Pigeon Eggs, Wolves, and Animal Cruelty Bill

Warning:  This meanders a bit, but it gets there eventually.

HB 6 has passed through the House and is in the Senate Rules Committee, the last step before going to the Senate floor for a vote.  The bill is titled

"An Act relating to cruelty to animals; and relating to aggravating factors at  sentencing involving assaultive behavior and cruelty to animals."

Constitution Says Bill Titles Must Say What is in the Bill
I've learned this session that the Alaska Constitution requires that the names of bills be descriptive of what is in them.

Section 2.13 - Form of Bills.

Every bill shall be confined to one subject unless it is an appropriation bill or one codifying, revising, or rearranging existing laws. Bills for appropriations shall be confined to appropriations. The subject of each bill shall be expressed in the title. . .

One reason is to prevent legislators from adding things into the bill later that have nothing to do with the bill. If they do that, they would have to change the title as well, reflecting the change. And thus others would be alerted that the bill had been altered.



Existing Animal Cruelty Law
I mention this because there already exists a statute addressing animal cruelty and much of that is not changed, except for the penalties.  Here is what already exists: 

AS 11.61.140. Cruelty to Animals.

(a) A person commits cruelty to animals 

(1) if the person knowingly inflicts severe and prolonged physical pain or suffering on an animal;
(2) with criminal negligence, fails to care for an animal and, as a result, causes the death of the animal or causes severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to the animal;

(3) kills or injures an animal by the use of a decompression chamber; or

(4) intentionally kills or injures a pet or livestock by the use of poison.

(b) Each animal that is subject to cruelty to animals under (a)(1) - (4) of this section shall constitute a separate offense

(c) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the conduct of the defendant

• (1) was part of scientific research governed by accepted standards;  
• (2) constituted the humane destruction of an animal;  
• (3) conformed to accepted veterinary or animal husbandry practices;  
• (4) was necessarily incidental to lawful fishing, hunting or trapping activities;  
• (5) conformed to professionally accepted training and discipline standards.

(d) In (a)(2) of this section, failure to provide the minimum standards of care for an animal under AS 03.55.100 is prima facie evidence of failure to care for an animal.

(e) This section does not apply to generally accepted dog mushing or pulling contests or practices or rodeos or stock contests.

New Language about Sexual Abuse of Animals

Here's the new proposed language (plus there are new penalties) - it should really be called "sexual conduct with an animal":

• (6) knowingly

(A) engages in sexual conduct with an animal; or (B) under circumstances not proscribed under AS 11.41.455, 

(i) photographs or films, for purposes of sexual gratification, a person engaged in sexual conduct with an animal; 

(ii) causes, induces, aids, or encourages another person to engage in sexual conduct with an animal;

(7) intentionally permits sexual conduct with an animal to be conducted on any premises under the person's control.

The Pigeon Eggs 
 So, today I learned that there are two pigeon eggs under the fourth floor stairwell grating at the Capitol Building.  Here's the issue.  The access to the eggs has been blocked by wire.  So there are two eggs which will not be kept warm enough to hatch.  And there are two pigeons that have been blocked from raising their young.   It seems to me that this comes close to: (a) A person commits cruelty to animals if the person knowingly inflicts severe and prolonged physical pain or suffering on an animal; (2) with criminal negligence, fails to care for an animal and, as a result, causes the death of the animal or causes severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to the animal;

So, it is ok to leave an animal with its foot caught in a trap if it is part of hunting.  But if it isn't part of hunting or trapping or science, it's bad.   I was ready to say "obviously" getting rid of animal pests, such as pigeons can become, is acceptable.  Though my animal rights philosopher friends would argue it's not necessarily 'obvious.' Other people feel that pigeons are flying rats.  You'd think here in Juneau with all the eagles around, pigeons wouldn't become that much of a problem.  Except maybe there's enough salmon that eagles don't deign to dine on mere pigeons. I guess the real problem here is that the eggs were left, visible, but unreachable by the parents or anyone else.  It just doesn't look good. 

Wolves
I'll let readers fill this part in themselves. But it does seem to me that "cruelty to animals" is a general concept which presumes that animals feel pain and suffering. If there is a moral imperative to not cause undue pain on animals, it seems that it should apply equally among all animals of an equal sentient level. And if we choose to eat animals for food, we should, as even the bible requires, kill those animals in the most humane way possible. Whether they are domesticated or wild animals. That's my take on it.