Great. Thank your Marjorie. Finally someone that can understand both sides of the issue.

I agree that this is a well thought out column that attempts to address both sides of this issue. Unfortunately, too often laws like Henry's Law are being used to force an agenda that puts anyone and everyone at risk of prosecution. Too often cruelty is in the eyes of the beholder as the author points out in her reference to common farm animal handling practices. The perpretator of the crime that led to Henry's Law is a sick twisted individual that deserves to be stopped and prosecuted. There is a huge difference between his actions that have no redeeming value and the actions of folks who handle large animals and have learned that it is cruel to use more force and pain than absolutely necessary. However it is just as cruel and impractical to use less force than absolutely necessary because it puts both the animal and the handler at much greater risk. It is hard for folks who have not experienced working with large animals to perceive the difference. A truly effective farmer or large animal handler understands that cruelty and force will never yield the desired outcome. Unfortunately the average citizen doesn't always understand the difference.

I agree that pets are the innocent victims of these crimes. I may disagree that the perpetrators are the only ones at fault. From my own experience, pet owners always find fault with others and exclude themselves from any responsiblity. I have had neighbors who let their pets run wild or bark constantly late into the night without the slightest effort to train their animals otherwise. I fear that someday another tragic abuse will occur to these animals which have not been trained properly. I belive that there are not bad pets, but bad pet owners. The law should also include something that holds the owner accountable and punished accordingly.