by Susy Pryde

English cavalry on the Western Front, 1916

‘Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war’
- William Shakespeare (Julius Caesar)

My brother in law rang my husband recently, to ask if the film, Avatar, would be too scary for their six year-old daughter. The cynic in me queried how a well-reasoned answer could come from dialing our number; we’re child-free and the source of such hoped for wisdom was from a man who abandoned a six year-old’s perspective decades ago. To his credit, he managed to point out that the story is set against large-scale war.  So, there are graphic scenes of flaming horses caught in the crossfire of battle. That might be somewhat disturbing. At least, he added, it would be for a six year-old girl with a growing ‘My Little Pony’ toy collection.

While the boys tailed off into discussions of war, I dwelled on the plight of animals in war: The collateral damage of human conflicts. Not long ago I began reading an historical account of animals used for military purposes.  As far back as 2100 BC, Hammurabi, the sixth King of Babylon and first known author of a written code of law (the Code of Hammurabi), championed the first known use of animals in warfare.  He employed large dogs to fight alongside his elite warriors. But it wasn’t until much later that any assessment of animal casualties began. In the First World War, for example, eight million horses died as part of the British, Commonwealth, and Allied Forces. Most of those were rather ignominious deaths: starvation, disease, or exposure while transporting supplies and ammunition to the front lines. The tally doesn’t altogether reflect that comparatively few died in the heroics of close combat, mostly because by 1915, trench warfare had replaced  cavalry charges.

Soon, modern militaries relegated horses to purely ceremonial duties.  The new ‘cavalry’ rode to war in tanks, helicopters, and armoured vehicles.

Unfortunately, more cynical methods of warfare ensued, and animals suffered along with humans.  As well as directly employing animals in human conflict, modern modes of war, such as modern artillery and carpet bombing cause incalculable animal suffering. The recent accounts of Iraqi insurgents attaching explosives to dogs near Baghdad spring to mind -a clear case of sending animals to do human dirty work.

Disgracefully this is not the first time dogs have been used by the military as living bombs. The Russians did the same thing in World War II, using ‘suicide dogs’.  The Soviet military starved dogs and trained them to search under German tanks for food, at which point the bomb would detonate. Ethics aside, the strategy didn’t even work: the dogs were trained with Russian tanks and regularly failed to identify German ones.

Or consider the use of chemical warfare in Kuwait where the US marines employed thousands of chickens to forewarn soldiers of poisonous gases. They did so by exposing chickens to areas likely to be spiked with chemical substances; if the chickens began to die, soldiers would apply gas masks.

Okay, so male chicks in the agriculture sector regularly meet a similarly alarming demise –mastication at the hands of a meat grinder. While still shocking, the law has made a stand on the issue. It says that provided we engage a balancing exercise weighing economic need versus cruelty (albeit an exercise that habitually leans toward the economic need corner), it is fine to chew up fluffy chicks. In contrast, the law of armed conflict in international instruments is markedly silent. It fails to set out rules in relation to what might be considered unnecessary or unreasonable in the use of animals.  There is no inquiry into the facts relating to animals in war – nor even double-speak distorting welfare issues in war. There is just no interest at the policy level.

Sure, there are all sorts of reasons why we should turn a blind eye. If we adhere to historical principles, animal protection legislation should only be fixed to human interests, either the protection of property rights or by protecting human sensibilities by criminalising cruelty. None of those types of interests are in play in human conflict. Rather a utilitarian psychology prevails: an animal is a soldier ‘doing their bit’ for a greater human cause. Or one just needs to think of the cliché, ‘all is fair in love and war’.  That is, let’s suspend the rules in special circumstances. Anyway, if we consider the political deadlock over the war in Afghanistan, which has forced thousands of innocent humans to their deaths, why should we care about animals?

At least as far as humans are concerned, most governments have ratified the Geneva Conventions. Under the Conventions, humans are protected in times of armed conflict.

While there are international conventions intended to mitigate the impact of war on animals, the environment and other natural resources, none afford any moral consideration for animals at any stage of war. For example the additional protocols to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1977) prohibits types of warfare that will likely cause widespread damage to the environment, and incorporates animals only in the context of damage to their habitats. While there was an intention to review animal protection in light of oil spills and fires that devastated animal habitats in the 1991 Gulf War, nothing has eventuated in law. And still more than 30 years on, when modern warfare is yet more sophisticated, the wartime effects on animals and their use in human conflict remains unregulated and largely unaccounted for. This strikes me as decidedly unsatisfactory. It’s hard not to criticize it as being grossly out of step for two reasons: first, because animals are wholly innocent victims of human conflict and second because we now accept that animals should be protected for their own sake based on their intrinsic value.

After centuries of suffering a myriad of abuse as loyal servants to the human war effort, a little compassion toward our non-human comrades wouldn’t go amiss. A change in the law is long overdue. I would go so far as to say that codifying moral consideration for animals in the contemplation of future human conflict is what is needed. Both in the use of animals and the effect war might have on them. In the very least, there is an immediate need to ratchet up existing Geneva Conventions relating to war and the effects on animals in the environment.

The “No to the Useless Animal Lawyers’ Initiative” (yes, that’s actually the name of group) said, “Animal rights advocates are useless to animals. They can’t prevent animal abuse because they only get involved after it has been perpetrated.”

Is that how they feel about police officers? Child welfare and social services?

• It’s official: New Zealand has more cows than people.
• Bitch magazine fires off a salvo at welfarist-hero slaughterhouse-designer, Temple Grandin (via AnimalBlawg).
• The problem is this: ‘Grandin does not provide consistent answers on how to treat animals.’
• Twitter.  For.  Dogs.  Why?
• More interestingly, dogs can serve a role in the courtroom.
• ‘This puppy is not in any pain’ despite his…dislocated leg (Alternative summary: Man kidnaps pet dog.  Or SPCA hopes to save dog by killing it.  Or just another case of welfarism being plain absurd).
• An Italian food writer recommended cat stew and stewed up some controversy.  AnimalBlawg reaches bravely for a bright-side.
• The Animal Legal Defence Fund asks what you are doing for others:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said life’s most persistent and urgent question is, “What are you doing for others?”  Dr. King devoted his life’s work to causes of social justice and equality. In August 1994, the King Holiday and Service Act designated the King Holiday as a national day of volunteer service. Instead of taking a day off, Americans are challenged each year to celebrate Dr. King’s legacy by giving back to their community. So on January 18, please support the Animal Legal Defense Fund in its efforts to end animal suffering and abuse.

• Hawaii may ban foie gras.
• Journalist Grant Butler is going vegan, and loving it:

I’ve dropped six pounds without changing my exercise regimen (primarily commuting to work on foot), and my clothes are fitting more loosely. My energy level is flying high, and I find I’m needing fewer mid-day coffee pick-me-ups. And I’m sleeping better than in recent months, which is possibly related to the transition.

In the kitchen, I’m more excited by the cooking prospects than ever. I’ve made some wonderfully delicious dishes in the first few weeks of vegan cooking

• And ALDF’s executive assistant explains why she is vegan.
• While Jon Safran Foer explains why he just plain doesn’t eat meat.
• A successful ‘lifestyle’ blogger promotes veganism as minimalism.
• So: Is animal rights going mainstream?
• As whale numbers are recovering, commercial whaling appears to be crawling back into existence. Australia has threatened to take Japan to the ICJ.  New Zealand might join in.
• The question recurs, of course: Sea Shepherds, pirates?
• Whaling is not the only issue in the oceans, of course.  For example, deep sea trawling has catastrophic effects on sea-dwelling animals, by destroying marine habitats.  See also: ‘The seas are dying and NZ not helping: experts‘.
• The Humane Society of the US has graded each US state on animal law.
• The NZ Herald has the important stuff covered: A dog got skinny.   Oh, and a man brandishing a weaponised rabbit threatened passers-by on Queen St.  Um.  Yes.
• Interestingly though, jokes aside, in covering the killing of two pet dogs, the Herald brings out one of the fundamental paradoxes of animal welfare law: It’s better to charge offenders under any statute except the welfare one:

A person who damages someone’s property (including animals) and fails to report the incident to the owner can be charged and fined up to $5000 under the Land Transport Act.

The proposed bill was drafted with assistance from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and is intended to both notify the public about such abusers and to help prevent further crimes. Stephan Otto, the ALDF’s director of legislative affairs had this to say:

We know there’s a link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence. Presumably if we’re able to track animal abusers and be able to know where they live, there will be less opportunity where those vulnerable to them would be near them.

Similar bills have been introduced in Tennessee, Colorado, and Rhode Island. For more information about these initiatives and animal abuse registries generally, see the ALDF Expose Animal Abusers webpage. See also The National Animal Abuse Registry.

These developments are quite relevant to New Zealand given that the government has recently proposed increased penalties for the Animal Welfare Act. Agricultural Minister David Carter has said ‘Increasing incidences of animal cruelty are horrifying many New Zealanders and the National Government wants to see stronger measures in place to deal with this issue.’ (See Vernon Tava’s discussion of these increases here).  Indeed, the Ministry of Agricultre and Forestry reports that ‘during the last 30 years, evidence has been accumulating of a link between animal abuse and violence to humans, or anti-social behaviour.’ Animal abuse is a serious problem in New Zealand. Ought animal abusers be put on a national registry?

Two things are notable about the proposed state registries overseas. First, such registries signal that the prison system has failed. Sending someone to prison is supposed to begin a process of rehabilitation and correction – this is why the department of prisons is called ‘corrections’. If the individuals released from prison are not rehabilitated or corrected and require constant monitoring, then why are they being let out of prison?

Second, along with the aim of rehabilitation prison sentences also are intended to punish. It is said that upon release prisoners have paid their debt to society. But, if ex-cons are kept on a registry after their release, this would suggest that the prisoners’ penance is not yet paid, that there is still some wrongdoing for which they must atone. Keeping lists of undesirables is decidedly punitive, especially considering that once you’re on the list, there’s no getting off of it.

Animal abuse registries may actually be an excuse for lenient sentences. Instead of making prisoners serve their time and be rehabilitated, prisoners get an early release while the cost of looking after these criminals is externalised onto society at large. The prisoner never is able to outlive their offending, and has no ability to become a productive member of society. Society in turn continues to expect that their department of corrections neither adequately punishes nor corrects the prisoners in their charge.

Animal abuse registries also selectively penalise only certain forms of animal abuse. Yes, Wayne Williams, who beat a dog to death should have been punished severely. But what about the farmers who brutalise thousands of pigs in sow stalls? And the thousands of battery hens kept imprisoned for our cheap eggs?

On the whole, I think these registries are necessary and a good idea because they may prevent animal abusers from owning and abusing further animals. These registries are, at best, a stop-gap solution, however, and do not address the system failings of prisons. We should also examine the social construction of animal abuse and why only certain forms of animal abuse are seen as more worthy of punishment than others.

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…

And we expect the government to get ‘tough‘ on animal welfare?  John, I’m appalled.

• Meanwhile, as Bloom celebrates the sinking of a Greenpeace vessel and Key dithers, Japanese whalers have again rammed a Sea Shepherd vessel in the Southern Ocean.
• Oh, and whaling isn’t the only animal-based ‘research’ that doesn’t really…work.
• For example, Iran has launched ‘a rodent, turtles and worms to 500 kilometres above the Earth‘.  Apparently, this will either help Iran launch astronauts into space, or…launch ballistic missiles.  I’m not entirely sure how orbital animals could be weaponised…
• But we need ‘research’, or else we wouldn’t have worked out all the great things we can do to meat before it hits the supermarket.
• Gary Francione has posted numerous excellent pieces recently.  He has:

1. Demolished Ingrid Newkirk of PETA’s defence of welfarism.
2. Meditated and reflected upon the lessons we can take from Gandhi.
3. Examined one of Peter Singer’s and PETA’s Ingrid Newkirks crazier claims (about…bestiality): ‘And You Wonder Why the Public Thinks That “Animal Rights” People Are Crazy?’  I mean, Ms Newkirk, ‘When is sex with a nonhuman not exploitation and abuse?’
4. Linked to an essay of his, soon to be published, on whether vegetarianism is a gateway to veganism? (Hey, vegetarians – is it?)

• I’m not completely against Peter Singer though, and hope to see him speak during his NZ visit.  Pity I don’t live in Wellington.
• Veganism is ‘girly‘, just like cooking, or being intimate with your girlfriend.  Um, right.

That’s just…stupid! It’s stupid! Gah! It’s such a ridiculous division of the world into the stereotypically masculine and the stereotypically feminine with policing to remind us that men must never be feminine. Ever! And women, stop emasculating men!

• A woman unambiguously struck a dolphin with an oar.  Any prosecution?  No!  Why not?  Because the ‘legal and social  issues are not straightforward when we are dealing with a dolphin [who] seeks out human interaction’.  How does this logic even work?  Dogs seek actively seek out human interaction, right?  So do…cats.  That never stopped the SPCA from prosecuting, so why does it stop DOC?  Perhaps they could have tried…researching possibly comparable animal welfare cases.
• Though, of course, there are problems with giving a charity the job of enforcing the law: ‘RSCPA Botches SA Cruelty Case‘.
• China appears likely to introduce an anti-cruelty law.  I know little else, but I’m almost shocked that they don’t already have one.
• Switzerland is voting on whether animals should get legal representation.
• Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy is calling for papers for a special issue on ‘animal others’.  Papers are due in 2011, so if anyone’s interested, you have plenty of time to research and right.
• Lest I be accused of opposing science, let’s have a look at the results of some investigation of ‘Animal Cultures‘.

Garth begins his post by enumerating the three things he still cannot get his head around. In his own words:

The first is child abuse, paedophilia and cruelty to domestic animals; the second is male homosexuality; and the third is vegetarianism.

I will refrain from commenting on the second point since this is not the appropriate forum (although I do find the specific phraseology ‘male homosexuality’ fascinating), the first and third of Garth’s big confusions reveal a fascinating contradiction. Interestingly, he spends little time actually commenting on the relative merits or otherwise of vegetarianism or veganism (a distinction he admits ignorance of), and when he meets a member of this strange breed, he, ‘..simply shake[s his] …head in wonder.’ The rest of the editorial is devoted to shaming the perpetrators of some of the more heinous instances of animal cruelty over the recent past. Throughout the post, George makes it clear that he has no practical or comprehensible ethical or philosophical grounding from which this set of arbitrary rules are derived.

I don’t mean to pick on George (although it definitely is fun), but rather use George as a representative of a wider trend, a truly confused culture. George’s arbitrary and unthinking preference for certain classes of animals (what he calls ‘domestic animals’, although there are myriad other names for this class) over ever other kind of animal is difficult to rationalise when given more than a moment’s thought. Clearly, many people share mutually beneficial relationships with their pets, and over time can develop a deep reverence and respect for these animals; implicit in this relationship is the injunction on harming that animal. Extending this sphere of compassion to other animals means refusing to adhere to a mechanism of food and clothing production that systematises and normalises abuse as a necessary part of its mission. Garth’s assertion that he has no time for vegetarianism fails to acknowledge either the presence or the injurious nature (or both) of this system – it is simply not an issue.

One possible explanation for this stems from the practical experience of the individual – we are, by and large, not involved in our food system, and accordingly what happens within that system is not within our sphere of providence. However as individuals we are involved in the lives of our domestic animals – they have a tangible impact upon our lives (where we can live, our exercise regimes, who we socialise with etc.) and accordingly we are bound to protect that relationship, since it directly and immediately benefits our own lives. The suffering of animals within our food system also carries direct and immediate benefits for many people (although over time these impacts become illusory).

Personally, I believe these pandemic cultural neuroses develop from an attitude of possessive individualism, broadly structured within a capitalist framework, although I accept that this moves us into political debate, something I don’t wish to broach here.

I would be interested to hear other peoples’ comments on George’s editorial though, perhaps we can try to get to the bottom of this twisted web of cultural preferences…

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.