Tougher penalties needed for animal hoarders: advocate
Criminal Code convictions — and the conditions that can come with them — are the only way to guard against animal hoarders continuing their behaviour in another province, says the executive director of Animal Protection Services of Saskatchewan.
Kaley Pugh said it’s not uncommon for those who face prohibitions from possessing animals in one province to simply move elsewhere to escape the terms of such an order.
“If somebody is convicted under their provincial legislation, any penalties they might be given — such as restrictions on animal ownership — don’t apply if they move to another province,” she said.
“We’ve certainly had several high-profile cases over the last few years of people that were either convicted in another province and moved to Saskatchewan and reoffended, or people we had convicted in Saskatchewan that then moved.”
One such case was April Dawn Irving, who headed to Alberta after a seizure of 82 dogs from a Saskatchewan acreage in 2010. Five years later, 201 dogs were seized from her Alberta property in what was said to be the largest such scoop by that province’s Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
Irving had been handed a 10-year ban from owning more than two animals at a time after she was convicted under Saskatchewan’s Animal Protection Act — a prohibition that has teeth only in this province.
More recently, Terry Baker found himself back in trouble in British Columbia, shortly after pleading guilty in a Regina court to an animal cruelty charge under the Criminal Code. Baker was charged after Animal Protection Services of Saskatchewan seized 72 dogs from his Riceton-area farm, with many found to be malnourished or without access to food and water.
In December, he received an order prohibiting him from owning more than 10 dogs, six horses and 10 chickens as part of a conditional discharge.
Those conditions were still in effect when, in February, he had 46 dogs seized by the British Columbia SPCA. In a March decision, the SPCA’s chief prevention and enforcement officer considered Baker’s history in Saskatchewan and the prohibition that came with the conviction.
“Instead of taking this condition seriously and recognizing that you are not capable of looking after animals properly, you moved to a different province, ignored the judge and the terms of your bail and acquired more animals, effectively sentencing them to a life of distress,” wrote Marcie Moriarty, who noted the B.C. dogs had inappropriate shelter, hygienic living conditions, ventilation, veterinary care or socialization.
Baker appealed, asking for the return of 10 dogs — a request B.C.’s Farm Industry Review Board rejected last month.
The panel hearing the appeal determined Baker “would be unable to prevent his dogs from returning to a situation of distress if they were returned to him.”
The panel also referred to Baker’s “recent history of non-compliance with a court order.”
In Baker’s case, a possession of excess animals falls contrary to his conditions — regardless of where he lives in Canada, since they were imposed under the Criminal Code.
But, Pugh noted, that isn’t the case when charges are laid under provincial legislation — in Saskatchewan, the Animal Protection Act. While similar legislation exists in other provinces, penalties and prohibitions imposed under these acts are only enforceable within the province concerned.
“So ... it’s quite important to have a Criminal Code conviction so that they can have a prohibition that’s going to follow them no matter where they go,” she said.
She added prosecuting people under the Criminal Code can be a bigger challenge since intent, or wilful neglect, needs to be proven in addition to the offence itself. She added there might be some reluctance by some to saddle someone with a criminal record if they have no other such history.
“It’s a much more serious charge than a provincial conviction,” she noted.