many jurisdictions around the world have enacted statutes which forbid cruelty to some animals but...

8/3/2019 Many Jurisdictions Around the World Have Enacted Statutes Which Forbid Cruelty to Some Animals but These Vary

1/29

Many jurisdictions around the world have enacted statutes which forbid cruelty to some animals

but these vary by country and in some cases by the use or practice.

Australia

In Australia, many states have enacted legislation outlawing cruelty to animals, however, it is

argued that welfare laws do not adequately extend to production animals.[1]Whilst police

maintain an overall jurisdiction in prosecution of criminal matters, in many states officers of

the RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are accorded authority to investigate and

prosecute animal cruelty offenses.

Asia

Japan

In Japan, the 1973 Welfare and Management of Animals Act (amended in 1999 and 2005)[2]

stipulates that "no person shall kill, injure, or inflict cruelty to animals without due course", and in

particular, criminalises cruelty to all mammals, birds, and reptiles possessed by persons; as well

as cattle, horses, goats, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, pigeons, domestic rabbits, chickens, anddomestic ducks regardless of whether they are in captivity.

Killing or injuring without due reason: up to one year's imprisonment with labour or a fine of

up to one million yen

Cruelty such as causing debilitation by discontinuing feeding or watering without due

reason: a fine of up to five hundred thousand yen

Abandonment: a fine of up to five hundred thousand yenSeparate national and local ordinances exist with regards to ensuring health and safety of

animals handled by pet shops and other businesses.

Animal experiments are regulated by the 2000 Law for the Humane Treatment and

Management of Animals, which was amended in 2006.[3] This law requires those using animals

to follow the principles outlined in the 3Rs and use as few animals as possible, and cause

minimal distress and suffering. Regulation is at a local level based on national guidelines, but

there are no governmental inspections of institutions and no reporting requirement for the

numbers of animals used.[4]

China

As of 2006 there were no laws in China governing acts of cruelty to animals.[5] In certain

jurisdictions such as Fuzhou, dog control officers may kill any unaccompanied dogs on sight.

However, the People's Republic of China is currently in the process of making changes to its

stray-dog population laws in the capital city, Beijing. Mr. Zheng Gang who is the director of the

Internal and Judicial Committee which comes under the Beijing Municipal People's Congress

(BMPC), supports the new draft of the Beijing Municipal Regulation on Dogs from the local

government. This new law is due to replace the current Beijing Municipal Regulation on Dog

Ownership, introduced in 1889. The current regulation talks of "strictly" limiting dog ownership

and controlling the number of dogs in the city. The new draft focuses instead on "strict

management and combining restrictions with management."[6] There are no government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_for_the_Prevention_of_Cruelty_to_Animals_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzhouhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_control_officerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_for_the_Prevention_of_Cruelty_to_Animals_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzhouhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_control_officer


2/29

supported charitable organizations like the RSPCA, which monitors the cases on animal cruelty,

so that all kinds of animal abuses, such as to fish, tigers, and bears, are to be reported for law

enforcement and animal welfare.[7][8][9][10][11][12]

In September 2009, legislation was drafted to address deliberate cruelty to animals in China. If

passed, the legislation would offer some protection to pets, captive wildlife and animals used inlaboratories, as well as regulating how farm animals are raised, transported and slaughtered.[13]

Hong Kong

As of 2010, Hong Kong has supplemented or replaced the laws against cruelty with a positive

approach using laws that specify how animals should be treated.[14]The government department

primarily responsible for animal welfare in Hong Kong is the Agriculture, Fisheries and

Conservation Department (AFCD).

Laws enforced by the AFCD include these:

the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (also enforced by the police)

the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance (including regulations for licences imposed

on livestock keepers and animal traders and a Code of Standards for Licensed Animal

Traders)

the Dogs and Cats Ordinance

the Pounds Ordinance

the Rabies Ordinance

the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance

In addition, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) does the following:

enforces the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, which includes regulations

for slaughterhouses and wet markets

publishes a Code of Practice for the Welfare of Food Animals (which describes their

transport)

publishes Operational Guidelines for the Welfare of Food Animals at Slaughterhouses

The Department of Health does the following:

enforces the Animals (Control of Experiments) Ordinance.

publishes a Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes

As of 2006, Hong Kong has a law titled "Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance", with amaximum 3 year imprisonment and fines of HKD$200,000.[15]

Taiwan

The Taiwanese Animal Protection Act was passed in 1998, imposing fines up to NT$250,000 for

cruelty. Criminal penalties for animal cruelty were enacted in 2007, including a maximum of 1

year imprisonment.[16]

Middle East
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSPCAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSPCAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare


3/29

Egypt

Egyptian law states that anyone who inhumanely beats or intentionally kills any domesticated

animal may be jailed or fined.[17] The Egyptian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

was established by the British over a hundred years ago, and is currently administered by the

Egyptians. The SPCA was instrumental in promoting a 1997 ban on bullfighting in Egypt.[18]

In the ancient Egyptian law, the killers of cats or dogs were executed.[19][20]

Saudi Arabia

Veterinarian Lana Dunn and several Saudi nationals report that there are no laws to protect

animals from cruelty since the term is not well-defined within the Saudi legal system. They point

to a lack of a governing body to supervise conditions for animals, particularly in pet stores and

in the exotic animal trade with East Africa.[21]

Europe

Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria have all banned battery cages for egg-laying hens.

The entire European Union is phasing out battery cages by 2012.[22]It is also illegal in many

parts of Europe to declaw a cat.[23]

Germany

In Germany, killing animals or causing significant pain (or prolonged or repeated pain) to them

is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years or a financial penalty.[24]If the animal is of

foreign origin, the act may also be punishable as criminal damage.[25]

Italy

Acts of cruelty against animals can be punished with imprisonment, for a minimum of three

months up to a maximum of three years, and with a fine ranging from a minimum of

3.000,00 Euroto a maximum of 160.000,00 Euro, as for the law n189/2004.[26]The law was

passed mainly to crush the phenomenon ofdog fighting, which in Italy is a clandestineblood

sport fully controlled by organized crime.

United Kingdom

In theUnited Kingdom, cruelty to animals is a criminal offence for which one may be jailed for

up to 51 weeks and may be fined up to 20,000.[27]

On August 18, 1911, the House of Commons introduced the Protection of Animals Act

1911 (c.27) following lobbying by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

(RSPCA). The maximum punishment was 6 months of "hard labour" with a fine of 25 pounds.[28]

In theLondon Police Act 1839, "fighting or baiting Lions, Bears, Badgers, Cocks, Dogs, or other

Animals" was prohibited in London, with a penalty of up to one month imprisonment, with

possible hard labour, or up to five pounds. The law laid numerous restrictions on how, when,

and where animals could be driven, wagons unloaded, etc.. It also prohibited owners from

letting mad dogs run loose and gave police the right to destroy any dog suspected of being

rabid or any dog bitten by a suspected rabid dog. The same law prohibited the use of dogs for

drawing carts.[29] Up until then, dogs were used for delivering milk, bread, fish, meat, fruit,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_fightinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_fightinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Animals_Act_1911http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Animals_Act_1911http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSPCAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Police_Act_1839&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Police_Act_1839&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Police_Act_1839&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_fightinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Animals_Act_1911http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Animals_Act_1911http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSPCAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Police_Act_1839&action=edit&redlink=1


4/29

vegetables, animal food (the cat's-meat man), and other items for sale and for collecting refuse

(the rag-and-bone man).[30][31]As Nigel Rothfels notes, the prohibition against dogs pulling carts

in or near London caused most of the dogs to be killed by their owners [32]as they went from

being contributors to the family income to unaffordable expenses. Cart dogs were replaced by

people with handcarts.[33]About 150,000 dogs were killed or abandoned. Erica Fudge quotes

Hilda Kean:[32]

At the heart of nineteenth-century animal welfare campaigns is the middle-class desire not to be

able to see cruelty.Hilda Kean, Animal Rights, 1998[34]

The Protection of Animals Act 1911 [35] extended the ban on draft dogs to the rest of the

kingdom. As many as 600,000 dogs were killed or abandoned.

The Act of 1911 has now been replaced by Animal Welfare Act of 2006.[citation needed]

Switzerland

The Swiss animal protection laws are among the strictest in the world, comprehensivelyregulating the treatment of animals including the size of rabbit cages, and the amount of

exercise that must be provided to dogs. [36]

In thecanton of Zurich an animal lawyer, Antoine Goetschel, is employed by the canton

government to represent the interests of animals in animal cruelty cases.[37]

Americas

Mexico

In Mexico, there are little to no animal cruelty laws, however, it has been suggested that animal

cruelty laws are slowly being implemented. The country's current policy usually condemns

physical harm to animals as property damage to the owners of the abused animal. The Law ofAnimal Protection of the Federal District is wide-ranging, based on banning 'unnecessary

suffering'. Similar laws now exist in most states. However, this is disregarded by much of the

public and authorities.

United States

The primary federal law relating to animal care and conditions in the US is the Animal Welfare

Act of 1966, amended in 1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002 and 2007. It is the only Federal law in

the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and

by dealers. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or

specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act as the minimum

acceptable standard.[38]

The AWA has been criticized by animal rights groups for excluding birds, rats and mice bred for

research, and animals raised for food or fiber as well as all cold-blooded animals.[39]

The Animal Legal Defense Fund releases an annual report ranking theanimal protection laws of

every state based on their relative strength and general comprehensiveness. In 2010's report,

the top five states for their strong anti-cruelty laws were Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_of_Zurichhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_of_Zurichhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Goetschelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Goetschelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Legal_Defense_Fundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_of_Zurichhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Goetschelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Legal_Defense_Fundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights


5/29

California. The five states with the weakest animal cruelty laws were Kentucky, North Dakota,

Idaho, Mississippi, and Iowa.[40]

In Massachusetts and New York, agents of humane societies and associations may be

appointed as special officers to enforce statutes outlawing animal cruelty.[41]

In 2004, a Florida legislator proposed a ban on "cruelty to bovines," stating: "A person who, forthe purpose of practice, entertainment, or sport, intentionally fells, trips, or otherwise causes a

cow to fall or lose its balance by means of roping, lassoing, dragging, or otherwise touching the

tail of the cow commits a misdemeanorof the first degree."[42]The proposal did not become law.[42]

In the United States, ear cropping,tail docking, theGeier Hitch, rodeo sports, and other acts are

legal and sometimes condoned. Penalties for cruelty can be minimal, if pursued. Currently, 46

of the 50 states have enacted felony penalties for certain forms of animal abuse. [43] However, in

most jurisdictions, animal cruelty is most commonly charged as a misdemeanor offense. In one

recent California case, a felony conviction for animal cruelty could theoretically net a 25 year to

life sentence due to theirthree-strikes law, which increases sentences based on prior felony

convictions.[44]

In 2003, West Hollywood, California passed an ordinance banning declawing of house cats.[45]In 2007, Norfolk, Virginia passed legislation only allowing the procedure for medical reasons.[46]However, most jurisdictions allow the procedure.

State welfare laws

Several states have enacted or considered laws in support of humane farming.

On November 5, 2002, Florida voters passed Amendment 10 by a margin of 55% for,

amending the Florida Constitution to ban the confinement of pregnant pigs ingestationcrates.[47]

On January 14, 2004, the bill AB-732 died in the California Assembly's Agriculture

Committee.[48]The bill would have banned gestation and veal crates, eventually being

amended to include only veal crates.[49] On May 9, 2007, the bill AB-594 was withdrawn

from the California State Assembly. The bill had been effectively killed in the Assembly

Agriculture Committee, by replacing the contents of the bill with language concerning

tobacco cessation coverage under Medi-Cal.[50]AB-594 was very similar to the current

language ofProposition 2.[51]

On November 7, 2006, Arizona voters passedProposition 204with 62% support. The

measure prohibits the confinement of calves in veal crates and breeding sows in gestationcrates.[52]

On June 28, 2007, Oregon GovernorTed Kulongoski signed a measure into law prohibiting

the confinement of pigs in gestation crates (SB 694, 74th Leg. Assembly, Regular Session).[53]

In January 2008, Nebraska State Senate bill LB 1148, to ban the use of gestation crates for

pig farmers, was withdrawn within 5 days amidst controversy.[54]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusettshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cropping_(animal)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_(animal)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_(animal)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geier_Hitch&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geier_Hitch&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychectomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestation_cratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestation_cratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestation_cratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_2_(2008)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_204http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_204http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_204http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kulongoskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kulongoskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kulongoskihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusettshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cropping_(animal)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_(animal)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geier_Hitch&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychectomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestation_cratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestation_cratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_2_(2008)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_204http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kulongoski


6/29

On May 14, 2008, Colorado GovernorBill Rittersigned into law a bill, SB 201, that phases

out gestation crates and veal crates. [55][56]

Canada

The Animal Legal Defense Fund releases an annual report ranking the animal protection laws of

every province and territory based on their relative strength and general comprehensiveness. In2011 the top four, for their strong anti-cruelty laws, were Ontario,Manitoba,New Brunswick,

and Nova Scotia. The worst four were Alberta, Northwest Territories,Quebec, and Nunavut.[57]

In theory and practice

Starved and bruised horse eating at a veterinary clinic after rescue

There are many reasons why individuals abuse animals. Animal cruelty covers a wide range of

actions (or lack of action). Learning about animal abuse has revealed patterns of behavior

employed by abusers.

[58]

Animal cruelty is often broken down into two main categories: active and passive, also referred

to as commission and omission, respectively.

Passive cruelty is typified by cases of neglect, in which the cruelty is a lack of action rather than

the action itself. Examples of neglect are starvation, dehydration, parasite infestations, allowing

a collar to grow into an animals skin, inadequate shelter in extreme weather conditions, and

failure to seek veterinary care when necessary.

In many cases of neglect in which an investigator believes that the cruelty occurred out of

ignorance, the investigator may attempt to educate the pet owner, then revisit the situation. In

more severe cases, exigent circumstances may require that the animal be removed forveterinary care.

Active cruelty implies malicious intent, as when a person has deliberately and intentionally

caused harm to an animal, and is sometimes referred to as NAI (Non-Accidental Injury). Acts of

intentional animal cruelty may be indicators of serious psychological problems.[59] There is an

intrinsic link between battered pets and battered women and children. The likelihood

thatwomen's shelterpersonnel will encounter women and children who have been threatened

by batterers using animal abuse as a weapon is high. This is because more families in America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ritterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Legal_Defense_Fundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontariohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontariohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitobahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitobahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswickhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Scotiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Scotiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territorieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territorieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebechttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavuthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavuthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_shelterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_shelterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:This_Horse_is_in_Terrible_Shape.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:This_Horse_is_in_Terrible_Shape.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ritterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Legal_Defense_Fundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontariohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitobahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswickhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Scotiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territorieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebechttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavuthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_shelter


7/29

have pets than have children. Secondly, the majority of pet owners are themselves parents with

children. Thirdly, 64.1% of households with children under age 6, and 74.8% of households with

children over age 6, also have pets. Lastly, as many as 71% of pet-owning women seeking

shelter at safe houses have reported that their partner had threatened and/or actually hurt or

killed one or more of their pets; 32% of these women reported that one or more of their children

had also hurt or killed pets. Battered women report that they are prevented from leaving their

abusers because they fear what will happen to the animals in their absence. Animal abuse

sometimes is used as a form ofintimidation in domestic disputes.[60]

Medicine

Animal testing, Traditional medicine

Psychological disorders

One of the known warning signs of certain psychopathologies, including antisocial personality

disorder, also known as psychopathic personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and

small animals, a behavior known as zoosadism. According to the New York Times, "[t]he FBI

has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears in its

computer records of serialrapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment

manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals a diagnostic criterion

forconduct disorders.[61]"A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and

cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient

who had murdered a young boy."[61] Robert K. Ressler, an agent with the Federal Bureau of

Investigation's behavioral sciences unit, studied serial killers and noted,"Murderers like this

(Jeffrey Dahmer) very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids." [62]

Cruelty to animals is one of the three components of theMacdonald triad, indicators of violent

antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. According to the studies used to form thismodel, cruelty to animals is a common (but not universal) behavior in children and adolescents

who grow up to becomeserial killers and other violent criminals.

It has also been found that children who are cruel to animals have often witnessed or been

victims of abuse themselves.[63] In two separate studies cited by the Humane Society of the

United States roughly one-third of families suffering from domestic abuse indicated that at least

one child had hurt or killed a pet.[64]

TV & film making

Animal cruelty has long been an issue with the art form offilmmaking, with even some big-

budget Hollywood films receiving criticism for allegedly harmfuland sometimes lethaltreatment of animals during production. One of the most infamous examples of animal cruelty in

film was Michael Cimino's legendary flop Heaven's Gate, in which numerous animals were

brutalized and even killed during production. Cimino allegedly killed chickens and bled horses

from the neck to gather samples of their blood to smear on actors forHeaven's Gate, and also

allegedly had a horse blown up withdynamite while shooting a battle sequence, the shot of

which made it into the film. After the release of the film Reds, the star and director of the

picture,Warren Beatty apologized for his Spanish film crew's use oftripwires on horses while

filming a battle scene, when Beatty wasn't present. Tripwires were used against horses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_medicinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosadismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmmakinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywoodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ciminohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ciminohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reds_(film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Beattyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Beattyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_medicinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosadismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmmakinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywoodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ciminohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reds_(film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Beattyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire


8/29

when Rambo IIIand The Thirteenth Warriorwere being filmed. Anox was sliced nearly in half

during production ofApocalypse Now, while a donkey was bled to death for dramatic effect for

the film Manderlay, in a scene later cut from the film.

Cruelty in film exists in movies outside the United States. There is a case of cruelty to animals in

the South Korean film The Isle, according to its directorKim Ki-Duk.

[65]

In the film, a real frog isskinned alive while fish are mutilated. Several animals were killed for the camera in the

controversial Italian film Cannibal Holocaust.[66] The images in the film include the slow and

graphic beheading and ripping apart of a turtle, a monkey being beheaded and its brains being

consumed by natives and a spiderbeing chopped apart. In fact, Cannibal Holocaustwas only

one film in a collective of similarly themed movies (cannibal films) that featured unstaged animal

cruelty. Their influences were rooted in the films ofMondo filmmakers, which sometimes

contained similar content. In several countries, such as the UK, Cannibal Holocaustwas only

allowed for release with most of the animal cruelty edited out.

More recently, the video sharing site YouTube has been criticized for hosting thousands of

videos of real life animal cruelty, especially the feeding of one animal to another for thepurposes of entertainment and spectacle. Although some of these videos have been flagged as

inappropriate by users, YouTube has generally declined to remove them, unlike videos which

includecopyright infringement.[67][68]

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) has contracted with theAmerican Humane Association (AHA)

for monitoring of animal use during filming or while on the set.[69]Compliance with this

arrangement is voluntary and only applies to films made in the United States. Films monitored

by the American Humane Association may bear one of their end-credit messages. Many

productions, including those made in the US, do not advise AHA or SAG of animal use in films,

so there is no oversight. [70]

Simulations of animal cruelty exist on television, too. On the September 23, 1999 edition

ofWWESmackdown !, a plot line had professional wrestlerBig Boss Man trick fellow wrestlerAl

Snow into appearing to eat his pet chihuahuaPepper.[71][72]

Circuses

The use of animals in thecircus has been controversial since animal welfare groups have

documented instances of animal cruelty during the training of performing animals. TheHumane

Society of the United States has documented multiple cases of abuse and neglect,[73]and cite

several reasons for opposing the use of animals in circuses, including confining enclosures, lack

of regular veterinary care, abusive training methods and lack of oversight by regulating bodies.

[74]Animal trainers have argued that some criticism is not based in fact, including beliefs thatanimals are 'hurt' by being shouted at, that caging is cruel and common, and the harm caused

by the use ofwhips, chains or training implements.[75]

In 2009, Bolivia passed legislation banning the use of any animals, wild or domestic, in circuses.

The law states that circuses "constitute an act of cruelty." Circus operators had one year from

the bill's passage on July 1, 2009 to comply.[76]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_IIIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Warriorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Nowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Nowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manderlayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Koreahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Islehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ki-Dukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ki-Dukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_Holocausthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_filmshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondo_filmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTubehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guildhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humane_Associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humane_Associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televisionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smackdown!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smackdown!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Traylorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Snowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Snowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chihuahua_(dog)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Society_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Society_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Society_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_IIIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Warriorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Nowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manderlayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Koreahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Islehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ki-Dukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_Holocausthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_filmshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondo_filmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTubehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guildhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humane_Associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televisionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smackdown!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Traylorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Snowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Snowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chihuahua_(dog)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Society_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Society_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip


9/29

In 2010, Lebanese animal rights groups became enraged when it was learned that wild

performing animals belonging to the Monte Carlo Circus were transported from Egypt to

Lebanon without being provided with food and water.[77]

Restrictions

Following the campaign, new regulations were enacted that prohibit the use of animals incircuses in Israel.Finland and Singapore have restricted the use of animals in entertainment.

The UK and Scottish Parliaments have committed to ban certain wild animals in travelling

circuses and approximately 200 local authorities in the UK have banned all animal acts on

council land.[citation needed] Animal acts are still very popular throughout much ofEurope,

the Americas and Asia. In the United States animal welfare standards are overseen by

the United States Department of Agricultureunder provisions of theAnimal Welfare Act. Efforts

to ban circus animals in cities like Denver, Colorado have been rejected by voters. Some

circuses now present animal-free acts.[78]

Part 1 Interpretation and Application

Definitions

1 (1) In this Act:

"authorized agent" means a person appointed as an

authorized agent under section 10 (1);

"justice" means a justice as defined in the Offence Act;

"operator" means a person who engages in a regulated

activity, and includes any person who assists, directs,

supervises or employs that person for the purpose of doing the

regulated activity;

"person responsible for an animal" or "person

responsible for the animal" includes a person who

(a) owns an animal,

(b) has custody or control of an animal, or

(c) is an operator in relation to an animal;

"registered veterinarian" means an individual who is

authorized under the Veterinarians Actto practise veterinary

medicine;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singaporehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singaporehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966


10/29

"regulated activity" means a prescribed activity in relation

to the breeding, care, keeping, training, use, transportation,

disposition, assembly or killing of animals;

"rules", in relation to the society, include except in section 5

the constitution, bylaws and regulations of the society;

"service animal" means an animal that is trained

(a) to assist in law enforcement activities, whether the

animal is used by a peace officer or a person acting

under the direction of a peace officer, or

(b) for use

(i) by a person within a prescribed class of

persons, or

(ii) for prescribed purposes,

and that is engaged in activities relating to the service for

which it is trained;

"society" means the society continued under section 3.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, an animal is in distress if it is

(a) deprived of adequate food, water, shelter,ventilation, light, space, exercise, care or veterinary

treatment,

(a.1) kept in conditions that are unsanitary,

(a.2) not protected from excessive heat or cold,

(b) injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or

(c) abused or neglected.

(3) [Repealed 2011-7-1.]

Application

2 This Act does not apply to wildlife, as defined in the Wildlife Act,

that is not in captivity.


11/29

Part 2 The Society

Society continued

3 The society under the name of "The British Columbia Society for

the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" is continued with perpetual

succession and a corporate seal.

Membership of society

4 (1) In addition to those persons who immediately before

April 6, 1968, were members of the society, the membership of

the society consists of those persons who, in accordance with the

rules of the society, are admitted to membership.

(2) The rules of the society may provide for different categories of

members.

(3) The members of the society are subject to the rules and hold

their membership subject to the rules.

Constitution of society

5 (1) The society may amend or replace its constitution, bylaws,

rules and regulations.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), the constitution, bylaws, rules and

regulations of the society in force immediately before April 6, 1968

continue in force, and the society is governed by them.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the power to make bylaws, rules or

regulations may be delegated to any committee, branch or officer

of the society.

(4) No delegation may be made under subsection (3)

(a) with respect to a matter reserved by the

constitution, bylaws, rules or regulations to a meeting of

the members of the society, or

(b) with respect to a bylaw relating to policies and

operational procedures of the society for administering

the enforcement powers of this Act.


12/29

Monitoring of enforcement bylaws

6 (1) The society must file with the minister a copy of every bylaw

made under section 5 that relates to policies and operational

procedures of the society for administering the enforcement

powers of this Act within 7 days after it is made.

(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may disallow a bylaw that

relates to the matters described in subsection (1).

(3) The power of disallowance under subsection (2) applies to

bylaws made both before and after the day on which this section

comes into force.

Powers of society

7 The society may do one or more of the following:

(a) receive, take, hold, enjoy and manage all gifts,

devises, bequests, legacies, subscriptions and donations

of property that are made or given to it;

(b) acquire, hold, lease, sell, convey and mortgage any

property necessary to carry out the work of the society;

(c) establish and operate public shelters for stray and

seized animals;

(d) enter agreements with the government and with any

municipality or regional district to act as pound keeper

in a defined area in British Columbia.

Branches

8 (1) Subject to subsection (3), the branches of the society are

continued.

(2) The society may form and establish branches in its discretion

anywhere in British Columbia.

(3) Branches are subject to the control and direction of the society

and may, in accordance with the rules of the society, be

(a) dissolved by the society, or


13/29

(b) suspended by the society or its executive

committee.

(4) If the society establishes a branch, it must promptly send the

Registrar of Companies a notice setting out the date the branch

was formed, the title of the branch, the locality and powers of the

branch, and the other information the registrar may require.

(5) The society must notify the registrar when a branch ceases to

exist.

Corporate duties and obligations

9 (1) The society must

(a) have an address in British Columbia to which all

communications and notices may be sent and at which

all process may be served, and

(b) file with the Registrar of Companies notice of every

change of address within 14 days after the change is

made.

(2) Every general meeting of the society must be held in British

Columbia.

(3) The society must hold an annual general meeting.

(4) Within 14 days after the annual general meeting, the society

must file with the Registrar of Companies

(a) an audited financial statement in the form of

(i) a balance sheet containing general particulars

of assets and liabilities, and

(ii) a statement of income and expenditure, and

(b) a list of directors of the society, stating for each

director his or her address and date of appointment or

election.

(5) In addition to the filings required under subsection (4) (b), on

request by the Registrar of Companies, the society must furnish

the registrar with particulars of directors of the society.


14/29

(6) The society and each of its branches must

(a) maintain a register of members, and

(b) record in it the name and address of every person

admitted as a member of the society.

(7) Failure, refusal or neglect by the society to observe or perform

a duty or obligation created or imposed by this section or section 8

(4) or (5) is an offence.

(8) If the society commits an offence under subsection (7), it is

liable on conviction to a penalty of not more than $100.

Part 2.1 Standards of Care

Duties of persons responsible for animals

9.1 (1) A person responsible for an animal must care for the animal,

including protecting the animal from circumstances that are likely

to cause the animal to be in distress.

(2) A person responsible for an animal must not cause or permit

the animal to be, or to continue to be, in distress.

Duties of operators

9.2 (1) An operator engaging in a regulated activity

(a) must comply with each requirement and duty set

out in, and

(b) must not engage in any practice or carry out any

procedure that is prohibited under

a regulation respecting the regulated activity.

(2) An operator who is an employer must ensure that employees

are adequately trained and sufficiently equipped to comply with

any requirement or duty set out in a regulation respecting the

regulated activity in which the operator is engaged.

Transportation of animals


15/29

9.3 (1) A person responsible for an animal must not transport the

animal by vehicle unless the animal is

(a) inside the passenger compartment, or

(b) confined or secured in a manner that will preventthe animal from

(i) falling from the vehicle,

(ii) being injured during transport, or

(iii) causing a hazard to the safe operation of

other vehicles.

(2) A person responsible for an animal must not attach the animal

to a vehicle that is in operation unless the animal is confined or

secured as described in subsection (1) (b).

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person operating a

vehicle that is designed for use as a mobility aid for persons with a

disability and that is being used for that purpose.

Part 3 Relieving Distress in Animals

Authorized agents

10 (1) The society may appoint an officer or employee of the society

or any other person as an authorized agent for the purposes of this

Act.

(2) An authorized agent may exercise the powers of an authorized

agent under this Act or any other law relating to the prevention of

cruelty to animals only if he or she has been appointed as a

special provincial constable under the Police Act.

Abandoned animals

10.1 (1) In this section, "abandoned animal" includes an animal that

(a) is apparently ownerless,

(b) is found straying,


16/29

(c) is found in a rental unit after expiry of the tenancy

agreement in respect of the rental unit, or

(d) if a person agreed to care for the animal, is not

retrieved from that person within 4 days following the

end of that agreement.

(2) If an authorized agent is of the opinion that an animal is an

abandoned animal, the authorized agent may take custody of the

animal and arrange for food, water, shelter, care and veterinary

treatment for it.

Relieving distress in animals

11 If an authorized agent is of the opinion that an animal is in distress

and the person responsible for the animal

(a) does not promptly take steps that will relieve its

distress, or

(b) cannot be found immediately and informed of the

animal's distress,

the authorized agent may, in accordance with sections 13 and 14,

take any action that the authorized agent considers necessary to

relieve the animal's distress, including, without limitation, taking

custody of the animal and arranging for food, water, shelter, care

and veterinary treatment for it.

Relieving critical distress in animals

12 (1) In this section, "critical distress" means distress in an animal

of such a nature that

(a) immediate veterinary treatment cannot prolong the

animal's life, or

(b) prolonging the animal's life would result in the

animal suffering unduly.

(2) If, in the opinion of

(a) a registered veterinarian, or


17/29

(b) an authorized agent, if a registered veterinarian is

not readily available,

an animal is in critical distress, the authorized agent may destroy

the animal or have the animal destroyed.

Authority to enter with a warrant

13 (1) An authorized agent who believes, on reasonable grounds,

(a) that there is an animal in distress in any premises,

vehicle, aircraft or vessel, or

(b) that an offence under section 24 has been

committed and that there is in any premises, vehicle,

aircraft or vessel, any thing that will afford evidence of

that offence,

may enter the premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel with a warrant

issued under subsection (2) for the purpose of

(c) determining whether any action authorized by this

Act should be taken to relieve the animal's distress, or

(d) searching for, and seizing, any thing that will afford

evidence of an offence under section 24.

(2) A justice who is satisfied by information on oath in the

prescribed form that there are reasonable grounds

(a) under paragraph (1) (a), may issue a warrant in the

prescribed form authorizing an authorized agent to

enter the premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel for the

purpose of taking any action authorized by this Act to

relieve the animal's distress, and

(b) under paragraph (1) (b), may issue a warrant in the

prescribed form authorizing an authorized agent to

enter the premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel for the

purpose of searching for, and seizing, a thing that will

afford evidence of an offence under section 24.

(2.1) If an authorized agent believes that it would be impracticable

to appear personally before a justice to apply for a warrant under


18/29

this section, the authorized agent may submit an information on

oath by telephone or other means of telecommunication and, for

this purpose, section 22 of the Offence Actapplies.

(3) A justice may issue a warrant under subsection (2) or (2.1) for

either or both of the purposes referred to in subsection (2).

(4) A warrant issued under subsection (2) or (2.1) is subject to the

conditions specified in the warrant.

Authority to enter without a warrant

14 (1) In this section, "critical distress" means distress in an animal

of such a nature that

(a) immediate veterinary treatment cannot prolong the

animal's life,

(b) prolonging the animal's life would result in the

animal suffering unduly, or

(c) immediate veterinary intervention is necessary to

prevent the imminent death of the animal.

(2) An authorized agent who believes on reasonable grounds that

there is an animal in critical distress in any premises, other than a

dwelling house, or in any vehicle, aircraft or vessel, may enter the

premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel without a warrant for the

purpose of taking any action authorized by this Act to relieve that

critical distress.

Entry to determine distress

15 An authorized agent may, without a warrant, during ordinary

business hours enter any premises, other than a dwelling house,

where animals are kept for sale, hire or exhibition for the purpose

of determining whether any animal is in distress in the premises.

Inspection

15.1 (1) Subject to subsection (3), an authorized agent may enter any

premises or a vehicle where an operator is engaging in a regulated


19/29

activity for the purpose of determining whether this Act and the

regulations made under it are being complied with.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an authorized agent who believes on

reasonable grounds that premises or a vehicle is being used for

the purposes of carrying out a regulated activity may enter the

premises to determine

(a) whether the premises or vehicle is being used for

the purposes of carrying out a regulated activity, and

(b) if so, who the operator is in relation to the regulated

activity being carried out.

(3) Entry under subsection (1) or (2) may be without a warrant or

the consent of the person responsible for the premises or vehicle

only if

(a) the premises or vehicle is not used as a dwelling

house, and

(b) entry is during ordinary business hours.

Inspection powers

15.2 (1) For the purposes of an inspection under section 15.1, an

authorized agent may do one or more of the following:

(a) be accompanied or assisted by a person who has

special, expert or professional knowledge of a matter

relevant to the inspection;

(b) require a person to produce relevant records or

things in the person's possession or control;

(c) inspect, copy or remove relevant records or things;

(d) require a person to

(i) demonstrate a skill, or

(ii) operate a thing or carry out a procedure as

directed by the authorized agent

in relation to a requirement set out in a regulation made

under section 26 (2) (e), (f), (g), (h) or (j);


20/29

(e) make records in respect of a person, place or thing;

(f) take samples and perform analyses and tests,

including tests in which a sample is destroyed.

(2) If an authorized agent removes records or things undersubsection (1) (c), the authorized agent must

(a) provide a receipt for the records or things to the

person from whom they were taken, and

(b) subject to a power under this or any other

enactment to order a thing destroyed, promptly return

the records or things

(i) when they have served the purposes for

which they were taken, or

(ii) if an action or a proceeding is taken under

this or any other enactment as a result of an

inspection, and the records or things are relevant

to the action or proceeding, no later than 3

months after the conclusion of the action or

proceeding.

(3) Sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Actdo not apply to the

removal of records or things under subsection (1) (c) of this Act.

Identification

16 An authorized agent exercising a power under section 13, 14 or 15

must, on demand, produce his or her certificate of appointment to

the owner or occupant of any premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel

entered under those sections.

Disposition of abandoned animals taken into custody

17 If an animal is taken into custody under section 10.1 and

(a) the owner is unknown, the society may destroy, sell

or otherwise dispose of the animal after the society has

held the animal for a period of at least 4 days, or


21/29

(b) the owner is known, the society may destroy, sell or

otherwise dispose of the animal 4 days after the society

has given notice to the owner in accordance with

section 19.

Disposition of animals removed from custody of owner

18 If an animal is removed from the custody of its owner under

section 11 and taken into the custody of the society, the society

may destroy, sell or otherwise dispose of the animal 14 days after

the society has given notice to the owner in accordance with

section 19.

Form of notice

19 The notice referred to in sections 17 (b) and 18 must be in writing

and

(a) mailed to or served personally on the owner, or

(b) if it cannot be mailed to or served personally on the

owner,

(i) published at least 3 times at 2 day intervals in

a newspaper circulating in the area in which theanimal was taken into custody, or

(ii) posted in a conspicuous place at either the

owner's last known address or the location at

which the animal was taken into custody.

Animal is property of new owner

19.1 If an animal has been sold or otherwise disposed of under section

17 or 18, all rights and interests in the animal

(a) vest in the person to whom it has been sold or

otherwise disposed of, and

(b) the former owner ceases to have any of those rights

and interests.

Costs of taking action and proceeds of disposition


22/29

20 (1) The owner of an animal taken into custody or destroyed under

this Act is liable to the society for the costs incurred by the society

under this Act with respect to the animal.

(2) The society may require the owner to pay the costs for which

he or she is liable under subsection (1) before returning the

animal.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the society may retain the proceeds

of a sale or other disposition of an animal under section 17 or 18.

(4) If the proceeds of a sale or other disposition exceed the costs

referred to in subsection (1), the owner of the animal may, within

6 months of the date the animal was taken into custody, claim the

balance from the society.

Part 4 General

Aid by police

21 A peace officer must assist the authorized agents of the society in

enforcing this or any other law relating to the prevention of cruelty

to animals.

Police powers

22 In a part of British Columbia in which the society does not function

through a branch or authorized agent, a peace officer who has

jurisdiction in the part has and may exercise any of the powers of

an authorized agent of the society under this Act.

Duty to report distress

22.1 A registered veterinarian who believes on reasonable grounds thata person responsible for an animal is, or is likely, causing or

permitting the animal to be in distress in contravention of this Act

must promptly report, to the best of the registered veterinarian's

knowledge and belief, all of the following information to an

authorized agent:

(a) the reason for believing that an animal is in distress;


23/29

(b) sufficient information to contact the person

responsible for the animal, including the person's name

and address;

(c) sufficient information to identify the animal.

Obstruction

23 A person must not wilfully or knowingly

(a) interfere with or obstruct, or

(b) provide false or misleading information to

a person in the discharge of duties or the exercise of powers under

this Act.

Service animals

23.1 (1) A person must not do, or attempt to do, any of the following

without lawful excuse or authority:

(a) harm a service animal;

(b) touch, directly or indirectly, a service animal;

(c) interfere with or obstruct a service animal.

(2) A person responsible for an animal must take reasonable steps

to prevent the animal from doing a thing described in subsection

(1).

Harm to animals by persons

23.2 (1) A person must not cause an animal to be in distress.

(2) A person who kills an animal

(a) must comply with prescribed requirements, and

(b) must not, in killing the animal, cause the animal to

be in distress or do anything that is prohibited by the

regulations.

Harm to animals by animals


24/29

23.3 (1) A person responsible for an animal must take reasonable steps

to prevent the animal from attacking or otherwise harming another

animal.

(2) A person must not use an animal for, or breed, raise, train or

dispose of an animal for the purpose of having the animal used

for,

(a) baiting or fighting another animal, or

(b) another prescribed activity that involves an animal

attacking or harming another animal.

(3) A person must not possess equipment ordinarily used for the

breeding, raising or training of animals for a purpose described in

subsection (2).

Offences

24 (1) A person who contravenes section 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 23, 23.1, 23.2

or 23.3 commits an offence.

(2) [Repealed 2011-7-6.]

(3) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), a

justice may, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposedfor the offence, prohibit the person from owning or having custody

or control of an animal for a period of time specified by the justice.

(4) A justice may make an order under subsection (3) on any

terms the justice considers appropriate.

(5) A person who fails to comply with an order made under

subsection (3) commits an offence.

(6) A proceeding for an offence under this Act may not be

commenced in any court more than 3 years after the facts on

which the proceeding is based first come to the knowledge of an

authorized agent who is a special provincial constable under

the Police Act.

Offence by corporation or employee


25/29

24.01 (1) If a corporation commits an offence under this Act, an

employee, an officer, a director or an agent of the corporation who

authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the offence commits the

offence whether or not the corporation is convicted.

(2) If an employee commits an offence under this Act, an

employer who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the offence

commits the offence whether or not the employee is identified or

convicted.

Defence

24.02 A person must not be convicted of an offence under this Act in

relation to an animal in distress if

(a) the person is

(i) a registered veterinarian,

(ii) an employee of a registered veterinarian who

is acting under the supervision of the registered

veterinarian, or

(iii) an enrolled student of veterinary medicine

who is an employee of a registered veterinarian

and is acting as authorized by the registeredveterinarian, and

the person is practising veterinary medicine in

accordance with the standards of the profession,

(b) if the person is an operator, the distress results

from an activity that is carried out in accordance with

the prescribed standards of care that apply to the

regulated activity in which the operator is engaged, or

(c) the distress results from an activity that is carried

out in accordance with reasonable and generally

accepted practices of animal management that apply to

the activity in which the person is engaged, unless the

person is an operator and those practices are

inconsistent with prescribed standards.


26/29

Penalties

24.1 A person who commits an offence under this Act is liable on

conviction to a fine not exceeding $75 000 or to imprisonment for

a term not exceeding 2 years, or to both.

Animals taken into custody

24.2 Sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Actdo not apply to an animal

taken into custody under this Act.

Order of custody

25 (1) An authorized agent may apply to the Supreme Court for an

order of custody of an animal in respect of which a charge has

been laid under section 24.

(2) An applicant under subsection (1) may retain custody of an

animal in respect of which the application is made pending the

outcome of any proceedings under section 24, despite the fact that

the owner of the animal

(a) has paid the costs incurred by the society for which

the owner is liable under section 20, and

(b) has requested the authorized agent to return the

animal.

(3) The Supreme Court may make an order under this section on

any terms it considers appropriate.

Immunity

25.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies

or may be commenced or maintained against the society, an

authorized agent or a member, officer, agent or employee of the

society because of anything done or omitted

(a) in the performance or intended performance, by an

authorized agent, of any duty under this Act, or

(b) in the exercise or intended exercise, by an

authorized agent, of any power under this Act.


27/29

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person referred to in that

subsection in relation to anything done or omitted in bad faith.

Immunity for persons who report

25.2 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies

or may be commenced or maintained against a registered

veterinarian because of anything done or omitted in the making of

a report as required under section 22.1.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a registered veterinarian in

relation to anything done or omitted in bad faith.

Power to make regulations

26 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations

referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in

Council may make regulations as follows:

(a) requiring the society to make bylaws with respect to

the policies and operational procedures of the society

for administering the enforcement provisions of this Act;

(b) prescribing the form of an information to obtain a

warrant and the form of a warrant for the purposes of

section 13;

(c) prescribing activities for the purposes of the

definition of "regulated activity" in section 1 (1);

(d) prescribing purposes and classes of persons for the

purposes of the definition of "service animal" in section

1 (1);

(e) respecting standards that operators must comply

with when engaging in a regulated activity;

(f) respecting standards in relation to design,

construction, maintenance and operation of facilities

used when engaging in a regulated activity;


28/29

(g) prohibiting operators from engaging in specified

practices or carrying out specified procedures when

engaging in a regulated activity;

(h) respecting practices and procedures to be used in

the killing of animals, including prohibiting certain

practices and procedures;

(i) prescribing activities for the purposes of section 23.3

(2);

(j) exempting

(i) operators engaging in regulated activities

from one or more provisions of a regulation made

under this section, or

(ii) persons from section 23.2 (2) or 23.3, or

from one or more provisions of a regulation made

under paragraph (h) of this section;

(k) imposing requirements or conditions on operators or

other persons exempted under paragraph (j);

(l) respecting generally accepted practices of animal

management that apply to a regulated activity;

(m) establishing classes of persons, animals or

regulated activities and making different regulations for

different classes.

(3) A regulation made under this Act may adopt by reference, in

whole or in part and with any changes the Lieutenant Governor in

Council considers appropriate, a regulation, code, standard or rule

(a) enacted as or under a law of another jurisdiction,

including a foreign jurisdiction,

(b) set by a provincial, national or international body or

any other body that may make codes, standards or

rules, or

(c) set by or in consultation with

(i) the society, or


29/29

(ii) an organization, one purpose of which is to

set standards in relation to a regulated activity.

(4) Unless otherwise stated, a code, standard or rule referred to in

subsection (3) (a) or (b) is adopted as amended from time to

time.

many jurisdictions around the world have enacted statutes which forbid cruelty to some animals but...

Documents