I like dogs as much as the next person, but should one incident (albeit a terrible one) lead to immediate and significant changes in legislation? That's the question that must be asked in response to the Provincial government's recent announcements that it was "getting tough" on animal cruelty in the wake of the Howling Dog Tours sled-dog cull which took place in April 2010 (details here).
Following a lengthy and costly investigation (an issue in itself, see Kim Pemberton's article in the Vancouver Sun here) authorities duly confirmed their outrage and, predictably, announced increases in penalties for animal cruelty (press release here).
Unlike Americans, Canadians don't appear to have a particular fear of government regulation. But the established pattern of disturbing incident followed by public shock followed by new legislation is troubling. Like bicycle helmet laws, cell-phone bans for motorists and the increasingly draconian drinking and driving laws in B.C., governments appear to have an infinite capacity for either creating new law or toughening existing laws when the headlines are large enough or the specific incident appears to warrant it.
There is a maxim amongst lawyers: "hard cases make bad law". What this means is that courts, when presented with difficult cases, often twist or pervert well-established caselaw or legislation to achieve a particular result. But the maxim also speaks to process. Namely, exceptions should not give rise to new rules.
This maxim applies with equal force to the creation or toughening of new laws as a result of specific, isolated events. In the case of the sled-dog cull, there is no evidence of an increasing trend of sled-dog slaughters, or of animal cruelty in general. But what are the downsides to increasing penalties for animal cruelty? Are animal shelter and veterinarians going to face increased regulatory costs? Who is going to enforce these stepped up regulations? What is the cost of that. None of those questions appear to have been asked. Yet the government's response is to pander to the headline-writers. After all, who could possibly be for animal cruelty, and against tougher laws to prevent it?
The answer is simple: no one is in favour of animal cruelty. But everyone should be in favour of a calm and measured legislative process -- not one driven by headlines.
