ANIMAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS WRONG

The “Search & Seizure” of animals from a property in Ontario under the guise of :

• 
  
  

  the dog has on one or more occasions bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal;

  
  

• 
  
  

  the dog has on one or more occasions behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals;

  
  

• 
  
  

  an owner of the dog has on one or more occasions failed to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from,
  
  (i) biting or attacking a person or domestic animal, or
  
  (ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals;

  
  

• 
  
  

  the dog is a restricted pit bull [explained in Ch.5: "Pit Bulls"] and an owner of the dog has on one or more occasions failed to comply with one or more of the requirements of this Act or the regulations respecting restricted pit bulls;

  
  

• 
  
  

  the dog is a pit bull other than a restricted pit bull [ie. a "banned" pit bull: see Ch.5];
  
  OR

  
  

• 
  
  

  there is reason to believe that the dog may cause harm to a person or domestic animal.

  
  

(biting, behaviour, owner irresponsibility, breed, beliefs) before any owner has been charged, tried and convicted, IS WRONG, on many levels!!! this is a HUGE injustice and breech of the Charter of Freedoms and Rights!

Search or Seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure

Detention or imprisonment

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Two key issues in question: the violation of a citizen’s right to own property without fear of illegal search and seizure (Charter of Freedoms and Rights 8/9) and the issue of creating undue stress and trauma on animals through the process of a seizure (Animal Welfare).

Rather than “Search & Seizure” in every case of suspected animal violation (biting, behaviour, owner irresponsibility, breed, beliefs) there needs to be another solution - “House arrest", asides from a simple muzzle or an e-collar or both. Authorities should NOT have the right to take all animals from any site until the court has made a decision and the accused is found guilty! Rather than as the present bi-laws have empowered leaving the animals defencelessly violated by the cruel conditionds, guilty until the accused is found innocent! The only exception might be animals found to be in serious threat of dying due to intentional abuse or neglect, should be removed from a property, with proper warrants. The process of “Search & Seizure” puts unnecessary strain on local authorities and agencies that are tasked to quickly remove, transport and care for a large volume of animals or species of animals that they are not prepared, experienced or qualified to handle. The process also places extreme and undue stress on animals that may or may not already be in a distressed state. This could harm animals that are not in poor health or further aggravate the condition of animals that may already be in poor health.

The process of “Search & Seizure” once animals have been removed from a property offers no incentive for the Crown Attorney to move quickly toward a verdict. Finally, the cost of having to board animals off the owner’s property for a long period of time can be prohibitive – resulting in a loss of animals through a forced monetary defeat. Resulting in the loss of animals and destruction upon the animals or the permanent rehoming of the animals, leaving the owner with huge mandatory boarding fees and possibly no animals to reclaim in the end, in the event that the owner has been found innocent of charges. In the end, once a court has made a verdict or a settlement has been agreed upon, the owner is left with no animals to reclaim and a huge legal bill that must be paid, regardless of the outcome. If the owner is found innocent the least the courts should do is just release the animals to the owner. The fees should then be the responsibility of Animal Services to charges that should never had been laid.

A “house arrest” order would allow an owner to continue to keep and care for his animals with the strict ruling that no animals shall leave the premises, without express written permission by the court, until the case has been tried and a verdict handed down. The accused would be allowed to continue to care for his animals on his property at his own expense, with his own labor. The accused would be charged only for the cost of monthly oversite and inspection by a qualified animal expert (a.k.a.: veterinarian) during the impoundment period. IF the animals’ health and safety is jeopardized under the owner’s care and there is an eminent threat of death occurring during the impoundment, the authorities would THEN have the right to seize only the animal(s) that is in jeopardy of dying - BUT only when a court (under the advisement of a licensed veterinarian) determines the need to do so. But this to is tricky and may get abused as the lack of exercise is damaging. IF the owner refuses to cooperate with the impoundment or the court’s oversight, the authorities may have just cause to seize all the animals, if a court determines the need to do so.

Perhaps, if authorities were forced to use “house arrest” rather than “Search & Seizure” (biting, behaviour, owner irresponsibility, breed, beliefs) there would be a greater incentive for the Crown Attorney to move quickly with the case! Because it can technically get dragged out for 2 years and the only ones suffering are the animals and owner. A "house arrest” would also allow the owner to record and prepare a defense without the authorities going in and removing and destroying all the evidence; which is what happens to the accused when his property has been raided and animals seized! In such cases. All of the owner’s evidence for defense is removed or ruined and all that is left is the authority’s claim of abuse and/or neglect. With “house arrest”, the burden of proof will no longer be on the defense but on the prosecution, as it should be. While the court case proceeds, the owner will be tasked to continue to care for his animals. The owner would also have the opportunity (but not forced) to make any improvements to his management system, with documentation from the overseers, especially where animal health and safety is an issue during the impoundment.

The argument of an owner’s licensure or dog at large claim, with an owner should also NOT be allowed as a reason for immediate “Search & Seizure”. Authorities should be required to follow the same principles of “house arrest” in those situations as well. Until the courts can determine guilt or innocence of any licensure crime, animals that are being kept in a suspected licensing violation should also be in “house arrest” unless there is evidence of an eminent risk of public safety or eminent death of an animal being improperly cared for by the owner. Those violations do not necessarily constitute abuse or neglect and should be handled separately from charges of abuse or neglect. However, proper warrants should ALWAYS be taken out BEFORE any “Search & Seizure” event takes place under those circumstances.

In the case where animals in shelters, that are without owners, there should be every effort made to offer the animal life and not a quick death. A meeting should be held for the public to respond to the issues arising in regards to each animal that is to be executed. The public meetings should be held every 30 days. This would allow the public to come to the defenseless animal's aid before being put to death, or destroyed known in legal terms. The legal term destroyed should be changed, it subconsciously softens the executions. We destroy inanimate objects, we execute life. If the word execute were used; execution order, or we executed the animal, or execution was performed, just the sound of that would create a whole different atmosphere where it's death would not be taken lightly. If every 30 days during their public meetings, Animal Services would bring the list of animals to be executed. The animals would be brought out to be seen and "tried" by the public. If Animal Services can verify 100% to public satisfaction the reason for execution, then they may be allowed to put the animal to death.This does mean performing their behavioural tests before the public. They should also allow banned breeds the opportunity for life to be relocated to an area in the entire world where it can be permitted to live for being what it is. And 100 % verification that the breed is what they claim it to be firstly. If in a case where someone steps forward to take an animal, it should be handed over without costs, except $20 a day from the date the animal is issued to be executed, until the public meeting where a public citizen claims it. Quick action and unchallenged excuses on defenseless animals should not be legally permitted and the laws must be changed with the welfare of the animal before the convenience of the authorities, under the guise of public safety, should come first.

Again - the raiding of personal property and the seizure of animals from that property, under the guise of (biting, behaviour, owner irresponsibility, breed, beliefs), before the owner has been charged, tried and convicted of a crime, IS WRONG!!!! It is a violation of an owner’s right to own "property" (a.k.a.: animals) without fear of illegal search and seizure and it creates undue stress and trauma on animals through the process and ordeal of a seizure. Animal "house arrest" can protect an Owner’s rights to “due process” in the court of law, while also protecting the Owner’s animals until a valid decision has been made. No animals should be taken from their owner and their home without a final GUILTY conviction. Search and seizure should only be enforced for the welfare of the animal and not through the judicial process. Also no animal in any way should be handled in regards to health by employee or vet without the concent of the owner, or to be secretly put down. The destruction of an animal should not be taken lightly, nor the mistreatment of creatures that do not understand the laws and it's process. The current laws must be reassessed and renewed with the welfare of the animal being top priority. The animals should have rights and not be treated like inanimate objects. Being placed in cages and held, living in confined quarters, living with their excrement, unknown how they are being treated or mistreated, unknown what they are being fed, unknown what injections they may have been subject too. But most importantly the psychological and physical deterioration of these animals under such conditions. They come from homes,and they have to endure an change that is no different than day and night. These are living breathing creatures that share the same emotions humans do; sadness, depression, anger, fear, hate. These conditions imposed on them would only bring out such emotions, as they are animals and think like animals. And their deaths. These are family members put to death for the most part, but even those that are not owned should have the God given right to life and breath. This lack of consideration to the animals by authorities can fall into a classification of animal cruelty, regardless if laws have made it legal to practice.

HUMANS ARE THE GUARDIANS OF ANIMALS NOT THEIR MASTERS.

IN LOVING MEMORY

OF

SEWELL & BROWNIE