We will write a custom Assessment on The Vancouver Principles of Animal Rights Protection specifically for you
301 certified writers online
The set of legal principles, which the owners of pets are supposed to comply, has been expanded significantly over the past few decades. The incorporation of new laws and regulations regarding keeping pets into the Vancouver justice system has created premises for improving the treatment of animals and preventing the accidents that may lead to the injury of the animal, its owner, or a third party (Exotic Animal Legislation para. 1).
Judging by the Vancouver principles of animal rights protection, the actions, which Mary Carey took in order to protect her pets, can be qualified as overstepping the boundaries of animal life protection. Therefore, it should be viewed as a breach of animal rights, as Mary attempted to poison the condor and, therefore, violated the rights of the animal. Nevertheless, Mary’s case can be helped if the emphasis is put on the fact that the owner of the condor did not keep the bird in the conditions required by the law.
Moreover, the fact that Mary also acquired a new pet, a robin, which was also extremely vulnerable to the environment in question, shows that she, as an animal owner has no sense of responsibility for her pets whatsoever. Indeed, seeing that the rabbit was already exposed to consistent jeopardy, aggravating the situation by putting another fragile creature (a robin) into the specified environment. Hence, it can be assumed that Mary needs to adopt a more reasonable approach to taking care of her pets.
From the legal perspective, though, Mary should consider filing for the neighbor for keeping a pet that poses a significant threat to the neighborhood yet is not kept under the required supervision. Whereas the Vancouver law does not prohibit acquiring and keeping pets that are traditionally considered exotic (Exotic Animal Ownership Permission para. 2), these pets need to be kept in an environment that minimizes the threat. The owner of the condor, in their turn, never made sure that the pet is harmless to the neighbors, nor did he take any measures that could have prevented the instance of animal injury in the neighborhood.
Therefore, Mary can be suggested to admit her fault in attempting at poisoning the condor, since lying will only aggravate the situation, and file a counter-claim by stating that the neighbor did not consider the wellbeing of the people living in the vicinity in the first place prior to getting his pet. In other words, Mary might consider claiming that the condor belonging to the neighbor should be classified as a specimen of the so-called “controlled alien species” (BC Ministry of Environment 6.4). According to the existing definition, the above-mentioned concept concerns the animals that pose “a risk to the health or safety of any person or poses a risk to property, wildlife or wildlife habitat” (BC Ministry of Environment 6.4). The specified claim aligns with the key tenets of the Vancouver law.
The above-mentioned measure will allow reducing the threat to not only Mary’s pets but also the people living in the vicinity by making the minister consider either the transfer of the specified animal to the corresponding qualified animal shelter services (e.g., the animal shelter) or to impose a set of more rigid regulations on the owner of the condor, i.e., maintaining close supervision of the bird, keeping it at a major distance from Mary’s pets, including the latter in a protection order, etc..At the same time, it can be suggested that Mary should take more efficient care of her pets by making sure that they are not hurt and supervising them closer.
BC Ministry of Environment. 2015. Wildlife Act. Web.
Exotic Animal Legislation. 2015. Web.
Exotic Animal Ownership Permission. 2015. Web.