Should Animals Be Seen As Property Legally?

[Guest Machbragal]

Well, then. Let's just throw up our hands and say it can't be done. We can continue as we are. What a planet we will have in about another five generations, if we make it that long!

 

Obviously, everyone has strong opinions on this topic and that's a good thing. It's an important topic.

 

As for what the laws would say, I'm working in my state on proposed legislation along these lines, and we pull and tug at language and standards all along the way. But we aren't giving up. As a lawyer, I know that regulations are very limited in what they can actually accomplish. Sometimes, real progress just comes from educating people as to the possibilities and letting them take the initiative and make changes slowly but surely.

 

[Batmom]

But WHAT laws?

[Guest Harry702]

I agree that this is an intriguing and very complex topic. There is part of me that would love to see animals cease to be considered property. The realist in me, however, agrees that it's infinitely more complicated than "they deserve it, so let's give it them." We easily forget that the civil rights we enjoy now have taken millenia to fashion, and the "rights" that we enjoy in our wealth nations have little comparison to what exists in vast regions and cultures of the world. I also think it is problematic and inappropriate to compare the practice of slavery to the ownership of animals. A human has the ability to understand their lack of freedom and choice, an animal does not. It's that simple. Not to mention that a human slave has the ability to choose what is best for him or her self, my dog/cat/fish does not.

 

My pets are perfectly happy, well-adjusted and loved as "owned" creatures.

 

Obviously, everyone has strong opinions on this topic and that's a good thing. It's an important topic.

 

Sometimes, real progress just comes from educating people as to the possibilities and letting them take the initiative and make changes slowly but surely.

 

I completely agree.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Harry702

[greysmom]

It all comes back to each person taking personal responsibility - whether it's for how we treat each other, or how we treat our pets, or how our nation relates to other nations. Every living creature deserves to be treated with respect and dignity.

 

We had steak last night - I'm obviously not a vegan! And I don't think the "natural" way for humans to eat is with no meat whatsoever, we omnivores afterall - I make sure we buy only from facilities/farms that treat their animals the same way I would if I had raised the steer on my own farm for my own family's table. No feedlots, no growth drugs, no tiny little stalls where they're force-fed. But that's expensive - ironically! And not everyone can afford it. So we have meat from feedlots, and milk cows amped up on growth hormones - there are simply too many people to sustain on an agronomic level, a fact that's going to get more and more sticky as we have more and more people to supply. But that's an entirely different topic!!!!

 

Humans have to take responsibility. Particularly for the animals we have taken out of the wild and changed completely to suit our needs. Dogs are not wolves, domesticated cats are not lions, the farm animals we commonly use for food and clothing have only a little in common with their wild ancestors.

 

Laws exist for those who don't want to or refuse to take responsibility for their actions - society must step in and punish the guilty and make amends to repair the balance between people. And laws set the basic limits of actions and behaviors where there are a wide variety of opinions - such as in the case of laws for the humane treatment of animals. As one poster said - if those of us on this Board, who all ostensibly are on close to the same page about one topic, can't even agree, how can we expect a wider population to come to consensus easily??

 

greysmom

(BTW feemandvm, my usual fee to go to my vet is about the same as my trip to my doctor!)

[feemandvm]

We can strengthen animal cruelty laws and change the standards of care for livestock without changing the legal status of animals! Because of the "risks" noted previously... I truly believe that making this legal change in status will be a disaster. BUT we can make laws stronger to punish puppy mills so that the "risk" will outweigh the financial benefits. We can make the quality of life for livestock better by changing laws improving the minimum standards required for housing them.

 

Let's make changes to improve animals lives. Those proposing the legal change from owners to guardians are arguing b/c they think this change will do that. I would argue that we can make those improvements without the risks of that legal classification.

 

 

[Guest ejw]

if those of us on this Board, who all ostensibly are on close to the same page about one topic, can't even agree, how can we expect a wider population to come to consensus easily??

 

Concentrate on consistent and appropriate administering present laws, something that is sadly lacking. The problem is inadequate and unrealistic administration. If I make money on a puppy farm, there is no deterrent in a $300 fine or prohibition from owning an animal. If I am not allowed to own a dog for X number of years, I can pack up and start over. I can go to another town and adopt another animal from a shelter -- they, and Animal Control, can't afford, and don't have the appropriate funding for staff, to be able to follow up on neutering, never mind check applicant history.

 

I don't want some government agency defining things like "adequate shelter", "adequate vet care", "humane treatment", etc. They would either make definitions so vague as to be useless/and or susceptible to twisting to suit a private agenda, or so restrictive you couldn't choose the kind of food your pet thrives on, but instead feed a mandated food from whichever company greased its wheels at the government trough. Do you think a government bureaucrat would research feeding bones? Cooked bones are dangerous for dogs, therefore, no dogs shall be fed bones, period. Whose definition matters more: the rich lady who has a queen sized bed for her chihuahua, or the family who makes a warm bed of straw in the porch for their equally loved (and often more appropriately loved) pup? Which one has "adequate shelter"? I don't have an aviary for my canary -- am I providing inadequate shelter?

 

Aside from concerns that feemandvm has raised, adding new laws would allow the creation of a bureaucracy, ready and willing to spend tax monies defining every word needed to create the laws, and to recreate new definitions ad nauseum. A bureaucrat must maintain his job. And cater to lobby groups, right? No one would ever be sure they were following the "guidelines", or even if the guidelines were actually in the best interests of a pet. If you want proof, just look at the constant changes to the Nutrition Guidelines, the so-called guidelines for "cancer-causing" agents, or the conveniently changed "bottom line" that decreed 2nd hand smoke is dangerous. Heck, just look at how many times coffee and wine have been on and off the "bad foods" list!

 

If they wanted to enforce such a policy, they would have to give officers the right to enter your home any time. Pet Police, anyone?

 

The beneficiaries would be lawyers, the victims those who cannot afford time and money on lawyers. Would lawyers line up to do pro bono work for a case involving a pet? I doubt it.

 

I know of street kids who treat their dogs like royalty. Not the way I consider best, but the dogs are very loved and cared for, despite what I might consider "inadequate vet care" (they don't clip nails, and minor wounds heal on their own)and " inadequate shelter". Would they take away what is often a lifeline for these kids? It might be worth while to have some of them comment. I expect much of what they said would be bleeped! They won't get sidetracked by veganism and animal rights; they would focus on the impact on their companions and friends!

 

And just who is going to adopt and/or care for all the animals that would be removed if the definitions were harsh enough to suit some people? Maybe the shelters could demand more material for euthanasia, and shift work staff to do all the animals. Yeah, right.

 

Feemandvm is right. This would open a can of worms. It could only work to the detriment of pet owners and pets, and do nothing to advance the discontinuance of animal neglect and abuse. People who abuse know they abuse, know it's not acceptable, and do so anyway. People who drink and drive know they kill, know it's not acceptable, and do so anyway. You reduce abuse by going after the abusers, not by going after the innocent.

 

I would trade "adequate compensation" (if such a thing ever existed) for the freedom to enjoy my pets while they are here and give them the best life possible according to their individual needs, not according to some long distance law maker who has no idea about my pets. Something government interference would do away with because of the actions of a minority of pet owners.

Edited June 27, 2008 by ejw

[Guest longdogs]

Treating domestic animals as 'property' is perhaps the only leverage we have to allocate and enforce responsibility. Looking at some of the responses above, I think there is some mixed philosophy. 'Property' is a human concept to regulate human behavior. Dogs will never comprehend or accept the concept of 'property' other than in its immediate manifestation of possession of a desirable object. A dog possesses a choice bone in a physical sense, it doesn't 'own' a bone in a human sense. Whatever label we humans put on it, ownership doesn't mean a darn thing to a dog so in that sense they are never our 'property' as far as they are concerned.

 

The same arguments apply to 'rights' and 'freedoms' - purely human concepts and poorly understood ones at that. Dogs live. They live happily, comfortably or otherwise. They may share our world with us but all those layers of human laws and customs mean absolutely nothing. Maybe that puts us in our place. However you look at it, domestic animals have no ability to stand up for themselves in our world and are entirely dependent on us to do it for them. If that means animals have to be 'property' so be it, just as long as that means we accept that responsibility and all that it means in human terms.

[Madeara]

Well, then. Let's just throw up our hands and say it can't be done. We can continue as we are. What a planet we will have in about another five generations, if we make it that long!

 

Frustrating isn't it, god forbid the simple fact that there are cruel people who need to be dealt with but instead they are able to get away with their disgusting deeds. Where doe the word humane come from? Human…..what a joke.

 

Laws can indeed be changed and that is why I support a certain humane society, they try to change laws.