There is one aspect at least of the law regarding animal cruelty in Texas which does not make sense to me and I would like someone to explain it, please.
It concerns Texas Penal Code-Penal 42.092. Cruelty to non-livestock animals.
If you scroll down this part of the statue you’ll see the following clause:
“A person commits an offence if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly…. without the owner’s effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;”
Then further down there is another clause which states:
“Without the owner’s effective consent, causes bodily injury to an animal;”
These sections imply that the owner of a cat can ask another person to poison their cat or cause serious injury to their cat and under these circumstances the other person will not be prosecuted for the crime of animal cruelty.
However, if the cat’s owner administers poison to his cat or causes the cat serious bodily injury he is liable to be prosecuted for animal cruelty.
I would like someone to explain this anomaly because clearly I’ve missed something. This clause about giving consent must have a purpose behind it otherwise legislators would not have put it into the statute. I can’t, at present, work out what that purpose is. When would the owner of a cat for instance ask another person to poison their cat, to cause that cat extreme suffering. That must be an act of cruelty both by the owner and the person instructed by the owner. Both of them are in league together causing cruelty to an animal. Therefore I do not see how one of them can be excepted from the law.
This aspect of the law might apply to a landowner who allows another person to go onto their land to kill feral cats for example. But then in my opinion this would clash with other aspects of Texas legislation regarding animal cruelty.
I genuinely wonder whether the animal welfare statutory laws in Texas need rewriting.
Note: Comments by Woody will be unread and deleted.