Helping Outdoor Dogs. Getting Them Off the Chain!

by Vicki Van Linden
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada

They are lonely dogs.

They bark and cry in distress.

Their boredom and misery remain a constant.

Many live their entire lives chained or penned in kennels as a regular way of life. They suffer social isolation, lack of exercise and extreme loneliness. It is a miserable existence that no social animal should be forced to endure.

Neighbours are disturbed by the barking and suffering, and their own feeling of helplessness.

Such animal-keeping practices allow intolerable suffering, divides communities, and places enormous stress on animal service agencies and humane societies. Yet many municipalities have very few tools to assist residents who witness the suffering, and to provide their own staff with the necessary tools to intervene.

Chaining is the worst of the practices inflicted on outdoor dogs. Dogs have even died from strangulation when they attempted to jump over a fence while chained at the neck. Penning or kennelling is less harmful than being chained but is equally cruel because of the lack of exercise, attention, and companionship.

Animal cruelty laws are usually not detailed enough to assist these dogs. A Humane Officer might recognize that a dog is suffering emotionally and in distress, but if the animal is in an acceptable physical condition anti-cruelty laws may not give the officer enough tools to help the dog.

The good news is that there are specific municipal laws that regulate how outdoor dogs must be kept and provide an effective way to assist these suffering dogs and the neighbours who have been made to live near them.

In jurisdictions across North American communities have passed laws that mandate how long a dog can be made to live outside during a 24 hour period.

Windsor, Mississauga and several communities in British Columbia have already passed bylaws. More than one hundred communities in the U.S have also passed such laws.

The province of Nova Scotia passed a province-wide law that regulates tethering/chaining in 2014.

The province of New Brunswick also passed a law that states: “Dog tethering is not permitted for more than 30 minutes between 11:00 pm and 6:00 am unless the owner or person responsible is outside and within 25 metres of the dog.”

The City of Windsor, Ontario does not allow a dog to be chained or tethered for longer than 4 hours in a 24 hour period. Mississauga has a similar regulation making 4 hours the maximum time that a dog can be chained.

Some communities have also passed regulations that can be used to assist penned dogs.

In Markham, Ontario their bylaw states: “Animals in Markham must be provided with a clean, sanitary environment and adequate care that meets the physical and behavioural needs of the animal, such as food, water, shelter, warmth, physical exercise, attention and veterinary care.”

The goal of such bylaws is to ensure that no dogs are made to live entire lives as backyard dogs, but must be brought inside the home each and every day, as well as during extremes of weather - hot or cold.

Enough communities have passed such laws that there are now several examples for other communities to refer to.

We can end this practice if we have sufficient political will.

Why are Canadian animal protection laws still so weak?

What are our next steps?

by Vicki Van Linden, Director

In February of 2015, a woman was accused of hoarding 201 dogs on an Alberta property. Some dogs had broken bones and parasite infested wounds. Many were emaciated and in a state of severe malnutrition. Five dogs were discovered already deceased, believed to have died of starvation. This person already had a previous conviction for animal neglect issued in another province. Yet, she was able to acquire more than 200 dogs and keep them in her possession – even after being investigated again on concerns about dogs while living in another community.

In June of 2014, undercover video taken by an advocacy group, Mercy for Animals, revealed extreme acts of cruelty against cows on a British Columbia dairy farm. The video showed cows being punched, kicked and beaten with chains, tools, feet and fists. Some of these beatings were inflicted on downed or trapped cows who had no means of escape. An officer with the BC SPCA was reported saying that the video evidence indicated an urgent need for better standards to protect farm animals.

In July of 2015, a senior was taken into police custody in Calgary for allegedly killing three cats. When officers entered his yard, 15 rabbits were found to be living in distressing conditions. The man was keeping the rabbits to be used as food. 

Why do otherwise progressive people accept and even support industries that hurt and kill animals?

Why are Canadian laws that protect animals still so weak?

The concept of ‘Speciesism’ might help to explain.  ‘Speciesism’ is a prejudice that devalues non-human animals, in the same way that Racism and Sexism devalue differing groups of humans.

Simply put, the assumption of all prejudice is:

‘Because you are different from me, you are less than me,’ and:
‘Because you are less than me, your suffering matters less than mine,’ therefore:
‘Because your suffering matters less than mine, I am free to use you as I please.’

When it comes to animals ‘using them as we please’ is the norm for legally protected industries like farming, research, hunting and entertainment.

We know from history that once a group is devalued then abuses of the devalued group are easily justified. We offer protection only to those that we value.

Since the exploitation and use of animals can be very profitable, there is great opposition to raising the status of animals in even modern societies like ours.

People are often distressed that the horrors of puppy mills continue. How can something that is so obviously wrong be so difficult to stop? Why won’t governments just pass the laws needed to end the abuse of dogs, the most widely loved species of animals? Could it be that animal-using industries and their political supporters understand that there is not much difference between the suffering of a pig in a gestation crate and that of a dog in a puppy mill cage?  Is that why puppy mill breeding dogs continue to be poorly protected, just as pigs, cows and chickens are poorly protected?

Animals as Property:

Author and Lawyer, Lesli Bisgould, writes about the legal protections that we give to animals in her book: ‘Animals and the Law’ (published by Irwin Law inc. 2011.)

Bisgould writes: “…people do not treat animals badly because animals are property, animals are property so that people can treat them badly.”

How do we gain protections for animals as more than just someone’s property?

What are the next steps we need to work through to get better animal protection laws passed by our governments?

How do we help as many animals as we can, as quickly as we can?

Animals are suffering terribly right now, and cannot wait for a global awakening on the rights of non-human animals. If we keep in mind that the rights of women are still not enshrined in every nation on earth, how long will it be before animals of all species are no longer regarded as property to be exploited? Animals need help now.

Sentient beings:

New Zealand has passed legislation that grants the status of ‘sentient beings’ to animals. This designation recognizes that animals are more than mere objects but are living beings that experience both positive and negative emotions like pain, fear, and distress as well as joy and even love. Will such a change in legal status result in animals finally being given legal protection as more than just property?

Uncharted territory:

Nowhere on earth can we look to a nation that has already truly protected animals from exploitation and abuse. But we can see nations that are farther ahead than Canada is on this journey.

Still, there is no proven template to adopt, no sure road-map to follow.

We still have more questions than answers.

So, let’s keep talking. Let’s keep working. And, let’s not give up.

CAZA'S RESPONSE

BUT THE PROBLEM REMAINS: ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO CAZA

Bill Peters
National Director
Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Suite 400, 280 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa, ON K2P 1R7
Canada
bpeters@caza.ca

Dear Mr. Peters,

Last week I wrote an open letter to you, expressing my amazement that CAZA was unaware, after years of reports, demonstrations, news stories, and even a deputation from Zoocheck-Canada, of any "complaint" about Marineland, the facility in Niagara Falls again documented to have a sorry record of animal abuse. You replied: "Your complaint is acknowledged. All such reports are thoroughly investigated and appropriate actions are taken as justified."  I can't recall any zoo losing accreditation from CAZA, not even the one that uses its last, lonely elephant for circus stunts, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

You continue, "The accreditation program of the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums, which regulates the operations of Marineland and all other CAZA accredited members is based on a comprehensive set of demanding standards designed to ensure that all animals kept by our members receive the best of care in modern, appropriate facilities. We conduct regular inspections to verify that our standards are adhered to at all times, and our Accreditation Commission is empowered to investigate any complaints that are brought to our attention. The Commission can order corrective measures or in very serious cases can remove the institution’s accreditation.

"CAZA has not previously received complaints about the treatment of animals at Marineland. CAZA will now thoroughly investigate the allegations with respect to Marineland in an objective manner and will determine what actions need to be taken in light of the facts. We will carry out this inspection in conjunction with the OSPCA."

Clearly, whatever CAZA does to assure compliance to its standards, it doesn't work to protect animals.  Marineland is accredited, and yet articles in The Toronto Star outlined a horrific record of abusive situations, as have previous reports submitted to you by Zoocheck-Canada (which you apparently didn't recognize as being complaints).

One of the CAZA standards used to dictate that when a zoo had fewer than three elephants, it would either have to get more elephants (the idea being that elephants are social animals) or move the one it had.   As amended March 23, 2005, CAZA's Visiting Committee Handbook stated "Elephant management facilities should make every effort to maintain elephants in social groupings.  It is inappropriate to keep highly social female elephants singly.  Elephant care staff should be aware of each animal's social compatibility and the dominance hierarchies of the herd."

In 2007, the Edmonton Valley Zoo was clearly in violation of that standard, and the General Exhibit Standards within the Government of Alberta Standards for Zoos, which state "All animals must be maintained in numbers sufficient to meet their social and behavioural needs" when it was down to its last elephant, Lucy.

On October 25th of that year, R.D. Hale, chair of CAZA's "ethics committee" wrote "After viewing all of the circumstances, the Ethics Committee is satisfied that the decisions made by the Valley Zoo are in the best interest of the animals at this time."

And then, the very next year, CAZA came out with an "Elephant Care Manual" that after still noting that it was "inappropriate" to keep "highly social female elephant's (sic) long term" it added "It is recognized that some socially aberrant adult females currently exist and these elephants can be managed singly if the institution has made every effort to introduce them to a social group and CAZA agrees that the anti-social behavior is not correctable.

Wow...so it's all Lucy's fault that she's alone, apparently being "socially aberrant", although I can't help but wonder how "every effort" could have been made to introduce her to a "social group" when she's the only elephant in Alberta.

If you, or your colleagues at CAZA, can't see the absurdity of all this, so be it, but I don't think you can blame me and a growing number of others if we fail to take CAZA seriously.   The thing that saddens me is that some still do.

The one time I have heard of CAZA seriously threatening to remove accreditation was when Toronto City Council and the Toronto Zoo Board decided to move its remaining three elephants to a sanctuary because the city couldn't afford maintaining and upgrading their quarters.  CAZA's concern was that the sanctuary was not accredited as a zoo.  It is not accredited as a zoo because it is not a zoo.  It's a sanctuary, with much higher standards for animal husbandry than are required by CAZA or the American equivalent, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.  It is accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.

But this is about complaints pertaining to Marineland, and apparently anything less than a formal complaint does not register with you as a complaint.   When I received your reply I called some activists who have spent years complaining about Marineland.   Did any of them complain directly to CAZA?  The answers I have received so far confirm your statement, but the reason they can't remember complaining to you directly can pretty well be summed up by what one told me on the phone:  "Why would I?  They must have known, and yet did nothing.  No one takes them seriously."

And yes, I know that I previously never have complained to CAZA, and for the same reason.  I have spent my life in the animal protection business and have seen firsthand how low the animal husbandry standards for CAZA accreditation can be.  Therefore I also do not take CAZA accreditation seriously as a measure of the quality of the facility.  If Marineland can get accreditation, such accreditation is of no value in determining animal welfare.

But a few people less involved with animals, including legislators and media, sometimes do take CAZA seriously, and I would urge you to try to maintain that faith.   I do this not because I care about CAZA, I don't, but because I know that in the long run the only way CAZA can be taken seriously is to act with an effectiveness so far absent, and start seriously supporting its own stated goal to "promote the welfare of animals by encouraging the advancement of conservation, education, and science."  Those are features I would support, along with, as you said in your letter, animals receiving the "best" care.  In fact, I'd settle for them even receiving reasonably good care.

It seems to me that zoos are at a crossroads.  No one can disagree that they are entertaining and amuse children.   But claims that they serve effectively to actually teach those children, or anyone else, anything about wildlife are not supported by such research as exists.   Such education is at any rate increasingly available through other sources; it's not necessary to put a rhinoceros in a pen to teach a nine-year old what a rhino eats or where it is native.

Captive breeding and release can contribute to conservation, but the 99 percent of a zoo's public infrastructure is rarely, if ever, seriously part of such endeavour.  Endlessly catching beluga whales and putting them in concrete ponds in no way conserves them.  There are certainly some discoveries to be made about animals held captive that are of interest to scientists, but few, and most such information is not easily applicable to the conservation of wild animals.

There are some zoos that are genuinely engaged in these endeavours, and do put the welfare of the animals first, do contribute to conservation and education, and CAZA does them no service by claiming zoos like Marineland are part of these worthy endeavours, or by calling Lucy aberrant. If zoos are to survive, they will have to adapt, and do so on ways that benefit the animals in their care, the species they are involved in, or that provide real education.  And they will have to recognize that in this age of electronic communication, you can fool only a decreasing number of people with bland assurances detached from such horrific realities as those documented at Marineland.

Sincerely,
Barry Kent MacKay
Director
Animal Alliance of Canada