Warning - this story may squick you. It did me: No charges to be filed in dog case in New Zealand

[Stinky The Clown]

No charges likely in New Zealand dog barbecue

The SPCA in New Zealand is calling for a change in the law after its investigation into the killing and cooking of a pet dog by a Tongan family in Auckland.

As long as the animal is slaughtered humanely — how’s that for a contradiction of terms? — eating a dog is not illegal in New Zealand.

The family who barbecued their pet dog say back home in Tonga dog meat is considered a delicacy, and they didn’t realize they were doing anything wrong.

Paea Taufa was found roasting his pitbull mix in a pit at his home. The dog had been skinned and gutted and was partially charred when SPCA inspectors arrived.

Auckland City’s mayor, John Banks, said the family needs to be educated rather than charged with a crime, according to the New Zealand Herald.

Banks, an animal rights activist for years, says better education on local customs and sensibilities is needed. “This activity is deeply offensive and totally wrong in our New Zealand society. For many people, this is absolutely repulsive,” the mayor said. “But the way forward is education. This man has obviously not been taught that killing and eating a domestic pet is not right in New Zealand.”


http://www.ohmidog.com/2009/08/17/no-charges-likely-in-new-zealand-dog-barbecue/

While this link has the story, it is also being carried on cabalnooz.

[Mojorabbit]

1. They humanely killed it for dinner?

The emotional side of me who loves my four pups more than anything is repulsed.
The logical side of me that knows I eat many animals can't see why this family while following
a cultural dietary activity should be prosecuted if they were unaware of the local customs.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. The Aukland prosecutorial apparatus agrees with you

And so do I. And like you, our dogs and cat are as dear to us as our human kids.

[phantom power]

3. On the one hand, it squicks me...

but on the other, I can't say I can finger a particular ethical reason that slaughtering and eating a dog is better or worse than slaughtering and eating any other mammals, which I do on a regular basis.

:shrug:


Unless, it's the idea that they had a pet, which they apparently had absolutely no emotional bond with. In which case, I'm reacting to their sociopathic relationship with the dog, which is slightly different than reacting to the idea that they ate it.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. That came up for me, too .... but consider .......

..... that the reporting was probably done by a person for whom eating dogs is abhorrent. There's no way to know that the family was keeping the dog "as a pet". It may have been closer to the way a 4H kid raises a cow or sheep or pig only to see it slaughter after winning the blue ribbon at the county fair. Or maybe closer to a cattle rancher.

In view of the Michael Vick crap that is getting replayed, this makes an interesting counterpoint. Obviously the essential difference is likely to be intent and culture. I think :shrug:

[phantom power]

8. True, maybe the use of the word "pet" was an assumption.

I sometimes wonder if I have a latent vegetarian inside me. If so, I have a problem to solve, because I sure loves me some meat.

[progressoid]

4. I once met someone who had a pet pig...

but regularly ate pork. :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I'm sure that person is no unique

[Mojorabbit]

7. I have five pet hens

and eat chicken regularly. Meanwhile I spoil those five chickens with all manner of special treats. I could not eat them for anything.