Animal cruelty?

[REW]

I was doing some reading this morning and came across this listing of state animal cruelty laws:

http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/...rueltyLaws.pdf

Then - further - read about a definition of an animal:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...=1006011202948

So, based on the comments about animal cruelty in MN, it looks like everyone that catches a fish and then whacks it on the head before cleaning it or goes out and shoots a deer could be convicted of animal cruelty - from a strict reading of the law.
Notice at the end of the law, there is a statement that says - no exceptions.

The problem with the statement of "no exceptions" technically closes the door on hunting and fishing that is leagal because you are buying the licence to go out and kill so many fish or animals. But, since the cruelty law says "no exceptions" this law actually overrided the purchase of the license to hunt and fish.

---
On the other hand, when you read the animal cruelty law from Montana, there is a statement that exempts fishing and hunting as well as common animal husbandry practices.

The reason that I read this law was a question raised by someone who lived far from a vet and wanted to know if they could put their own pet down if its condition warranted the action.
Based on Minn law, it doesn't sound like it.
On the other hand, if you read the strict verbiage of the MN law, it doesn't sound like any person can put down any animal. I think that it is a very poorly worded law that should really be changed.

The point of a law is to have a rule that makes sense and can be enforced. With the MN law as written, it certainly seems to leave the enforcement up to the enforcement person. i.e. it is ok to fish and hunt, but it is not ok to put down your own pet? Is this what an enforcement officer would say.

It is ok to slaughter cattle for food, but it is not ok to get rid of an excess number of animals that can no longer be cared for? From the reading of the MN law, both of these things wold be illegal.

The words of a law should be such that there is no room for interpretation of the law.


Just wondering.

REW

[fetchwillie]

And here is your drum roll

[REW]

Great violin.

REW

[REW]

Fetch,
Part of the reason that I posted this was a recent case of a dog breeder who put down old and or excess dogs and puppies for various reasons.

In this case, the breeder was brought up on animal cruelty charges.
But, if the breeder was simply running his business of raising healthy dogs, why the charges?

Chicken and beef growers do this on a daily basis. i.e. if a particular creature does not meet certain standards, it is put down before ever going to market.

REW

[fetchwillie]

I understand your point I was just waiting for the "full story"

Don

[undguy]

So if I release a walleye in North Dakota, am I abandoning it?

[yarcraft91]

Well, you did feed it first. At least, the walleye thought you were feeding it.

Interesting article...Notice the part DOG was not charged...


http://www.suntimes.com/12229615-417...ites-back.html

[seeds]

I remember a news story a few years back about a rural animal control officer. It was an elected position in that county,with a tiny salary and a budget to match. It turned out that pet food costs ate up both the budget AND his meager salary. He did it because he loved animals and liked reuniting folks with their lost pets.

When some do-gooder discovered his inepensive method of euthanizing unwanted strays and publicized it,a bunch of PETA-types came to town to protest. State law mandated a licensed vet do that but the money to pay the vet would have come from his own pocket. He was a farmer,he took care of that part of the job the same way he took care of animals he owned that needed to be put down.

He quit,the protesters left town,and the county was left with an unwanted dogcatcher position. Bad enough it was essentially an unpaid job but after the controversy,nobody would touch it.