UK's dangerous dogs

The Guardian UK online has a Pets section as well as an Animal Welfare section (how many other mainstream online papers have an animal welfare section?) and it's all in an uproar over the proposed mandatory microchipping and carrying of third party insurance for all dogs.

This will result in nice bonuses for insurance company execs and shareholders, more work for animal control, more clogging up the courts, poorer and more pissed off pet owners, way more dogs being killed (from all those people who end up dumping their dogs or having their dogs taken away because they don't meet the legal requirements).

The intended goals of this piece of legislation is to compensate people who are bitten by dogs and to decrease dog bites. Will it do those things? It might help with the compensation. Certainly, lawyers will love the higher settlements but will people who don't bother to train their dogs not to bite bother to carry insurance? Hard to say.

Will the law decrease dog bites? Does compulsory car insurance decrease car accidents? Does car insurance stop drunks from getting behind the wheel? Does it prevent kids from road racing? Or does it make the behaviour worse, giving people a false sense of added security? I'm not sure anyone knows but whether it works or not, you can be sure that innocent dogs will be paying for it with their lives.

London's far away and they've got a different, much more severe, set of problems from us in Ontario but it wouldn't be surprising if some provincial politician or attorney general with a hate on for dogs and out to make a name for himself isn't eyeballing the U.K. law and thinking about how it'll help get him votes and also pal up to the insurance industry at the same time.

Here are some excerpts from The Guardian.

From Dog days:


"With these younger guys around nowadays it's all about status. They see it as a macho thing – don't mess with me or my dog will take your face off in a second. Dogs aren't violent – people train dogs to be violent"

From Dangerous dogs and chips: is it worth the trouble?:

Let's stick to safety today. The fact is that some of the most heavily protected people in the country – by and large the richest – are those that often seem to feel least safe in my experience, because they don't really know what they're afraid of.

From Let's get draconian on the dog problem:

Sadly, unlike the dogs, the law has no teeth. You can't take someone's dog and microchip it without permission, or enter a house, stop the home-breeding and neuter the dogs, and vets can't report dogs injured in fights, and the bad owners know this. So perhaps the government needs to toughen up on dog owners and ignore the whingeing "good" owners who are worried they'll be penalised along with the nasty ones. If they really cared about dogs, they'd want everything possible done to get things under control. Because there's a great deal of cruelty to animals going on out there.

From Are dogs the new weapon of choice for young people?:

David Grant, director of the RSPCA's Harmondsworth hospital in north London, picks up the pieces of irresponsible dog ownership every day. His hospital is full of emaciated staffies that have been abandoned – often in the hospital's reception – by young men who don't want to give their names or pay veterinary bills. Many of the dogs are sick, as their owners haven't had the money or the knowledge to apply for vaccinations. In the worst cases, dogs have been abused by irritated owners or been forced to fight.

In 40 years of practice, Grant, whose veterinary operations were seen by millions on the BBC's Animal Hospital television series, says things have never been so bad, and he has started documenting the worst cases. His computer now hold hundreds of images of dogs that have been shot, stabbed or burnt.

"A typical problem owner will be from an inner-city estate, unemployed, without any educational achievements," he says. "Young males predominate, although the fighters often register the dog in a girlfriend's name." Names such as ­Terror, Chaos, Killer, Ice and Asbo often tell a dog's story, says Grant, as does evidence of ­harnesses – accessories often used to glamorise dogs before gang fights.

But Grant is keen not to sensationalise or oversimplify. He wants to distinguish between "fashion dogs", which are simply part of a craze, and "status dogs", which are bred for offence and defence. "Fashion dogs tend to be staffie crosses that are naturally good-natured, turning nasty only when they suffer abuse, or neglect when their owners get bored," he says. ­"Status dogs, on the other hand, are bred to intimidate. At the worst level, gangs will use them for mascots, muggings, safeguarding territory, and fighting enemies and other dogs."

From My day as a dangerous-dog owner:

The streets of Harlesden are quiet at midday, but there is no question that Duddly, straining at his lead as I dig in my heels – he has amazing traction – constitutes an intimidating presence. People heading in our direction spontaneously cross the road as we approach. Passing cyclists give us a wide berth. It is empowering, I suppose, to be at the helm of something that alarms people so readily. Certainly my own personal safety was the last thing on my mind, although I couldn't say I had time to stop and enjoy the sense of security. I was too worried about what would happen if I let go of the lead.

Pit Bulls at Queen's Park

A lot of the people in the building behind me want me dead

That makes me sad but I'd probably still give them a kiss anyway ...

... because people don't always know what they're doing ...

... and I will always forgive them for their trespasses against me

I took an early lunch and went over to Queen's Park for the demo today only to discover that it had been moved an hour earlier and I'd missed everything. Oh well. Talked to some Pit Bull owners and met their dogs instead.

They told me maybe 50 - 75 people showed up for the morning event and that the speeches by Cheri DiNovo, Clayton Ruby and some other people, whose names I don't recall - sorry - were all well received. Someone videotaped the whole thing so when that comes out, I'll post a link to it.

The bill would've been presented in the legislature in the afternoon for first reading and it's most likely that it would've been passed. That doesn't mean it's law. It just means it's made it past first reading like almost every potential bill does. Sometime later, next fall, I think, it gets voted on for real.

Here's the clip from CTV which is rather uninformative really.

Yeah, nothing new there from McGuinty who kind of reminds me of a plastic shopping bag full of muddy water for some reason (something Freudian there probably but I'm not sure what). Does he even know what a Pit bull is? He acts like he kinda does but he could use the same phrasing to talk about large rocks or discarded banana peels or little children shooting elastic bands.

I would never advocate people not picking up after their dogs but if ever someone deserved to step in a soft pile of dog shit, I'm sure we could find that someone, a whole mess of someones, behind those big wooden doors of the legislature.

Here's a much more informed clip from a radio show on Talk1010 hosted by John Tory with guest Cheri DiNovo and Bill Bruce.

Killing puppies for a living

(h/t Meaghan Edwards)

This is bullshit:

Korinn Seabrook and Sonya Pimentel are desperate to stop Sarnia from euthanizing their puppies, but neither is optimistic they can be saved.

The women, who are friends, each adopted an 11-month-old dog they believe are boxer mixes from a mutual friend.

"Both the mom and the dad are boxer mix. My friend has the papers to prove it," said Seabrook.

But Sarnia animal control officers say the puppies look like Staffordshire bull terriers, a breed that's been illegal to own in Ontario since legislation was passed in 2005 to ban so-called pitbulls.

And this is bullshit:

The city seized the dog and impounded her, initially saying Maddi would be euthanized Thursday. She has since been granted a reprieve until Sept. 10 to give her owners an opportunity to prove she isn't a Staff ordshire bull terrier.

And this is bullshit:

"I don't like it anymore than anyone else," said Loosley [Sarnia's acting deputy clerk]. "But the city has to enforce the provincial legislation."

Animal control officers in Sarnia should be ashamed of themselves for snatching up puppies just so they can kill them.

That bullshit about "But the city has to enforce the provincial legislation" is a weak excuse for whatever the fuck Sarnia animal control calls what they are doing. Identifying a dog as a Pit Bull or a Pit Bull look-a-like is totally up to the discretion of the animal control officer.

From a follow-up article, Pitbull law unevenly applied

“Our [Sarnia] animal control officers have tremendous expertise,” Bradley said. “They are professional and ethical people doing what they believe the law requires.”

About once a month a dog is euthanized in Sarnia as a banned breed.

But just down the road in St. Clair Township, no dogs have ever been euthanized under the law.

Animal control officer Gayle Farr only picks up dogs running at large or causing problems, she said.

“That’s my mandate. It’s not about what the dog looks like. I think the provincial law is wrong. The merit of a dog is its owner.”

Sarnia animal control could learn a thing or two about being professional and ethical from St. Clair Township ACO Gayle Farr.

Update: Looks like three dogs are going to be killed unless someone kicks Sarnia animal control in the head with some compassion and common sense.

Here's the Facebook page.

And, yes, you can thank Michael Bryant for this bullshit.

Update: All three dogs have been returned to owner.

Pit Bull rally and Canine Good Neighbours

I had wanted to go to this rally at Queen's Park but was out of town. Looks like they had a decent turnout.

From Wag The Dog!:



To help the Dog Legislation Council of Canada continue its work in trying to overturn BSL in Ontario, they are holding a Canine Good Neighbour Certification test:

CGN TESTING

The Dog Legislation Council of Canada is offering a Canine

Good Neighbor Day at the Beeton Fair September 19th, 2009.

Canadian Kennel Club certificate test - conducted by a CKC CGN Evaluator.

Fee for CGN is $35.00 per dog.

Saturday, September 19th 2009 - testing will be held on the grounds at the Beeton Fair.

This test is available to purebred and non-pure bred dogs. There will be an entrance fee to gain access to the Fairgrounds. Please keep your dogs leashed to comply with municipal bylaws at all times.

For more information about the CGN testing criteria please contact Lori Gray dlccevents@gmail.com

The Town of New Tecumseth offers a half price reduction to dog tag costs for dogs with a Canine Good Neighbour Certificate.

Directions:

From Hwy 400, go north to exit hwy 88 to Bond Head. Go west to Bond Head to stoplight at hwy 27th. Turn north to 8th line 1.5 km. Turn left or west toward Beeton 8.8km. You will now be on the Main St of Beeton. At 2nd St N in Beeton, turn right or north to Prospect St. You will be at the fairgrounds in Community Park.

Pre-book CGN testing by contacting:

dlccevents@gmail.com

Dogs must be 6 months of age or older

Fatties

Not the dog in question below but a fattie nevertheless

As reported in The Guardian, U.K., a man has been charged and found guilty of overfeeding his dog to the point where it got dangerously overweight.

From Councillor Geoffrey Theobald, cabinet member for environment:

All dogs, but particularly border collies like Taz, need a good healthy diet and lots of exercise. Keeping a large dog shut indoors in a small space and overfeeding is a form of cruelty, and while our animal welfare team are happy to offer advice and information to dog owners, they will not hesitate to use the Animal Welfare Act to prosecute those who clearly have no intention of properly looking after their pet.

I read stuff like that and I think our animal welfare laws here in Canada, where you can still hammer your dogs to death and not get convicted of animal cruelty, must have been written by someone from the paleolithic period as he was clubbing potential mates over the head with his hockey stick.

In the accompanying photos that go along with the above article, there are some massive dogs and cats and I know how unhealthy it is for them but when I see those pics, all I can think about is giving those dogs a squish.

Mark Holland and animal cruelty law

(h/t to redstarcafe for this)

Is Mark Holland the only MP speaking up for animal cruelty laws with teeth? He's the MP for Ajax-Pickering and for five years now, he's been trying to get our animal cruelty laws updated.

From The Mark Holland Update: Provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with animal cruelty have changed very little since 1892 and they are extremely antiquated. This has often made it difficult to obtain convictions against animal abusers, and when convictions are obtained, the penalties are often too light.

My Bill C-373 is a comprehensive bill that not only increases penalties, but also closes off the many loopholes that allow animal abusers to walk away scot-free. There's little sense increasing penalties if you can't convict people. In fact, currently only one quarter of 1% of animal cruelty complaints actually result in conviction!

You may recall that last spring, there were two competing animal cruelty bills being discussed in the media. I know. Two is way too complicated for mass consumption and already the fleeting public attention span was wavering over to Paris' next up skirt underwear photo. And of course that was the strategy behind the introduction of the weaker than water S-213 bill by Senator John Bryden to counter Mark Holland's C-373.

It was a strategy well played because S-213 (name changed to S-203. Why? Why not?) was quickly passed while C-373 sat in a Parliamentary wannabe law line-up never to see the light of day.

Just to give you idea of which bill had the strength to protect animals against cruelty and which bill was a wet noodle: the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) supported Mark Holland's C-373. Hunters supported S-213.

According to Holland, however, not even hunters should have been worried about C-373.

In particular, they object to part of C-373 that would make it an offence to kill an animal, or allow it to be killed, “brutally or viciously.” Nothing in my bill would interfere with responsible hunters who use guns or bows in a lawful manner, so it’s a mystery to me why these groups feel the need to kill animals “brutally or viciously.”

So now we're stuck with S-213 which is basically the same as the old animal cruelty bill except with stiffer penalties, but as Holland said, what's the use of stiffer penalties if you can't get convictions?

Some examples of the utter failure of the current law are here but for a hit-yer-head-against-a-wall look at how it plays out in court, there's this case, summarized from Pet-Abuse.Com (and remember, this is a "successful" example of the one quarter of 1% that resulted in convictions):

October 8, 2006
Didsbury, Alberta

A 19-year-old girl found a female collie-Lab cross, still alive but lying in a pool of blood in the street. Her four legs were bound together with duct tape, a bag was covering her head and there was a tow rope around her neck. It appeared she had been dragged behind a vehicle.

The veterinarian called to the scene said the rope around her neck was so tight it caused one of her eyes to pop out. Her neck, back and pelvis were also broken.

The vet euthanized the dog immediately.

A 100-metre-long blood trail, where she had been dragged behind a vehicle, led to a home where arrests were later made.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, and a 17-year-old youth, on October 8, have been charged under the Criminal Code with injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, as well as obstructing police.

Adults convicted of the cruelty charge could face a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine and/or six months in jail.

November 6, 2006 - Brandon Sun
A young man accused of beating his family dog and then dragging it behind a car was confronted by at least 50 people and their pets Monday as he made his first court appearance.

The crowd threw threats and profanities at Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, as he tried to leave the courthouse in the central Alberta community of Didsbury. Haskett and a 17-year-old youth, who can't be named due to his age, are charged with injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

"We've received hundreds, maybe thousands, of messages from people who are just outraged at the reports," said Tim Battle with the Alberta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The case is in the early stages and none of the charges has been proven.

When an animal is found mistreated, it inevitably raises questions about the people who do such things.

Battle and Randy Lockwood, a senior vice-president with the American SPCA, told resource officers at a safe schools conference Monday in Edmonton that cruelty to animals by young students can be an important warning sign of future violent behaviour against people.

People who intentionally hurt animals are four to five times more likely to commit violent crimes than the general population, Lockwood said.

He also said most offenders start abusing animals when they are still children around the ages of seven or eight.

"It gives the individual an opportunity to experience gaining a sense of power and control through the suffering of others. And if it has no consequences, it's certainly likely to be repeated."

November 23, 2006 - CBC
A young Didsbury man accused of animal cruelty in the dragging death of a dog stayed away from the local courthouse Wednesday on the advice of his lawyer.

"I was concerned for his safety to be honest with you," lawyer Mark Takada said of Daniel Haskett,19, who was surrounded by jeering protesters at his first court appearance.

The two accused aren't the "sadistic brutes" they've been made out to be, Takada said.

The dog was initially accidentally hit by a vehicle, he said. Takada says his client is not responsible for dragging the dog behind a car.

December 11, 2006 - AZ Central
A central Alberta man has pleaded not guilty to a charge of animal cruelty in a case that has shocked much of the province.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, was accused of dragging his family's pet to its death behind a car.

Haskett's trial is scheduled for May 23.

April 18, 2007 - CNews
A 17-year-old Alberta youth has pleaded guilty in a horrific case of animal abuse. The youth is also charged with causing death or injury to an animal, a charge that will be dealt with May 10.

An animal lover from Didsbury collected nearly 100,000 signatures on a petition calling on the federal government to strengthen federal animal cruelty laws.

May 23, 2007 - CBC
A 19-year-old in Didsbury, Alta., entered a surprise guilty plea Wednesday on a charge of willfully causing injury to an animal, after a dog was dragged behind a car last fall and found barely alive.

Daniel Haskett had been scheduled to begin trial in Didsbury on Wednesday after entering a plea of not guilty in December 2006.

Police said the dog was Haskett's family pet.

Haskett has been ordered to undergo a psychological assessment before a sentencing hearing on Aug. 1.

The 17-year-old has already been sentenced to house arrest and probation.

May 23, 2007 - Globe and Mail
According to an agreed statement of facts, the chain of events that led to Daisy Duke's death began last October when the teen accidentally drove over the dog after visiting with Mr. Haskett.

Fearing that he would lose his driver's licence and get in trouble from Mr. Haskett's mother, the teen and Mr. Haskett devised a plan to kill the dog and pretend that she had run away.

After various attempts to kill Daisy failed, the two decided to drag the dog out of town to dispose of the body.

Both confessed to not seeking help or checking to see if the dog was still alive.

The teen's attempt to drag Daisy out of town failed when he ran over the dog a second time and snapped the tow rope.

May 10, 2007 - CBC News
A central Alberta man who pleaded guilty in a horrific case of animal abuse involving a pet dog has been sentenced to three months of house arrest followed by two years of probation. The young man will also have to abide by a curfew for nine months after his house arrest is up and do 240 hours of community service.

The young man from Didsbury, Alta., was less than three weeks away from his 18th birthday when he became involved in what his defence lawyer told court was a "poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt."

August 1, 2007 - CNews
A 10-week delay in the sentencing of a central Alberta man who admitted to fatally torturing his mother's dog left animal rights activists disappointed but determined to see the case through to its conclusion.

Incomplete psychological and pre-sentencing reports means the case, which sent shock waves across Canada, will not be closed until Oct. 17 - a little more than a year after Daisy was found barely alive in an intersection of this quiet farming town.

In May, Haskett pleaded guilty to one count of animal cruelty and one count of obstruction of justice for initially lying to police over his involvement in the crime.

In an agreed statement of facts, Haskett admitted to dragging the dog and putting a bag over its head after his 17-year-old friend inadvertently ran over the animal and then hit it with a shovel.

October 18, 2007 - Edmonton Sun
Sentencing for an Alberta man who admitted to torturing his mother's dog has been delayed again after his lawyer quit abruptly yesterday over ethical and professional concerns.

Daniel Haskett, 20, of Didsbury pleaded guilty last spring to one count of animal cruelty and one count of obstruction of justice for initially lying to police about his role in the death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross.

Haskett has until Nov. 5 to find a new lawyer.

March 14, 2008 - Canada.com
Sentencing of a man charged in a high-profile animal abuse case in Didsbury has been delayed yet again.

Haskett was originally set to be sentenced on Oct. 17, 2007, but his lawyer withdrew on the day of sentencing. The case was then adjourned to April 21 for sentencing.

That date has now been pushed back to June 27 due to a scheduling conflict with Judge Ian Kirkpatrick, officials said Thursday.

June 27, 2008 - The Canadian Press
Daniel Haskett had been scheduled to be sentenced to one count of animal cruelty in the torturous death of Daisy Duke, a Lab-border-collie cross, who was bound and dragged behind a car. But his lawyer surprised provincial court in Didsbury by announcing his client wished to change his plea to not guilty.

As Haskett and his family were escorted away by the RCMP, he turned and lunged at a protester who was yelling obscenities at him and his mother.

Haskett, 20, told court he had lied when he agreed to the facts of the case because he wanted the matter to be over with and people to quit harassing him.

December 20, 2008 - The Barrie Examiner
An Alberta man who tried to kill his family's injured pet dog by binding her with duct tape and dragging her behind a car was sentenced yesterday to 30 days in jail.

Daniel Charles Haskett, 21, will serve his sentence on weekends.

So, house arrest for the unidentified youth and jail on weekends for Daniel Haskett and they only got those sentences because they both pleaded guilty. I have to wonder what would have happened if they had both pleaded not guilty. Would they both have simply joined the 99.75% of accused animal abusers in Canada that are never convicted?

On the other hand, imagine the terror the dog went through when these two lads broke its back, then hit it with a shovel, then tried to suffocate it, then taped up its legs and chained it and dragged it through the streets. Imagine its horror knowing that this was being done by someone it trusted, by someone in its own family. Imagine if this was your dog. How does this extreme suffering equate with three months house arrest for one and weekend jail for the other?

Thank you, Senator John Bryden, for that.

Now, let's look at something that will actually do the job properly.

Again, from The Mark Holland Update:

Animal Cruelty: Bill S-213 versus Bill C-373

Both bills increase penalties to a jail term up to five years and unlimited fines for indictable offenses, and up to 18 months jail and/or a fine up to $10,000 for summary convictions. Both also allow the court to make an order prohibiting an offender from keeping an animal and may require payment of restitution. This is the only common ground between the two bills.

• Bill S-213 leaves in place the dysfunctional term "willful neglect" requiring the court to prove motive for neglecting animals. For example, a farmer who starved his sheep despite repeated warnings was found not guilty because the court couldn't prove he intended to starve them. Bill C-373 instead uses the term "negligent" which is defined as "departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use."

• Bill S-213 leaves in place wording that allows stray and wild animals to be killed for any reason, or even for no reason. Bill C-373 makes it an offence to kill an animal "without a lawful excuse." Under common law and statute law, lawful excuses include hunting, fishing, farming, euthanasia, research, pest control, and protection of life and property.

• Bill S-213 leaves in place wording that allows people to kill animals brutally and viciously if the animal dies immediately. For example, someone who ties an animal to a train track can get off by arguing that the animal died quickly and didn't suffer. Bill C-373 makes it an offence to kill an animal with brutal and or vicious intent, whether or not the animal dies immediately.

• Bill S-213 leaves in place different protections for various animals in an illogical way. For example, cattle are in a class of their own, and wild animals and strays are unprotected for some offences. Bill C-373 protects all vertebrates, owned or unowned. It also adds special protection for law enforcement animals, "Brigadier's Law," something that S-213 also fails to do.

• Bill S-213 fails to define "animal." Bill C-373 defines an animal as a "vertebrate other than a human being."

• Bill S-213 leaves animal cruelty in the section of the criminal code dealing with protection of property. C-373 puts animals in a new section, reflecting the modern view that animals should be protected because they are feeling, sentient beings. This change, however, continues to recognize that many animals, both livestock and pets, are property.

• Bill S-213 does nothing to address training animals to fight other animals or betting on such fights. C-373 prohibits these practices.

The most effective thing you can do to help pass effective animal cruelty legislation is to inform yourself about the issue and the different bills and then share your views with your Member of Parliament. Tell him or her you care about animal cruelty and want to see an effective bill passed. Remember that MPs receive hundreds and hundreds of e-mails a day on many issues. A personal phone call to your MP or a carefully written letter with your address to indicate you are a constituent is more effective than a mass e-mail or a petition, but everything helps.

For more information on how you can help pass effective animal cruelty laws, visit these two sites:

Mark Holland - Animal Issues
Stop Animal Cruelty in Canada with effective legislation

Really. Check 'em out. Please.

Our tougher animal cruelty laws working? Not so much. - Updated

From the Canadian Press, First year of tougher animal cruelty law shows weaknesses, activists say:

Tougher Criminal Code provisions against animal cruelty took effect a year ago, but animal-rights activists say the law has proven ineffective. Some recent cases:

Nova Scotia woman drowns two newborn kittens - fined $5.

Northwest Territories man leaves dogs outdoors to freeze and starve to death - no charges laid.

Ontario man drops kitten from a 5th floor balcony, then runs it over with car - charges dropped.

New Brunswick man kills five Pomeranians with a hammer - absolute discharge.

Ontario man shoots, blinds and abandons dog on bush road - acquitted.

The legislation does not even outlaw breeding, training or selling animals to fight each other.

When I posted this up last night, I didn't really have a comment for it because I was tired but also because it was like reading some fiction about a place far away, possibly a different country, possibly off-planet, where everyone lives in societies which operate like Kafka nightmares. The whole thing just seemed too unreal to take seriously.

I have to wonder what it would take to actually get charged and convicted of animal cruelty under Canadian law because apparently it's okay to drown, freeze, starve, drop, run over, shoot and blind the family dog as long as the person claims he did it without intent.

How does someone unintentionally drop a kitten from five floors up, unintentionally get in his car and then unintentionally drive over the kitten? How does someone unintentionally drown kittens in a bucket of water?

I wonder if this would work as a good defence argument for someone:

"Uh yeah, that guy who unintentionally left his dogs to freeze and starve to death outside - sorry, my client unintentionally kicked him in the nutsack. Yeah, my client's steel toed boot just suddenly and unintentionally raised itself up at a high speed and traveled unintentionally forward and impacted with the guy's nutsack. This unintentionally happened over and over and over again. Yeah, I realize the guy can't have any kids but my client swears, it was all unintentional."

Maybe, to be more clear, the lawyers and politicians who came up with this brilliant piece of legislation should call it the If You're an Asshole and Want to Be Cruel to Your Pet That's Okay Because We Don't Care Law - Seriously, We Don't Care.

From redstarcafe, more info on the weaknesses of the current legislation and a better alternative here.

CBC Radio animal law interview

CBC Radio's The Current did an episode on animal law in Canada this morning interviewing parties on both sides of the debate about whether or not we need more animal protection laws and/or animal rights laws and what they should be.

If you're familiar with the animal rights debate, there's nothing much new here but if you're unfamiliar with the trend, there's some nuances to both sides that would very quickly affect the welfare of dogs.

From the CBC website:

Animal Law - Advocate

In the United States animal law is the fastest growing field of pro bono work. Here in Canada, more than a dozen Canadian law schools have added animal law courses to their curricula over the last two years. And the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association has just set up the first animal law subsection in Canada.

Daphne Gilbert is one of the people pushing for changes to animal law in Canada. She's a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. She teaches a course called "Animals and The Law" and she was in Ottawa.

Animal Law - Critic

But not every animal lover is crazy about expanding the field of animal law in these ways. Victor Schwartz is a liability expert and a dog-owner for the record. He's also a lobbyist who has worked for groups such as the Animal Health Institute. And he thinks the efforts to expand animal law could backfire on pet-owners. Victor Schwartz is a lawyer with Shook, Harley and Bacon and he was in Washington D.C.

You can listen to the interview here under "Part 3: Animal Law"