Animal cruelty

Is there a grama in slaughtering an animal?
A quick search reveals that there is a disagreement among the later scholars. In my opinion, this is like all prohibitions and there is no grama in this. Although in the Gamma it is said that there is pain in slaughtering an animal even in the case that it is not in the hands, but there it is not stated as a prohibition but rather as a principle that can reject prohibitions, and this is different (since seemingly every permission for a hidden purpose is understood from there, because what is the reason for a mitzvah from another purpose), and in my opinion, one should not learn from the deduction because it is only for slaughtering an animal and that the requirement is also beyond the usual requirement (after all, it is clear that there is no prohibition of slaughtering an animal every time one sees an animal suffering and does not help it, so the principle may be learned from the deduction, but not completely).

Even if there is a gramma, the device can be sold to a gentile…
And this again reminds me of the medical student and the abortion knife.

Itay
There are two questions here, halakhic and moral. My discussion is about the halakhic question. I think that is obvious.
By the way, the ’novelty’ that there is also morality is not the message of the story with the student.

The main “innovation” I see in the story is that people focus on Halacha and forget about morality (which I don’t see as separate from Halacha, but rather that Halacha comes (in many commandments) to express morality, and even if Halacha can be circumvented because formally one does not transgress a prohibition, morality still stands. – The secularists there are just an example, from my perspective, of the failure of morality and a focus on Halacha.

I would say the opposite. Precisely because the halakhah does not coincide with morality (see column 15), the moral consideration is in our eyes even if the halakhic consideration permits.
The prohibition is to set traps for pigeons and leave them there. It is not a gramma but rather like a restriction or at least like tying someone up in a place where the end of the heat is coming (see Rambam, a murderer, p. 3, 59-1, which is a murderer even if exempt from death).
The question regarding the prohibition on someone who does not release is interesting. Apparently there is no obligation not to stand on the blood of your neighbor with pigeons, but unloading and loading are such situations. And regarding the tsevah from the Torah or from the rabbis, the poskim disagreed on this, and most of them are from the Torah. Although in the commentary on Maimonides (Rotesh 13:9) Maimonides distinguished between tseva'ah and the obligation to help in order to prevent sorrow, I think that most poskim who study the interpretation of tseva'ah from the Torah make no distinction.
But as mentioned, the halachic chatter is not really important here.

I know Column 15, and that's exactly what I wrote about, and I do see the halakha as expressing morality (it's ridiculous to me to say that animal cruelty is a halakha that doesn't come to express the natural sense of morality of every person, but rather comes to prohibit animal cruelty for another reason, and so are the other halakha that overlap with morality - there are no boundaries without murder, although it is clear that the prohibition is not disconnected from the basic human concept that prohibits murder).
But what the halakha has is its limitations, morality is the lights and the halakha is the tools, and the tools naturally have limitations, because the halakha came to set an absolute boundary for these matters, and in any case it has its boundaries, so that it is possible that someone who violates the halakha has not violated the halakha, but the morality that the halakha expresses must still be observed.

Halachic chatter is important from a halachic perspective.
It is not like tying someone up because there I tie the person up with my hands and here with my hands I just set a trap. I think the latter say that the act of hunting is a ritual (like cooking), but here the actual hunting is just one stage after which there is a ‘end of the summer heat’.
There is also no certainty here that the end of the year is like the end of the year.

And what I wrote about freeing is that since it is clear that there is no prohibition against standing up for the pain of an animal, the lesson from freeing is only about the principle of sacrifice and not about its application.

Is this a parody?! There is no more moral or halachic problem here than with mosquito repellent. The next step is to ban boiling water so that it doesn't kill bacteria?!

Indeed. If it weren't parody, I would delete the nonsense you wrote.