Petition for the law to value animals properly

signed...................

Too many get in arms about it and shout about the tragedy at the time but they are what I call "non doer's" as in don't do anything to help the cause for what ever reason they choose to share.

I don't see how the accidental death of a dog or cat is related to someone deliberately killing a pet. Why a debate is brought into yet another petition thread is beyond me where a simple sign or not sign was require, however the petition is written or requires. For once I am on CPT side and think that digressing into another topic was not really relevant to this thread.
 
Signed.

Particularly unjust in my view is the leniency with which drivers are treated when they kill or injure horses on the roads, even when they have been known to be speeding or drunk.
 
Bede said:
Signed.

Particularly unjust in my view is the leniency with which drivers are treated when they kill or injure horses on the roads, even when they have been known to be speeding or drunk.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the word horses could easily be replaced with pedestrian or cyclist, but that is another subject.
 
Thanks guys. I'm still trying to get my head around why anyone would think it was a bad idea to punish someone who
, deliberately but humanely, kills a pet - worth little in money terms - in order to upset a human should face a higher penalty than someone who breaks that person's window.


It absolutely beats me.
 
Wagtail said:
This is just to get parliament to DEBATE the issue, it is not a draft of an actual LAW. But if you don't think that it should actually even be debated, then fair enough, but it does surprise me.
Click to expand...

I don't think the petition has a hope in hell of being successful and frankly I'd rather see Parliament discussing things that might be. I agree the sentiments and do sympathise but I do not agree the reasoning.

The Texan newspaper article quotes as follows:"It noted that Texans can’t sue for the loss of family members unless they are close relatives, such as a spouse or parent. It would be “odd if Texas law permitted damages for loss of a Saint Bernard but not for a brother Bernard,” Willett wrote."

Is that the same in English law? Or can I sue for trauma I am caused through the death of a friend killed in a road accident? As the article states, it would be strange if you could sue for the loss of a dog but not a human friend.
 
Dry Rot said:
I don't think the petition has a hope in hell of being successful and frankly I'd rather see Parliament discussing things that might be. I agree the sentiments and do sympathise but I do not agree the reasoning.

The Texan newspaper article quotes as follows:"It noted that Texans can’t sue for the loss of family members unless they are close relatives, such as a spouse or parent. It would be “odd if Texas law permitted damages for loss of a Saint Bernard but not for a brother Bernard,” Willett wrote."

Is that the same in English law? Or can I sue for trauma I am caused through the death of a friend killed in a road accident? As the article states, it would be strange if you could sue for the loss of a dog but not a human friend.
Click to expand...

You cannot keep quoting Texan law. The States have the death penalty and we don't, for a start. And if someone kills a human they are punished accordingly, even if it was unintentional. People are sent to prison for killing humans. This petition is to ask parliament to consider, not only compensation (that may indeed be thought to be impractical) but punishment. But while there are people like you who are quite happy that purposely killing someone's pet is no worse than purposely smashing a window, then of course, it stands no chance. I must say I am continually surprised by some perspectives.
 
Dry Rot said:
I don't think the petition has a hope in hell of being successful and frankly I'd rather see Parliament discussing things that might be. I agree the sentiments and do sympathise but I do not agree the reasoning.

The Texan newspaper article quotes as follows:"It noted that Texans can’t sue for the loss of family members unless they are close relatives, such as a spouse or parent. It would be “odd if Texas law permitted damages for loss of a Saint Bernard but not for a brother Bernard,” Willett wrote."

Is that the same in English law? Or can I sue for trauma I am caused through the death of a friend killed in a road accident? As the article states, it would be strange if you could sue for the loss of a dog but not a human friend.
Click to expand...

The whole point, Dry Rot, is that the law needs changing!

I hope that no-one ever kills a dog of yours out of spite, but humanely, and you have to see them given a caution, or go to court to be given a conditional discharge or a tiny fine because they "only" damaged property of low value :(
 
Last edited:
But if someone shoots your human friend dead because you owe them money, then they get prosecuted.

I don't think "value" in this sense is necessarily about emotional compensation, but about criminality in the eye of the law and suitable punishment. Most people couldn't give two jots about cash in such situations - cash cannot replace Saint Bernard or Brother Bernard ...
 
MissTyc said:
I don't think "value" in this sense is necessarily about emotional compensation, but about criminality in the eye of the law and suitable punishment. Most people couldn't give two jots about cash in such situations - cash cannot replace Saint Bernard or Brother Bernard ...
Click to expand...
That is true. However, making the penalty for killing someone's pet dog more severe than for merely destroying their bicycle might have some deterrent value.
 
I thought you meant that miss t. I included civil law because apparently there's a lot of vindictive stuff going on in divorces where the one who "owns" the dog takes it even though it is completely attached to the partner. Though my own primary focus is on increasing the punishment for stealing and humanely but vindictive killing low money value animals.
 
Dry Rot said:
I don't think the petition has a hope in hell of being successful and frankly I'd rather see Parliament discussing things that might be. I agree the sentiments and do sympathise but I do not agree the reasoning.

The Texan newspaper article quotes as follows:"It noted that Texans can’t sue for the loss of family members unless they are close relatives, such as a spouse or parent. It would be “odd if Texas law permitted damages for loss of a Saint Bernard but not for a brother Bernard,” Willett wrote."

Is that the same in English law? Or can I sue for trauma I am caused through the death of a friend killed in a road accident? As the article states, it would be strange if you could sue for the loss of a dog but not a human friend.
Click to expand...


I think CPT would rather be pro active than sit on the fence and watch.
 
I wasn't going to reply to this thread as it's been made very clear previously by OP that they were not interested in hearing debate. However that may be why you cannot understand why so many people are not signing CPT. So here goes, this is my reasoning for not signing; over here the FBI have recently re-categorized animal abuse/cruelty and it is now a Class A felony and personally I think this is a huge step forward. It would not, however, cover the Kit situation as apparently there was no cruelty or abuse involved. I would certainly sign a petition to have more animal abuse cases dealt with in a more serious light (ie incarceration for those committing these horrific crimes), but the humane destruction of an animal is something quite different. I think there is a need to consider the implications of a change in the law on a far broader scale. And yes of course any of us would be devastated by the loss of a much loved animal, but if that animal was humanely dispatched, I would have a totally different mindset to it having been tortured or abused.
 
Spring Feather said:
And yes of course any of us would be devastated by the loss of a much loved animal, but if that animal was humanely dispatched, I would have a totally different mindset to it having been tortured or abused.
Click to expand...
Yes, totally different. However, there is also a big difference between an animal of mine being humanely dispatched because I decided it was necessary and it being done by someone else out of the blue and against my wishes.
 
fburton said:
Yes, totally different. However, there is also a big difference between an animal of mine being humanely dispatched because I decided it was necessary and it being done by someone else out of the blue and against my wishes.
Click to expand...

For sure. However, just one of a couple of situations I can think of, just off the top of my head, and within the broader scale I speak of, is this; most people on livery have it in their contracts that should the YO not be able to contact the owner in an emergency then the YO has the authority to have a horse PTS. Now over here contracts are legal, however we are told in the UK that they aren't worth the paper they are written on, so should the owner and YO have a disagreement after the event ... you see where this is going?
 
I hope to God that if my horse was lay in a ditch with a broken leg someone would have the good sense to put it out of it's misery - And I'd hate a law that made people hesitate...
 
Spring Feather said:
I wasn't going to reply to this thread as it's been made very clear previously by OP that they were not interested in hearing debate. However that may be why you cannot understand why so many people are not signing CPT. So here goes, this is my reasoning for not signing; over here the FBI have recently re-categorized animal abuse/cruelty and it is now a Class A felony and personally I think this is a huge step forward. It would not, however, cover the Kit situation as apparently there was no cruelty or abuse involved. I would certainly sign a petition to have more animal abuse cases dealt with in a more serious light (ie incarceration for those committing these horrific crimes), but the humane destruction of an animal is something quite different. I think there is a need to consider the implications of a change in the law on a far broader scale. And yes of course any of us would be devastated by the loss of a much loved animal, but if that animal was humanely dispatched, I would have a totally different mindset to it having been tortured or abused.
Click to expand...

I accept everything you say in this post except the rubbish you have written in the first sentence. Thank you for explaining.
 
These are all good points. And that is the kind of thing that would be debated before any laws were put in place. You need to safeguard against genuine misunderstandings and where someone purposely and vindictively despatches an animal to cause distress to another person. However, this is just a petition. It is not a new law. I think people are being extremely pedantic. If everyone just sat umming and ahing on the fence then nothing would ever be done to make the world a better place.
 
blitznbobs said:
I hope to God that if my horse was lay in a ditch with a broken leg someone would have the good sense to put it out of it's misery - And I'd hate a law that made people hesitate...
Click to expand...

That person wouldn't be charged with criminal damage or any other crime, and you aren't going to sue them, so I didn't see this as a problem.
 
Wagtail said:
No, in the situation of a horse in a ditch then a vet would be called and if necessary would PTS. The decision would be made on medical grounds.
Click to expand...

Umm. Medical grounds are not a reason not to sue... There is a huge litigation culture around human medicine I would hate this to enter the equation...
 
Wagtail said:
You cannot keep quoting Texan law. The States have the death penalty and we don't, for a start. And if someone kills a human they are punished accordingly, even if it was unintentional. People are sent to prison for killing humans. This petition is to ask parliament to consider, not only compensation (that may indeed be thought to be impractical) but punishment. But while there are people like you who are quite happy that purposely killing someone's pet is no worse than purposely smashing a window, then of course, it stands no chance. I must say I am continually surprised by some perspectives.
Click to expand...

There doesn't really seem much point in entering into a debate if it is immediately reduced to a personal slanging match. The above post convinces me, if nothing else does, why it would be unwise to become involved, let alone sign a petition! Good luck with your project but I would suggest you might convince a few more if you leave out the personal insults.
 
I'm a human doctor... The other night laid wide open the problems with all this... I was treating a lady in her home who was dying in a massive amount of pain which we were trying unsuccessfully to control... The relative present put it v suscinctly..." it's a crime to put her out of her misery, if it was a dog it would be a crime not to." couldnt be put better really...
 
Dry Rot said:
There doesn't really seem much point in entering into a debate if it is immediately reduced to a personal slanging match. The above post convinces me, if nothing else does, why it would be unwise to become involved, let alone sign a petition! Good luck with your project but I would suggest you might convince a few more if you leave out the personal insults.
Click to expand...

So you DO think that killing someone's pet should carry a heavier penalty than breaking a window? As you have taken it as an insult that I suggested you did not, I can only assume that you do, which is exactly what this petition is proposing.
 
blitznbobs said:
I'm a human doctor... The other night laid wide open the problems with all this... I was treating a lady in her home who was dying in a massive amount of pain which we were trying unsuccessfully to control... The relative present put it v suscinctly..." it's a crime to put her out of her misery, if it was a dog it would be a crime not to." couldnt be put better really...
Click to expand...

Now that is something I feel very strongly about. It is a crime that we cannot put humans out of their misery. How awful your job must be at times like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top