| | hatsoff said "| | | tafeel said "Shooting strays should not be illegal. If people don't want strays to be killed quit dumping your unwanted pets in rural areas!!!! Do you think it is fun for people to have to try and stop starving dogs from chasing there livestock? Ever had a pack of stray dogs chase 30 horses over top of you as you are feeding them? Is the killing of these animals by brandon right? No someone has issues and needs help don't go making up laws limiting people's right to defend themselves because Joe/jane lunatic is scaring you. Just find Joe/jane lunatic and deal with them " |
|
|
It says killing strays or wild animals for [b]no reason[/b]. If you have to kill a stray or wild animal to protect your animals or self that is different, to me that has cause. Your statement doesn't mention a scenario where a regular person trying to protect their livelihood or safety would be charged with a crime if the bill passed. I read it as, if you had to kill a pack of stray dogs because they are killing your horses, that is cause. When someone binds an animals legs then kills them and cuts off the ears that doesn't seem like someone who has cause for any reason. " |
|
|
But unless you define precisely what is "just reasons/just cause", you're on a very slippery slope. (At risk of being accused of a "slippery slope" argument...)
For example, a farmer might kill a coyote, thinking he has "just cause" because it threatened his livestock, but to someone else they might think it was unjustified if the animal could be caught and relocated, such as what happens to nuisance bears sometimes.
I notice the petition talks about banning selling cat and dog pelts, but someone could argue that it's an important economic activity for some people, therefore killing dogs to harvest them would fall under "just reason" and be exempt. So would trading in the pelts/fur, for that matter. It's not like trading in the parts of endangered animals like rhinos and tigers - dogs are literally a dime a dozen and could be successfully bred specifically for that purpose.
I agree that this whole ears-cut-off thing seems horrendous, but what if it was for the practice for a religion? (i.e. Satanism, or perhaps some animism beliefs) You could argue that the person could be entitled to do that as long as the animal didn't suffer unnecessarily while it was alive, in the interest of freedom of expression. I don't agree with it necessarily, but it *is* a legitimate argument in this day and age.
So be very careful with the application of "just cause" when we're having these types of conversations. Unless "just cause" is defined and enshrined in law, it's not as simply black-and-white as your post would have us believe.