It was heartening to recently read that a miscreant was apprehended for stealing a dog. The purpose for the clandestine theft, allegedly carried out after a poisonous substance was utilized, was to allegedly use the dog to feed humans. However the feeding of the dog, against its will, to humans for their consumption, is not why the offender was arrested. The taking of another’s property was the reason.
A Bali Dog historically doesn’t actually have a single owner. Rather they are ‘owned’ by a conglomerate. Bali Dogs have always been regarded as, and in many cases still remain in factual reality ‘anjing liar,’ translated as ‘wild dog.’ Not officially owned by any one, yet known and unofficially owned by all, by virtue of how the neighbourhood functions. A Bali village really is a number of different things or parts that are put or grouped together to form a whole but remain distinct entities. Bali Dogs have existed and cohabited within this systemized reality forever and have physically free roamed their paws to the bone within their entire village area.
It makes sense that killing a person’s dog is theft because the act of taking the animals life is depriving the owner of the relationship. If this case is pursued through the legal system it will definitely be a test case. If successful then even the anjing liar will be a little safer from dog meat thieves and disgruntled non dog lovers within their villages. Anjing liar, those that are wanted by their community are those that perform a function such as temple dogs, will be afforded a new sense of protection.
Should the dog meat traders (or those who don’t like dogs) decide to target these useful dogs for capture and death then the entire village will technically be able to bring about a case of theft. Because those dogs, by the fact of their utility to the community (whatever that utility may be) are part of the village structure and therefore belong to the community.
This makes them communal property.
And it is against the law to steal another person(s) property.