Mutts For Dinner?

In keeping with the "Family Guy" theme from earlier today, I'll offer this: As mean as Stewie has been to Brian, at least he never cooked him up and tried to serve him for dinner.

But a family in New Zealand was less gracious to their family pet, which apparently they bar-b-qued and consumed. The poor staffordshire bull terrier named "Ripper" was the victim of what the family says is a perfectly natural menu in their home land of Tonga.

Now, animal rights activists in New Zealand want the government to pass a law to prevent such non-pet-friendly BBQs from taking place.

The legal logistics of laws that protect the lives and welfare of animals are always a little bit tricky, and this is no exception. As a dog lover, I am absolutely horrified that anyone would be willing to kill and eat their family pet, but as a libertarian I don't see any good reason for a law that makes it illegal to do so. I'm not sure that such a law would even accomplish very much.

Then again, if Michael Vick goes to jail for torturing and killing dogs in illegal dog fights, then shouldn't laws protect dogs from being killed for this purpose as well? I know, its not the same country, but assuming that laws protecting animals' lives are based in some kind of universal justice (as all law should be), then it doesn't matter where it happens. On the flip side, if we are going to protect dogs from this kind of behavior (Vick's or hungry Tongans'), why does the same level of protection not extend to other animals? We have no problem killing and eating chickens or cows or deer, but somehow it's different when it comes to "man's best friend".

You could argue that the intent is the key when dealing with animal crimes. Vick clearly intended to kill those dogs for sport or because they weren't good fighters, but a cow that is raised in order to be slaughtered and sold to make hamburgers is killed with the intention of providing food for people. If that's your standard of judgement, then people who kill their pets for food are not doing anything wrong, per say. But this explanation does not make it okay to go hunting for sport, only for food. Yet, we as a society have no problem with hunting for sport (within limits) on a legal level. So there isn't a whole lot of consistency when it comes to which animals and activities are protected versus those that are not.

Law should never be as subjective as this, but when it comes to animals it seems like it always is. I don't think that's a good thing, but (like Jules in Pulp Fiction) we as a society seem to place animals with "personality" (dogs, cats, etc.) on a higher plane than others (pigs, deer, etc.). Whether its just or not, the former group gets decidedly more legal protection than the latter.

Thoughts?