A Princeton landlord will not see his dog again and has been ordered to pay costs of $4,526.39 to the BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA).
Kazumi Tanaka, an artist, “did not believe in vets” and said animals have rights while human rights are diminishing.
‘Gus,’ a Pyrenees-cross dog, was acquired by Tanaka in January 2022.
Gus was removed from his care by the SPCA in July after numerous complaints about the dog’s health and living conditions, lodged by Tanaka’s tenants, whom Tanaka said should be evicted for their actions.
Tanaka appealed to the British Columbia Farm Industry Review Board (BCFIRB), but in a Sept. 30 decision the board upheld the society’s decision to seize Gus, and assigned costs to his former owner.
The board heard that the SPCA received three complaints about Gus’ care, in February, May and June. It was alleged Gus was not receiving proper care and had been physically abused.
After the first complaint, SPCA special Provincial Constable Chapman investigated and found Gus to be in satisfactory health.
When Chapman returned for a followup visit, he reviewed the premises and determined that Gus was in distress. Chapman issued a notice that Gus needed to see a veterinarian.
Gus was underweight, suffered from ongoing diarrhea and needed a specialized gastrointestinal diet and had to be de-wormed.
Tanaka attended two veterinarian appointments with Gus, who continued to lose weight. Gus was seized after the man refused to take him back to the vet.
Before Gus was seized “he was tethered with a short black ratchet leash and there was some water in a red bucket and no shelter. Chapman examined Gus physically and could feel his spine and hip bones,” reads the background of the complaint outlined in the board’s decision.
The society also submitted that Gus was left alone, outside and tied up day and night, and there were reports Gus had been kicked by Tanaka, who responded he had just “tapped” the dog.
The BCFIRB ruled that “while Tanaka may have learned something about the care of a dog, he does not respect expert veterinary advice and has on several occasions refused direction even when legally ordered by the Society’s officers to take the animal to a clinic.”
It stated that the dog would be vulnerable to distress if it were returned to Tanaka.
Do you have something to add to this story, or something else we should report on? Email:firstname.lastname@example.org
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.