Thread: Animal cruelty …. Time for legal action.

yep agree 100%, people torturing or harming animals should be locked up for a long time.
If anyone feels the need to harm a defenseless animal it probably means they have some serious mental problems anyway so lock'em up or flogg'em

Only problem will be trying to get our hopeless politicians (any party) to do anything about it

nic

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

Now before you tossers get on and post the redneck comments that the only good cat is a dead cat, don’t bother. If an animal is causing a problem then dealing with it humanly is one thing, but bashing a puppy to death with your hands is sick. My soapbox is about animal cruelty, not ethical animal control.

Sir Stink, I'd hate to be confused with THEM so will remind THEM that fear in animals adversely impacts on the quality of the meat...

Decreased meat quality due to transportation and stress is well documented in other animals: swine - PSE (Pale Soft Exsudative); beef - DFD (Dark Firm Dry) and is of a major concern in these industries. Much concern has been devoted to find the critical stressful points in these industries and new laws and codes of practice have been introduced to decrease the incidence of meat loss due to stress.

Stress prior to slaughter results in depletion of muscle glycogen which is one reason for abnormal carcass and meat characteristics (15,16). In a normally rested animal, there is sufficient tissue glycogen to cause adequate post-mortal glycolysis, which lowers the pH just after slaughtering (17). The glycolysis increases the muscle acidity, resulting in a low meat pH. The pH of stressed animal meat falls below of that usually found in the meat of healthy non-stressed animals. In stressed animals, glycogen can completely disappear and the meat begins to decompose (14).**

If it makes you feel any better, the army guys were dishonourably discharged, and no it's not excusable.

On the other hand, the rapid despatch of any non-indigenous species by any method is preferable to allowing them to inflict a similar sort of suffering on indigenous species.

Cats, canetoads, foxes, wild dogs, rabbits, wild pigs are all guilty of inflicting the same sort of cruelty on our native species!

I always reckon the punishment should fit the crime.... but then who's going to be the hangman?

Cheers?
P (Cane toad Tosser)

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Sir Stink, I'd hate to be confused with THEM so will remind THEM that fear in animals adversely impacts on the quality of the meat...


If it makes you feel any better, the army guys were dishonourably discharged, and no it's not excusable.

On the other hand, the rapid despatch of any non-indigenous species by any method is preferable to allowing them to inflict a similar sort of suffering on indigenous species.

Cats, canetoads, foxes, wild dogs, rabbits, wild pigs are all guilty of inflicting the same sort of cruelty on our native species!

You'd better stop eating beef then, that's a non native species that is known to destroy native vegetation.

Unfortunately animals react based on their instincts and even if cats do kill native birds they can't be blamed it's life. We humans are supposed to be a bit more civilised.

nic

I'll make an observation; the Army personnel would have also lost their jobs if they were convicted, so it is a little more than 'community service'. Another view may be 'double jeopardy'.

Asking the legal "system" to take a stand will merely invite one side to give harsher penalties and the other side to further ignore the intent of the law and become more active in further screwing it up.

It's an imperfect system, they all are. But if you want action, go and meet your local member, face-to-face, and get angry. We, as Australians, get the laws and politicians we deserve - because we are too complacent (in general).

Edit: I've added this as the tone of the above paragraphs is not right. If it seems I am in some way disagreeing with your sentiments, I'm not. My comments contain some frustration at Aussies in general who are apathetic about the political process and don't get involved, therefore the situation doesn't improve and their complaints become self-fulfilling prophesy.

When opinion is strong enough and forced on the pollies they do listen (whatever their motivation may be).

I'm with Stinky. I own six cats and two dogs and they are all part of my family. My cats are always locked away during the night.

I once got a guy who killed his land lords German Shepherd in front of the kids. We got him and took him straight to court. He plead guilty and got the maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. It's one of the few times I've been impressed with a sentence and believed that it fit the crime. The magistrate told the crook that if the max had been five years, he would have given him that.

Dan

Originally Posted by nic

You'd better stop eating beef then, that's a non native species that is known to destroy native vegetation.

How did you know I wasn't a vegan??

Sorry, didn't mention cows as another feral, which along with the rest (except the toads) I am happy to eat when killed humanely.

Unfortunately animals react based on their instincts and even if cats do kill native birds they can't be blamed it's life. We humans are supposed to be a bit more civilised.

I'm not in any way defending human cruelty to animals, and yes we are supposed to more civilised, so why do "we" get so upset when criticised for leaving our killing machine animals out where they can not be controlled.

It's not OK for a human to inflict pain on a fluffy animal, so if a human chooses to keep a pet which will do the same, why is it OK to allow that to happen??
:confused: :confused: :confused:

And a big green smooch for DanP and other responsible pet owners!!
(Sorry Dan, I tried!)
Cheers,

P (Just warming up!)

I am watching with interest where this thread goes.

Today at lunch a guy made a 'joking' comment to another about 'kicking his cat up the ring' if it came in his yard again. What followed amazed me, the second guy made an immediate comment about animal abusers being likely to be paedophiles - which was followed by an expectant silence as the table drew breath, waiting for the first punch.

Fortunately the first guy just gaped in disbelief and refused to talk to him again.

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

I'm not in any way defending human cruelty to animals, and yes we are supposed to more civilised, so why do "we" get so upset when criticised for leaving our killing machine animals out where they can not be controlled.

It's not OK for a human to inflict pain on a fluffy animal, so if a human chooses to keep a pet which will do the same, why is it OK to allow that to happen??
:confused: :confused: :confused:

I didn't want this to become a debate over cats killing our native wildlife, it was not my intension. Knowbody wants to see our wildlife destroyed. I am more than happy to have feral, or problematic animals destroyed in an ethical manner. Kicking a cat or dog to death is not ethical, its barbaric. Our cat has been kept in the house from day one, never allowed outside, they adjust and enjoy it. It also means reduced vet bill as there are no fights with neighbouring animals.

My concern is directed towards the members in our society who seem to take some perverse pleasure in inflicting cruelty on animals. These animals can be anything, cats, dogs, wombats, kangaroos etc, it has just come to my mind after hearing so many stories of late, focusing on dogs and cats.

"I'll make an observation; the Army personnel would have also lost their jobs if they were convicted, so it is a little more than 'community service'. Another view may be 'double jeopardy'."

Lost their job??? they still got off lightly in my opinion. Do we really want these type of people defending our country? Even if they were on a bender and had a few drinks under their belts its is still something inside that makes them think it would be fun. I had a feeling that they had lost their jobs but I couldn't recall all of the details (as I said in my first post). I do remember that they were asked to due community service with the RSPCA to help them learn respect for animals, but the RSPCA said that they didn't want these types of people around the place.

Lost their job??? they still got off lightly in my opinion. Do we really want these type of people defending our country?

Errr, no. That's why they were sacked. The Army won't keep people like that.

Since the topic is raised though, why is it the Army guys' occupations are mentioned?

Where did the puppy beater work?
What school did the kids go to?
Where did the old fart work?

I wish the media wouldn't mention the employer as if it is their fault. As far as I can tell, the Army should be praised as the only other group in the country to actually DO something.

Originally Posted by Groggy

Today at lunch a guy made a 'joking' comment to another about 'kicking his cat up the ring' if it came in his yard again. What followed amazed me, the second guy made an immediate comment about animal abusers being likely to be paedophiles - which was followed by an expectant silence as the table drew breath, waiting for the first punch.

Although the reaction of the second bloke is somewhat strange, and perhaps over the top .... why would the first bloke think it "funny" to make a statement like that?
If I was sitting at the table I would quite quickly loose any respect for the fellow. He seems like one of those died in the wool Aussies who seem to have to continually define their masculinity ..... was he going to kick the cat after he had drunk the two slabs of VB and slept with a hooker on the way back from the footy?

Originally Posted by Groggy

Since the topic is raised though, why is it the Army guys' occupations are mentioned?

I only mentioned the employer as it was a high profile case and it was reported as such .... it made it easier to recall the incident rather than a few blokes in Queensland.

I would think that the media mentioned the occupations of this particular group because they are seen as a position of public power and respect. Much the same way as if a police person had done the same action. I think that being in this occupation they were seen as abusing the public trust in the position.

Army should be praised as the only other group in the country to actually DO something.

I would agree and they did all that they could do within their power on this issue, they cannot be faulted. I don't think for one moment people would think that the army had anything to do with how the individuals behaved.

I said "joking" not "funny". It was obvious to the rest of us at the time he was not serious by the manner it was said. Still, it was taken literally by the other guy.

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

I would agree and they did all that they could do within their power on this issue, they cannot be faulted. I don't think for one moment people would think that the army had anything to do with how the individuals behaved.

I disagree. The army are able to apply their own discipline and should have done more in this case than just sack the one's involved. I don't know if they did or not but the could and should have.

If I did what they did three things would happen to me.

1. I would be charged criminally and sent to court.
2. I would be charged internally within the police force and face dismissal
and very heavy fines.
3. I would be sacked.

The Army guys should have faced and received exactly that. That is the way it goes. They should know better.

Dan

Originally Posted by DanP

I disagree. The army are able to apply their own discipline and should have done more in this case than just sack the one's involved. I don't know if they did or not but the could and should have.

If I did what they did three things would happen to me.

1. I would be charged criminally and sent to court.
2. I would be charged internally within the police force and face dismissal
and very heavy fines.
3. I would be sacked.

The Army guys should have faced and received exactly that. That is the way it goes. They should know better.

Dan

Dan,

1. The Army cannot bring criminal charges, only the police. The Army cannot take precedence over civil action (though between the police and the Army they may agree who will take action). The police always have precedence. In this case the police apparently did bring criminal charges, hence their appearance before a judge.

2. The Army can fine their members but it is unknown if this occurred (though likely).

3. The Army did sack them.

I think they did what they could, but wanted to do more.