The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Following the Columbine shooting, the mind-numbing din of calls for more useless gun laws emanating from the Democrat side of the aisle has led many to believe that these feel-good crusaders are incapable of logical thinking.

Hard feelings aside, though, compassionate Republicans and other concerned citizens owe it to minority Democrats in the Colorado legislature for their commendable efforts to stiffen penalties against animal abusers.

The original version of House Bill 1330 would have required mandatory 60-day jail sentences for cases of intentional animal cruelty, and minimum one-year sentences for second time offenders. As the bill's sponsors demonstrated, current penalties for cruelty to animals are especially weak, rarely consisting of more than community service and fines.

Sadly, the bill made it out of the House only to limp from the Senate Agriculture Committee in a watered-down form insufficient to punish heartless cretins for their atrocious treatment of lesser creatures.

The amended version lacks the required prison time provision, and doesn't even apply to cruel treatment of livestock, rodeo animals and wildlife. Its only redeeming feature is mandatory psychological treatment for people convicted of abusing their pets.

"It's better than nothing," commented Sen. Ed Perlmutter, the bill's sponsor.

It may be better than nothing, but it's not nearly enough. Supporters of the original bill contend that sadistic individuals who torture and kill defenseless animals at an early age later turn their wrath toward humans, committing horrible crimes in some cases. They couldn't be more correct.

Troubled individuals, such as Springfield, Ore., high school shooter Kipland Kinkel, go unchecked and untreated because of lax consequences for the unconscionable abuse of animals. Kinkel, in fact, had an extensive history of animal cruelty before he decided to kill his parents and perforate his classmates with semiautomatic gunfire.

The disturbing aspects of animal cruelty unfortunately failed to sway a few committee members, who eliminated the penalties on the cold basis of pure economics. Locking up animal abusers, they reason, would overflow already-crowded prisons. Building more prisons, they say, would burden taxpayers.

They may be right, but in any case, the current situation is a shame and a tragic misplacement of priorities. The prisons wouldn't be overcrowded if there weren't so many people in prison who don't belong there, in particular those booked for petty, victimless crimes and mere possession of illicit narcotics.

The present system is one of skewed priorities: shoplifters and dope addicts take up precious space in prisons while violent animal abusers walk with a slap on the wrist.

Certainly, infractions like shoplifting and drug use are not trivial matters to overlook. When only limited resources are available to incarcerate criminals, however, scarce prison space and tax dollars are better allocated first to violent offenders, then to those posing a lesser threat to society. If push comes to shove, then build more prisons.

Nothing is more evil than the callous infliction of pain and suffering on a helpless creature that is incapable of understanding. I would much rather have my tax dollars wisely spent to lock up animal tormentors than wasted on useless government programs like gun buy backs. The resources are there; the priorities are not.

Cases of animal cruelty are too often pushed aside, dismissed as unimportant compared to violence against humans. This is unfair and unacceptable. As a matter of ethics and justice, wild and domestic animals deserve better treatment and better protection under the law.

Only when government gets its priorities straight will that become a reality.

Article Tools