I just wanted to quote also from Joanne Klineberg in that very same testimony at the legal and constitutional affairs committee. She spoke after Mr. Piragoff, and made the point that the actual words do apply that an animal can be a wild or stray animal:
Nonetheless, exceptionally few cases have been decided on this point. All I have been able to find in the jurisprudence is cases that suggest that, as a matter of theory in some other case, this could apply to wild or stray animals.
Now, although Mr. Coghill mentioned that it is possible to prosecute cases against wild or stray animals, it is very difficult, mostly because they are currently considered property offences and just because animal crimes are not serious offences.