Friday, 18 January 2008

Fail to prevent cruelty

Recently, a NSW man was convicted of "FAILING to PREVENT an offence under the Cruelty to Animals Act". (Cockfighting case, 15 Jan). This opens up a range of options to deal with people who knowingly allow cruelty to occur. Funny how chickens are exempt from this law.

Councils with draconian restrictions on where owners can take their canine best friend also lead to cruelty as dogs are left alone more and more (with smaller homes in physical size and number of people).

They then can bark and end up being less-socialised then their European counterparts who can enjoy parks, transport and pubs with their owners. In other words, by restricting dogs from so many public places we are isolating them and creating problems for residents and dogs.

The dangerous dog act goes so far as to declare an owner guilty under proven otherwise. An untrained council officer can declare a dog dangerous and have it penned up in a concrete flooded enclosure not to be let out. They can do this without any animal experts involved and by believing hearsay stories. Sounds like Guantanamo and that does not have a reputation of making better humans! Research shows a strong correlation between how humans treat pets and animals in general, which negative behaviour towards animals also targeting the human animal.

It is legal to keep cats and dogs as pets and Barking Mad will work with as much vigour as those willing to confront whaling in our territory. The issue is the same, the moral debate on keeping pet or killing whales is a separate issue.

No comments: