OldDog/NewTricks
Well-known member
News
Farm
NFU-O Commentary
An advocacy group with police powers and a need to fundraise
By Grant Robertson
It is a cold winter's day, the wind is up and most people would want to be huddled by a fireplace. Outside though in the barnyard our cattle are standing around, despite the fact they could easily go into the barn. In fact they just left it. Calves are running around playing ignoring the -19 degree temperature. Is this animal cruelty? A farmer I met was approached by animal welfare agents who suggested as much, but that farmer is not willing to be public about their experience for fear of retribution. Such is the perceived legislative power of the Ontario Society for the Prevention to Cruelty of Animals that many, if not most in rural Ontario are at least nervous of the OSPCA. We happen to know someone involved in animal welfare. We hold this person in high respect and regard, we know that person is professional in their dealings, but enough stories circulate of those who abuse their powers that it is difficult to not be nervous when challenging them.
Now let's be clear, no one condones cruelty to animals. I know many farmers who are visibly upset at the death of a calf, who will spend more money than they could ever hope to make from an animal to return it to health, or who grumble about the unwanted cat dropped off at the gate as they set out food to make sure it lives. The concern instead is the power, already considerable, that Bill 50 2008 an Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will give the OSPCA and its agents.
The Act states, "for the purposes of the enforcement of this Act or any other law in force in Ontario pertaining to the welfare of or the prevention of cruelty to animals, every inspector and agent of the Society has and may exercise any of the powers of a police officer." Yet in a democratic society we place constraints on police officers to curb not only abuse of power but the perception of abuse of power. Yet Society officials are not required to follow such basic things as a search warrant, or even probable cause to enter private property. In fact one of the reasons a search warrant can be issued is for the simple act of not allowing an Inspector to enter private property.
With our criminal laws it is objective determining what is a crime or not. If you are over a posted speed, that's a violation. Knock down an older woman and steal her purse, that's theft. When it comes to animal cruelty we know that a puppy mill is bad, and it disgusts anyone. No one supports the torturing of an animal, or training a dog to fight others for betting.
The problem comes from those things that aren't so obvious. The Act reads that no person shall permit or cause an animal to be in distress. There is the provision of explaining what might be distress in that "activities carried on in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices of agricultural animal care, management or husbandry." Yet there are lots of stories about farmers being charged or investigated for things like tethering a fairly tame animal on a leash to eat the nice fresh grass on a lawn that are not really abuse, but perceived to be by over-zealous or ignorant inspectors.
In 2007 the OSPCA had a budget of over $11 million, over half of which came from donations. This advocacy group has been made a private police force with over half of its budget from fundraising. It is a recipe for at least the perception of a conflict of interest. The OSPCA does some very good work and preventing animal cruelty is an important reflection of the moral health of our society. However, Bill 50 tips a balance that is already teetering. Fairness and democratic checks and balances should infuse this system and currently they do not. The current legislation, if it remains unamended, could give too much power to those who are unable to handle it. Rules have not been created for the massive number of good police officers; they are there to protect citizens and those good police officers from those who err with the power in their hands. Not ensuring these same checks and balances are in Bill 50 is a serious error that could potentially cause problems for any resident of Ontario that happens to find themselves on the wrong side of someone with nearly unchecked power.
Farm
NFU-O Commentary
An advocacy group with police powers and a need to fundraise
By Grant Robertson
It is a cold winter's day, the wind is up and most people would want to be huddled by a fireplace. Outside though in the barnyard our cattle are standing around, despite the fact they could easily go into the barn. In fact they just left it. Calves are running around playing ignoring the -19 degree temperature. Is this animal cruelty? A farmer I met was approached by animal welfare agents who suggested as much, but that farmer is not willing to be public about their experience for fear of retribution. Such is the perceived legislative power of the Ontario Society for the Prevention to Cruelty of Animals that many, if not most in rural Ontario are at least nervous of the OSPCA. We happen to know someone involved in animal welfare. We hold this person in high respect and regard, we know that person is professional in their dealings, but enough stories circulate of those who abuse their powers that it is difficult to not be nervous when challenging them.
Now let's be clear, no one condones cruelty to animals. I know many farmers who are visibly upset at the death of a calf, who will spend more money than they could ever hope to make from an animal to return it to health, or who grumble about the unwanted cat dropped off at the gate as they set out food to make sure it lives. The concern instead is the power, already considerable, that Bill 50 2008 an Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will give the OSPCA and its agents.
The Act states, "for the purposes of the enforcement of this Act or any other law in force in Ontario pertaining to the welfare of or the prevention of cruelty to animals, every inspector and agent of the Society has and may exercise any of the powers of a police officer." Yet in a democratic society we place constraints on police officers to curb not only abuse of power but the perception of abuse of power. Yet Society officials are not required to follow such basic things as a search warrant, or even probable cause to enter private property. In fact one of the reasons a search warrant can be issued is for the simple act of not allowing an Inspector to enter private property.
With our criminal laws it is objective determining what is a crime or not. If you are over a posted speed, that's a violation. Knock down an older woman and steal her purse, that's theft. When it comes to animal cruelty we know that a puppy mill is bad, and it disgusts anyone. No one supports the torturing of an animal, or training a dog to fight others for betting.
The problem comes from those things that aren't so obvious. The Act reads that no person shall permit or cause an animal to be in distress. There is the provision of explaining what might be distress in that "activities carried on in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices of agricultural animal care, management or husbandry." Yet there are lots of stories about farmers being charged or investigated for things like tethering a fairly tame animal on a leash to eat the nice fresh grass on a lawn that are not really abuse, but perceived to be by over-zealous or ignorant inspectors.
In 2007 the OSPCA had a budget of over $11 million, over half of which came from donations. This advocacy group has been made a private police force with over half of its budget from fundraising. It is a recipe for at least the perception of a conflict of interest. The OSPCA does some very good work and preventing animal cruelty is an important reflection of the moral health of our society. However, Bill 50 tips a balance that is already teetering. Fairness and democratic checks and balances should infuse this system and currently they do not. The current legislation, if it remains unamended, could give too much power to those who are unable to handle it. Rules have not been created for the massive number of good police officers; they are there to protect citizens and those good police officers from those who err with the power in their hands. Not ensuring these same checks and balances are in Bill 50 is a serious error that could potentially cause problems for any resident of Ontario that happens to find themselves on the wrong side of someone with nearly unchecked power.
