It was a hell of an experience, and one I enjoyed immensely.   After years struggling to get a viable student group working at Auckland, it was refreshing to see a student-created group with so much focus and vigour – and so much concern for animal law issues.   In addition to my talk, the Otago group has set up a whole week of seminars, stalls and discussions, many of them student led and researched.   Quite a feat, especially when you consider that animal law has never been taught at Otago – and is not currently on the agenda.

The talk itself went well, and I received some wonderful feedback.   A packed house learned about the animal welfare construct and why it fails animals, and we continued talking afterwards as well.  I was pleased to hear that this SALDF chapter is planning to host further events through the year, and with the support of the Otago administration, an animal law course might not be far off.

It goes to show what students can do when they put their minds to it.  As Margaret Mead once sagely wrote, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”  I couldn’t agree more.   This small group of students committed to learning more about animal law issues has really stirred things up at Otago.  I must confess that the only sad thought arising from this was how the same thing has not progressed at Auckland, where I teach.  Despite considerable effort from myself and one or two others, SOLVE currently lies dormant – aside from The Solution, of course – because we weren’t able to get that “small group of thoughtful, committeed people together with a vision to get matters moving on the agenda.

There will be at least one SOLVE event this year, however, and I plan to organize it.   Late in September, we will show excerpts of FOOD Inc. at the Faculty, and follow it up with a moderated panel discussing the relevance of the issues raised.

I’m going to go continue reflecting upon the wonderful work of those students down in Otago.  I wish you all the best for the rest of the week – and let’s hope this is the beginning of a lot more to come.  Thanks for having me out!

By the way, I’ve finally joined the revolution and now Tweet about all things animal law.  If you wish to check out what I can say in 140 characters or less, click here and follow me!

The book was launched by Michael Kirby during the Voiceless Animal Law Lecture Series, featuring Joyce Tischler, of the Animal Legal Defence Fund.  I was particularly struck by his remarks, a section of which I’ve reproduced below (full text available at the Sydney Morning Herald):

A year ago I launched a book that changed my life. It was Animal Law in Australasia. After reading it, I immediately ceased eating meat.

For more than a year, I have eaten neither flesh nor fowl. My diet is vegetarian, with a little fish. After nearly 70 years as a carnivore, this was a big change in my habits and eating pleasures. My partner, Johan van Vloten, told friends: ”It’s another fad. He’ll get over it.” But I have not and will not.

The book contained too much information. I could no longer pretend I did not know how sentient animals were slaughtered. No longer could I trick my mind into believing that meat and chicken pieces, so neatly wrapped in plastic or beautifully served on white plates, were the impersonal products of sterile, clean supermarkets. I was distressed at my earlier indifference and indirect participation in a huge industry of corporatised killing of sentient creatures…

Most people in Australia and New Zealand never think about these issues. Eating meat and poultry has been part of their lives for generations. They feel no guilt because they take no part in the slaughter. When they think about it (which is rarely), they assume the law lays down basic standards…

Animal welfare law has been introduced in a journey that commenced with protection for companion animals; spread to a prohibition on senseless cruelty in sporting, circus and entertainment animals; and more recently has extended to the treatment of farm, exported and wild animals, and those in corporations and laboratories subjected to testing for human protection…

A growing body of university students, most in law faculties, are electing to undertake courses in animal welfare law. Already, such courses are offered in six Australian law schools. More are on the horizon. What not so long ago was regarded as an exotic topic of limited interest is now a fast-growing curriculum subject with a real legal dimension.

Why has this happened? Why has it happened now? In part, it is because writers such as Singer rekindled the ideas of earlier thoughtful observers and planted them in the mind of contemporary Australasia. In part, this has happened because cruelty to animals happens in our midst and, as a community, we are responsible for it.

All good stuff.  Kirby has been a real leader in this area, constantly speaking his mind on behalf of animals, getting good press coverage on the issues, and reminding people that animal law is no fad; thinking people can be convinced about the dangers of allowing the existing status quo to go unrestrained.

I must confess that on a personal note, the first sentence made me blush, at least a little bit.  I created Animal Law in Australasia for two purposes: (1) to get people to think about their own actions; and (2) to get the ball rolling on more advanced critique of how animals are treated in Australasia.  Kirby’s speech told me that both objectives were in the process of being realized, and that’s enough to keep a smile on my face all day.

Next week, I’m attending Animal Law week at the University of Otago as a guest speaker.  The first ever New Zealand chapter of the Animal Legal Defence Fund has put together a wonderful program of events intended to bring “animal law” to the masses and show how interesting the subject really is – and how important the issues are.  Just goes to show what can be done once a spark is lit – and how momentum for change in the legal community continues to grow.

UPDATE: An interview with Laraque explaining how he became vegan.

Great news from Canada, where former professional hockey player Georges Laraque has become perhaps Canada’s first vegan politician, joining the Green Party, which over the past five years has been growing in size and stature.   Laraque makes no bones about what his priorities are: “promoting the link between physical health and the environment”, which sounds a lot like educating people about veganism to me.

It’s refreshing to see vegans coming forth in all areas of public life.  Again, while many refuse to admit it, veganism is still regarded by many in mainstream society with confusion, derision and fear.   Electing those with vegan views to public office is just one way of getting over the many stereotypes existing about this way of life. And as I’ve said in many posts, more vegans is the most direct way to changing society’s view about animals.

Amazing that – and please correct me if I’m wrong – we are still waiting for New Zealand’s first “out” vegan politician.  It’s no small feat, believe me, and the person who achieves that designation will face many of the same prejudices and stereotypes as our first gay politician, our first transgender politician and others of similar disadvantaged groups.  Take it from the first vegan member to ever grace Auckland’s law faculty.  It takes time to break down doors of discrimination and get people to see that vegans are “people too”; just people with a different view of the importance of avoiding the consumption of animals and animal products.

The defence’s most likely strategy is to put the dog owner on trial, suggesting that he had too many dogs, that their own dog was killed by his, and that he consented to the killing and is the real person to blame.  They may well be able to weaken his credibility as a witness, and perhaps sway a few jury members who worry about dangerous dogs.  As I’ve indicated in prior posts, Mr. Hargreaves is no choir boy, and has a lot to answer for himself – but I still don’t see how attacking him buys an acquittal.

This case should be won or lost on the basis of the scientific evidence, and the SPCA’s ability to show that the dogs suffered.   Regardless of the reasons for the killing, it was done in a manner that the SPCA should be able to show was detestable, and the owner’s actions will not be enough to legally absolve the defendants of responsibilty for what happened.  Still, with a jury involved, it should be a rousing trial, and an interesting one to follow.

As promised, it’s got more than just an increase in penalty for wilful ill-treatment.

Watch this space to read my review of the Bill in a few days time…

Disclaimer
Before doing so, a disclaimer.  I worry some times that people read parts of my comments rather than the whole.  So let me state this loud and clear: I am not against punishing people who commit cruelty against animals.  Far from it.  I’ve done as much to try and get sentences fairly applied as anyone, and have written legal articles, drafted submissions to Parliament and worked with prosecutors to bolster sentences for animal abusers.  It is, to be sure, a component of what needs to happen in order to have a country that treats animals better than it currently does.  Nonetheless, as you’ll see from my comments below, I have serious reservations about the way this has suddenly become ‘the answer’ to our problems.

My Talk with Simon Bridges, MP
A few weeks before he introduced his new Bill to raise the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment to animals causing death from three to five years, Simon Bridges called me to see what I thought.  I told him I thought it would do absolutely nothing for animals, and might even set back the cause.  I think he was taken aback, as my position seemed both counter-intuitive and contrary to the ‘animal lover’ position.  So I explained.   The problem, as I see it, is not the maximum sentence for the single most serious crime relating to animals.   A three year maximum, believe it or not, is fairly high by New Zealand standards.  Sure, judges rarely impose the maximum, but that’s true for all crimes.  Nonetheless, the three year maximum is not out-of-whack with other jurisdictions, and gives plenty of room to get jail time for those who commit horrid acts.

But that wasn’t my concern.  I’m happy to raise the maximum, but what I asked Bridges – and what I ask all of those people, like the Sunday Star Times, for example, who want to make the move – is what are you trying to achieve?  Anyone?  Let’s hear from Bridges, from today’s Sunday Star Times:

Parliament had a duty to protect all living beings from acts of cruelty… The judiciary requires a strong message from Parliament about sentencing levels.  Going to five years is the least we can do.

Correct, actually – on both counts.  Parliament does have a duty to protect all living beings from acts of cruelty, and going to five years is the absolute, very least you can do.

What are you trying to achieve?
Again, what are you trying to achieve?  The goal, according to the Sunday Star Times, is that ‘those who mistreat animals should face much longer sentences’.  Well, there are several problems with this statement.  Leaving aside entirely the serious problems with New Zealand’s burgeoning prison population, and the well-established principle that higher penalties do not really deter people from committing crimes (and whether we should be using jail to deal with crimes generally), there’s no reason to believe a jump from three to five years will do anything at all.

But how can that be?  Quite simple, really.

In 2000, the AWA raised the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from three months imprisonment to its current level of three years.  Did sentences go up?  Not one bit.  Some argued they even went down.  You need to do more than simply raise the max to get sentences to go up, and even if judges were more responsive – and I’ve argued that judges were insufficiently responsive to the legislative increase last time around – the move is probably not significant enough to bump sentences up in any serious way.

Downsides of the Easy Answer
Moving the maximum is, to be sure, the easiest thing Parliament can do, and sadly, it’s a reflex action that is used far too often in response to all sorts of crimes.  But it doesn’t really target the problem, and will do little to fix it.

Moreover, there are a few downsides to moving maximums up.   It heightens the stakes.   Ever wonder why murder trials take so long?  Why we spend so much money on ensuring that every conviction is well-founded and properly heard?  It’s because of a little thing we like to call ‘due process’, or ‘natural justice’.  The basic principle – a sensible one at that – is that as the stakes in a proceeding rise, so do the protections.  Keep moving animal cruelty maximums higher (What’s next?  Seven years?  Ten?) and these trials will be heavily defended, difficult to prosecute, and very, very costly.

It Misses the Real Problem
Let me repeat.  I’m not against raising the maximum, per se.   As I indicated above, I don’t think it will do much, and it may – albeit marginally – raise the stakes in a way that’s problematic.  But at the end of the day, I’m not ‘opposed’ to raising penalties.  Worst offenders – like the bozos in Wellsford – should be put away, as I indicated in my last blog.

Nonetheless, what bugs me is that there are real things to fix in the Animal Welfare Act, and sadly, no one’s interested.  Instead, we’re spending all of our legislative capital – what little there is – on fixing something that, if it is a problem at all, is the tiniest part of the problem.   It makes for nice yelling though (Let’s raise penalties!  Let’s send those bastards to jail!).

John Key, Phil Goff and politicians from all over have spoken up in favour of the measures as a way of ‘ensuring we have appropriate measures to deal with these issues’ (Key’s spokesman).  Or as Phil Goff said, ‘there is a human obligation to treat animals humanely and we need to do everything we can to stop these appalling acts’ (Note on Goff:  I have a long memory when it comes to animal welfare, and Goff, like all politicians, likes to speak rather than act.  In 2002, when people were complaining about low sentences, Phil Goff was Justice Minister, and his response was (along the lines of) ‘we can’t interfere with the judiciary.  It’s up to them to set the sentences.’   Sadly, I’m not kidding.  My response then: ‘Actually, Phil – there’s plenty you can do to influence sentences.  You’re the government, remember?’).

What will you achieve?
We get it.  Everyone wants to send offenders to jail.  Great.   But again I ask, will raising the maximum do this?  What will you achieve?

Other Approaches
Personally, I think it misses the point, and I can easily come up with three better suggestions – all of which I passed on to Simon Bridges – to get sentences higher, and more animal abusers punished:

1. Impose specific guidelines for animal cruelty offences: The truth is, like Parliament, and the rest of the public, judges don’t get it when it comes to animals.  They look at the victims and have trouble figuring out what the fuss is about.  They draw comparisons to human victims and think, well, this isn’t as bad as that (See the article I linked to above, where all of this is explained in greater detail).  Animal cruelty offences require a different set of guidelines to explain what constitutes real harm, and why that harm is meaningful.  It’s possible to do.  It’s just not as ‘sexy’ as yelling: raise the penalty!
2. Create a tiered system of animal cruelty offending: As I’ve suggested above, the problem isn’t with the three year maximum for the most serious types of animal cruelty offending.  The problem is that once you’re out of that crime – wilful cruelty causing death – you’re stuck with less serious offences, for which the maximum is six months.  As you create sentence disparity for animal cruelty offending, you increase the likelihood of offenders pleading out for the lower crime (especially when the prosecuting agency has a massive incentive, see below, to accept the plea).  In fact, most animal offences are treated as ‘ill-treatment’ and not ‘wilful ill-treatment’, because the offender will happily plead to the lesser offending and take the community service punishment that inevitably results.  Why?  There’s no middle tier.  Consider the following example.  Let’s assume that those idiots in Wellsford did their shooting but the dogs miraculously escaped and recovered.  Or let’s take a real example: Smokey the terrier who in 2002 had his ears cut off by a saw blade by some a-hole who wanted his dog ‘to look cool’.  Horrible acts, yes?  Well, since the animals didn’t die, or weren’t ‘permanently disabled’ (which legally means couldn’t walk, etc.), s 28 was inapplicable, and the most you could impose was six months in prison.  We need a better structured act, not just higher penalties.
3. Fund Animal Prosecutions: I keep hearing politicians of all stripes talk about how much they care about animal cruelty.  Great.  How about you properly fund the prosecutions instead of relying upon the public to donate money to the SPCA so that this can happen?  Again, if you keep raising penalty maximums, the costs of running prosecutions will go up as well.   Where’s the money?  Where are the prosecutions?  Did you know that the government does not provide one freaking dollar to run prosecutions against domestic animals?  It’s an absolute disgrace, if you ask me.  Of course, we could also be asking questions – good ones – about why the government doesn’t prosecute offenders and leaves it all to the SPCA. David Tong already has, so I’ll leave this point.

The Hypocrisy
I’m sorry.  I really wanted to avoid hitting on this point, but I just can’t help it.  I’ve come this far setting out quotes from politicians about how much they hate animal cruelty without once pointing out that they really only hate some kinds of animal cruelty, and are perfectly happy to promote other types.  To start with, where was the outrage when Mark Spitz was sentenced to 250 hours of community service for starving hundreds of cattle to death in early January?  Let’s review the facts briefly, shall we:

Spitz was visited by a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) animal welfare investigator in July 2007 after a complaint was received about dead and starving cattle on properties in the Rotorua area that he farmed.

MAF said the investigator’s first visit found animals in poor condition with insufficient feed available, and two recently dead beef cattle. Many animals had a body condition score (BCS) of three or less on a scale of 1-10.

Spitz was given written notice to improve animal welfare conditions on his properties. The notice included requests to get a veterinarian to assess stock and to meet the animals’ nutritional needs.

Between July and September 2007 MAF animal welfare investigators visited Spitz’s properties and issued further formal notices under the Animal Welfare Act, because he had done very little, if anything, to alleviate the growing concern over his stock, MAF told the court.

There was ongoing concern about pasture coverage of grazing paddocks, and a lack of supplementary feed. An independent farm consultant’s assessment concluded that feeding levels over the properties could be termed “controlled starvation.

“Most animals were in very poor body condition as there was very little feed available and some animals had died while others subsequently had to be euthanased by MAF investigators.”

In September 2007, MAF obtained a temporary enforcement order that directed Spitz to comply with the instructions given by MAF investigators. A follow up visit showed Spitz to be substantially in breach of that order, leaving MAF Investigators with no choice but to obtain a further court order to de-stock his properties.

MAF enforcement acting director Jacqui Pate said Spitz not only repeatedly ignored court orders and requests from inspectors but also made the situation more difficult for inspectors by continually moving stock between properties.

“If he had taken the advice and support offered by MAF staff and veterinarians, and accepted that his animals were in a bad state, he may not be in this position now,” she said.

Great story, isn’t it?   Leaving aside the ridiculously low sentence, let’s look at these facts!   Over a period of at least three months, Spitz slowly starved hundreds of cattle to death.  Was he alone in this act?  Hell, no.  The Ministry of Agriculture (MAF) stood by and watched!  In July, they come to the farm and see animals dying – three on a body score of 1-10 is pretty darn low, those animals were suffering, believe me.  Do they shut him down?  Hell, no.  They give out ‘notices’.   So, next up, MAF checks out the farm for three months, and guess what.  He’s still starving the animals.

Do they shut him down?  Nah.  Let’s just let the animals die.

It takes months longer, and some final follow-up visits before they finally take over the farm, shoot most of the remaining animals and take Spitz to trial.  Despite the fact that he ignored court orders (contempt), tried to deceive investigators, and let hundreds of animals suffer, Spitz walks away with 250 hours community service.  Not only did the politicians not complain, they failed to notice that the government allowed much of it to happen!

Am I missing something?  Not to make light of what happened in Wellsford – it was heinous! – but wasn’t what happened here in Rotorua at least comparable?  Wellsford lasted 10-15 minutes.  Spitz starved his animals for months.  Strangely, Simon Bridges wasn’t up demanding action.   Nor was the Sunday Star Times.

Sadly, the hypocrisy doesn’t end there.  What forced me to write this blog – and almost made me lose my brunch – was that in the same issue of the Sunday Star Times today, in the Focus section, is a long article about heli-hunting, which involves taking people by helicopter for money to shoot Himalayan Tahr.  Oh, it’s legal, and despite all the protests by Goff, Key, Collins et al about ‘being humane to our animals’, there are no moves to regulate or stop this activity any time soon.  Here’s an excerpt:

The video shows a Himalayan Bull Tahr being herded from the air, shot and wounded, and eventually taking refuge in a small cave in the South Island’s mountain wildnerness…

Filmed from the chopper, the video… shows the American being set down near the cave mouth, pointing his rifle into the darkened entrance and firing.  ”It’s so dark in here, I pretty much pointed where I thought he was gonna be”…

[A]nimals are driven to exhaustion by the helicopter, and guides have been known to use shotguns to “sting” animals and drive them towards waiting clients.

Great stuff, isn’t it.   Where are the cruelty prosecutions?   Where’s the outrage?   I’ll spare you the rest, and conclude with one point.  By all means, let’s make sure the Wellsford boys are prosecuted properly.  And sure, let’s “do something” to rectify animal cruelty.  But for God’s sake, let’s stop pretending we care about animals being cruelly treated unless we’re actually willing to mean it.  This can’t just be about dogs, can it?

Final Point
I’ll end this note on a final point about Wellsford.  On page A2, the Sunday Star Times revealed that there was a ‘new twist in the Wellsford Massacre’, noting that the neighbour, Russell Mendoza, may not have committed the killings.  It now reports that the killings were done by a truck driver friend, Tony Campbell, though Mendoza loaded the shotguns.  Apparently, Mendoza is making these claims in an attempt to minimize responsibility.  It shouldn’t matter though.  Any way you slice it, he was a party to the killings, and under normal principles of criminal law, he’s liable for the acts, along with any other perpetrators.

First, the horrors of the incident should not be underestimated.  When SPCA inspectors, who see plenty of awful things done to animals every day, are left speechless – it’s pretty bad news.  The perpetrator of the act deserves the condemnation he’s getting now, and hopefully the jail time he deserves.  Let’s be honest.  That’s one pretty sick guy.

Second, it’s still not absolutely certain that a prosecution will take place, though I’m guessing this is probably just the SPCA being extra cautious with the media.  As I suggested yesterday, there is a good case to prosecute based on the emotional harm alone, but now it  seems that because of the injuries sustained, there is a very good case for physical harm as well.  My real hope is that the police will take over carriage of the case, assuming they prosecute for firearms offences as well.  More likely to get a good result, as we’ve seen in past cases.  Indeed, all of the highest sentences imposed in this country have been in cases run by the police that combine animal cruelty with other offending.  Additionally, the police have better prosecutors and more resources to run the case properly.  The SPCA will assist, to be sure, but I’d prefer to have the experts running the trial or sentence hearing.  [And please - no charge bargaining!]

Third, I’m very interested to see what charges are laid.  The garden variety ‘ill-treatment’ under s 29(a) is a no-brainer, but I think the police or SPCA will have more difficulty establishing the more serious offence under s 28 – wilful ill-treatment causing death.  The wording of this section has never been judicially interpreted, and the prosecution will need to show that the wilful ill-treatment took place ‘in such a way’ that the animal dies.  Now, this may well be a no-brainer, but remember that killing an animal is not a crime, and a clever lawyer could suggest that the cruelty (being the shots that didn’t kill the animals – which is where the cruelty comes from) didn’t actually cause death.  I’m not saying this will work, as I believe the wording of the statute is broad enough to encompass actions that occurred in this case, but it is worth litigating.  By the way, this shows the weakness of our existing regime.  The problem is the high disparity between the punishments set out for ss 28 and 29(a).  There needs to be an intermediate position, otherwise the SPCA might feel compelled to take the ‘sure thing’, a conviction under s 29(a).

Which leads to my fourth point.  Not surprisingly, National MP Simon Bridges has jumped on the bandwagon to use this offence as a chance to promote his Bill asking for a higher penalty for offences committed under s 28.  It may surprise people to hear that I don’t agree with this Bill.  The reasons are too complex to go into here, but to put it succinctly: I think raising penalties is a way to distract us from the real problems of animal cruelty; it wouldn’t do much; it is more media ‘spin’ designed to get people thinking we are doing something; it doesn’t address the real problems in sentencing (lack of guidelines, disparity between crimes set out above); and it might be counterproductive (higher penalties, higher stakes, more procedural protections).  Seems I’ll need a blog for that in future!

Finally, I need to talk a little bit more about the owner.  Feedback on line and in my in-box has been mixed about his actions, portraying him as both an offender and victim.  To be sure, he’s not the real villain in this piece.  But I have trouble accepting that he’s blameless, and I do feel that his actions should be examined.  In the last blog, I talked about his ownership of dogs, the fact that he was happy to dump extras on the SPCA, and questioned his failure to register his animals.  None of these things speak to a sound, reasonable dog owner.

The more I read, the less I like him.  Again, there’s plenty of attempt at victim sympathy in the reports:

“If you had your family shot, how would you feel?” he said. “Even though they were dogs, they were my family. Life goes on but it’s not the same.”

Mr Hargreaves is keeping about eight surviving pups – including four only three days old that hid under another dog, which perished – in his mechanical workshop in Wellsford.

He says he’s preparing a statement that will tell his side of the story.  Well, here’s what I know about him so far:

• He kept a lot of dogs – far too many – in an enclosure.  This enclosure may not have breached the minimum requirements of the AWA, but I’m guessing it wasn’t great either.
• He didn’t register his animals, which is part of what leads to the hysteria about dangerous dogs that is currently going on.
• He refused to neuter his animals, resulting in plenty more.
• When he had too many, his answer was to dump some on the SPCA.  Let’s make it someone else’s problem.  Now that’s an animal lover!
• How does Mr. Hargreaves care for his animals?  Ahh… like members of his family, apparently: As the Herald reported, ‘he found one of his dogs attacking a sheep a day before the slaughter. He destroyed the animal, and another with similar colourings.’  As I said yesterday, I’m glad I’m not a member of his family.  By the way, how did that dog get out to attack the sheep. Surely it couldn’t have been poor ownership skills?
• And finally, as if that’s not enough, let’s not forget how this all happened.  Sure, two guys with guns appeared on his property and demanded to kill his dogs.  But there’s no evidence they threatened him directly.  If they had, the police would be instituting much bigger charges!   What did Mr. Hargreaves do for his ‘family’?  Did he say, ‘How about I call the police and we resolve this properly?’  Heck, no.  He signed a consent form, and let these butchers do their work.

Frankly, I think there are plenty of grounds to charge Hargreaves as well, both under the Dog Control Act and, possibly, under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.  Even if charges are avoided, let’s please not think of him as blameless in this horror story.

I’ll let you look over the depressing facts yourself.   I’m interested in the legal aspects of the case.  Consider the following facts set out in the Herald – keeping in mind that the Herald ‘facts’ are not necessarily actual ‘facts’:

Yesterday, holding back tears, [the owner] described the sounds of his dogs being shot – sounds that echoed off the quarry walls for 20 minutes.

“They were screaming, making sounds dogs just don’t make. When one was gone, the others knew they’d be next, but they had nowhere to go.”

In all, 23 pups and young dogs, which slept in the owner’s truck, were shot, as were a male and female dog living in a van wreck and eight adult dogs housed in a kennel. They were shot through the grating.

Four pups hiding under their mother in the van survived, as did two other dogs the shooters didn’t see.

These six were taken to the owner’s workshop in Wellsford, but one later died. None of the dogs had been registered.

Pretty despicable stuff, all arising out of a dispute between neighbours over actions taken by the dog.

Almost is frightening is the last paragraph of the story:

SPCA executive director Bob Kerridge said two investigators had visited the property and would determine whether the dogs suffered before they died. A decision would then be made on whether to charge the gunmen. Wilful ill-treatment carries a penalty of up to three years’ jail.

Ummm… Bob, what’s to think about?  Although it’s too early to tell for sure, comments like this make me worried the SPCA will approach the case  too conservatively.  Keep in mind that it is not illegal to kill animals in New Zealand, so the shootings themselves were not necessarily unlawful.  Nor is there any proscribed way in which such killing has to occur.  So long as there is no pain or suffering, you can shoot your dogs.  It’s happened before, and charges brought against owners who do it have been unsuccessful.

Thus, it’s possible to look at this killing spree and focus on each dog.  With so many bodies on the property, and so many gunshots, it may prove difficult to separate which dog died at what time, and with the burden of proof on the prosecution, the evidence required to prove that any individual animal physically suffered may be lacking.    My worry is that the SPCA will lob this case in the ‘too-hard’ basket, in that proof of physical suffering might prove too tough – or too expensive – to litigate.  Or they may prosecute one charge if they find animals that were clearly shot multiple times, suffering in the process.

As far as I’m concerned, that’s the wrong way to go.  Focus on the physical suffering is beside the point here.  We’re talking about a large number of animals shut up in a kennel being shot to death over a prolonged period of time.  They watched the other animals being shot, one by one, and according to the available evidence – not surprisingly – they screamed in the process.  There is nothing in the Animal Welfare Act 1999 that precludes consideration of emotional harm, and there is every reason for harm of this sort to be measured.  This was not a ‘humane’ action, and not how any animal should be killed.  Even if it’s impossible to prove that any animal suffered while dying – all of the animals (especially the remaining victims) had to have suffered greatly during the entire ordeal.

This case will be one to watch.  Let’s hope the SPCA does the right thing here.

Oh, and by the way, while they’re laying charges, how about a few for the ‘victim’ of the piece – the owner (Mr Hargreaves), who thought it was a good idea to breed animals on his property and keep dozens of them in close proximity to each other – all unregistered.  Seems like his actions played a pretty big role in this debacle as well.  I think he deserves  several charges under the Dog Control Act for possessing unlicensed animals and I’d toss a few Animal Welfare Act charges his way too, given what I’d guess about the state of the animals when they were killed, and his part in the whole thing.

As for his tears over the deaths, well, at the time of the incident, Mr Hargreaves had apparently realized he had too many dogs, as he:

…had recently arranged to drop several off to the SPCA to be housed elsewhere.

Asked why he had had so many dogs, Mr Hargreaves said they were “my family”.

One thing’s for sure.  I’m glad we’re not related.  I’d hate to be treated like a member of his family.