Come on Rick, work with me a little bit. No a car passing through would not be abandon just on that point alone. Vehicles havetraceable vinsand state code requires waiting periods and posting in the paper before you can file for the title. If theK9 were bearing a collar or other identification it would be reasonable that an attempt to locate the owner would be expected. However, whether it's abandon or not is not the question. Abandonment only applies if this were a civil matter which it is not. I only suggested that it should be civil and that if it remained in the criminal courts it should fall under larceny not cruelity. The taking of ones property without intent of returning it, Larceny. I suggest what the person did was not cruel. It may not have been proper or legal but it was not cruel. The core of this issue deals with What is animal cruelity? Take emotion out of the equation and think about the act, not the result of the act. Shooting a dog is no different than shooting any other animal. If the mere shooting of an animal were deemed cruel I would imagine hunting would be a thing of the past.

With that in mind,consider the following:

Step one. Shootingan animal in and of it self is not cruel.(I know some outside this forum do not agree)

Step two:The type of animal? Does that now make the act of shooting cruel? I would say not.
Just because there is or is not a season on a particular animal does not make the act any different. It's still the killing of an animal by shooting. If someone shoots a deer out of season it does not all of a sudden become a cruel act. It's just killing out of season. When a someone shoots a non-game species they are charged with taking unlawful game or the taking of a protected animal, not animal cruelity.

So what is cruelity? I would hope most folks here agree that purposely starving a deer to death, or purposely shooting it with a small caliber rifle in the gut would be cruel? If you agree with this theory then you are agreeing with the idea that it is the act or type of act which determines cruelity notthe animal.. Remember, killing by shooting is not cruel.... see step one.

Step three: Who pulls the trigger? Not sure why it makes a difference who kills the animal? Whether the owner or a stranger kills the dog its the same act and same result. Back to the larceny theory

Step four: If you agree with the first two steps then you have established the following;The act of killing an animal by shooting in and of itself is notcruel. The species of animal in and of itselfdoes not create cruelity.

That is the case in point, and why I stated it should be civil not criminal.. You cannot say it is cruel to shoot one animal but not another. Now I realize it really doesn't matter what I think because Va Code says it is illegal to shoot a dog. I am just saying it should not be criminal...

wow that was a mouth full!