer play off leash in dog parks, always has to be muzzled when in public areas, sometimes it requires a person to build an enclosure within their property. It just really limits the welfare and the freedom of the dog guardians as well as the dog owners.

“Aggressive behaviour” or communication?

A small dog snarling. Dogs may snarl to communicate discomfort.

Amy: Going back to your explanation of the definition where you’re talking about snarling. We have this ladder of animal behavior of communication signals. They start maybe looking away and different nervous behaviors towards. Maybe a quick flash of the teeth, maybe a little growl. And these behaviors are important because the dog is letting everyone else in the area know, “I’m uncomfortable”.

And so the problem with having laws that penalize some of these behaviors is that people start to punish their dogs or start to tell their dog, “No, don’t show your teeth.” And what that actually does is the opposite effect where suddenly a dog that’s communicating really well gets punished for that communication. Well, they might skip all of that communication and go to a bite, because they’ve been taught in the past that all of that other communication isn’t allowed.

And so it, it could have that adverse effect of people thinking they need to punish their dogs for clear communication and having an increase of bites. So that’s sort of the thing that I find so conflicting with some of these laws is that they have the psychological effect on people that it’s not okay for a dog to do.

Whereas if you spend every day paying attention to your dog’s signals, you learn that, okay, my dog gave a little growl because the other dog tried to steal her stick and she wanted some space and that’s a very healthy thing to do.

Rebeka: Yeah, exactly. I couldn’t agree more. And there’s also some dogs who bark, not because they’re being aggressive, but it’s just the way they communicate. They’re excited, it’s anything but aggressive.

On the flip side, dogs who are wagging their tails does not always mean that the dog’s happy. Wagging a tail could actually be part of the excitement package, where the dog’s arousal is going up, which actually could lead to aggression.

It also depends on the body language. You could literally see some dogs almost have a smile. When my little guy is happy and he’s running toward me, his face just lights up and he’s smiling and he’s wagging his tail and he’s happy.

But anyway, I just wanted to point out that there are, there are, um, there are those times when, when people wrongfully perceive a wagging of a tail as a good sign when actually the behavior is potentially on its way to becoming an aggressive behavior.

Breed specific legislation (BSL)

A dog wearing a muzzle, as required by some breed specific bylaws.

Amy: Yeah, absolutely. And I think the reason that municipalities are trying to go to these descriptions of aggressive behavior is because they’re maybe trying to move away from breed specific laws, which are worse.

And just to kind of talk a little bit more about breed specific laws, these can look different based on the community. In some cases, certain breeds are completely banned from a community and other cases they’re required to wear a muzzle. They’re often “specific” to a random assortment of breeds. Every municipality is different in what they choose to include or not include, but none of them are backed by data that shows consistent poor behavior in a specific type of breed.

Rebeka: Absolutely. And let me just say that in Canada, other than Ontario, no other province has a complete ban on pitbulls or bully breeds, so to speak. But there is breed specific legislation (BSL) throughout Canada, including British Columbia

On the positive side, Vancouver used to have BSL, but I believe back in 2005 Vancouver actually repealed that. And then after that, North Vancouver, Delta, Castlegar, Cumberland, Coquitlam, White Rock, Pitt Meadows, New Westminster.

The cities did that because they realized that it’s so hard to enforce those bylaws, because those bylaws usually say something like a pitbull or a dog with “characteristics” or “appearance” of a pitbull—what does that mean—must be muzzled, and must not be off leash in any areas. And secondly, we know the behavior of a dog does not depend on the breed.

If you ask any reputable animal behaviorist, they will tell you that it is just nonsensical and it just buys into the myth that pitbulls and dogs like that are more vicious or aggressive than others. And there are so many myths, including like that pitbulls’ jaws lock—that just doesn’t happen—or pitbulls can cause a lot of damage.

Well, actually there were peer reviewed scientific articles that compared to bite pressure of purebred pitbulls to other dogs, including German Shepherd and rottweilers, and actually found that other breeds have a stronger bite pressure than pitbulls.

I’m often asked, well then why do you always hear about pitbulls in the media? There are a number of reasons why that is, namely because it just catches people’s attention more.

But what I think is one of the bigger problems in this whole pitbull debate is that when the numbers of so-called pitbull attacks are reported, those are based on laypeople’s observations of the dog. So someone could say, that dog was a pitbull. And so it gets reported as a pitbull attack without really knowing whether the dog was actually a pitbull. And we know for a fact that in so many cases, the dog in question was actually not a pitbull.

There have been mistakes here in British Columbia. I remember a number of years ago in, in Fort St. John, in Yaletown, in Richmond. These are just three examples from top of mind where they were reported as pitbull attacks only later to be discovered that the dog in question was another breed that looked like a pitbull, but wasn’t.

Pitbulls end up getting this really bad rap, because really for every so-called pitbull attack, there are many, many, many more pitbulls who are living wonderful, happy, loving lives with good guardians.

Chantelle: A common thread in everything you’ve been saying is subjectivity. The behaviour and enforcement is all subjective. The snarling can not necessarily indicate aggression. And then the breeds are very subjective up to the individual doing the enforcement.

You mentioned a lot of municipalities that have removed their breed specific legislation. But for instance, one that still has it is Burnaby and they consider all dogs with predominant pitbull characteristics to be a vicious dog. And then the bylaw also allows vicious dogs that have been seized or impounded to be kept up to 21 days.

So dogs can be seized in or impounded for a number of reasons, as you mentioned before. If the dog is off leash, and that can be because the dog just escaped from home; if a dog visually looks like a pitbull to a specific person who reports it and is not muzzled in public.

Rebeka: It just reminded me. Close to 10 years ago, I attended the Burnaby City Council with representatives of another amazing organization, HugABull, a rescue organization for “bully” type breeds. We were trying to advocate for the repeal of BSL. And I remember making submissions to Council and the Mayor at that time.

But I remember getting really into a heated argument with the Mayor who was a very strong proponent of BSL.

I was a lawyer at the time, too. So you have a professional, who’s giving an opinion on why the laws are not enforceable and why they just don’t work. And you had other qualified professionals in dog behavior giving their reasons why BSL doesn’t work.

We were trying to present more factual based as opposed to emotional based reasons. And it just seemed like that’s what this issue often comes down to it just the way people feel about it, as opposed to actually looking at reliable peer reviewed science and on reliable facts that actually tell the real story.

It’s not about the pitbull breed. It’s about dog behavior. You cannot penalize a dog for being a certain breed.

Where do we go from here?

A dog smelling a person's hand in greeting.

Rebeka: In my mind, a really good legal framework would be part of the bigger picture which would include educating kids about dogs from a young age, and I think that would then hopefully translate to parents too.

Don’t let your little child just run up to any dog. When you approach a dog, how you approach? Let the dog sniff your hands first so that the dog can get to know you. Don’t crowd a dog.

Part of the bigger picture, I would love to see education as a key component to the development of a proper regulatory regime dealing with dogs.

And then what that proper regulatory regime would look like. It would include things like targeting known risk factors, such as requiring that dogs at a certain age be neutered or spayed subject to the opinion of a veterinarian. Because we do know that is a contributing factor; if dogs aren’t neutered or spayed, that could lead to aggression.

Having a requirement that investigations need to include interviews on both sides; both the dog guardian and the alleged victim.

A licensing regime to ensure that dogs are licensed so that if they get lost or if they get into trouble that the dog guardian and dog can be tracked.

Involving qualified animal behaviorists in this whole process to work together with dog guardians and dogs to ensure the dog’s welfare and ultimately the safety of the community too.

And an appeal process where if the city does find that a dog meets a definition of aggressive or dangerous or vicious, that there’s a way for that designation to be reviewed again after a certain amount of time.

Just some examples that come to mind.

Next episode

Watch out for the next episode of The Informed Animal Ally on September 27 discussing wildlife cruelty laws.

Did you enjoy this episode on dangerous dog laws?

For more background on regulations across Canada, check out Vancouver Humane Society’s first episode of The Informed Animal Ally exploring companion animal cruelty laws.

Companion animal cruelty laws
Categories
Opinion Editorial

It’s time to stop using taxpayer money to fund inhumane events

Article originally published in The Daily Hive.

On Thursday, the Government of British Columbia announced new funding for fairs, festivals, and events; but the inclusion of one controversial and inhumane type of event is raising eyebrows among animal advocates. 

According to a press release from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, the Province will provide $30 million to support B.C.-based events, including sporting events, arts and culture events, community celebrations, agricultural fairs, and one baffling choice: rodeos. 

Rodeos are the subject of growing criticism in British Columbia and around the world; and it’s easy to see why. Rodeo events cause unnecessary pain, fear, and stress to animals, both at the event and in countless practice sessions, all for a few moments of so-called entertainment.  

To provoke the “performance” behaviours seen from animals in rodeos such as running and bucking, handlers and riders deliberately agitate these sensitive prey animals by pulling their ears, twisting their tails, and using uncomfortable tools like flank straps and spurs. Video footage released by the Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) reveals a number of recurring welfare concerns at some of B.C.’s most recent rodeo events in Chilliwack and Langley Township. 

What happened at this year’s Chilliwack and Langley rodeos

The return of the Chilliwack rodeo this year, along with a controversial new rodeo held in Langley Township, has raised concerns about the well-being and welfare of animals made to perform in rodeo events. Video footage taken at both rodeos this summer shows stressed and frightened animals being roughly handled and deliberately agitated into fleeing and bucking.

Meanwhile, evidence of poor welfare practices in rodeo continue to stack up. A new study was published just one month ago on the stress caused by calf roping (also called tie-down roping), a controversial event which takes place annually at rodeos in B.C. Concerns raised in the study include the risk of injury to young calves “such as damage to the windpipe from the lasso, bruising and broken ribs from being violently yanked off their feet and being forced to the ground, and choking from the tightened rope around their neck.” The study concluded that calves exhibited signs of distress across every phase of the calf roping event, from being chased, lassoed and caught, to when they were released.  

Unlike human athletes, animals used in rodeo cannot decide whether or not to participate. If given the choice, there’s no doubt they would opt out of being roped, wrestled, and roughly handled. 

The use of taxpayer dollars to fund these inhumane events is especially bewildering given the widespread dissent to the practice. Recent polling shows that only 26% of British Columbians are in favour of using animals in rodeo and a whopping 64% are opposed; the remainder are undecided. As a whole, our society is placing increasing value in treating animals with care and respect. 

Amongst governing bodies apparently more in tune with community values, the growing awareness around animal sentience is inspiring a shift away from this type of animal exploitation for the sake of public entertainment. The City of Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver have already implemented a ban on rodeo events, as have the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and a host of municipalities and regions worldwide. The Cloverdale Rodeo dropped four of its most concerning events after the death of a calf in 2007, and soon afterwards, the Luxton Rodeo near Victoria and the Abbotsford Rodeo were cancelled in 2015 and 2016, respectively.  

It is difficult to see the Province’s announcement of rodeo funding as anything but a confident stride into the wrong side of history. That is why a new campaign from the VHS is calling on the Province to direct funding toward family-friendly community events, rather than rodeo events. 

With a myriad of positive events that could use funds to reinvigorate the tourism sector and celebrate culture, community, and compassion, it would be incredibly disappointing for the Province to sink funding into a cruel and outdated practice that, as the majority of British Columbians agree, is better left in the past. 

Say no to funding rodeo cruelty
Categories
Opinion Editorial

Why hasn’t Canada stopped horses from being shipped to slaughter overseas?

Article originally published in The Daily Hive.

Sunday night on the cold tarmac of Winnipeg Airport, a gentle horse stood in a crate, waiting to be loaded onto an airplane. The horse had no name; he and the thousands of horses like him who are shipped out of Canada each year are known only by their identification numbers. He was one of more than 100 horses loaded onto a flight destined for Japan, headed an ocean away to be slaughtered for human consumption.

The flight took off 361 days after Prime Minister Trudeau directed the minister of agriculture to ban the live export of horses for slaughter in a mandate letter on December 16, 2021.

It has now been exactly a year since that letter was sent. Since then, no action has been taken, and the bodies of horses destined for slaughter have continued to pile up.

It’s impossible to know exactly what happened to the horse without a name – the Government of Canada has no jurisdiction over foreign slaughter practices after animals touch down in another country, out of the sight and mind of the many Canadians who consider them to be beloved companions. But we have a general idea of what happened to the horses on his flight.

Photo: Canadian Horse Defence Coalition

The journey from a Canadian feedlot where horses are raised to their final destination overseas can take up to 28 hours; a full day in which they are deprived of food, water, and rest. It’s common for three or four horses to make the journey cramped together in a single wooden crate, with their ears poking through the top slats.

Before 2020, regulations dictated that horses must be shipped in their own crates with adequate head clearance. After the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition (CHDC) took the Minister of Agriculture and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to court over illegal breaches of transport regulations, the minister acted swiftly – not by changing the practices to meet animal welfare standards, but by changing the law to fit inhumane conditions.

“It is not acceptable to compromise horse welfare in favour of industry interests,” said CHDC President Sinikka Crosland. “Neither should the law be manipulated in order to meet those interests.”

Photo: Canadian Horse Defence Coalition

On noisy airplanes, these gentle herd animals with a strong fight or flight instinct go through a long journey of fear and stress. Some fall down upon takeoff or landing. A 2014 incident report indicated that a horse, who appeared agitated during loading, fell during takeoff and remained down during the flight. The horse thrashed and kicked through the crate, damaging the airplane and forcing an emergency landing. After landing, the horse was found dead in the crate, next to two other horses.

With last year’s mandate letter, our government acknowledged the need to put an end to the live export of horses for slaughter. Yet around 2,000 horses have been exported since the federal minister of agriculture was directed to end the practice.

Every month that the Ministry of Agriculture shirks the commitment outlined in its mandate letter, more horses suffer needlessly.

Thousands of Canadians have joined the movement, headed by advocates like the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition and Canadian singer-songwriter Jann Arden, calling for an end to the long and stressful transport journeys of horses being shipped to slaughter. With the recent launch of a new federal petition calling for the minister to finally end live horse export for slaughter, there is no doubt that many more voices will join the cry for justice.

Categories
Opinion Editorial

Wolf escapes highlight horrific issues plaguing Greater Vancouver Zoo

Article originally published in The Daily Hive.

Take action for animals in captivity

Animal lovers in B.C. are mourning the loss of Chia, a wolf who escaped from her enclosure at the Greater Vancouver Zoo Tuesday. Chia was tragically found dead on the side of the road yesterday.

Officials believe that Chia was hit by a car. And it’s known that animals raised in zoos for permanent captivity lack the survival skills of their wild counterparts. They do not recognize the dangers posed by cars on the road and are far more likely to associate human activity with food.

Chia’s sad ending is a devastating reminder of the concerns associated with keeping wild animals in captivity. Though zoo supporters will often claim that zoos breed animals in captivity for conservation purposes, captive-bred animals raised in unnatural zoo environments are not equipped to survive in the wild. And their survival in captivity, as it stands, can hardly be called living.

Walk through the zoo and you’ll see well-worn paths where animals like Hana the tiger spend their days pacing alongside the fences of their enclosures—as physically close to the free outside world as they’ll likely ever get. You’ll see a barren, concrete indoor pool where hippos Haben and Hazina can be found floating listlessly throughout the cold winter months. You’ll see giraffes repeatedly licking the bars of their enclosure. Abnormal, purposeless behaviours like this are common in captive animals who are unable to express their natural behaviours.

The Greater Vancouver Zoo has been aware of many animal welfare issues in their facility for years. The most recent report on conditions at the zoo, commissioned by the Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) and prepared by Zoocheck, raised alarms about a number of concerns.

Among them were concerns about the wolf enclosure’s small size and lack of complexity or enrichment. It was also recommended that the zoo stop breeding the wolves; yet young wolves including one-year old Tempest, who was also missing for several days, and six new cubs continue to be raised at the zoo for the entertainment of the public.

Unfortunately, the same issues raised in the report persist year after year, causing continued suffering to the many animals who are kept in captivity at the zoo.

High-profile incidents resulting in heightened public scrutiny of the zoo

In 2019, a 2-year-old child was bitten by a black bear after being able to enter an “unauthorized area.” The toddler had to be airlifted to hospital.

In 2020, the public raised concerns about an emaciated moose named Oakleaf, prompting an investigation by the BC SPCA. Oakleaf was then euthanized.

In 2021, a zoo employee was bitten when a jaguar climbed up a feeding chute. Rather than addressing the behavioural needs of this natural hunter and climber, the zoo welded bars to the bottom of the chute.

Just this year, the VHS filed a cruelty complaint with the BC SPCA after obtaining video footage of animals engaging in repetitive behaviours and in small, barren enclosures.

When will enough be enough?

This week’s tragic incident is the latest in a pattern of concerning incidents at the Greater Vancouver Zoo. But the series of high-profile cases that make it into the news are just the tip of the iceberg when compared with the monotonous, day-to-day suffering of the wild species confined to enclosures thousands of times smaller than their natural habitats.

If the Greater Vancouver Zoo refuses to make significant changes for the well-being of the animals they keep, a change must be made for them. That’s why the VHS is imploring provincial decision-makers to immediately address the outdated regulations around keeping, breeding, and transport of wild and exotic animals. Concerned citizens are encouraged to contact their MLAs now to protect wild animals from suffering in captivity.

How many more animals must we see put at risk, come to harm, and suffering at the zoo before change is made? For the sake of Chia and Tempest, Haben and Hazina, Hana and Oakleaf, and all the other wild animals who have not had their needs met in captivity, let’s hope we’ve reached our limit.

Categories
Media Release

One wolf lost life, another still missing after escape from Greater Vancouver Zoo

VANCOUVER, August 18, 2022 – The Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) was deeply saddened to hear of the death of Chia, one of the wolves who had escaped from the Greater Vancouver Zoo earlier this week, and is concerned about the well-being of the remaining wolf, Tempest, who is still missing.

This is another instance of an animal kept in captivity at the Greater Vancouver Zoo suffering, alongside several other incidents in recent years. Since 2019 alone, a child was bitten by a black bear, the public raised concerns about an emaciated moose who was then euthanized, and an employee was bitten by a jaguar. The Zoo was also the subject of a cruelty complaint submitted by the VHS earlier this year due to evidence of animals engaging in repetitive behaviours and in small, barren enclosures.

These situations reiterate the lack of adequate safety and protection of the animals at the Greater Vancouver Zoo, says VHS Campaign Director Emily Pickett.

“How many times are we going to have to see animals harmed, put at risk and suffering all for the sake of public entertainment?” Pickett asked.

The VHS has been calling on the Zoo to address the issues highlighted by these recent incidents and long-standing issues outlined in their previous reports. Zoo management did not respond to attempts to engage with them around the VHS’s and Zoocheck’s most recent report in 2019.

Since then, issues have continued to persist.

The VHS is calling on the provincial government to address the outdated regulations around wild and exotic animals in captivity. Specifically, the VHS is asking concerned citizens to get in touch with their MLAs this summer to let them know that the welfare of captive wild animals is a priority; legislative and regulatory change is needed.

– ends –

SOURCE Vancouver Humane Society

For more information, contact Emily Pickett: 604-416-2903, emily@vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca

Related links:
https://vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/

Categories
News/Blog

Federal e-petition: Video surveillance in slaughterhouses

Update

Petition e-3961 is now closed. Please keep an eye on the VHS website for updates. Thank you for supporting transparency for farmed animals.

Animals suffer in slaughterhouses.

Animals in slaughterhouses face stress, fear, and pain, often after suffering through long transport journeys. Year after year, stories have emerged of horrific suffering in slaughterhouses; and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has limited resources to monitor facilities across Canada.

This is why the Vancouver Humane Society, five other animal protection organizations, and the citizens of Canada are supporting a new official federal government petition to introduce video surveillance in federally regulated slaughterhouses. Surveillance would help to:

  • Address the most egregious cruelty farmed animals face at the end of their short lives
  • Improve compliance with cruelty laws
  • Provide transparency to Canadians who consume animal products about where their food comes from

Note: The petition closed August 24th, 2022.

See more campaigns
Categories
Media Release

The future of the Stampede is rodeo-free, according to polling of Calgary residents

VANCOUVER, July 27, 2022 – Removal of the rodeo and chuckwagon events from the Calgary Stampede program would have virtually no impact on attendance rates and would bring in new crowds, according to a Research Co. poll commissioned by the Vancouver Humane Society (VHS) during this year’s Stampede.

64% of Calgarians polled indicated that they had attended or were likely to attend the Stampede this year. When asked whether they would attend the Stampede if the rodeo and chuckwagon racing events were removed, 63% indicated they would be likely to attend.

“Until now, we’ve assumed that the Stampede has continued to host inhumane events out of financial motivation,” VHS Campaign Director Emily Pickett shared. “These poll results prove that removing the rodeo and chuckwagons would have little impact on visitor attendance.”

The polling results also indicated that the removal of controversial animal events would pique the interest of new crowds, with 24% of non-attendees from this year expressing interest in attending the Stampede without rodeo and chuckwagon events. Of these, the most prominent change was in the youngest group polled; 43% of non-attendees from this year aged 18-34 said they would be likely to attend the Stampede if the rodeo and chuckwagon races were removed.

“We have heard from many people who avoid the Stampede because of the rodeo and chuckwagon races. Dropping those events is a sustainable change that would attract new supporters and visitors to the Stampede,” Pickett noted.

The support for a rodeo- and chuckwagon-free Stampede draws attention to the 103 animals who have died at the Stampede since the VHS began tracking incidents in 1986, including a chuckwagon horse who was injured and consequently euthanized at this year’s event. The VHS filed cruelty complaints to the Calgary Humane Society regarding incidents captured in Sportsnet coverage of 2022 rodeo events.

“These high-risk and inhumane events draw growing public criticism year after year. It’s time for Stampede officials and Calgary City Council to remove these unnecessary events from the Stampede program.”

Pickett invited anyone wishing to learn more about the animal welfare issues surrounding rodeo to visit RodeoTruth.com, an informational website made in collaboration by the VHS and concerned Calgarians.

– ends –

SOURCE Vancouver Humane Society

For more information, contact Emily Pickett: 604-416-2903, emily@vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca

Related links:

Take the #SayNoToRodeo pledge:

Categories
News/Blog

Podcast: Fish cruelty laws

All episodes

Fishes think, play, form relationships, and feel pain; yet they are often overlooked both in animal cruelty legislation and in public discussions of animal cruelty.

In this month’s episode of The Informed Animal Ally’s series on animal cruelty, Vancouver Humane Society Executive Director Amy Morris and Communications Director Chantelle Archambault discuss cruelty laws and practices related to fishes.

Note: Traditionally, “fishes” plural refers to the animals when there are multiple species. In this episode, the word is used to refer to any instance of multiple fish animals in recognition that each fish is an individual being.

Fish welfare legislation

A wild school of fishes in the ocean.

In general, fishes raised or caught for food are covered under the federal Fisheries Act in Canada. The act has been in place since 1868 to regulate fisheries and fish management, including protecting fishes and their habitats and preventing waterway pollution.

The law has gone through some amendments that weakened protections, but in 2019 it added new provisions that improved on the original Act. However, there is still a notable gap with regard to the welfare of fish.

The consideration for fish protection is mainly concerned with maintaining fish “stocks” as a resource, rather than protecting the welfare of fishes.

Many of the practices in “harvesting” fishes cause immense suffering. In fact, there don’t appear to be any laws that specifically outline the way fishes should be killed, which means there are no penalties for those who are fishing, or kill fishes, inhumanely.

Aquaculture (fish farming)

Aquaculture, or fish farming, is specifically included in amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Fish farms pose a major welfare problem for fishes, both those being farmed and those in surrounding waterways. Carnivorous farmed fishes like salmon, halibut, and tuna are fed diets made with fishmeal and fish oil made from smaller wild-caught fish. Open-net fish farms in particular are a major issue for surrounding fishes because they are placed in the water, allowing waste, disease, and chemicals to seep out into the surrounding ecosystem.

Fishes on farms are in kept in cramped, crowded conditions with no enrichment. According to a 2016 study by Royal Society Open Science, about a quarter of farmed fishes end up floating lifelessly at the top of their tanks, and they exhibit behaviours and brain chemistry that reflect stress and is reminiscent of the signs of depression that can be found in mammals.

Because so many fishes are stressed and in close quarters, they are very vulnerable to disease and parasites. Farms combat this by relying heavily on antibiotics. Not only can those antibiotics lead to drug-resistant infections in humans, but both the antibiotics and the parasites can make their way into surrounding water and impact wild fishes.

According to the First Nations Wild Salmon Alliance, the majority of First Nations in B.C. are opposed to open-net fish farms because of the impact of sea lice and viruses on wild fish. The federal government is currently working to phase out open-net fish farms in B.C. Bill C-258 passed the first reading in Parliament in March, which would amend “the Fisheries Act to prohibit finfish aquaculture for commercial purposes in Canadian fisheries waters off the Pacific Coast except when it is carried out in closed containment facilities”; essentially removing open net fish farms.

In BC, fish farms are managed under the Pacific Aquaculture Regulations.

Generally, like in B.C. and New Brunswick, specifics like “harvest” (slaughter) and habitat protection can be specified in the specific farm’s license rather than standardized in the regulations.

The National Farm Animal Care Council has a Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farmed Salmonids (salmon, trout, charr) as of 2021. One requirement in the Code is that “Methods of euthanasia, slaughter, and depopulation must be quick, cause minimal stress and pain, and result in rapid loss of consciousness followed by death without the fish regaining consciousness.” Electrical stunning is one of the allowed slaughter methods. The code acknowledges that the use of ice slurry (a combination of freezing and asphyxiation in non-oxygenated water mixed with ice) is not a quick or painless slaughter method, but it is still allowed for the next 2.5 years.

Industrial fishing

An industrial fishing net full of wild-caught fishes

Industrial fishing uses harmful methods that result in the mass deaths of fishes and bycatch (the accidental capture of non-target species like dolphins, sea turtles, and diving birds).

Two of the methods used in commercial fishing are:

Longlining: Boats use lines that can extend for up to 50 miles, with thousands of baited hooks branching off from the main line. In 2018, a fishing magazine reported that the Canadian government was supporting a shift to longlining, but the federal government released an action plan on reducing bycatch from longlining in 2019.

Bottom trawling: A large net with heavy weights is dragged across the seafloor, scooping up everything in its path and damaging sensitive marine habitats. Bottom trawling was banned in 2019 in Marine Protected Areas, which only make up about 6% of Canada’s marine areas.

Recreational fishing

Fish approaching lure in the water

Even when fishes are released after being caught, the use of hooks causes pain and tissue damage. The change in pressure from pulling up some fishes out of the deep water results in barotrauma. For example, rockfish can experience barotrauma. Rockfish have a specialized gas filled sack that they use to control buoyancy. When they are reeled up and brought to the surface, they can’t release the necessary gases and this blows up their eyes, stomach and vent. If the fishes are quickly returned by a descender, they can survive, but in many cases they are just thrown back and continue to suffer or die from their injuries. There are no laws to prevent this, likely because they would be very difficult to enforce.

According to research, 18% of released fishes die of injuries and another 22% of the surviving fishes have their vision permanently impaired.

Recreational fishing and hunting organizations have admitted that they work to block cruelty legislation which would protect animals further.

Are fishes considered “animals” in law?

A wild tropical fish

In law, definitions matter quite a bit. Sometimes terms aren’t defined because they are seen as obvious. B.C.’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act states, “This Act does not apply to wildlife, as defined in the Wildlife Act, that is not in captivity.” However, there is no definition of animal outlined in the act.

If an agency responsible for Prevention of Cruelty to animals received a complaint in regards to a fish in captivity, they would need to use the same criteria as they would with a dog to identify if the fish were in distress.

There are many thousands of animal species, and in some species it can be complicated to prove distress. In cases of fish, it would likely require a biologist who specializes in fish distress, and could require someone who is knowledgeable about a specific species. For example, in 2016, the BC SPCA investigated the death of a sturgeon after the fish was euthanized. The fish had come from a commercial farm and was seen floating along the top of the tank before being euthanized; sturgeon are naturally bottom feeders.

There do not appear to be any cases of animal cruelty to fishes in captivity that have made it to court. A case in the United States was dropped specifically because the definition of animal excluded fishes.

What you can do

The best way you can help decrease the demand for harmful fishing practices is by eating plant-based. Fishes are farmed in higher numbers than any other animal, so shifting away from animal products in your diet can save hundreds of fish lives every year. The greatest impact of cutting out fish-based foods from our diets comes from cutting out farmed fishes, because of the high-stress methods used throughout the fishes’ lives and their impact on wild fishes, followed by fishes caught in commercial fisheries.

Cutting out farmed meat and animal products also decreases the demand for industrial animal agriculture, which is a major source of water pollution from agricultural runoff. Agricultural runoff can lead to the overgrowth of algae, which then decomposes and depletes the water of oxygen. Fish, who cannot survive in oxygen-depleted water, either die or move elsewhere to compete for increasingly scarce territory and resources.

There’s also other small changes that everyone can make to protect fish habitats – fishes are heavily impacted by plastic pollution and rising water temperatures, so reducing your use of single-use plastics and decreasing your carbon emissions are ways you can help every day.

Advocating for an end to fishing subsidies by the government and for climate-friendly and plant-forward policies is a great way to effect systems-level change.

Learn more about fishes

Next episode

On August 30, the Vancouver Humane Society will be joined by animal law lawyer Rebeka Breder for a discussion on dangerous dog laws.

Categories
Opinion Editorial

Calgary Stampede-goers should skip deadly chuckwagon races

A version of this article originally published in The Daily Hive.

People from across Alberta and Canada are flocking to Calgary for the return of the Calgary Stampede, but the event’s program gives reason for pause. For the first time since 2019, the Stampede’s deadliest event is returning: the Rangeland Derby chuckwagon races.

It doesn’t take much to see through the thin veneer of the Stampede’s carefully crafted safety-first defenses to the inherent danger on which the races were built. The Calgary Stampede’s chuckwagon races continue to be the cause of near-annual horse deaths; more than 70 horses have been killed by the event since 1986. Risk is so intrinsic to the nature of the sport that the World Professional Chuckwagon Association openly deems it the Half-Mile of Hell.

The last time the races were held, six horses died. One incident, in which the death of a horse and the injuries of three more were ruled to be caused by driver error, resulted in the event’s first-ever driver disqualification and potential lifetime ban. That driver has since been reinstated and is now slotted to race in 2022 without missing a single year.

In 2021, Stampede organizers cancelled chuckwagon racing due to safety concerns over a lack of practice season. Some of the Stampede’s usual wagon drivers – who purport to have the best interest of their animals at heart – went on record slamming the unprecedented safety precaution.

Unsurprisingly, when a similar event went ahead in nearby Red Deer that season, a horse was injured and had to be put down.

Stampede organizers have had two years to reconsider the deadly sport – but instead of responding to public demands to remove the races, they made a minor rule change that decreases the number of wagons on the track from four to three.

This is unlikely to differ in impact from previous changes, which set a bleak precedent for the outcome we can expect.

In 2011, the Stampede dropped two outriders from the event, bringing the number of horses on the track down to two outriders per wagon in each heat instead of four. The following year, an outrider horse sustained severe injuries after crashing into an unexpectedly halted wagon in an incident that claimed the lives of three more horses.

The problems with the chuckwagon races cannot be solved with simple rule changes. The volume of horses on the track in each heat is indeed problematic, but the threat to the animals’ safety runs much deeper.

Without serious structural changes to the event, the races will always be at high speed and close proximity, running the risk of chain reaction incidents like the one seen in 2012. The races also continue to use thoroughbred racehorses, many of whom have broken their legs during the event. Animal scientist Temple Grandin has pointed to an inherent problem with the use of thoroughbreds as selective breeding for speed has weakened their legs.

Rather than addressing these serious issues, Stampede organizers have opted to bring back the event in full force.

It is worth noting that the return of the chuckwagon races is not for lack of alternative events. The Stampede has been called Canada’s largest arts festival, with visual arts having been incorporated since the event’s inception. The Stampede’s diverse range of music performances is estimated to draw more than 600,000 attendees each year.

With an array of safer options to truly celebrate the vibrant culture of Calgary, it is baffling to see the Stampede leaning back into an event that is as controversial as it is dangerous.

It is obvious that the much-needed shift away from the Half-Mile of Hell will not come from the common sense of the organizers, but from the pressure of the public. If Stampede goers do not wish to bear witness to possible deaths of horses, year after year, the choice is clear: skip the chucks.