It doesn't sound all that different from feeding live mice to pet snakes.
Early ,'Objects In Space'
Natter 36: But We Digress...
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
I'm looking for a local news link but it's just on network, not on the web yet.
Apparently, the guy's lawyer is comparing kittens to rats fed to snakes.
It doesn't sound all that different from feeding live mice to pet snakes.
It's very different. Because I like cats.
But seriously, that's a good point. Do "cruelty to animals" laws typically make a distinction between "good" animals, such as pets, and "bad" animals like rats and mice?
It doesn't sound all that different from feeding live mice to pet snakes.
I totally agree.
This case is going to require a closer reading of animal cruelty laws. The people I know that have snakes, feed them dead rats (they buy them frozen from the pet store and nuke 'em). I've heard the mice and rats can bite or scratch the snakes enough to hurt them. There is a designation of "companion" animals and "feeder" animals.
The whole thing is bizarre. I can't believe it's legal to keep a fucking alligator.
At the very least, he may have stolen someone's cat.
I can't believe it's legal to keep a fucking alligator.
Well, there's that. I doubt it is.
The people I know that have snakes, feed them dead rats (they buy them frozen from the pet store and nuke 'em).
How is this any less cruel? Just because the killing and freezing is done by someone else doesn't change the fact that your pet's food is a critter that someone else would consider a pet in its own right.
It's the difference between feeding your cat chicken out of a can, and giving it a live baby chick. Morally, I'm not sure I see a clear difference.
Feeding someone else's cat to your pet alligator is a whole nother issue.
How is this any less cruel? Just because the killing and freezing is done by someone else doesn't change the fact that your pet's food is a critter that someone else would consider a pet in its own right.
That's an exellent question. I'm not a philosopher and I don't think it's necessarily less cruel. However, I think this guy was into the gladiator aspect of this "pet" he owns. Not just feeding it.
He could feed it any meat to keep it alive. He's getting his kicks by watching a small cute animal suffer at the hands of his bad-ass pet. I think his intent goes a long way to determine what is "cruel" and what is "humane".
He could feed it any meat to keep it alive. He's getting his kicks by watching a small cute animal suffer at the hands of his bad-ass pet. I think his intent goes a long way to determine what is "cruel" and what is "humane".
This. That's the part that bothers me. I mean, it would still be weird if he could go buy pre-dead, frozen kittens, because I think of cats as "pets" and cow as "food." But it's the idea of making the kittens suffer like that -- that's what really bothers me.
(FTR, I feel the same way about rats being fed to snakes. Pre-deadified, fine. Live? No way.)
t edit Though this made me laugh and laugh and laugh:
Now now -- maybe the alligator won them fair and square in a poker game.
I think his intent goes a long way to determine what is "cruel" and what is "humane".
I completely disagree. Whether or not I'd want to share a cab with this guy shouldn't have a legal bearing on what he can feed to his pet alligator.
Pet cats toy with the mice they catch before killing them. Pet snakes swallow them whole. Is the former less cruel simply because no human intervention was required?