Why we end up with extremist over reactionary animal control laws

[The Snark]

A pretty typical example. Realities and the theoretical (laws, restrictions) sometimes live in different worlds
https://www.thedodo.com/why-do-peop...t-to-own-them-again-and-again-1218794868.html

While these examples are animal cruelty, the logic, when there is any, among law makers in Wash DC, is very fuzzy. They tend to look at the overall picture if the animal isn't present, it won't be abused. From this truly brilliant leap of logic we have laws like the ban of animals in lieu of the control of abusive owners.

As example, with dog or cock fighting, criminal intent must be established. Sometimes very hard to do. So group the animals together under one umbrella. If animal X is illegal and one is found it's an open and shut case. Weird logic at it's best sometimes. Law makers are not renown for objectivity and common sense.

I'm looking for other peoples viewpoints here.


To give a nicely weird example. Say, while I was running the pack station I went out and found one of my horses in the condition as in that article. I would have immediately put a bullet in it's head. In California that's a misdemeanor, in some states it could even be prosecuted as a felony. The legal way to deal with that animal is call animal control. Animal control will then send out their designated vet. The vet can, and had in the past, taken a week to come out. He would have then put a bullet in the horse, legally. Thus, the law promoted animal cruelty.

But the law can then go far beyond, out into the realm of the absurd. Technically we could have been banned from keeping horses due the the obscurity of the laws. We should have known that if an animal was injured it could suffer for as much as a week.

Then enter the bizarre into that situation. Two weeks after I illegally put a horse down I became sheriff. A few days after that I was called by the vet to check on a steer that caught it's leg in a cattle barrier. It was mangled. I called the vet and he told me to put the animal down. That was legal. ???

While working the pack station I shot several coyotes, legal, and a couple of wild dogs, illegal. Then assisting animal control I shot 7 wild dogs, legal.

I had a bear in a campground occupied by nearly 100 children. Unless the bear was actually in the act of endangering someone, not just cruising the picnic area, I couldn't shoot it even though the kids were trapped in various structures while the bear was present. 2 days later a State Park official and a friend of his encountered the bear and his friend, who had the rifle, shot the bear. That was legal. To be precise, he shot the bear 'over 15 times'. His 15+ shots from a .223 was preferable to a single shot form my .444.

Is there any sanity on the horizon for sensible animal and people control in this matter?

 

[Nich]

This sounds to me like a metaphoric synopsis of some or many of the laws and principals in general here stateside ( I know it wasn't... just relating).

 

[The Snark]

This sounds to me like a metaphoric synopsis of some or many of the laws and principals in general here stateside ( I know it wasn't... just relating).

But in fact of the matter, at the core of the problem, you are correct. The acts, antics of the politicians, specifically the law makers, are motivated by a wide variety of reasons, from self advancement or benefit at one end to pure unbiased altruism at the other. The animal problem appears to come in in that the animals have no voice and say in the matter. Thus the motivator behind the politicians is almost entirely from special interests groups that cover the spectrum from entirely benign to perversely malignant. We see in the animal control laws very clearly what comes about from ill or unplanned reactionary legislation motivated entirely by personal preference and or bias.

The individual has absolutely no say in the matter. Without the clout of a group or authority, the animals, and the people who keep or care for them, are helpless victims subject to the whims of various interest groups.

The Pitt Bull. It's just another animal, no more vicious than any other dog. The Burmese python. Reactionary legislation. Closing the barn door long after the horse disappeared over the horizon. And almost every other animal problem. Reactionary legislation after the fact, never addressing the primary cause of the issue.

I hesitate to say it, but taking into consideration the incredible stupidity displayed by some people, the most obvious resolve to the entire issue is license all animal keepers. Make the license easy to get but a one shot deal. Screw up your license is pulled permanently and severe penalties are levied for any further violations. This would at the least give proper animal husbandry people the ability to make their own decisions as to what animal they can keep.


However, do not write the rules of animal care in order to get a license along the conventional lines. In fact, throw out most of the animal care rule book. Place it under the same guidelines, rules, restrictions and controls as the medical profession operates under. Use the International Code of Ethics for Nurses.