animal abuse, and the idiocy of the Court

Read this article, and tell me if you think this man really oughta be placed in a position to interact with animals again, during his probation!

Puppies' killer sentenced to prison, work with animals
The man killed at least four puppies and buried them, authorities say.

By COLLEEN JENKINS

Published February 13, 2007

TAMPA - First he killed Romeo.
Then Sadie and Little Wiggles.
Then a pit bull named Angel.
Authorities say Benjamin M. Boatwright killed at least four puppies in two years and buried them outside his home in northeastern Hillsborough County.
An animal control officer said it was the most heinous animal abuse he had ever seen.
Circuit Judge Daniel Sleet decided Monday that it was serious enough to warrant prison time. He sentenced Boatwright, 25, to 2 1/2 years in prison and five years of probation. As part of his probation, Boatwright must perform 250 hours of community service at the Humane Society.
"You're going to take care of those animals that you mistreated," Sleet said.
Boatwright's landlord reported him for suspicious behavior, prosecutor Kristen Over said.
When an officer asked what happened to Romeo, Boatwright said he shot the dog in the head after it bit Sally Dykes, his live-in girlfriend. The dog didn't die immediately, he told the officer, so he kicked it in the head.
Later, Boatwright said Romeo died after being hit by a car.
The officer found Sadie's remains in a backyard grave. A plastic bag was tied around the German shepherd's skull, and tests showed two pellets inside, Over said.
Little Wiggles whined too much, Boatwright said. So he choked the dog to death. Angel pooped inside Boatwright's mobile home. He kicked the puppy into a cabinet, fatally fracturing its skull.
After pleading guilty last month to three counts of animal cruelty, Boatwright said he was high on drugs when he killed Sadie and Angel.

Colleen Jenkins can be reached at 813 226-3337

A worrisome editorialistic viewpoint, and animal abuse on a general basis

In the Beacon editorial on Feb. 8, the editor ranted for quite awhile on the topic of animal rights. I bring this up only because of the fact that the author seemed to have absolutely no respect for animal rights, and went sofar as to ridicule those that advocate such things as animal welfare.

The editorial made me angry, and, being a copy-editor for the paper, I know that I'm not the only one. There will be two letters to the editor arguing against the editorial. Both of them are well-written, and protest the way that the editor's main argument against animal rights is simply ridiculous.

The main argument seems to be that advocating animal rights indicates the desire to see non-human animals gain the same legal, moral and social rights as humans. The editorial ridicules the idea of a dog suing its owner, for instance.
It also likens the actions of animal rights activists to the sorts of activists that burn down research labs and terrorize scientists for animal experimentation. Obviously the greater portion of non-human animal rights activists are not militant. '

I was not surprised that the editorial did not cite any sort of research on the topic of the rant, nor was there any indication of any. PETA and other organizations are not trying to gain non-human animals the same set of rights that we ourselves enjoy. Legal representation in court for non-human animals is, of course, rather silly. Advocating in court for animal welfare, however, is not.

Animal abuse cases are beginning to gain more attention thanks to various television shows on Animal Planet channel, among other venues, but it has a long way to go before every state takes animal abuse seriously. I read an article a few years ago about a stray cat that had had its fur burned off as a malicious prank. Dubbed Pheonix, the cat made a full recovery, and was adopted by the two people who found him, suffering and abandoned, on a roadside in Springfield, MA.
To my knowledge no one has been prosecuted for hurting Pheonix. It's a disheartening thought.