Please note: This question was edited out of my letter.-- **As a veterinarian, is it not morally and ethically wrong for Kilpatrick to support competitive mushing and its associated practices, including chaining, breeding, and the routinized murder (“culling”) of healthy, injured, and “retired” animals?**

Thank you all for being a voice for the lives of another!

Peace & Health To ALL LIFE!
****************************************

Whitehorse Star, June 6/08.

Animal exploiters' interests are still protected

The Animal Protection Act revisions are worth a second look. Aside from a few concerned individuals, the only lobby group voicing any concerns about the revisions to the Act is the humane society. Is this because all the other lobby groups (mushers, trappers, ranchers, outfitters etc.) who were involved in earlier negotiations with Ken Kilpatrick have been reassured that their interests will be protected?

Even Andrea Lemphers, speaking for the humane society, reassured the public that “Hunting, trapping and fishing would be considered accepted practices” (May 27, 2008, Whitehorse Star). Does this mean the legislation will allow for hunting and trapping “pet” animals such as dogs and cats as well? Or does “humane” have a different meaning for different species (and different people)? It doesn’t make sense to have a double standard.

It also doesn't make sense that “pests” will be treated differently than “pets” if the legislation is revised as Kilpatrick has suggested. Isn’t inhumane treatment inhumane, regardless of who is involved? Or are all animals equal, but some animals are more equal than others?

I would like to know if the changes to the Act will have any impact on the cruel and inhumane practices associated with the mushing industry. Has anyone spoken up to strengthen the legislation with sled dogs in mind? I would like both Andrea Lemphers and Ken Kilpatrick to make their opinions on mushing and the Yukon Quest public.

In a letter to the editor in both papers on Monday May 26, 2008, Andrea Lemphers (with the Humane Society Board’s name on it) thanked Ken Kilpatrick and the current government for their fine work on this Animal Protection Act. I do not think this Yukon party government deserves to be thanked for the work they have done with respect to animals, considering their ever-increasing funding of the Yukon Quest, the 2005 slaughter of the Northern Splendour reindeer herd, the killing of wolves and other "problem" wildlife within the city limits, and their recent expansion of opportunities for hunters to kill more wildlife (wolves, bison, elk etc.)

This is worth emphasizing: the way things are shaping up, this Animal Protection Act will continue to protect the interests of exploiters of nonhuman animals. We humans continue to take what we want from animals (our fellow creatures), and our right to do so is entrenched in "flimsy" laws and lip service for them.

If we (society) are serious about "protecting" animals, we need to recognise them as sentient beings and acknowledge that they deserve to have their basic rights defended (nothing less).

Exploiting animals is not protecting them--it is abusing them.

Mike Grieco