I’m trying to understand your reasoning for this. There is billions of animals tortured to death in slaughter houses but you want to change the laws for these few monkeys why?
Because if you believe that every saved animal is worth fighting for then why are you not living in line with those morals when it comes to your food choices?
It makes no difference to the victim for what purpose you torture and kill them
Animal agriculture is for entertainment of the taste buds, not a necessity. So your denominator would not exclude animal agriculture.
The laws are like this because animal agriculture is also a literal baby crushing machine so harsher laws would basically make animal agriculture impossible.
This is the third article I see where they name it a “license plate reading network” which it is not. Some panicked rebranding going on.
You are ignoring the victim
Healthier? Not for the fish.
Killing fish is not necessary like you said. I understand there is negative effects but that’s not really related to my comment nor the article.
Another positive outcome
You’re arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws banning animal abuse which makes it seem like you consume their products which means you pay for them to abuse animals.