To start out the discussion this morning, we'll put the spotlight on this Voice of Utah blog article, which we think, frankly, is too danged good to miss.
The article revolves around Senator Alan Christensen's proposed SB-117, which pits animal rights activists (including the Humane Society) against Utah farmers and ranchers. Opponents of the bill argue that Sen. Christensen's bill actually weakens existing protection for animals as a practical matter; while the Utah Farm Bureau backs the bill, arguing that it merely protects traditional animal husbandry practices.
Opponents of the bill also contend that a proper "animal cruelty" bill (unlike SB-117) would give prosecutors at least the option to prosecute as a felony on a first offense. (Your Weber County Forum blogmeister leans toward agreeing with the bill's opponents on this point, by the way, in case any of our readers are curious.)
In that connection, check out the the succinct paragraph of reader "Help Us," in the VOU article comments section:
"What if" scenarios do not apply. Logic follows that if you enable a prosecutor the option to employ a felony when considering punishment, he or she will make a decision. We are not talking mandatory minimums...we are saying quit giving the prosecutors empty tool bags!On the same topic -- and as an added bonus -- we link this ABC-4 webpage, which does a particulaly good job of framing the issues.
So what about it gentle readers? Are there any Utah farmers or ranchers who'd like to comment on this proposed bill? Owners of domestic pets? Connoisseurs of graphic images with clever cartoon balloons? There's a little something for everybody in this article; and we thank the Voice of Utah blog (and the Utah Amicus) for bringing this timely topic to the public discussion front-burner.
