Should Animals Be Seen As Property Legally?

[greysmom]

Animal protection laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What is abuse and neglect in some is not in others. The ability of humane law enforcement officials to enforce these laws also varies widely - from being full police officers to just investigators with no recourse themselves to help any animal in distress. Punishment for the same abuse varies from a wrist slap fine to jail time. So I think the first change that would have to be made is evening out these inequities.

 

""If you do the right thing, you don't do it because it's convenient or because it makes financial sense, you do it because it's the right thing to do.""

 

This is a good theory, but the whole point behind having laws in the first place is that NOT everyone does the right thing because it's the right thing to do. If we all lived by the Golden Rule and treated all our fellow living creatures with kindness and compassion then we wouldn't need to have this discussion. I'm not saying everyone needs to be a complete vegetarian and join PETA, but we ALL know someone who treats their animals or their kids or their co-workers or their spouses with respect and dignity less than what we would consider to be acceptable. If we can't even treat our fellow humans with respect, how can we have the audacity to think we can decide how to treat any other living creature?

 

greysmom

[feemandvm]

I don't think Robin was talking merely about theory.

 

If a new, successful treatment for neo-natal cancers proved to be prohibitively expensive, should we rule it out completely because it will eliminate the need to work hard at finding ways to improve these babies lives?

 

I think you're missing the point. If you do the right thing, you don't do it because it's convenient or because it makes financial sense, you do it because it's the right thing to do. Doing the right thing mostly involves change, and change is often very inconvenient and sometimes hard to implement because people don't want to give up the ways they're used to. But this is beside the point. Laws have changed throughout the centuries because they have had to step up to the times and people's changing attitudes - their realization that treatment of a particular category of people was unjust, for example.

 

The same goes for animals. I find it interesting, and very sad, to note the parallels between the arguments against giving rights to animals today, and the argument against giving rights to slaves. Back then, too, people cited expense and "whatever next??" kind of questions. Same thing happened when women argued for the right to vote.

 

IMO, the movement that opposes a change in the legal status of animals is motivated by a fundamental unwillingness to disturb its interests or challenge its (arrogant) pre-conceived ideas about the supposed moral superiority of human animals. It doesn't surprise me, of course: the change would be, indeed, nothing short of gargantuan, and people are fundamentally selfish.

 

If animals had legal rights, they would have a right to be protected from suffering, from exploitation, from abuse, from neglect, from being treated as disposable commodities. Some of the comments I've read in this thread send a chill down my spine. I don't think there is much hope for animals in the short term. If people whose lives are allegedly touched so deeply by their dogs cannot find the empathy to move forward towards a deeper (yes, inconvenient) understanding of those dogs' worth as living creatures with rights of their own, I despair of animals' chances for justice anywhere in the near, maybe even distant future.

 

Actually I am really not missing the point. In theory I agree that animals are "more than property". The problem is that the legal ramifications of that ruling are going to make the quality of life WORSE for a lot of animals.

 

If an office call to a veterinary office becomes comparable to a human office call $100+ just to walk in the door and now surgeries are comparable to what we pay in the human world... the number of times owners will "wait things out" or not seek care will increase exponentially. Already in practice I see a LOT of owners who opt not to pursue diagnostics due to cost. How much worse will it get if prices increase two to three fold?

 

If a person owns a dog with cancer... that pet could be forced to be surrendered if the owner could not afford to pursue surgery. Although the dog may receive treatment... is it really in the best interest of the dog to rehome it this late in life especially if he was in a home where he was well loved?

 

There is also a risk that euthanasia may be outlawed completely. You cannot legally euthanize a human... depending on how far laws go in giving animals rights... the option of euthanasia may go away completely.

 

My point is this... do I agree in theory with seeing animals as "more than property". ABSOLUTELY. The problem I see is that while this idea is wonderful in theory... when you watch how it plays out I think pets in general will lose out on this deal.

 

Posts like the one above are exactly why I started this thread. I think there are a LOT of deep undercurrents behind these laws that people haven't thought through.

 

 

[Guest Machbragal]

you have to dig deeper to see that it really may make things a LOT worse!!!

 

A lot worse for whom? All of those arguments seem to point to the fact that it would be a lot worse for the human, not the animal (with the possible exception of humane euthanasia, but I'm willing to bet there would be guidelines placed around this; and there should be anyway. today, anyone can go to their vet with a perfectly healthy dog and have it put to sleep because they just don't want the dog anymore).

 

ETA: Really it wasn't my intention to argue this point, I debated whether or not to even get involved in the topic. I realize that my views may vary from that of the average person. I don't wear animals, I don't eat them, I don't believe they are ours to exploit. They are sentient beings who should have their own rights. Are they humans? No. Should they be allowed to vote? No. Should they be property? No. No more than my husband should "own" me.

 

 

I agree with you 100 percent. I believe we tend to look at animals exclusively through our eyes as humans. We evaluate their "usefulness" only to the extent they are "useful" to humans. This is a very homocentric way of observing the world. I believe that humans are just another "animal" on the planet, not better and not worse than any other. Well, okay. Maybe I DO think humans are worse . . . . to the extent that humans are the only animal that has just about destroyed the planet for every creature that lives here.

 

I think all creatures have intrinsic value and that the value has nothing to do with me or any other human. As for domesticated animals, I like to think I am their guardian. I am responsible for their wellbeing, because they have been domesticated. If I fail that responsibility, I should have these animals removed from my care.

 

As for the other more practical issues, I think we would find solutions. If the liability is so high, then why are there pediatricians to treat children? There are ways to address these kinds of issues. To me, the most important thing is to correct the imbalance between humans and animals that exists today in the world. And don't even get me started on livestock and farm animals. Ironically, the most wide-scale abuse of animals probably occurs in our country -- even though we are fairly progressive on animal issues. Livestock are treated as if they have no feelings, no right to live, and suffer no pain. I think every American who eats meat should visit a slaughterhouse and a commerical farm. We can do so much better. But it might be less convenient for us "humans" and it will be more expensive.

[robinw]

Actually I am really not missing the point. In theory I agree that animals are "more than property". The problem is that the legal ramifications of that ruling are going to make the quality of life WORSE for a lot of animals.

 

If an office call to a veterinary office becomes comparable to a human office call $100+ just to walk in the door and now surgeries are comparable to what we pay in the human world... the number of times owners will "wait things out" or not seek care will increase exponentially. Already in practice I see a LOT of owners who opt not to pursue diagnostics due to cost. How much worse will it get if prices

If a person owns a dog with cancer... that pet could be forced to be surrendered if the owner could not afford to pursue surgery. Although the dog may receive treatment... is it really in the best interest of the dog to rehome it this late in life especially if he was in a home where he was well loved?

 

There is also a risk that euthanasia may be outlawed completely. You cannot legally euthanize a human... depending on how far laws go in giving animals rights... the option of euthanasia may go away completely.

 

My point is this... do I agree in theory with seeing animals as "more than property". ABSOLUTELY. The problem I see is that while this idea is wonderful in theory... when you watch how it plays out I think pets in general will lose out on this deal.

 

Posts like the one above are exactly why I started this thread. I think there are a LOT of deep undercurrents behind these laws that people haven't thought through.

 

but do you know that the above will happen?

[RobinM]

Actually The problem I see is that while this idea is wonderful in theory... when you watch how it plays out I think pets in general will lose out on this deal.

 

Agreed. 100%

 

[MerlinsMum]

I guess I'm not understanding exactly what changes you're envisioning in laws, and then in practice.

 

I envisage a complete overhaul of the distorted way we've been thinking of animals: as commodities... as food, as apparel, as things to dominate and subjugate. Altering our outlook will have enormous beneficial consequences for animals. Feemandvm, the reason I disagree with you is that it seems to me that you are just looking at it from a very narrow perspective, specifically that of veterinary medicine, instead of looking at the bigger picture. If animals have rights, they cannot be exploited for food, for example. They are living beings, not food. If someone puts a plate of "bacon" in front of me, I don't see it as bacon. It is through a progressive, generational process of desensitization that we have come to see the lifeless, decomposing body of a pig as food. If they have rights, they cannot be made to suffer in laboratories for spurious experiments in the name of science. If they have rights, they will no longer be seen as coats, or jackets, or sandals, or wallets. How can you reduce a living being to a wallet?

 

You say that "the legal ramifications of that ruling are going to make the quality of life WORSE for a lot of animals." How can they be worse? Have you ever visited a animal testing laboratory? Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? To call that HELL is the understatement of the century. Most people have no idea what animals are subjected to every single day of their short, stunted lives, the indignities they have to endure, the vicious treatment they are subjected to, the acts of violence they suffer every day. In comparison, a dog in a shelter waiting for her/his home is living it up. Do you know how many billions of living, breathing creatures are slaughtered in the US every year just so that you can eat your burger and buy shampoo? To say that things can get any worse for animals if they were given rights, which would free them from being our slaves and forced to die for us daily, is nothing short of absurd.

 

Batmom - I am not suggesting, of course, that non-human animals should have the right to vote. I am talking of rights that preserve their dignity. The right not to be slaughtered for food, the right not to be harmed and hurt, the right to be free from being subjected to painful experiments, the right not to be exploited in circuses, imprisoned in zoos, bred for entertainment or monetary gain. I love Merlin to pieces,and try to respect him as a dog. I try to treat him like a dog and not a human, NOT because I believe he is inferior to a human, but because he has the right to be treated and respected according to his needs as the creature that he is - a dog. He is my companion, not my pet.

 

These are the kind of rights I'm talking about.

[Guest Machbragal]

I guess I'm not understanding exactly what changes you're envisioning in laws, and then in practice.

 

I envisage a complete overhaul of the distorted way we've been thinking of animals: as commodities... as food, as apparel, as things to dominate and subjugate. Altering our outlook will have enormous beneficial consequences for animals. Feemandvm, the reason I disagree with you is that it seems to me that you are just looking at it from a very narrow perspective, specifically that of veterinary medicine, instead of looking at the bigger picture. If animals have rights, they cannot be exploited for food, for example. They are living beings, not food. If someone puts a plate of "bacon" in front of me, I don't see it as bacon. It is through a progressive, generational process of desensitization that we have come to see the lifeless, decomposing body of a pig as food. If they have rights, they cannot be made to suffer in laboratories for spurious experiments in the name of science. If they have rights, they will no longer be seen as coats, or jackets, or sandals, or wallets. How can you reduce a living being to a wallet?

 

You say that "the legal ramifications of that ruling are going to make the quality of life WORSE for a lot of animals." How can they be worse? Have you ever visited a animal testing laboratory? Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? To call that HELL is the understatement of the century. Most people have no idea what animals are subjected to every single day of their short, stunted lives, the indignities they have to endure, the vicious treatment they are subjected to, the acts of violence they suffer every day. In comparison, a dog in a shelter waiting for her/his home is living it up. Do you know how many billions of living, breathing creatures are slaughtered in the US every year just so that you can eat your burger and buy shampoo? To say that things can get any worse for animals if they were given rights, which would free them from being our slaves and forced to die for us daily, is nothing short of absurd.

 

Batmom - I am not suggesting, of course, that non-human animals should have the right to vote. I am talking of rights that preserve their dignity. The right not to be slaughtered for food, the right not to be harmed and hurt, the right to be free from being subjected to painful experiments, the right not to be exploited in circuses, imprisoned in zoos, bred for entertainment or monetary gain. I love Merlin to pieces,and try to respect him as a dog. I try to treat him like a dog and not a human, NOT because I believe he is inferior to a human, but because he has the right to be treated and respected according to his needs as the creature that he is - a dog. He is my companion, not my pet.

 

These are the kind of rights I'm talking about.

 

 

Hey, girl, YOU ARE MY KIND OF PEOPLE! Couldn't have said it better myself. You are so right -- it's the generational process of desensitization that allows us to conveniently "forget" where our meat comes from. I used to be that way, too -- my folks were meat-and-potato people. From a young age, though, I found meat repugnant. As soon as I left home, I became a vegetarian. And having done so much more research into the agricultural industry, livestock, and slaughter, I feel stronger and stronger that I did the right thing.

 

I'm not saying everyone needs to be a vegetarian -- I'm just saying everyone should really become educated and be aware of what goes on before that juicy steak hits the grill.

[Batmom]

The right . . . bred for entertainment or monetary gain. ... He is my companion, not my pet.

 

In this country, virtually all of our pets, including yours, were bred for entertainment and/or monetary gain. If not racing, then the entertainment of people who would keep pets.

 

Unless your companion animal runs free and can make all his own choices -- whether to come or go, whether to be neutered or not, what to eat or not, whether to have his nails trimmed or not, whether to be Frontlined, whether to go to the vet and be vaccinated or not -- your companion animals are in fact pets, and you do in fact treat them as belongings.

[Guest Machbragal]

The right . . . bred for entertainment or monetary gain. ... He is my companion, not my pet.

 

In this country, virtually all of our pets, including yours, were bred for entertainment and/or monetary gain. If not racing, then the entertainment of people who would keep pets.

 

Unless your companion animal runs free and can make all his own choices -- whether to come or go, whether to be neutered or not, what to eat or not, whether to have his nails trimmed or not, whether to be Frontlined, whether to go to the vet and be vaccinated or not -- your companion animals are in fact pets, and you do in fact treat them as belongings.

 

 

I disagree.

 

I think these decisions are part of being a guardian -- putting the interests of your COMPANION first. We do this for folks with Alzheimer's disease and other mental conditions -- would you say we are treating these folks as belongings? I don't think so. There's a difference. Decisions can be made for many reasons. Sometimes, you put your own interests first. With regard to caring for a companion animal, you put their interest first. It's not about owning or controlling -- it's about trying to give them the best and healthiest life. These are domesticated animals -- humans have taken away a great deal of their "wildness" and ability to survive on their own. We owe it to them to provide for them. I don't think it's the same as treating them "as belongings."

Edited June 26, 2008 by Machbragal

[Guest KennelMom]

I wish someone would specifically enumerate the "rights" they think animals should have and whether or not there's a distinction made between wild animals and domesticated animals. I'm afraid if you think LAWS requiring people not to eat or use animals in any way has a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing in this country, you are living in a dream.

 

I'm all for the humane treatment of animals. I think in whichever way we use animals - for food, clothing, research to save human lives, as pets, as athletes.... - animals should be treated as humanely as possible and pain, fear, etc, minimized however possible.

 

And I don't buy that "companion/guardian" crap. Sorry...but if you derive any pleasure or satisfaction in owning and caring for (controlling) a domesticated animal, then you are no different than any other person who benefits in ANY way in the use or breeding of domesticated animals. You just happen to think your enjoyment and benefit is more altruistic or virtuous than others.

Edited June 26, 2008 by KennelMom

[Guest Machbragal]

I wish someone would specifically enumerate the "rights" they think animals should have and whether or not there's a distinction made between wild animals and domesticated animals. I'm afraid if you think LAWS requiring people not to eat or use animals in any way has a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing in this country, you are living in a dream.

 

I'm all for the humane treatment of animals. I think in whichever way we use animals - for food, clothing, research to save human lives, as pets, as athletes.... - animals should be treated as humanely as possible and pain, fear, etc, minimized however possible.

 

And I don't buy that "companion/guardian" crap. Sorry...but if you derive any pleasure or satisfaction in owning and caring for (controlling) a domesticated animal, then you are no different than any other person who benefits in ANY way in the use or breeding of domesticated animals. You just happen to think your enjoyment and benefit is more altruistic than others.

 

 

Pretty cynical, aren't you?

[Guest KennelMom]

Pretty cynical, aren't you?

 

 

No...just realistic. Living in a Snow White dream world where all the animals live in peace and lions don't eat baby gazelle and humans don't eat cows doesn't accomplish anything to help real animals in this world. When AR folks start touting that "one generation and out" or "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" stuff it completely turns off the majority of people. Most people want to have their lifesaving drugs, their Sunday night steak dinner and cute little fluffy laying at their feet every evening chewing on a rawhide. They don't want to be told that this particular law which will actually make a difference in the suffering of animals is just one step closer to an ultimate goal of forced vegan lifestyles for everyone. Animal welfare should not be a slippery slope that eventually ends with no one having pets and dogs being returned to the wild.

 

As a society, we have a responsibility to punish those who abuse, torture and neglect animals. We have an obligation to say determine what a reasonable minimum standard of care is for domesticated animals, research animals and livestock. Does that mean we give animals rights like we give humans? I dont' think so. My pets are my property. I have no problem considering them so. I pay for them, I take care of them....I know "property" isn't as touchy-feely and warm-fuzzy as "companion or guardian" but whatever word you want to use, it doesn't change the fact that I own them. You can't come take my dogs...they aren't open to the public...you can't tell me what food to feed them...my neigbor can't decide to take them for a walk...they can't come and go as they please like the wild bunny that sometimes visits our front yard or the birds that fly overhead. They are mine. I make those decisions. If something happens to them, I'm responsible. The fact that they are legally considered property doesn't change how much I love them or what I would sacrifice for them. It's simply a legal definition.

[giadog]

Pretty cynical, aren't you?

 

 

No...just realistic. Living in a Snow White dream world where all the animals live in peace and lions don't eat baby gazelle and humans don't eat cows doesn't accomplish anything to help real animals in this world. When AR folks start touting that "one generation and out" or "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" stuff it completely turns off the majority of people. Most people want to have their lifesaving drugs, their Sunday night steak dinner and cute little fluffy laying at their feet every evening chewing on a rawhide. They don't want to be told that this particular law which will actually make a difference in the suffering of animals is just one step closer to an ultimate goal of forced vegan lifestyles for everyone. Animal welfare should not be a slippery slope that eventually ends with no one having pets and dogs being returned to the wild.

 

As a society, we have a responsibility to punish those who abuse, torture and neglect animals. We have an obligation to say determine what a reasonable minimum standard of care is for domesticated animals, research animals and livestock. Does that mean we give animals rights like we give humans? I dont' think so. My pets are my property. I have no problem considering them so. I pay for them, I take care of them....I know "property" isn't as touchy-feely and warm-fuzzy as "companion or guardian" but whatever word you want to use, it doesn't change the fact that I own them. You can't come take my dogs...they aren't open to the public...you can't tell me what food to feed them...my neigbor can't decide to take them for a walk...they can't come and go as they please like the wild bunny that sometimes visits our front yard or the birds that fly overhead. They are mine. I make those decisions. If something happens to them, I'm responsible. The fact that they are legally considered property doesn't change how much I love them or what I would sacrifice for them. It's simply a legal definition.

 

+1, and very well written.

[Guest Machbragal]

Well, those of us who feel differently than, I guess, the "majority", have made some very significant headway over the last decade and I'm proud of what we have accomplished. There will be more gains ahead. I don't think most of us are trying to stop folks from "using" animals; most of us are more concerned about the way the animals are raised, treated and slaughtered. I don't see that as a "fantasy" world at all. I see it as very, very real. Especially since I've personally visited cattle and horse slaughter facilities, poultry slaughter facilities, commercial farms and the dog markets in China. It's very real to me.

[Madeara]

One can always drop scenarios from both sides of the fence and the debate will go on and on. I tried it a few times on Animal Concerns.

 

But imo our society needs to follow through with humane treatment and prosecute the thoughtless, careless, cruel people that commit crimes especially to animals and children. I will not accept slaps on the wrist just because it is an animal. Bottom line is we all know what is wrong. I would never want to be associated or live next door to an inhumane criminal, would any of you? Let's climb up the evolution ladder another rung especially since there are WAY too many people to supervise! We can't even supervise the treatment of children and there are many child cruelty situations everywhere. As far as vet care maybe each vet will have a contract that the client must sign so they cannot be sued. I mean as long as they don't take off the wrong leg (ex news today of lung incident) would that many people sue? Yes the greedy ones and this world is indeed all about greed. Think of this, the last horse slaughter was closed in IA and they all cry that the horses will now go to Mexico and Canada where there are no anti cruelty slaughter practices. What will the horse owners now do? They cry that it is too expensive to euthanize and cart away to a rendering plant if you cannot bury on your farm or property. Give me a break you CHOSE to own horses and this is the price YOU pay when it is time that they no longer can SERVE YOUR purpose. Pay up or don’t have any.

 

Sorry I am ranting, but as long as we do not correct things and find a solution, it will only get worse….for the animals. They get my vote!

 

 

 

[Guest SabrinaInDE]

I think I'm going to just have to stop reading this thread because all of the speciesist comments are making me sick. You'd think one day I would learn to just stay away

[PatricksMom]

For those arguing that if they didn't own their dog, others would have the right to take their dogs for walks, tell them what to feed them, etc. What about children? Children don't have, and shouldn't have, all the rights of adults, and they do have some special rights adults don't have, based on their needs. Animals would be the same, rights geared towards their needs.

 

As for the idea that:

 

"And I don't buy that "companion/guardian" crap. Sorry...but if you derive any pleasure or satisfaction in owning and caring for (controlling) a domesticated animal, then you are no different than any other person who benefits in ANY way in the use or breeding of domesticated animals. You just happen to think your enjoyment and benefit is more altruistic than others."

 

So people who enjoy being parents, and caring for their children own them? My grandmother, who is caring for my grandfather at the end of his life owns him, because she controls the food, she controls his medications, she control the decision making, because he can't anymore. Ridiculous, they make these choices, to the best of their ability, based on the best interests of their loved ones, as they should. How are animal guardians any different?

[Guest KennelMom]

I think I'm going to just have to stop reading this thread because all of the speciesist comments are making me sick. You'd think one day I would learn to just stay away rolleyes.gif

 

I guess you don't watch much Animal Planet or National Geographic because those wolves certainly put themselves above the lamb they kill and eat. The lions certainly think their survival is much more important and valuable than the zebra the take down and feed on. I mean...they could have eaten one of their own or munched on a few leaves but instead they decided taking the life of another creature was the right thing to do.

 

Humans are a PART of this world. Because we are human and capable of thought and reasoning more complex than wolves and lions means we have more responsibility to consider our actions and minimize the damage we have on this earth and it's other inhabitants, but I don't think that means we are required to never kill any other living creature (as I put down ant traps in my pantry this morning). Killing is part of survival, like it or not. How and why we kill or use animals is the moral delimma we face because of our greater thinking and reasoning power. That's why it's called humanity, not animalanity. I don't derive joy from ripping the head off a bird and running around the yard with it's body before dropping it to go off in search of a yard brownie. My dogs do.

 

A rat is NOT a pig is NOT a dog is NOT a boy. This world isn't about everything being equal. It's not nature's way and we can never make it so. To think we can, is the ultimate in elitism. I think reality is mitigating our impact on our environment. In the past they wore fur because it kept people warm and alive. Now we have synthetic materials that, in many cases, function better than fur. Choosing alternatives to fur mitigates our impact on animals (at least on the surface).

 

For those comparing or equating owning an animal with a human owning another human (slave, child, wife or otherwise) is off point. Dogs are not human beings. I'm not saying they are better or worse than humans. I'm saying they're not a human. If you truly believe that dogs should have the same rights as human beings (i.e. can not be "owned") then I hope you carry that through to other equally deserving creatures as well. Skip that frontline dose for your dogs or that heartworm prevention because I'm pretty sure fleas and heartworms like to be alive. Or is your dog more valuable and important than those creatures? And what gives YOU the right to make that determination? Dogs, live. Fleas, die.

Edited June 26, 2008 by KennelMom

[Guest Machbragal]

This is what you get, sadly, when you treat animals as property. I think I'd like to try the alternative and see if we can make it work a little better. This was just released by the Humane Society, where they are dealing with a puppy mill with about 700 dogs:

 

For two days we assembled hundreds of crates and organized tons of supplies in an effort to prepare for the influx of rescued dogs. But we were unable to prepare ourselves for the sight that awaited us at the puppy mill. The smell of urine and feces reached us long before we could even see the animals.

 

Nearly 450 dogs were living in row after row of tiny hutches stacked in an overgrown field. These animals had no protection from the elements and many of the dogs’ legs were entangled in the grates of their wire cages. Approximately 250 female dogs and their puppies were also being kept in deplorable conditions inside a trailer on the property. None of these animals were being properly fed and 90 percent of them had no water.

 

As we came upon the dogs they let out a volley of excited but nervous barking that carried across the property. But as we approached this canine factory farm the dogs pressed themselves up against the bars with their tails wagging furiously. Despite years of neglect and abuse, these animals still yearn for human affection.

 

[Batmom]

I think these decisions are part of being a guardian -- putting the interests of your COMPANION first.

 

But how do you know what the interests of your pet are? You've decided what they are -- put thoughts in your pet's head, as it were. Maybe your dog would rather run free and take the risk of being hit by a car or killed by coyotes. Most people's dogs would rather not ever have a bath, and for many that would not be harmful.

 

It's the person making all the decisions here, with no input from the animal at all. The only input comes from the person's individual proclivities, morals, ethics, ideas, finances, etc.

 

But, we're straying from the topic. The OP was talking about how animals are seen *legally.* If animals are not seen as property *legally*, how would they be seen? How would new laws read? What would actually change, for better and for worse, for the animals?

 

I understand OP's concern quite well. If veterinarians were subject to the same malpractice laws as people doctors and veterinary fees increased accordingly -- as they would have to -- most companion animals here in my town would never see a vet. Ever. It's not a wealthy town. And that might well be something preferable to the *animal,* but not to its owner/guardian/caretaker .......

[Guest KennelMom]

This is what you get, sadly, when you treat animals as property. I think I'd like to try the alternative and see if we can make it work a little better. This was just released by the Humane Society, where they are dealing with a puppy mill with about 700 dogs: <snip for brevit>

 

I disagree. That is what you get when you don't have strong enough laws in place that protect animal welfare.

 

For those in favor of animals NOT being legally considered property, what rights do you want to give them? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question that's not fluffy and philosophical. Nitty gritty here. What rights do you want animals to have and how far do you propose extending those rights? Just to certain animals? To all animals? Do I have to worry about my dog being hauled off to doggy prison because they killed a possum in the yard and violated that possums right to life? More to the point, do *I* have to worry about being hauled off to human prison because I opted to euthanize my pet because I felt it no longer had a good quality of life? Or will all of our pets be left to linger until "nature takes it's course?" Or will these new animal rights remove a vet's ability to even perform euthanasia? After all, who are HUMANS to decide when any animal should live or die?

Edited June 26, 2008 by KennelMom

[Guest Machbragal]

Well, they have the right, in my opinion, to be treated humanely and with some basic degree of respect, to the extent possible. Because we domesticated them, they have the right to expect care, food, kindness. As for non-domesticated animals, I believe they have a right to habitat (which we violate all the time), the right to live as nature intended without constant interference from human development. I am opposed to zoos, for example. But I recognize that, because of man, this may be the only hope of survival for many species. But I am not sure life in a zoo is preferable over extinction, to be brutally honest.

 

But I recognize I'm not the "norm" on this issue. I rescue earthworms from sidewalks. I catch and release flies that are banging up against my windows in the house. I try not to step on ants. These are my choices. Personally, I believe that everything born has as much right to this planet as I do.

 

As for feeding dogs meat, I think that's appropriate. Unlike humans, I think it's harder for dogs NOT to eat meat, and cats even harder. If I owned a dog, I would try to find a butcher that got meat from a source that at least treated the animal humanely prior to slaughter. I would try and make conscious and educated decisions, not just pick a can off shelf.

[BootsyCollins]

This is what you get, sadly, when you treat animals as property. I think I'd like to try the alternative and see if we can make it work a little better. This was just released by the Humane Society, where they are dealing with a puppy mill with about 700 dogs:

 

That is a sad story and my heart goes out to those dogs and to the people that rescued them, but if they were able to sieze the dogs, that means that there were/are laws in that area that allowed them to do so because of how the animals were being treated and their living conditions. Which by extension means that the dogs are not exactly considered property on the same level as an inanimate object.

 

Unfortunately, those kinds of things (and worse) happen to children every day, even though there are laws that protect them and do not consider them property. Maybe not 450 kids in one place, but certainly deplorable, unacceptable conditions.

 

My point is, a law is only as good as the office that enforces it.

[BootsyCollins]

I rescue earthworms from sidewalks. I catch and release flies that are banging up against my windows in the house. I try not to step on ants.

 

Me too. All those things. Other than my desire to murder every cockroach, rat, and mouse that dares even think of entering my home, I try not to be unreasonable.

 

But I still don't know if I want the government meddling in how I raise and treat my dog. Anymore than I want it meddling in how I raise and treat my children.

[Guest KennelMom]

Well, they have the right, in my opinion, to be treated humanely and with some basic degree of respect, to the extent possible. Because we domesticated them, they have the right to expect care, food, kindness. As for non-domesticated animals, I believe they have a right to habitat (which we violate all the time), the right to live as nature intended without constant interference from human development. I am opposed to zoos, for example. But I recognize that, because of man, this may be the only hope of survival for many species. But I am not sure life in a zoo is preferable over extinction, to be brutally honest.

 

But, when you are talking about laws, you have to be specific. What is "humane" - what is "respect"? How much habitat do they have a right to? When it comes to giving rights and writing or supporting new laws or changes in laws, it's not enough to say "well, animals should be treated humanely" - of course they should be! That's one thing I think we all agree on. The question is - what is humane? The farmer down the street thinks it's humane to shoot a dog to put it out of it's misery. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would consider that very inhumane (or potentially inhumane depending on how good a shot the farmer is).

 

Do you want some government agenvy deciding when you can have your dog euthanized? Will people have to petition the court to put their dog down? We dont' allow the euthanasia of humans that give their express desire and consent to be killed. We prosecute and jail people for assisting in suicide. Will that now become the fate of our pets and pet owners as well?

 

How do you propose we stop infringing upon habitat? Decrease the number of humans being born? Limit people t one child per family? What do you do with those 2d, 3d, etc...pregnancies. I think China has some solutions most people would find unpalatable. Do we legislate and limit how much land each person is allowed to own (or can we not own land either?).

 

I do agree with you that humans have to self-edit. In the past, especially the last few hundred years, we have increased our footprint on this planet - taking what we want and not giving much thought to giving back. It's something we all have to consider because resources are not unlimited.

 

If people want to say: dogs are no longer property and they have rights - you need to be able and willing to say specifically what that means!

 

But I recognize I'm not the "norm" on this issue. I rescue earthworms from sidewalks. I catch and release flies that are banging up against my windows in the house. I try not to step on ants. These are my choices. Personally, I believe that everything born has as much right to this planet as I do.

 

I don't think you are to far off the norm. I do the same things - even the flies. I always think how scary and confusing it must be for them to fly into that "solid air" we call a window! I'm married to a Buddhist who weeps when he has to finish off an animal our dogs didn't quite kill. He's actually the main "critter and bug remover" in the house. I keep a towel in the car so I can help turtles across the road when I see them. I don't think most people are blood thirsty creature-killers.