Letter: Snowmass has moral responsibility
Snowmass has moral responsibility
The Town Council of Snowmass Village is desperately trying to confuse, mislead and deceive the public by conflating two distinct and separable issues.
The first issue is the guilt or innocence under the laws of Colorado of one individual. The second issue is the council’s refusal to enact, or even consider, appropriate regulations to assure that all animals in the town’s jurisdiction are treated humanely. It’s like the magician when he distracts you to watch his left hand while his real intention is to fool you with his right hand.
The second issue is the one that matters the most.
The legal system is, and should, be the only institution to decide whether Krabloonik’s owner is guilty or innocent of animal abuse and mistreatment beyond a reasonable doubt. But, the outcome of that legal case should have no bearing whatsoever on the responsibility of the council to appropriately regulate businesses and individuals’ behaviors within the jurisdiction of the town.
Yet up to now, the Town Council and top town officials are hiding behind the fig leaf that they can’t do anything until the legal case is finally resolved. This is not true — they are absolutely able enact regulations at this time, or any time, without waiting for the legal system to complete its handling of the case. It will be many more months, if not longer, before the legal case is completely resolved. Why is it required of the council to wait so long? Any notion that their actions could influence the outcome of the legal case is nonsense: An impartial judge will decide that I am sure without reference to any action taken or not taken by the council.
If they have a sound, logical reason not to act now, they should say what that is. If they cannot provide such a reason, they should initiate the enactment of regulations right away.
Moreover, the council has an ethical and moral obligation to regulate to assure humane treatment of all animals within its jurisdiction, whether by Krabloonik or others. This responsibility is the council’s and the council’s alone. By waiting unnecessarily on the legal system, they seem to suggest that if Krabloonik’s owner is found not guilty under the law, then the council has no further responsibility to act to assure humane treatment of animals.
Then the council, just like Pontius Pilate, heartless coward that he was, they hope to wash their hands of the entire matter.
Don’t be fooled or distracted. Keep your eye on the right issue, the immoral inaction of the Town Council.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.