CAPIZ STATE UNIVERSITY

Mind over Matter
Being a dog lover involves knowing the dog’s welfare. A good shelter, adequate food. All in all just a balanced life. Meeting all their basic needs and sometimes even more than that, and then there are those who's a dog owner. The one who only owns a dog. January 17, 2014 (Friday) a stray dog got shot 4 times for entering a chicken enclosure causing 3(chicken) casualties and one badly injured. So who is there to blame? The owner of the dog? or the one who shot her? Was killing the dog worth it? Was the animal's welfare considered?
Having 6 dogs of my own and hearing that crushed my heart. No justice was done. A law was clearly violated. But who am I to blame? I thought, The one who shot her. He really violated the AWA RA 8485 sec 6 which. ““It shall be unlawful for any person to torture any animal, to neglect to provide adequate care, sustenance or shelter, or maltreat any animals or to subject any dog or horse to dogfights or horse fights, kill or cause or procure to be tortured or deprived of adequate care sustenance or shelter, or maltreat or use the same in research or experiments not expressly authorized by the Committee on Animal welfare”. Having read this, I then realized the owner of the dog was the one who was responsible for all of the things that have happened. It started from her wrong doings. If she/he gave the dog a proper life –a welfare, none of these things might have happened. No life would have been spared. Unfortunately the owner abandoned the dog and left it as stray. But it does not mean that the dog is not protected by AWA. So it I boils down to the person who shot the dog.
The dog as I've said is a stray. Left there by her owner to go forage and animal welfare covers all animals. Yes. Even strays are protected by the Animal Welfare Act. So I tried to see what the person who shot the dog was thinking: When it's your property, you protect it. When you invested time, effort and money into it. You protect it. All of this are human nature. And lastly, the situation that time, Considering the terrain was muddy, the place was wide and the chickens will go ballistic when the person will try to run after the dog. Shooting the dog was the most convenient way to fix the problem when one weighs everything. It's taking one life versus losing a lot. Besides, that person is responsible for the chickens and the dog was jeopardizing the chicken’s welfare.
But then taking both sides into consideration, the dog being an animal only acts basing on their instincts -through their natural behavior. No thought was considered when it decided to kill the chickens. What jurisdictions did the dog not follow? None. The dog didn't commit any crime punishable by law. The person on the other hand did. If we're going to base it to the animal welfare act of the Philippines. What he did is a crime. But we're also faced with the fact that he did it within reason. When we consider the said situations that I have mentioned. And also the dog was and can be a possible threat not only to the chicken but also to the human life itself. It is stated at the RA 8485 that "When it is done to prevent an imminent danger to the life or limb of a human being" the said animal can be killed. So, since no one knew the dog. The possibility of getting bitten and acquiring rabies is high. That is why capturing or driving away the dog is not the best idea.
Therefore, in this case, there are a lot of factors that should be considered before we could actually conclude which side is wrong or right and make a judgment. We can only weigh which side is less of a crime. Which one would you choose? Mind? Or Matter?