Hey Pericles, thank you for the links. Yabby, are you not being a little presumptuous is assuming that those links are above the intellectual grasp of people who care about animals and justice? Beyond that, I agree with you.
Where domesticated animals are concerned, we have brought them to a position where they are dependent upon us, I think. Your average domesticated dog would struggle a bit "in the wild" (mine CERTAINLY would). On that basis alone, I think we have an obligation to care for them.
Nicky's issue really is of concern. The medical fraternity make a clear distinction between drug/alcohol abuse and mental illness, and since they can be regarded as the experts, I think the courts should have let this disgusting sadists's conviction stand. Smoking "ice", or using/ abusing any other drug or alcohol IS a lifestyle issue, if it then causes a mental illness, then still lock him up and throw away the key, I say. And stop letting pet shops sell animals, too. From Jenna

Sundog and Jenna, thank you, you are quite right. Yabby and Pericles, centuries of "conditioning" (remember Pavlov's dogs, the psychological study) has made the animals we have domesticated dependent upon us. My dogs are totally devoted to us. Perhaps that isn't how it should be, but they know they are loved and cared for, and will never be hungry or mistreated.
Not so all such animals, unfortunately. Those rabbits that the pet shops sold to McMahon without question died horrific deaths including being partially or fully skinned alive. All because he is a drug abusing "yuppie". And he gets away with it. An example should be made of him, and the equally monstrous people that Jenna describes. Those are token penalties. What an odd justice sysatem down there.
Nicky.

OT on a lighter note -

For some reason Yabby's comment...

>>way above the heads of most bleading heart animal lovers on this thread<<

... and Jenna's response...

>>Yabby, are you not being a little presumptuous is assuming that those links are above the intellectual grasp of people who care about animals<<

... reminded me of a Bob Newhart quip:

"I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'"

Pericles, how very well put.
It digresses a little from the topic though. I agree with Nicky that the penalties handed down for some terrible cruelty offences are far too lenient, and therefore serve as absolutely no deterrent. The two farmers I mentioned are free to go out and starve their remaining animals to death now. They were not even fined - just short, suspended sentences. Psychological studies have established a clear link between animal abuse and cruelty and human violence, apart from anything else.
As well, here in Tasmania, two other people have been charged; one man who stabbed a puppy to death was to face the courts in July and didn't turn up, so an arrest warrant was issued - and nothing further has happened. Another, who has a lengthy history of some shocking offences (specialises in starving horses to death) failed to turn up for court early this month - and likewise - nothing. It seems that unless they come to the attention of the police for other matters, they do not bother to pick them up. Perhaps it's because Tasmania's Risdon Prison (the only prison) is at capacity - which was bad planning, since the prison has just been built.
From Jenna

In NSW common assault (human to human)can typically attract a $500 fine.

Surely this would be the approximate starting point for cruelty to animals. But since animals are considered by some here at OLO as having attributes superior to humans then one would have to logically conclude that the penalties be substantially higher.

Sounds like contributions to the RSPCA are a waste of money in Tasmania at least.

BTW I also recall a poorly publicised murder trial (no animal legal practitioners involved)..... males A & B accompany male C to his home late one night after a heavy session at the pub. A or B kill C. Case is tried but A insists B killed C and B is adamant that A killed C.

NSW judge lets them both go free. Question for the cruelty experts. Would the judge's decision be categorised as cruelty to the surviving members of C? If so what would an appropriate penalty / sanction be for the cruel judge?

Nicky

Beware of the Yabbys and the Cowboy Joes. Have a look at "Taking a Stand for all Animals" by Katrina Sharman 20/12/06 to see how sadistic and abusive these saboteurs are of animal rights. They haven't wasted any time infiltrating your thread!

Or view any other earlier threads on the protection of animals to find out how disgusting they really are.

They have condoned and defended the practice of heinous animal cruelty in all the other posts so don't fall for the bait and ignore them!

Starting with yabby's arrogant claim that "the science is way above the heads of the bleading (sic) hearts" on this thread.

Excellent article, Nicky. Keep it up!

Viva la Animals!