Remove Cruelty Remove Ethics Remove illegal Remove Killing
article thumbnail

The Florida FWC illegally killed 34 pythons and one 10-year-old pregnant Boa constrictor

Reddit Animals

FWC officers arrived at a reptile facility and forcefully killed 29 reticulated pythons, 5 Burmese pythons, and 1 pregnant Boa constrictor. This put Coffee in an impossible position - he needed to rehome the pythons because they were illegal in Florida, but the FWC was threatening to face him with additional criminal charges if he did so.

Pythons 40
article thumbnail

Environmental Groups Call For End To USDA Wildlife Killing

Critter News

From WildEarth Guardians: WildEarth Guardians’ research reveals this agency is: • Biologically Unsound - Wildlife Services uses a “sledgehammer approach” to wildlife management, meaning over one million animals are killed each year using non-selective killing controls such as poisons, traps, and aerial gunning.

Killing 100
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

To the Editor: Re “ Animal Cruelty and Free Speech ” (editorial, Oct. The law speaks specifically and narrowly to the distribution for profit of videos that show illegal acts of cruelty actually being performed on live animals (my italics). In the case of dogfighting and “crush videos,” cruelty is not just promoted, but staged.

article thumbnail

Deconstructing Spencer's Comment

Animal Person

You purposefully choose to ignore facts like that though when citing the "cruelty and injustice" involved in the rearing and slaughter of animals. We are people who believe that using animals when we don't need to, and certainly killing them when we don't need to, isn't right. Tags: Current Affairs Ethics Language.

Vegan 100
article thumbnail

On Trial: Animal Torture Videos vs. Free Speech

Animal Ethics

Code, Title 18.48, made it a federal crime to knowingly create, sell, or possess a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain. Is the NYTimes right to support striking down the law banning depictions of animal cruelty on First Amendment/free speech grounds?