Recent charges of animal cruelty against a Powell River woman have raised questions about the SPCA’s role in the justice system.
BC SPCA recently issued a media release, which it also published on its website, naming the owner of a Cranberry farm and stating that she is facing charges under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act after the non-profit organization removed nine alpacas, one llama and five chickens from her property in November 2015.
Now, nearly a year and a half after the animals were seized by BC SPCA special constables and members of the RCMP, the woman is in court defending herself against charges that could result in a maximum fine of $75,000 and up to two years in prison.
According to the SPCA release, the organization is “extremely happy” that the charges it recommended to Crown counsel were approved and went on to state that “it is always heartbreaking to see animals suffering unnecessarily.” So much for innocent until proven guilty.
The question is not whether the animals were being mistreated, as that will come out in court, but how much authority should be given to the SPCA to police these matters? The non-profit society currently determines if animals are being mistreated and recommends criminal charges against animal owners, as well as deciding the fate of their animals.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is a document that, among other things, allows the SPCA to take animals from owners under certain conditions. The SPCA is a body that has been given authority to do this under the act and is determined to be legally qualified to make these decisions.
However, if the SPCA is ever erroneous in its charges of animal cruelty, the owner of the animal can still be charged for veterinary bills and/or having the animal euthanized. The act also has an immunity clause built into it, which means owners have little to no legal recourse against the SPCA if they feel they or their animals have been wronged. By the time those charged with animal cruelty enter the court system, their animals are long gone.
We can all agree that those who have mistreated their animals should be charged, and potentially have their animals taken away, but putting those decisions solely into the hands of the SPCA, and not giving owners suitable options for recourse if mistakes are made, could be a civil rights issue as much as an animal rights one.
Jason Schreurs, publisher/editor
