Anne Pearse Hocker just sent a news item from New Jersey– it seems that illiterate lawmakers may inadvertently (I hope?!) ban falconry and hunting with dogs in their efforts to do away with “cruelty”:
” “This bill would clarify that cruelty to animals … includes the use of an animal to injure or kill another animal,” says an explanation accompanying the proposed legislation. It adds that Bill 666 [!!] would make clear that “the use of any other direct or indirect means to inflict the cruelty” also would be illegal.
“But Tony Celebrezze, the sportsmen’s alliance’s director of state services, wonders if the proposed law would apply to hunting with a dog. The hunter is using a dog to lead him to another animal for one purpose: to shoot that animal.”
“Then comes falconry, and the plot thickens. Here we have people using trained raptors to seek out and attack other critters, including rabbits, squirrels, woodchucks*, pheasants and quail. While politicians have yet to make it illegal for hawks to dive-bomb and snatch scurrying rodents, this bill just might make it a crime if they do it at the urging of humans.”
It is a truism that any Nanny- State legislation can be justified by appeals for the safety of “The Children”. Similarly, any legislation against human – animal interaction will be justified by appeals against “cruelty”.
Though he is not involved here, I think I am going to introduce a new and relevant mantra here, and repeat it whenever relevant: “Santorum delenda est!” There is nothing “conservative” about being an animal rights loony.
* WOODCHUCKS?? Though maybe Teddy Moritz, New Jerseyite, breeder of my dachshund Lily and dog- in- law on several levels, just might… she is one of the fiercest hunters with hound and hawk I know.