>>Anyone who thinks that their interest in catching fish with the “best bait” is more important than the pain and suffering inflicted on these helpless animals is a sorry excuse for a human being. <<
I understand where you are coming, but the devil is in the details. Your statement begs a question: Knowing that a kitten does not have the cranial capacity of a human being, nore the living experience necessary to interpret pain the way you or I - or even a just born infant - do, how much pain and suffering do you think is involved regarding using the kitten as bait? How about if it was a baby squirrel or Mouse? Where do we draw the line and who gets to draw that line, and based on what justification.
I guess, what I am saying is that I can think it is disgusting, but I don’t have the authority to stop them, just as a PETA member thinks eating bacon is disgusting but they don’t have the authority to stop me from eating it.
So when does a person or entity have the authority to stop one person from eating or otherwise damaging a non-human animal? My take would be when that animal is someone elses property. It is really all about property rights - at least that is how I read the constitution.
I completely agree RobRoy.
As long as someone is not harming a person, or someone else’s property, then its none of mine nor anyone else’s business.
I’m sure that there are plenty of people who disagree with using crickets, or minnows, or worms, etc to fish, or disagree with fishing an hunting itself. That’s their right, to believe whatever they wish to, it is not their right, to outlaw, prosecute, and stop by law, an act that doesn’t harm a person, nor harm another’s property.
So you either wouldn’t have any animal cruelty laws or you would only have them apply if there weren’t a utilitarian reason behind the cruelty? The world’s major religions were more evolved than that thousands of years ago.