THUNDER BAY — A tribunal has denied a Thunder Bay woman's request for the return of a pot-bellied pig that was seized by a provincial animal welfare inspector.
The animal – nicknamed Tuna by its owner – was found in distress when the inspector visited a Shebandowan property in late December 2020.
He also discovered another pot-bellied pig that was already dead.
Noting that he was "very thin, with his ribs and backbone clearly visible," the inspector sent photos and video of Tuna and his living conditions to a veterinarian.
On the basis of the evidence, the vet decided it was necessary to remove him.
He said the animal's food source was "plant material of unknown origin," likely had low nutritional value, and was not suitable as the sole source of feed.
The vet observed that Tuna appeared to be in thin body condition, with hair loss, a skin condition and scabbiness.
After the pig was removed in early January, another vet examined him at a clinic and described him as very thin and lethargic.
He found scabs and crusts on his back, overgrown dewclaws and tusks, and rated his body condition as only one on a scale of five, or "emaciated".
The same doctor performed a post-mortem exam on the pig that had been found dead.
He described being able to see this animal's skeleton through its hide, evidence of muscle-wasting, and that there was no food anywhere in its gastrointestinal tract.
The vet concluded that the pig had likely starved to death over an extended period of time.
At a hearing last month, the Ontario Animal Care Review Board considered a request from Tuna's owner to return him to her.
In her decision published last week, adjudicator Joanne Foot reviewed the background to the case, noting that an animal welfare inspector initially issued a compliance order in July 2020 to alleviate the distress of four pot-bellied pigs at the Shebandowan property.
The order required that the pigs be provided with adequate food and water, and be examined by a vet.
It was upheld on appeal in December 2020, which subsequently led to inspectors visiting the property to check on the animals' condition.
In her ruling, Foot said that when Tuna was removed from its owner, it had not been receiving the care it needed to address its health issues, and had not been provided with appropriate food or water.
She also said an unheated barn that was open to the elements was not an appropriate shelter for the animal in the winter.
These factors, the adjudicator said, "amount to privation and neglect" and meet the legal definition of distress.
She determined that, based on the owner's "longstanding failure to properly care for her pot-bellied pig, and her strained financial situation," she is unlikely to properly care for it in the future, and that it would likely suffer distress if it was returned to her.
There's no word yet on where Tuna will be placed in the wake of the tribunal's decision.
In early February, about a month after he was seized and put on a treatment plan, a vet described the pig's condition as two on a scale of five but showing marked improvement.
