Apparently, the Court was not opposed to forced sterilization programs for dogs, or feeding, vaccinating them, or finding them homes. It just prohibited killing a healthy dog who is roaming free because it inconveniences humans. Many years ago, the Court had banned the killing of baby calves (who are of suckling age) and old cows (who provided milk) or bulls (who had tilled the soil), as violating a basic precept of fairness (killing some being that has served you all its life) -- society had to provide for them in retirement it had ruled. This decision would seem to be in the same vein.

However, I have not read the current decision, possibly the Court reasoned that killing healthy dog...

Apparently, the Court was not opposed to forced sterilization programs for dogs, or feeding, vaccinating them, or finding them homes. It just prohibited killing a healthy dog who is roaming free because it inconveniences humans. Many years ago, the Court had banned the killing of baby calves (who are of suckling age) and old cows (who provided milk) or bulls (who had tilled the soil), as violating a basic precept of fairness (killing some being that has served you all its life) -- society had to provide for them in retirement it had ruled. This decision would seem to be in the same vein.

However, I have not read the current decision, possibly the Court reasoned that killing healthy dogs was also something which violated a basic precept of fairness or justice; or possibly in the present case, it ruled more narrowly in overturning a lower court decision which had mandated killing of stray dogs.