Quote:
Dubbing fowl is not specifically mentioned in any of the Statutes I've looked through. Here's the Animal Cruelty one, interpret as you will.
Hmmm,
So, when you take a 12 week old Mini-Pin or Boxer to the "vet" to get half of their ear cropped off (which is required on a Mini-Pin and suggested on a Boxer to show) is the vet inflicting animal cruelty. I could also add tail docking and dewclaw removal too.
Or is this Statue saying that all of this should be done by a vet? That would be job security. Does this say that an individual cannot put an animal out of it's misery? It sounds like it could be applied to hunting deer or fishing too. Better not kill that copperhead snake. I know I'm going out on a limb here but I'm trying to prove the point.
Many animals have distinctive surgeries done because of their breeds and cannot be shown without. Most people wouldn't even recognize the breeds without these things being done.
I don't believe the statement is referring to what we have been talking about. I believe the Statue is referring to animals being grossly mistreated. Things such as having acid dropped on their heads, beat and starved.
It's not pleasant but until APA or ABA makes a change it is required to show game chickens.
Dubbing fowl is not specifically mentioned in any of the Statutes I've looked through. Here's the Animal Cruelty one, interpret as you will.
§21-1685. Cruelty to animals.
Any person who shall willfully or maliciously torture, destroy or kill, or cruelly beat or injure, maim or mutilate any animal in subjugation or captivity, whether wild or tame, and whether belonging to the person or to another, or deprive any such animal of necessary food, drink, shelter, or veterinary care to prevent suffering; or who shall cause, procure or permit any such animal to be so tortured, destroyed or killed, or cruelly beaten or injured, maimed or mutilated, or deprived of necessary food, drink, shelter, or veterinary care to prevent suffering; or who shall willfully set on foot, instigate, engage in, or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding five (5) years, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). Any animal so maltreated or abused shall be considered an abused or neglected animal.
R.L. 1910, § 2746. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 384, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 5, § 276, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2003, c. 363, § 1, eff. July 1, 2003; Laws 2006, c. 188, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2006.
NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 384 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.
Any person who shall willfully or maliciously torture, destroy or kill, or cruelly beat or injure, maim or mutilate any animal in subjugation or captivity, whether wild or tame, and whether belonging to the person or to another, or deprive any such animal of necessary food, drink, shelter, or veterinary care to prevent suffering; or who shall cause, procure or permit any such animal to be so tortured, destroyed or killed, or cruelly beaten or injured, maimed or mutilated, or deprived of necessary food, drink, shelter, or veterinary care to prevent suffering; or who shall willfully set on foot, instigate, engage in, or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding five (5) years, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). Any animal so maltreated or abused shall be considered an abused or neglected animal.
R.L. 1910, § 2746. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 384, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 5, § 276, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2003, c. 363, § 1, eff. July 1, 2003; Laws 2006, c. 188, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2006.
NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 384 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.
Hmmm,
So, when you take a 12 week old Mini-Pin or Boxer to the "vet" to get half of their ear cropped off (which is required on a Mini-Pin and suggested on a Boxer to show) is the vet inflicting animal cruelty. I could also add tail docking and dewclaw removal too.
Or is this Statue saying that all of this should be done by a vet? That would be job security. Does this say that an individual cannot put an animal out of it's misery? It sounds like it could be applied to hunting deer or fishing too. Better not kill that copperhead snake. I know I'm going out on a limb here but I'm trying to prove the point.
Many animals have distinctive surgeries done because of their breeds and cannot be shown without. Most people wouldn't even recognize the breeds without these things being done.
I don't believe the statement is referring to what we have been talking about. I believe the Statue is referring to animals being grossly mistreated. Things such as having acid dropped on their heads, beat and starved.
It's not pleasant but until APA or ABA makes a change it is required to show game chickens.
