“Traditional” Practice Exception in Dog Act

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Mushers Defend ‘Traditional’ Practice Exception in Dog Act
Significance
Work Cited

Mushers Defend ‘Traditional’ Practice Exception in Dog Act

On 27th January 2011, the Northern News Service published a story about mushers who defended traditional practice exception in the Dog Act. ‘Traditional practice’ refers to a clause that makes exceptions to locally accepted and traditional practices as far as prohibiting cruelty to dogs is concerned. The mushers defended the clause on 22nd January 2011 at a public hearing on bill 16 that sought to amend the Dog Act before it was taken to the legislative house that will be opened in February. The public hearing was held at the Midnight Sun Complex, which was attended by more than 30 people. The main contentious issue was whether to define the word tradition or to completely delete it from the Act. One of those who wanted the word to remain in the clause was the president of the Beaufort Delta Dog Mushers and also an Inuvik welder. Mr. Mike Baxter said that defining the word would be difficult, if not an impossible task, and that those who abused animals would still do so no matter what the Act said (Curtis, para.1-2).

The manager of the Beaufort Delta Regional SPCA, Linda Eccles, said that she had witnessed very many cases associated with horrific cruelty and also listed particular cases that she had handled in Inuvik. She, in fact, disclosed that in ten years, she had been reporting cases of animal abuse. However, only a single investigation had been taken to court, and being that the Act was written many years ago, a fine of $25 or a jail term of 30 days was the maximum punishment. As a result, she said that she didn’t want a continuation of this where people are let off the hook because of loosely written laws. The Chairman of the meeting, Mr. Dave Ramsay, concurred with Eccles that the N.T. needed a comprehensive Act that does not have an undefined section where one who abuses animals would claim to be traditional practice. To counter Eccles’s remarks, Baxter said that what mattered most was whether a dog was healthy and able to perform, for there cannot be a common way of training and feeding dogs as done on horses. He added that under no circumstance that any musher would justify Eccles’s argument and that any abuser of dogs would still do so no matter the definitions, and one who provides good care would also continue doing the same (Curtis, para.3-10).

Positive Aspects

In support of Baxter’s position, every society has its own traditional practices and way of life, and therefore trying to draw a line on dos and don’ts is a near-impossible task. Particularly because different people use dogs for different purposes, and economic standards can be a factor in how people take care of their dogs. Some use dogs only as pets, and some use them in various sporting activities as well as at work (Lost Temple Pets, para. 1). Doing away with the word ‘traditional’ would be insidious because there are traditional ways of raising a dog that is safe and beneficial; hence if the word is deleted from the clause, then doing that would be an offense. There are communities such as the Gwich’in and Inuvialuit people whose economic lives have since historical times been supported to a larger extent by working dogs for centuries. This shows that deleting the word ‘traditional’ would deny such people of their livelihoods (May, para.4). For any law to provide justice, it should not have any elements of discrimination in its application. This seems to come out when one tries to outlaw traditional ways of rearing dogs in an attempt to curb cruelty, particularly because the law should never view the traditional way of rearing dogs and proper care to dogs as mutually exclusive.

Negative Aspects

In support of Linda Eccles’ position, any law that has an ambiguous clause will definitely be interpreted differently by different people. Hence those who break it will use their interpreted versions to circumvent it and avoid being liable. For instance, the president of the N.W.T. SPCA explained during the public hearings that most people who were unwilling to give proper care to their animals used the word traditional practices to justify their actions (C.B.C. News, para.5). Therefore any ambiguous clause should be done away with if it promotes the same crimes that that law is meant to curb. For laws to be effective, they must be able to address the issues that they were meant to. However, laws developed in the past might not be effective in handling current issues.

Precisely because there are a lot of changes that have occurred between those times and now, some laws should either be abolished or amended to be able to operate effectively. For instance, the Dog Act was written fifty years ago, and the definition of tradition then is not the same as today. At the same time, there are always people who fault the law so that their unacceptable acts can be legalized, and therefore continuous evaluation and amendment laws if a common practice in any society. Based on the accounts of cruelty listed by Linda Eccles during the public hearing, it is clear that the Dogs Act is ineffective, particularly since a lot of cruelty happened and no action was taken, and for the few cases that action was taken, the penalty given to the offenders was too small to deter him or any other person from doing the same. Therefore this gives a good reason why there should be a clear definition of the word ‘traditional,’ or if not, it should be deleted from the bill (Curtis, para. 5).

Significance

What emerges from this event are varied interests that exist in any given society. This is because as much as both parties might agree that cruelty on dogs should be stopped, there would be different opinions on the ways to achieve the objective based on what interest each party has in dogs. It is also important to note that in a given society, it is difficult to reach an agreement that is best for all parties involved. Therefore the prudent thing to do is to come up with the most acceptable and effective solution to a given problem. That means that at times other parties will have to lose. However, they can be compensated because the main aim was to achieve the objective set, which in this case is to curb cruelty on dogs. This can be achieved by collectively evaluating all options and being objective in the process. Being objective ensures that parties are not drawn into irrational arguments over subjective standards. Lastly, changing people’s ideas and traditions is not easy and takes time, and a lot of caution should be exercised.

Work Cited

CBC News. Northern Canada Dog Act ‘traditional’ practices Debated. 2011. Web.

Lost Temple. Pets lost temple fitness canine pulling sports. n.d. Web.

May, Katie. Tradition doesn’t equal animal cruelty: mushers. 2011, Web.

Curtis, Kira. Mushers defend ‘traditional’ practice exception in Dog Act. 2011, Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

“Traditional” Practice Exception in Dog Act

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)