Download BC SPCA Submission to the BC Wildlife Act Review Project

BC SPCA Submission to the BC Wildlife Act Review Project
1. Management of Wildlife Populations and Protection of Species
1.1 The Definition of Wildlife
Definition of Wildlife & Domestic Animal; Prohibited Species List; Import,
Export, Trafficking & Transport of Wildlife
1.2 Alien Species
Non-native wildlife
1.3 Disease
2. Management of Wildlife-Human Interactions
2.1 Wildlife-human conflicts
2.2 Possession of Live Wildlife
2.3 Wildlife Kept in Captivity
2.4 Wildlife Rehabilitators
2.5 Ownership of Dead Wildlife
3. Management of Recreational Use of Wildlife
3.1 Hunters
3.2 Anglers
3.3 Falconers
4. General
4.1 Taxidermists and Exporters
4.2 Habitat Conservation Trust Fund
4.3 Trapping
4.4 Endangered Species
4.5 Oiled Wildlife
4.6 Miscellaneous
5. Appendices
A – BC SPCA Position Statement on Exotic Animals
B – City of Vancouver Motion to UBCM
C – A Framework for Assessing the Suitability of Different Species as Companion
Animals (Schuppli & Fraser 2000)
D – Government of Alberta Standards for Zoos in Alberta
E – Photos from BC SPCA Cruelty Investigation of a Permitted Wildlife Rehabilitation
Facility on Vancouver Island
F – BC SPCA and Government Memorandum of Intent for Oiled Wildlife Response
G – BC SPCA Letter of Withdrawal from MoI for Oiled Wildlife Response
1. Management of Wildlife Populations and Protection of Species
1.1 THE DEFINITION OF WILDLIFE
Discussion Paper - Page 14, 18
Wildlife Act - Section 1
Wildlife Act Designation and Exemption Regulations - Section 8
The BC SPCA strongly recommends an amendment to the definition of wildlife as
contained in the Wildlife Act in order to ensure appropriate consideration and protection
for the role of exotic species in BC and provide effective legislative authority for all wild
animals (native, non-native and exotic) currently in BC and those that may arrive in the
future. The definitions of these terms used for the purposes of this submission, and we further
recommend they be included in the Act for clarity purposes, are:
Native wildlife = Non-domesticated species that have a natural or historical range of distribution
occurring in British Columbia.
Non-native wildlife (introduced, alien, non-indigenous) = Non-domesticated species existing in the wild
that have been introduced from outside their natural or historical range of distribution to or within British
Columbia; does not include feral domestic animals and their offspring living in the wild.
Exotic wildlife = Non-domesticated and non-indigenous species captured from the wild outside of
Canada, or since captive-bred, and that do not naturally exist anywhere in the wild of Canada; these
species have been imported generally by the pet and entertainment industries.
Domestic animal = Species that have been selectively bred by humans over hundreds and often thousands
of generations, in order to alter their genetics to create animals that are dependant, docile, predictable, and
controllable, and that no longer occupy an ecological niche in the wild.
Currently under the Wildlife Act, all exotic animals such as tigers, lions, primates,
crocodiles, venomous snakes, etc. that are kept as pets and/or are on public display, are
considered domestic animals. Despite the fact that these animals pose a serious physical threat,
are vectors of zoonotic diseases, and very few facilities have adequate housing and care
standards, there are no current legal means by which the Ministry of Environment (MOE) can
regulate their possession, breeding, sale or transfer within BC. The current definition of wildlife
in the Act includes raptors, threatened species, endangered species, game or other species of
vertebrates prescribed as wildlife and, for the purposes of several sections, includes fish. The BC
SPCA recommends an amendment to the Act to re-define “wildlife” to include raptors,
threatened species, endangered species, game or other species of vertebrates and
invertebrates prescribed as wildlife or a controlled animal and, for the purposes of several
sections, fish, and any such captive-bred animal, or hybrid offspring resulting from the
crossing of two such animals.
A comprehensive list of “Controlled Animals” similar to the Alberta Wildlife
Regulations (Schedule 5) should be developed and included in the BC Wildlife Act to ensure all
exotic species currently present or that may be imported into BC in future, are regulated and
there is the legal authority to prohibit, limit transfer and/or confiscate such species if they have
2
the potential to threaten public safety or transmit disease. The controlled list for the BC Wildlife
Act should include fish and invertebrate species which would distinguish it from the Alberta
Wildlife Regulations which is limited to mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Additionally,
an explicit reference to “captive-bred” wildlife (Discussion Paper - Page 18) is necessary to
include in the amendment to the definition, as is the inclusion of “hybrid”, as many species of
concern are now bred in captivity and can be hybridized with domestic animals or native species.
The amended definition of wildlife including controlled animals will require the modification of
current Schedules A, B, C, but may also include a listing within of “Non-licence animals” as per
the Alberta Wildlife Regulations, to address the MOE’s concerns for non-native species.
DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ANIMAL
Further, with an amendment to the definition of “wildlife”, the definition of “domestic
animals” must also be amended. Currently, for the purposes of Section 26 (2) of the Wildlife Act
under Regulation 8 the following are domestic animals:
(a) horses of the genus Equus; (b) cattle of the genus Bos; (c) sheep of the genus Ovis, except
Ovis canadensis and Ovis dalli; (d) goats of the genus Capra; (e) swine of the genus Sus; (f) an
animal defined as game under the Game Farm Act that is lawfully kept under that Act; (g) an
animal lawfully held under a licence issued under the Fur Farm Act; (h) an animal not defined as
wildlife in the Wildlife Act or regulations, that is not native to or does not naturally occur within
the province and is tame and kept in captivity for the use of man.
The BC SPCA’s recommends an amendment to the Act to define the following
animals as domestic: Dog (Canis lupus); Cat (Felis catus); European rabbit (Oryctolagus
cuniculus); Horse (Equus – includes donkey & mule); Llama (Lama glama); Alpaca (Vicugna
pacos); Cattle (Bos); Sheep (genus Ovis, except Ovis canadensis and Ovis dalli); Goat (Capra);
Swine (Sus); Chicken (Gallus); Domestic duck (24 spp); Domestic goose; Domestic turkey
(Meleagris); Pigeon; Pheasant; Quail; Hamster (Cricetinae 18 spp); Gerbil (>100spp); Guinea
pig (Cavia); Domestic ferret (Mustela putorius furo); Domestic mouse; Domestic rat (Rattus
norvegicus, Rattus rattus)
The definition of domestic animal must not include any exotic species “tame and kept in
captivity for the use of man” as currently contained in Regulation 8(h) as it is inconsistent with
an amended definition of wildlife and the overall goal to regulate exotic species. The BC SPCA
does not support the classification of any wild animal (native or exotic) held under the Game
Farm Act or Fur Farm Act as a domestic animal. Currently under the Game Farm Act, fallow
deer, bison and reindeer are classified as domestic animals, and mink, marten, fisher, fox, nutria
and chinchilla are considered domestic animals under the Fur Farm Act. The potential for these
animals to escape, transmit disease, survive and breed in the wild is too high and thus the need
for regulation of these species as “wildlife” is necessary. Further, the BC SPCA supports the BC
Wildlife Federation’s posted online submission to the Wildlife Act review process,
recommending the prohibition of farming any wildlife species that is indigenous in BC,
because of the potential for disease and genetic threats to wild populations; and the
prohibition of farming exotic wildlife species whose escape from captivity may pose a
threat to BC wildlife populations or their habitats.
3
PROHIBITED SPECIES LIST
The BC SPCA is opposed to the breeding and keeping of exotic animals as companion
animals (Appendix A). The Society has been actively working in this area for many years and
has a number of staff well qualified in the keeping, rehabilitation and needs of both native and
exotic wildlife. Exotic species are a significant concern for the countries to which they are
imported as they risk ecological integrity if the animals are released into the wild. Exotic animals
can carry transmittable diseases (i.e. salmonella, monkey pox) and many pose a safety threat
because they retain their defensive instincts and predatory nature. Also of great concern, is that
many species are threatened in their country of origin by the trade, and countless animals suffer
during import/export and while in captivity. While BC SPCA staff have worked with a number
of local governments to develop by-laws in this area, recent tragic incidences and exotic animal
escapes in BC highlight the patchwork of legislation that governs exotic animals and the
difficulties faced by local municipalities, concerned members of the public, and animal welfare
organizations.
Since February 2007, the BC SPCA has participated in meetings with the City of
Vancouver to assist the City’s Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment on policies
concerning exotic and wild animals in captivity in the city. As a result, an Advisory Committee
on Exotic Animals in Captivity was formed with representatives from the BC SPCA, the UBC
Animal Welfare Program and the Vancouver Humane Society, and will continue to expand with
veterinary, public health, and additional municipal representation in the future, in order to assist
municipalities and others with the issue of exotic species. On May 15th, 2007, the City of
Vancouver Council passed a motion to forward a resolution to the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities (UBCM) Convention in September 2007 to address the issue of exotic species
uniformly at a provincial level. The resolution asks the MOE to regulate the keeping and sale of
exotic animals and include a list of prohibited species so that all BC municipalities will have
guidance and support in this area (Appendix B).
In light of the recent tragic tiger mauling death of a woman in 100 Mile House in May
2007, and the increasing occurrence of disease, injury, and death caused by exotic species in
Canada, the US and the UK, the BC SPCA strongly recommends that the MOE should
prohibit the private ownership of certain exotic animals in BC from the following list, that
would be newly designated as “controlled wildlife” in the new Act. Species are listed based on
the MOE’s goals of protecting human health and safety, reducing the threat of wildlife diseases,
conserving and protecting wildlife and habitat, and using wildlife in an ethical and humane
manner. The list was created by the BC SPCA with input from the Vancouver Humane Society,
Zoocheck Canada, and the UBC Animal Welfare Program, and draws from exotic by-law
consultations with several municipal governments. Further, a scientific framework for assessing
the suitability of exotic animals as pets has been consulted, which bases decisions on the welfare
of the animal and others, and risks to the environment (Appendix C).
4
BC SPCA RECOMMENDED EXOTIC ANIMALS PROHIBITED FOR PRIVATE
POSSESSION, BREEDING & TRAFFICKING (SELL, TRADE, GIFT) IN BC
*includes wild-caught, captive-bred exotic animals, and any hybrid offspring resulting from the
crossing of two exotic animals
Felidae (such as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, cougars, cheetah, lynx and bobcat, except the
domestic cat, Felis catus)
Canidae (such as wolves, coyotes and foxes, except the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris)
Ursidae (bears)
Hyaenidae (hyenas)
Mustelidae (such as skunks, weasels and otters, except the domestic ferret, Mustela putorius)
Viverridae (such as civets and genets)
Procyonidae (such as raccoons and coatimundis)
Herpestidae (mongooses)
Non-human primates (such as lemurs, monkeys and apes)
Dermoptera (Colugos “flying lemurs”)
Proboscidea (elephants)
Hyracoidea (hyraxes)
Marsupialia (such as opossums, wallabies and kangaroos)
Xenarthra (such as sloths, anteaters, armadillos and tamanduas)
Monotremata (such as echidnas and platypuses)
Chiroptera (bats)
Lagamorpha (rabbits and hares, except the domestic rabbit)
Rodentia (except domesticated species, such as the domestic mouse, rat, hamster, guinea pig)
Scandentia (tree shrews)
Ungulata (such as zebra, moose, gazelle, rhino, hippo and giraffe, except domesticated species,
such as domestic horse, donkey and llama)
5
Pinnipedia (such as seals, sea lions and walruses)
Cetacea (such as dolphins and whales)
Raptors (such as owls, hawks and eagles)
Venomous reptiles (such as cobras, rattlesnakes and Gila monsters)
Crocodilia (such as alligators, crocodiles and gavials)
Boas and Pythons (such as green ananconda, reticulated python, African rock python, Indian
python, Australian scrub python and boa constrictor)
Testudines (turtles and tortoises)
Varanidae (monitor lizards)
Venomous invertebrates (such as black widow spiders, tarantulas and blue-ringed octopus)
The species listed should not be possessed, bred, and/or trafficked by private individuals
in BC and they should only be kept under permits issued to an accredited education or breeding
facility (i.e. Vancouver Aquarium, Mountain View Conservation and Breeding Centre) that
meets minimum animal care, welfare and management standards. The standards should reflect
species-specific husbandry requirements based on the American-based Association of Zoos &
Aquariums (AZA) standards as modeled by the Government of Alberta Standards for Zoos in
Alberta (Appendix D) and as later discussed in 2.3 WILDLIFE IN CAPTIVITY.
Current exotic animals on the list in private possession in BC should be grandfathered
following an amendment to the definition of wildlife, however owners should be required to
obtain a permit by 2010 to continue possessing the animal for the remainder of the animal’s life.
However, effective to the date of the new Act, any owner of a listed species should:
- Be prohibited to bred or traffick the animal(s) in their possession;
- Be prohibited from future acquisition of exotic animals;
- Be prohibited from having exotic animals on public display or in contact with any
minors;
- Owners must have liability insurance for potential damages caused by the animals;
- The exotic animals must be microchipped and have annual vet checks;
- Owners should meet reasonable housing and care standards for the species as we
recognize it will be difficult to relocate so many exotic species within the province or
country and there are so few accredited facilities that can adequately house these animals.
The long term objective of this significant change will see the decline and eventual attrition
of these listed exotic species in private possession in BC.
6
IMPORT, EXPORT, TRAFFICKING & TRANSPORT OF WILDLIFE
Wildlife Act - Sections 21, 22, 37 & 77
Wildlife Act - Permit Regulation Schedule 1
To further ensure effective regulation of exotic species, the proposed amendment to the
definition of wildlife would affect the above sections of the Act to prohibit in-province, in-transit
and out-of-province transport of exotic animals except as authorized by the MOE. The BC
SPCA recommends an addition to Section 77, such that the escape of wildlife legally held in
permanent captivity (falconry, education, research), or controlled animal (exotic animal
held for commercial, private possession) must be reported within 24 hours to regional
MOE staff, local law enforcement, by-law control, and health authorities.
In regards to Permit Regulation Schedule 1, the current Schedule does not prevent
transportation within BC of captive-bred animals and thus it is essential that the amended
definition of wildlife include captive-bred and hybrid animals. Despite the MOE’s intent to
decrease the trafficking of these species and protect public health and safety by prohibiting the
import of species on this Schedule, pet stores in BC continue to sell some of the species such as
prairie dogs (responsible for the recent monkeypox outbreak in Washington State), hedgehogs,
and turtles. All of these animals, in addition to the remainder of the proposed BC SPCA list,
should be listed as controlled species as previously defined, and their intra-provincial transport,
sale, breeding and possession should be prohibited.
7
1.2 ALIEN SPECIES
Discussion Paper - Page 14
As the regulation of exotic wildlife was discussed above, this section will focus on the
MOE’s desire to address concerns about controlling the spread of non-native/alien/introduced
wildlife. The BC SPCA recognizes that invasive non-native species can pose a serious threat to
biodiversity and supports the MOE’s proposal to improve controls on the import and intraprovincial transport of alien species. Significant efforts should be made to control and remove
non-native plant species and educate the public as to their role in reducing the spread. The BC
SPCA recommends that the amended definition of wildlife include non-native animals as
controlled or non-licence animals, so that members of the public can not possess or
translocate these animals. Permit conditions of professional wildlife rehabilitation centres
should include provisions to regulate the rehabilitation and release of non-native animals
under certain conditions that are region-specific.
Unfortunately, the BC SPCA is of the opinion that the MOE is currently undertaking
what can best be described as an inconsistent, non-science based, and heavy-handed approach to
non-native wildlife issues. Since 2005, when wildlife rehabilitation permit conditions regarding
non-native species in Region 1 only were changed arbitrarily and without consultation of the BC
SPCA Wild Animal Rehabilitation Centre (Wild ARC) in Metchosin, or the provincial wildlife
rehabilitation association, the BC SPCA has been very clear about our concerns regarding the
treatment of non-native species. We have repeatedly offered to meet MOE officials and
participate on a working group to find a humane and biologically sound solution as the BC
SPCA does not want to further the problem of non-native animals. However, we have been
repeatedly told to wait or been ignored.
The BC SPCA firmly believes in seeking science-based and public education alternatives
to reduce the negative impact of non-native species rather than lethal means. This should include
maintaining habitat that is more desirable to native species and educating the public to not
encourage or translocate non-natives. Eradicating long-established entire populations of nonnatives such as Eastern grey squirrels and Eastern cottontails, as well as being ethically
questionable, would be very difficult and cause unnecessary suffering. Exploring immunocontraception to reduce the breeding success of non-native mammals should also be considered
and have been used successfully already by the BC SPCA Wild ARC. Recent attempts to
prohibit the rehabilitation of non-natives species in Oregon and Washington State are examples
of how this issue cannot be approached uniquely from a biological standpoint, but social
considerations must also be made. Finally, comparisons to the invasion of the grey squirrels in
England are not consistent, as the parapoxvirus found in the UK has never been confirmed in
BC.
The BC SPCA does not support the MOE’s proposal to prevent wildlife rehabilitation
centres from releasing non-native wildlife. Over 18,000 injured and orphaned wild animals are
brought to non-profit wildlife rehabilitation centres in BC annually and are treated at no cost to
the government. Non-native animals only account for a few percent of all animals treated at the
facilities and many are already euthanized as they are critically injured. It is not the role of a
wildlife rehabilitation centre to euthanize a healthy and/or orphaned animal on the basis that it is
8
a non-native species as these facilities are not a free euthanasia service to the government.
Wildlife rehabilitation centres have an ethical responsibility to treat these animals on behalf of
the public and to ensure that injured and diseased animals are not left in the hands of the public.
To refuse care for non-native animals and turn people away with animals in hand will create
significant backlash by members of the public towards charitable organizations and potentially
jeopardize the overall beneficial work they do. However, wildlife rehabilitation centres do have a
role in controlling the spread of non-native animals into sensitive habitats by ensuring the
animals are only released in established areas of their populations where it is deemed they have
less impact, and in some cases the animals may be tagged and sterilized. Also, some
rehabilitation centres have chosen not to accept non-native animals or create quotas, as their
resources limit their facilities to handle only specific groups of animals (only raptors, only
mammals), and generally there is another rehabilitation centre within the region that can accept
those animals.
Without a comprehensive plan for non-native species eradication (including an intensive
public relations and public education campaign by the MOE) that provides a resource system to
accommodate the ever-present need for treatment services for non-native species, members of
the public will continue to seek help for injured and orphaned non-native wildlife. If euthanasia
is the only option given to these finders, despite providing information about the implications of
non-native species, the majority will choose to keep the animals and care for them at their homes
(this happens already to a small degree with native and non-native species). The Conservation
Officer Service will not be able to handle the number of non-native wild animals now in private
homes. This also raises serious disease and safety issues, and improperly raised animals will be
more of a nuisance than those raised by knowledgeable rehabilitators. There is a serious risk that
these animals will be further released into sensitive areas where the species do not currently
occupy, which is currently done by uninformed home owners who are able to buy a trap at any
corner hardware store and relocate animals from their property. Most members of the public are
not aware these animals are not native, and often encourage the species by direct or unintentional
feeding, and thus wildlife rehabilitation centres are their primary source of wildlife education –
again at no cost to the government.
If the MOE proceeds with an ill conceived plan to prohibit wildlife rehabilitation centres
from treating non-native species, rehabilitation centers will have no option but to direct
individuals to government offices to provide euthanasia services. The MOE must also be
prepared to take full responsibility all public concerns and enquiries. The MOE’s non-native
species eradication plan should also provide local governments with the necessary authorities to
properly deal with free-roaming cats and feral rabbits which are the most significant threat to
native wildlife. Finally, the MOE itself must be consistent in its practices and should consider
outlawing the practice of introducing non-native species of fish into lakes.
9
1.3 DISEASE
Discussion Paper - Page 15
As previously discussed in 1.1 DEFINTION OF WILDLIFE, the BC SPCA
recommends the regulation of exotic animal possession under the Wildlife Act in order to
ensure that species imported, sold and kept as pets, displayed in public or for commercial
or entertainment purposes, do not threaten the health of humans, wildlife or livestock.
Zoonotic diseases that are directly associated with the exotic pet trade include Herpes B virus,
Monkeypox, Reptile-associated samonellosis, Psittacosis, Rabies, Plague, Tularemia and Hanta
virus pulmonary syndrome, and outbreaks such as West Nile Virus, Severe Acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS), and Avian influenza may also be influenced by the trade.
The BC SPCA does not support the MOE’s proposal to prohibit all wildlife rehabilitation
centres from treating long-established populations of non-native wildlife that “may” pose a
disease risk to native wildlife. In the case of exotic animals kept as pets, there is empirical
evidence of disease however, for example, no anecdotal evidence exists and no research has been
undertaken to date to suggest that Eastern Grey squirrels present in BC carry parapoxvirus
transmittable to Red squirrels as found in the UK. In fact, the MOE will risk human and wildlife
health even greater by limiting wildlife rehabilitation centres from treating certain wildlife, as
members of the public will continue to find these animals and be given no other option than to
keep these animals in their homes.
10
2. Management of Wildlife-Human Interactions
2.1 WILDLIFE-HUMAN CONFLICTS
Discussion Paper - Page 17
Wildlife Act - Section 33.1 & 88.1
The BC SPCA does not recommend modifying the hunting licence system to
facilitate the ability to hunt on private land as increased hunting is not a long-term solution
to wildlife-human conflicts. Trapping or killing animals that have established territories is not
effective as once those animals are removed and the attractant (livestock, food, shelter) is not
properly protected or barricaded, new wildlife individuals will expand into the now vacant
territory and it becomes a viscous circle of kill and replacement. The BC SPCA advocates for
humane solutions to address conflict situations which may take more initial resource investment
but are a long term solution and not a quick fix. The BC SPCA is not opposed to hunting per se,
however, the Society does not support “predator control,” the killing of wildlife to protect
livestock unless there evidence of wildlife transmitting disease to livestock and impacting herd
health.
The BC SPCA supports the North Shore Black Bear Network and other advocates of nonlethal black bear management recommendation to amend Sections 33.1 and 88.1 to give
Conservation Officers the ability to directly fine individuals (rather than issuing an order) that
encourage the feeding of dangerous wildlife with intentional or unintentional attractants, in order
to prevent the unnecessary shooting of wildlife in urban such as bears.
The BC SPCA is very concerned about the lack of training, regulations, and enforcement
of the “pest” control industry in BC. If the MOE is moving towards a licensing system for all
users, the BC SPCA strongly recommends that the pest control industry must be regulated
and subject to standards and inspections.
The MOE is proposing measures to ensure that members of the public who respond to
wildlife conflicts are qualified and therefore they must address this growing industry. As urban
centres expand and wildlife habitat is continually lost, wildlife-human conflicts will increase and
without regulated professionals in the field, the MOE cannot assure that this use of wildlife is
conducted in an ethical and humane manner as the MOE’s vision for sustainable wildlife
management aims. Further, the term “pest” or “nuisance” pertaining to a wild animal should no
longer used by the government. Just as the term “Indian” is inappropriate and being revised in
the new Act, categorizing a wild animal in such negative context is no longer acceptable. Every
member of the public may have their own perception of what wildlife species are “pests” – the
BC SPCA receives complaints that deer are eating flowers in a garden, hawks are killing
songbirds at feeders, robins are singing too early in the morning – all of these species are “pests”
to certain individuals, however it is the MOE responsibility to protect and manage wildlife and
by deeming certain species as “pests,” the MOE is reinforcing the non-tolerance of all urban
wildlife species.
11
2.2 POSSESSION OF LIVE WILDLIFE
Discussion Paper - Page 17
The BC SPCA supports the MOE’s proposal to explicitly include all captive-bred wildlife
in the new definition of wildlife, and recommends that “hybrid” is also included in the new
definition, as the hybridization of exotic species is an increasing trend.
The BC SPCA supports amendments to the Wildlife Act that will fill any “gaps in the
law” in order to better ensure the humane treatment of all wildlife – those kept in captivity and
all that live in the wild. Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the BC SPCA has the
responsibility to ensure the welfare of wildlife held in captivity. However, we lack sufficient
resources to enforce the PCA Act where all wildlife is held – in private homes, road-side zoos,
wildlife rehabilitation centres, education and research facilities, entertainment and commercial
operations – and we are unaware of the true scope of exotic and native animal possession in BC
as currently only the legal possession of native wildlife is kept track of by MOE permits.
Without mandated species and regional specific standards for the possession of live
wildlife, the BC SPCA has limited ability to enforce the PCA Act beyond requiring owners to
provide sufficient food, water, shelter, medical care, and to relieve critical distress. The BC
SPCA supports the MOE’s proposal to amend the Wildlife Act to ensure the humane treatment of
all wildlife (captive-bred and born in the wild) held in captivity. As there are very limited
facilities in BC, Canada or North America to place confiscated exotic wildlife, the BC SPCA’s
ability to seize exotic animals in distress is restricted and thus the Society recommends that the
MOE prohibit the private possession of exotic animals that may pose a public safety or
disease threat, or those who’s welfare needs are difficult to meet in captivity as outlined in
1.1 THE DEFINITION OF WILDLIFE – PROHIBITED SPECIES LIST.
2.3 WILDLIFE KEPT IN CAPTIVITY
Discussion Paper - Page 18
The BC SPCA recommends a comprehensive review of the permit system for all
wildlife kept in captivity that is inclusive of those animals captive-bred and hybridized as
the definition for wildlife is expanded. In addition to wildlife (native and exotic) held in
captivity for educational purposes (zoos, wildlife parks, rehabilitation facilities) and scientific
purposes (breeding, academic studies), the review must also include wildlife used for
commercial purposes (movie industry, circuses, road-side zoos) and for recreation (falconry).
However, the BC SPCA is doubtful that a licensing system will ensure proper accountability for
the use of wildlife in captivity and strongly feel that self-regulation does not ensure that the use
is ethical and humane. Given the relatively small number of participants involved in each group
(as compared to the hunter licensing system), fees that would be needed to support a licensing
system would not be sufficient for delegated authorities within these fields to oversee training,
licences, complaints, inspections, and apply sanctions. Professional organizations for biologists,
foresters, nurses, etc. are able to oversee their members in this type of system, as they have
dedicated staff, substantial fees and larger memberships which enable this to work effectively.
12
Although having experts in these fields oversee the practices of their members is
beneficial as the current permit system lacks enforcement and government staff are not
necessarily knowledgeable in these areas, there is a serious problem with having only those with
vested interest in a practice regulating it. There still needs to be an objective authority to oversee
areas of conflict. A joint permit/licensing committee with government and respective
practitioners may be the most effective system for all proposals of licensing wildlife users.
Generally, the volunteer board of directors for these groups do not have the resources to regulate
their practice effectively. Also there may be internal personal conflicts within the organizations
that may supersede the true objectives of the licensing system and favouritism and nepotism can
come into play without any checks and balances. There is no capacity within these groups for
legitimate authority.
One example of a problem that can occur in the area of wildlife rehabilitation without
effective government permit regulation enforcement or within a licensing system driven by the
participants, is obtaining non-releasable wildlife for educational purposes at wildlife
rehabilitation centres. Currently, a facility can internally determine that an animal is not
releasable and apply for a permit to keep it for educational purposes. There is no confirmation by
a wildlife-trained vet, independent rehabilitator, or qualified government official that the animal
is not releasable or even if the animal’s life-long welfare needs can be meet in captivity.
Although there is great value in using live animals for public education in a professional and
ethical manner, a species that is highly-desired for public display may not be given an
opportunity for release or fully considered for humane euthanasia. The BC SPCA does not
believe that a facility that operates to rehabilitate wildlife should be able to keep its own patients
for educational purposes and a system to objectively assess wildlife candidates for education
should be established as well as an application process for those desiring such animals.
Additionally, it is a conflict of interest for a facility or individual to permanently possess wildlife
in captivity for primarily commercial, educational, or recreational purposes and at the same time
rehabilitate wildlife. The BC SPCA is aware that MOE may be considering hiring an
independent expert, Kip Parker from Ontario, former director of several wildlife facilities and
educator, to review the permit system for all wildlife kept in captivity in BC. We would support
this.
The BC SPCA supports the MOE’s proposal to require all facilities that permanently
keep wildlife in captivity (including commercial and recreational users) to comply with at a
minimum the Canadian Association for Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) animal welfare protection
standards. CAZA regulations are a good starting point but they are insufficient as they are
currently voluntary to members and not species-specific. Standards for care must be applied to
all equally and they must be effectively enforced. The BC SPCA recommends the use of The
Government of Alberta Standards for Zoos in Alberta as a model, as it uses the American
Association for Zoos and Aquariums species-specific information and is used as a minimum
standard, not a voluntary guideline (Appendix D). Also CAZA does not have the resources (only
two staff based in Ontario) to conduct inspections as needed for issuing licences, thus a joint
committee of government and practitioners as per Alberta Zoo Standards Committee, should be
established for BC.
13
Finally, the BC SPCA recommends a change under Permit Regulation Section 21 Zoo Permits, that the holder of such permit should be required to hold liability and
property insurance not less than $5 million, and that the MOE should review the species
and numbers of animals permitted under a zoo permit as the numbers are excessive for the
goal of public education and entertainment.
2.4 WILDLIFE REHABILITATORS
Discussion Paper - Page 19
Wildlife rehabilitation and the public education provided by these facilities, are essential
components of wildlife management, and a public service for which the demand has increased
exponentially since the last revision of the Wildlife Act, as humans have increasingly encroached
and put pressure on wildlife and their habitat. Although the MOE’s objectives are to manage
species and populations, the MOE needs to recognize that the general public is highly concerned
about well-being of individual wild animals that are impacted by human activities. Wildlife
rehabilitation centres are a tremendous asset to the MOE, operating at no cost to the government,
answering tens of thousands of public enquires, monitoring wildlife diseases, removing wildlife
from the hands of the public and controlling the release of species back to the wild in designated
locations. Unfortunately, the MOE has taken little responsibility for wildlife rehabilitation
centres and with a lack of consultation in the regulatory process, are making it difficult for
respected facilities to operate, while effectively ignoring the operation of poorly run centres.
The BC SPCA is not satisfied with the current rehabilitation permit system where there is
no policing of care standards and government regional biologists and conservation officers are
not trained to inspect such facilities. For example, BC SPCA staff have verbally complained for
several years to MOE Region 1 Staff regarding the practices of a wildlife rehabilitation facility in
Nanaimo. Although during this time cruelty was not suspected, wildlife rehabilitation practices
were definitely not meeting minimum international standards and the operator had insufficient
training, experience and resources to care for animals referred to her from the public by MOE
staff. It was not until a cruelty complaint from a member of the public this past winter, that an
SPCA Officer attended the property and made MOE staff aware of the dire situation (Appendix
E). The facility is less than 3 years old and MOE would have attended the property to approve
the cages at this time, however, it is doubtful if the facility was ever inspected with animals in it,
or following the initial approval of cages. Most wildlife rehabilitation centres in BC have
operated without any inspections since opening.
Involving experienced and respected members of the wildlife rehabilitation field into the
regulation of the practice is important in order to prevent the above situation, however, the BC
SPCA does not recommend replacing of the current permit system for rehabilitators with a
licensing system administered uniquely by the Wildlife Rehabilitation Network of BC
(WRNBC). Although the WRNBC has established standards of practice and a code of ethics,
and it regularly provides information to public about the practice, it does not have the resources
to provide training, issue licences, investigate complaints, perform inspections, conduct hearings,
14
and apply sanctions. The BC SPCA appreciates that the MOE recognizes the value of
rehabilitators and the volunteer board of the WRNBC. However, without a government-funded
staff position (HCTF surcharges may be a source), the WRNBC would not be capable of
generating licence fees to offset the demands of the program. Also WRNBC may not be accepted
as an objective authority to regulate by some rehabilitators and currently the WRNBC struggles
to maintain an active membership to participate in such low-demanding activities as a newsletter
and annual meeting.
The BC SPCA recommends that a wildlife rehabilitation accreditation program be
established similar to that in Alberta, where the provincial government jointly conducts
inspections and permit renewal with the Alberta Wildlife Rehabilitators Association,
veterinary representation and the Alberta SPCA.
As stated in 1.2 ALIEN SPECIES, the BC SPCA does not support the MOE proposal to
limit wildlife rehabilitation centres from releasing non-native animals that “may” be invasive or
carry disease, unless there is empirical and BC-based evidence that proves a disease is present.
Professional wildlife rehabilitation centres take measures to ensure that they are not contributing
to the problem of non-native species and conduct controlled release back into long-established
populations. Also they return individual animals, such as the Yellow-bellied Marmot found in
Victoria in March 2007, back to their natural habitat without a cost to government and to the
satisfaction of the public. The MOE has always stated that wildlife rehabilitation centres do not
contribute to the conservation of species or have a significant impact on populations and thus the
practice remains a publicly-funded charitable activity. However, the MOE is now stating that
rehabilitation has an impact on populations when it comes to non-native species – this is
completely inconsistent.
2.5 OWNERSHIP OF DEAD WILDLIFE
Discussion Paper - Page 20
The BC SPCA supports the adoption of stronger control and strengthened penalties for
poaching and trafficking in wildlife and wildlife parts. The BC SPCA does not support the MOE
proposal to allow people to keep the body of a dead wild animal caught as a “nuisance.” This
would encourage trappers and property owners to freely kill wildlife and not seek non-lethal
alternatives if they can kill and mount the animal or sell the pelt without oversight.
15
3. Management of Recreational Use of Wildlife
3.1 HUNTERS
Discussion Paper - Page 21
The BC SPCA strongly opposes the use of government resources to be used for a Hunter
Recruitment and Retention Project. The MOE’s objective to increase the number of hunters in
the province by 20,000 over the next 10 years does not reflect the majority of British
Columbian’s values towards wildlife and is illogical based on current trends of declining hunter
numbers in the past 50 years. These resources could be better spent on promoting nonconsumptive wildlife uses that benefit the majority of British Columbians and not a select and
vocal minority. The BC SPCA recommends that these funds be used to assist wildlife
rehabilitation centres and promote non-consumptive uses of wildlife such as commercial
wildlife viewing.
The BC SPCA does not support resident or non-resident trophy hunting and believes that
only subsistence hunting, which can include the humane hunting of game species, is ethical.
Killing purely for sport is no longer justified in our society.
In order to ensure that all hunting in BC is “carried out in an ethical and humane way” the
MOE should not attempt to increase the number of hunters by giving a “free-trial” licence
without the requirement of the CORE exam to encourage new hunters. This untrained person not
only endangers public safety but is very unlikely to kill an animal instantaneously on the first
shot, thus causing unnecessary suffering, which opposes the MOE’s objectives.
3.2 ANGLERS
Discussion Paper - Page 22
The BC SPCA believes recreational fishing should only be carried out by the
employment of the best possible angling techniques and handling procedures that will minimize
stress, together with the use of gear that will cause the least amount of injury and pain. Thus, the
Society does not support catch-and-release programs as increasing number of scientific studies
have discovered the negative impact on the welfare of injured fish. The BC SPCA supports the
angling of sustainable wild fish stocks and does not support the introduction of non-native fish
species for recreational purposes.
3.3 FALCONERS
Discussion Paper - Page 23
The BC SPCA recommends the increased regulation of falconry to ensure the
humane treatment of raptors held in captivity. Captive-bred, hybridized and live caught
raptors must be defined as wildlife under the Act to ensure adequate legislative authority for
regulation. The BC SPCA opposes the self-regulation of falconry by the BC Falconers
Association, as although they have a vested interest in the practice, this does not guarantee that
16
all members feel obliged to contribute to it, that they will effectively manage the resource, or
ensure that all birds are humanely cared for.
The BC SPCA supports the use of non-releasable raptors being used for educational
purposes or commercial purposes (airport, landfill bird control), however, we oppose the use of
raptors in hunting due to the pain, suffering, and harassment of the wildlife targeted and the often
inhumane training techniques used in the training of these raptors. Numerous falconry birds are
lost annually and some turn up at wildlife rehabilitation centres in extremely poor condition as
evidence of their inability to live independently in the wild. As little monitoring of falconry is
now conducted, the BC SPCA proposes that falconry be jointly managed as per the model for
wildlife rehabilitation, with government, veterinary, and falconer representation.
4. General
4.1 TAXIDERMISTS AND EXPORTERS
Discussion Paper - Page 30
Again, self-regulation of any wildlife user group is not recommended by the BC
SPCA as there is no objective authority to ensure compliance. A joint permit/licensing
committee with government and respective practitioners is suggested. The BC SPCA does not
support allowing ownership of animal remains to the public involved in human-wildlife conflicts
and vehicle collision. Although we recognize the amount of paperwork the above permit process
demands, the change does not encourage members of the public to seek help for vehicleimpacted wildlife that may have the potential for rehabilitation or require humane euthanasia and
increases the potential for animal suffering. Additionally, there is a strong need to better
inventory the number of wildlife killed by vehicles and by allowing the public to take and own
these animals without permits will reduce data collection.
4.2 HABITAT CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
Discussion Paper - Page 29
The BC SPCA supports the proposal of an HCTF surcharge for commercial viewing
activities. Additionally, the BC SPCA recommends a change to the composition of HCTF
Board of Directors under the Wildlife Act Part 2 - Section 112, to include representation
from non-consumptive user groups, including at least one representative from the Wildlife
Rehabilitators Network of BC and one commercial wildlife viewing operator.
4.3 TRAPPING
The BC SPCA is opposed to the inhumane trapping of animals and supports the FurBearer Defenders submission which recommends that the registered trapline system be reviewed.
With the significant decline of trapper licences and animals trapped since the Wildlife Act, it is
obvious that most British Columbian’s do not participate nor benefit from trapping and that non-
17
consumptive uses of wildlife should be the focus for the revision of the Act. The BC SPCA is
concerned that all of the traps (snare, conibear, padded leg hold) used in the practice today still
cause pain and suffering, do not kill instantly the animal (if it is not the exact size or proper
position), and kill non-target species.
4.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES
Wildlife Act Designation and Exemption Regulations - Schedules D & E
The BC SPCA supports Sierra Legal and the Environmental Law Clinic’s submission to
the Wildlife Act review process on behalf of Forest Ethics, Sierra Club of Canada (BC Chapter),
David Suzuki Foundation, Raincoast Conservation Society, and Western Canada Wilderness
Committee joint submission which advocates for stronger legal protection of species at risk and
their habitat on provincial and private lands in BC. The list of endangered or threatened species
within the Wildlife Act must be expanded beyond the current four species, and appropriate
changes to increase protection of such wildlife and their habitat should be made through revision
and enforcement of the Wildlife Amendment Act.
4.5 OILED WILDLIFE RESPONSE
The BC SPCA supports the Oiled Wildlife Society of BC submission which calls for the
need for effective and professional oiled wildlife response in BC. In 1996, an agreement was
formed between the BC SPCA, the MOE and the CWS, such that the BC SPCA would serve as
the lead non-governmental agency for oiled wildlife response. With limited staff and financial
resources, we are not able to meet this obligation (Appendix F) and in May 2007 gave notice that
we are withdrawing from the agreement (Appendix G). The BC SPCA is very concerned about
the lack of preparedness of both the CWS and the MOE and as witnessed by two spills in
Vancouver and Squamish in summer 2006. However, we are encouraged by the recent Draft
Operational Guideline on Wildlife Response for BC Ministry of Environment by Stafford Reid
(MOE Environmental Emergency Planner). In our opinion, professional wildlife response groups
exist in BC such as Focus Wildlife Canada, and government should support their efforts.
4.6 MISCELLANOUS
Wildlife Act - Section 79 Destruction of animals
The BC SPCA recommends a change to:
(2) After reasonable effort is made to contain, an officer may kill a dog that is
(a) at large and harassing wildlife in a wildlife management area, or
(b) at large and harassing wildlife
(3) An officer may kill a cat at large that is harassing wildlife.
Wildlife Act Designation and Exemption Regulations - Section 11.2
No changes are proposed for the SPCA Exemption.
18