Sometimes I wonder what our legislator's smoke! Take the California Fish & Game Code Sections 6880-6885 which pertain to "frog-jumping" contests.
First off it applies only to "frog-jumping" contests open to the public AND advertised or announced in a newspaper. So presumably a contest not advertised, or private, or both is an unregulated "free for all".
Then we get a section that seems to say if you seriously injure a frog in the process of taking a frog for a "frog jumping" contest then the assumption is you were not actually taking the frog for a "frog-jumping" contest!
Next we read that anyone can take as many frogs as they like for "frog-jumping" contests but if they die [or are killed] they must be destroyed and cannot be eaten!
And finally if you take frogs but do not keep them in a manner reasonable to preserve their life they are outside of these rules. By implication this means it is perfectly OK to keep them in a manner that is not reasonable to preserve their life, it simply means they are not covered by these regulations.
I will resist the "animal cruelty" aspect of this as the law appears to indicate cruelty is fine and simply removes the frogs from being covered by these rules and speak only to the fact that to me these seem like utterly banal and pointless regulations that some group of legislators one day unaccountably actually thought their crafting was a good use of people's time. I have to believe there are "bigger fish to fry" [or frogs].
First off it applies only to "frog-jumping" contests open to the public AND advertised or announced in a newspaper. So presumably a contest not advertised, or private, or both is an unregulated "free for all".
Then we get a section that seems to say if you seriously injure a frog in the process of taking a frog for a "frog jumping" contest then the assumption is you were not actually taking the frog for a "frog-jumping" contest!
Next we read that anyone can take as many frogs as they like for "frog-jumping" contests but if they die [or are killed] they must be destroyed and cannot be eaten!
And finally if you take frogs but do not keep them in a manner reasonable to preserve their life they are outside of these rules. By implication this means it is perfectly OK to keep them in a manner that is not reasonable to preserve their life, it simply means they are not covered by these regulations.
I will resist the "animal cruelty" aspect of this as the law appears to indicate cruelty is fine and simply removes the frogs from being covered by these rules and speak only to the fact that to me these seem like utterly banal and pointless regulations that some group of legislators one day unaccountably actually thought their crafting was a good use of people's time. I have to believe there are "bigger fish to fry" [or frogs].
No comments:
Post a Comment