These are the problems that I have - I think you and I agree for the most part, but where we might disagree is where to set the limits of animal protection. It's not that clear always as self defense/cruelty, and these are problems I have with the Endangered Species Act. It prohibits the trafficking and such of the listed species, and rightfully so. But there's more to it. You kill one of those protected animals, and you must prove by a proponderance of the evidence that you acted in self defense. Now, what about protection of your property? You have to allow that animal to destroy your property so long as it does not cause you or threaten to cause you bodily harm? Why is the onus on the defendant to prove that he acted in self defense, and it not on the government to prove that you did not act in self defense?
Why use the description "poor animal?" That just tugs at the heartstrings. In cases where someone commits a blatant act of cruelty, such as in this video if it is real, I completely agree with you, don't get me wrong. But I believe people go way overboard in the protections that they wish afforded to animals, which I said above. I'm not saying cruelty towards God's creatures is ok - it's absolutely not. Humans must be responsible custodians of the Earth, including all forms of life.