[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Whether you are hunting, slaughtering animals for meat, or throwing a cat in a microwave it is the same thing.

No it isn't.

If you think that act X should be legal, but not if done for entertainment purposes, you would need a pretty good reason for limiting that freedom.

What are you talking about? Since when do we have the freedom to torture animals?

"Suffering over quickly" vs "Suffering over longer period of time"
Explain that one to the deer that gets shot, but manages to run off and escape into the woods to die slowly and painfully of an infection from the wound.

There is an element called intent which most laws are based on.

-=-=-=-=-=-
Animal rights don't exist. But property rights do. These kids broke into someones home and destroyed a piece of their property. While the property damaged does not have a huge monetary value, they can sue for emotional damage in a civil case.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Oh they don't?

Disturbance, etc., of wildlife habitation Wild life act
36(1) A person shall not wilfully molest, disturb or destroy a house, nest or den of prescribed wildlife or a beaver dam in prescribed areas and at prescribed times.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a molestation, disturbance or destruction that is specifically authorized
(a) by or under the Agricultural Pests Act or the Water Act,
(b) by or under a licence authorizing the control of wildlife depredation or the collection of wildlife, or
(c) by regulations under section 103(1)(w) or a written authorization of the Minister.

Criminal Code 446. (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;
(b) by wilful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed;
(c) being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or a bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it;
(d) in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds;
(e) wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it;
(f) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or
(g) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (f).

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.





Just to name a few.

It really confuses me how people who eat veal get riled up over cases like this.

Are you for real? How can you compare nuking a live animal to the consumption of commercialized meat where the death of the animal is instant