Animal rights activist not impressed by Dog Act change
http://www.mix100.ca/news_and_sports/news/Local/11/02/25/Animal-rights-activist-not-impressed-by-Dog-Act-change
Controversial clause in NWT Dog Act could be amended
http://www.mix100.ca/news_and_sports/news/Local/11/02/17/Controversial-clause-in-NWT-Dog-Act-could-be-amended
Despite the successful protest against the DEADLY CLAUSE contained within the Amended Dog Act, the crafty rephrasing of this same clause now substitutes the clause protested.
The original clause: contained under DUTY OF CARE: SUBSECTION 3(2): A person does not contravene Subsection (1) by treating a dog in accordance with the regulations or in accordance with the generally accepted local or traditional practices of dog care, use and management.”
Has been deleted and is now reworded as:
ACCEPTABLE TREATMENT: (2) “A person does not contravene Subsection (1) by treating a dog in accordance with the regulations or in accordance with standards of care set out in an applicable By Law”.
DEADLY CLAUSE BELOW:
UNDER : DOGS IN DISTRESS 4(3) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY IF THE DISTRESS RESULTS FROM AN ACTIVITY CARRIED ON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED OR LOCAL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES OF DOG CARE, USE AND MANAGEMENT”
has been removed and replaced by this reworded version
EXCEPTIONS: (3) “This Section does not apply if the DISTRESS is caused by a treatment, process or condition that occurs in the course of an accepted activity.”
ACCEPTED ACTIVITY: (4) Subject to Subsection (5) for the purpose of this Act, an accepted activity includes the use, care and management of a dog in the course of the following activities:
A) Harvesting, including gathering, hunting, trapping and fishing (Totally acceptable providing dogs needs are met)
B) Protection of People from Wildlife (Acceptable as often the dogs will warn individuals of potential threats while on the Land)
C) An other activity designated as an accepted activity by the regulations (Questionable???)
Section 5: An activity is an accepted activity under Subsection (4) only if it is carried out in a manner:
A) Consistent with a GENERALLY accepted practice or procedure for the activity that (Questionable ????)
(1) is not designated as a prohibited practice or procedure by the regulations and
(ii) does not cause undue suffering: or
B) That is otherwise REASONABLE in the circumstances, and that does not cause undue suffering. (Questionable???)
The rewording of the clause (the deadly loophole) that so many have voiced protest against) is in my opinion and I am sure will be in the opinion of so many others, an attempt at ‘smoke and mirrors’; the fact that this portion of the amended clause leaves it entirely up to interpretation as pointed out by MLA David Ramsay: is an attempt to mask this clause using different wording, thereby allowing the clause to remain and providing an escape hatch for those who have inflicted such misery on dogs in the past, the present and who will continue to do so in the future. This revised wording masking the deadly loophole, is a means of enabling this unacceptable behavior to continue without consequence.
NOTE:
Any person with even minimal intelligence can see that and should be insulted by this masked ploy, and the very idea that those particular MLA’s , i.e. MLA Krutko (Mackenzie Delta and a few others) continue to want the deadly clause to remain and evidently would like to see the new Dog Act squashed totally would have the blatant assumption that most people would not have the intelligence to see what is being attempted. It is insulting and raises a question as to whether this reflects their apparent opinion of the constituents who voted them into power.
As seen in past history across the Territory, Municipal By Laws do not work, if the new Dog Act is making reference to Municipal Bylaws in any and all above clauses by citing accepted local regulations then all dogs remain in threat of their care and very lives. The whole purpose of an Animal Protection Act is to ensure that when Municipal By Laws are not effectively enforced that these animals will have protection under the Provincial/Territorial Act as well as the Federal Criminal Code.
The amended Dog Act is due to be brought forward to the Legislative Assembly for final approval and to become law early next week, tentatively Tuesday March 1st.
Once again, Now is the time to contact the Public Hearings Committee Chairman: MLA, David Ramsay: david_ramsay@gov.nt.ca phone: 867-669-2296 ,
MLA, Robert Bromley bob_bromley@gov.nt.ca phone: 867-669-2272, fax 867-873-0276 and
MLA and Speaker of the House: MLA Paul Delorey: paul_delorey@gov.nt.ca phone:867-874-6301 or 867-669-2234 fax: 867-873-0273
All three of these MLA’s support very real Animal Protection for the NT and a Comprehensive Animal Protection Act .
Please contact the MLA’s to voice your concerns and to express your hope that the right decision will be made to protect these helpless animals, and that all loopholes and get out of jail free passes do not exist in the new NT Dog Act. Time is critical, please Act right away on this.
To Contact Ministers:
Premier: FloydRoland@gov.nt.ca phone: 867-669-2311
Justice: jackson_lafferty@gov.nt.ca : 867-669-2399 fax – 867-873-0307
MACA: robert_c_mcleod@gov.nt.ca : 867-669-2366 fax – 867-873-0309
Read Full Post »