zaminda
Well-Known Member
I have signed because it needs looking at. I had issues with a neighbour a few years ago, and he threatened to kill my horses. The police were not interested, because they were just property.
Petition for the law to value animals properly
- Thread starter cptrayes
- Start date
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
That's fairly typical, I think, Zaminda. If anyone gets into the same situation again and can get some proof (a witness, a text) go back to the police and insist that they at least interview him for the public order offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Can anyone put this onto dog/cat/other pet forums/Facebook sites that they use? I think the worst problem is actually stolen dogs, in terms of numbers, anyway.
zaminda
Well-Known Member
Sadly cptrayes, we had long running issues with this guy, and we couldn't get the police to do anything about any of them, including him threatening us, and our customers.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Shameful. Makes me angry! A caution wouldn't have cost them much time, you were terribly let down.
zaminda
Well-Known Member
We think he was a police informant. My dislike of the police stems from this time. Its why I feel quite strongly on this matter!
Wagtail
Horse servant
I am surprised more people haven't signed this petition yet. This thread has had over a thousand views, and people have shared the link on facebook.
StarcatcherWilliam
Well-Known Member
Signed 
Janovich
Well-Known Member
....duly signed...... good on ya CPT.. xx
... good on ya CPT.. xx
Dave's Mam
Well-Known Member
Signed. Nice one CPT.
Dolcé
Well-Known Member
Gutted at the low response on this petition. Fabulous opportunity for horse owners to get involved in the attachment to our animals being taken into account in the eyes of the law!
Wagtail
Horse servant
Dolcé;12663433 said:
I feel the same. I can't understand it. I put it on another pet forum and most people seem to be in denial that there's even a problem. They seem to think that the current system will punish people who deliberately kill others' pets and already take into account the emotional toll. I think others just can't be bothered. Hopefully it's not because people think they themselves would fall foul of such a law.
Merrymoles
Well-Known Member
Same old, same old - everyone gets worked up over the incident and then can't be ar$ed to do anything which might hold someone who does something similar in the future held to account.
I know there have been queries about the wording but poor old CPTrayes isn't trying to make the law, just get the topic debated by those who do!
I know there have been queries about the wording but poor old CPTrayes isn't trying to make the law, just get the topic debated by those who do!
mightymammoth
Well-Known Member
well done cptrayes. signed.
MissTyc
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's hit the big Facebook pages yet, not being passed around sufficiently ... i.e. not gone viral. I think people don't understand what it is - a friend messaged me and asked a whole load of "what if" questions ... To which I explained it was about debate, not about writing the law here and now. I responded in the end: "what if not even 100,000 people in this country sign the petition and the discussion doesn't even occur" to which she then went to sign the petition ...
Jambo
Well-Known Member
Signed and shared on FB
ann-jen
Well-Known Member
Signed and shared
Gusbear
Well-Known Member
Good on you CPTrayes. I've signed.
MissMoo
Well-Known Member
Signed.
GinnyBells
Well-Known Member
Signed.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
I'm feeling miserable now. How can this thread have approaching two thousand views and yet the petition only has two hundred signatures?
Who in the world does not want a person who killed a horse or stole a dog punished in a way that recognises what that animal was worth to the owner, not its value in pounds as a piece of property?
Big thank you to everyone who has signed and even bigger if you spread it too.
Who in the world does not want a person who killed a horse or stole a dog punished in a way that recognises what that animal was worth to the owner, not its value in pounds as a piece of property?
Big thank you to everyone who has signed and even bigger if you spread it too.
cambrica
Well-Known Member
Good luck. So many stolen dogs in my area. Heartbreaking for the owners. Signed and shared on fb.
PingPongPony
Well-Known Member
signed and shared on fb!
risky business
Well-Known Member
Iv signed.
Ceriann
Well-Known Member
Signed
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Thank you all. I'm going to try and get a newspaper to take this up too.
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
I haven't signed because I think changes in the law require a lot of thought. It is not something that should be done in haste or when emotions are running high.
I posted this link before, but I wonder whether anyone bothered to follow it? So here it is quoted in full! Speaking for myself, I bow to the greater wisdom of Texas Supreme Court, even if they are foreigners. The decison, incidentaly, seems to have been followed here in the UK as a precedent.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...wners-cant-sue-for-pets-sentimental-value.ece
Texas Supreme Court says pet owners cant sue for pets sentimental value
By DIANE JENNINGS Staff Writer djennings@dallasnews.com
Published: 05 April 2013 11:31 PM
Updated: 05 April 2013 11:31 PM
Texas pet owners can be compensated only for their animals market worth not their sentimental value under a decision issued Friday by the state Supreme Court.
The ruling reversed a lower courts decision in a Tarrant County case and upheld a 122-year-old precedent.
The justices made an effort to stress their appreciation for the special place of pets even invoking Old Yeller.
In the case, the Medlen family sued an employee of the Fort Worth animal shelter where their dog, Avery, was accidentally euthanized in 2009. The dog had escaped from a fenced yard during a storm. The Medlens were scheduled to retrieve Avery, but a shelter worker inadvertently placed her on a euthanization list. The family claimed they were entitled to damages for the companionship value of the dog. The high court unanimously disagreed. Under Texas common law, the human-animal bond, while undeniable, is uncompensable, Justice Don R. Willett wrote in the decision.
Randy Turner, who represented the Medlens, said the ruling was a huge defeat for our four-legged friends. Turner felt increasing the value of pets would give animal-care providers an incentive to be careful when conducting business. But Victor Schwartz, one of the attorneys who represented numerous animal groups, including the American Kennel Club, said the decision was a victory for companion animals. The animal groups feared allowing sentimental-value compensation would hike the cost of doing business for veterinarians, animal-medication companies, groomers and kennels.
Turner had couched the case as a property issue. He argued that in a 1963 case, the court allowed claims for sentimental damages for property such as photographs. But Schwartz argued that claims for damages for inanimate objects dont have a ripple effect on anyone except the owner. A similar finding for pets would affect all pet owners by raising the cost of services. The court agreed. It noted that Texans cant 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.
Turner, who specializes in animal-welfare cases, has tried to get the issue of sentimental value before the courts for years. This decision settles the issue. Thats it, he said. Theres no appeal for this.
I posted this link before, but I wonder whether anyone bothered to follow it? So here it is quoted in full! Speaking for myself, I bow to the greater wisdom of Texas Supreme Court, even if they are foreigners. The decison, incidentaly, seems to have been followed here in the UK as a precedent.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...wners-cant-sue-for-pets-sentimental-value.ece
Texas Supreme Court says pet owners cant sue for pets sentimental value
By DIANE JENNINGS Staff Writer djennings@dallasnews.com
Published: 05 April 2013 11:31 PM
Updated: 05 April 2013 11:31 PM
Texas pet owners can be compensated only for their animals market worth not their sentimental value under a decision issued Friday by the state Supreme Court.
The ruling reversed a lower courts decision in a Tarrant County case and upheld a 122-year-old precedent.
The justices made an effort to stress their appreciation for the special place of pets even invoking Old Yeller.
In the case, the Medlen family sued an employee of the Fort Worth animal shelter where their dog, Avery, was accidentally euthanized in 2009. The dog had escaped from a fenced yard during a storm. The Medlens were scheduled to retrieve Avery, but a shelter worker inadvertently placed her on a euthanization list. The family claimed they were entitled to damages for the companionship value of the dog. The high court unanimously disagreed. Under Texas common law, the human-animal bond, while undeniable, is uncompensable, Justice Don R. Willett wrote in the decision.
Randy Turner, who represented the Medlens, said the ruling was a huge defeat for our four-legged friends. Turner felt increasing the value of pets would give animal-care providers an incentive to be careful when conducting business. But Victor Schwartz, one of the attorneys who represented numerous animal groups, including the American Kennel Club, said the decision was a victory for companion animals. The animal groups feared allowing sentimental-value compensation would hike the cost of doing business for veterinarians, animal-medication companies, groomers and kennels.
Turner had couched the case as a property issue. He argued that in a 1963 case, the court allowed claims for sentimental damages for property such as photographs. But Schwartz argued that claims for damages for inanimate objects dont have a ripple effect on anyone except the owner. A similar finding for pets would affect all pet owners by raising the cost of services. The court agreed. It noted that Texans cant 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.
Turner, who specializes in animal-welfare cases, has tried to get the issue of sentimental value before the courts for years. This decision settles the issue. Thats it, he said. Theres no appeal for this.
fburton
Well-Known Member
AIUI, not all views will be from different people. Someone following a thread (like I am this one) will return to it several times, and each time I open the thread it will be counted as a view. Or do I have that wrong?
I imagine if there are enough signatures a lot of thought will go into any change in the law. A successful petition would be an indication that the issue is worth considering. To my mind, that's quite different from e.g. the over-hasty enactment of dangerous dogs law off the back of a number of very high profile cases and accompanying public outcry.
ETA: Some would say that Texans are as different from other Americans as Americans are from the British.
Dolcé
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is necessarily about monetary value, what money could make you feel better about your precious animal being deliberately killed by some nutter who just feels that way out that day. This could be yard owners shooting your horse over a paltry sum, thugs finding your cat wandering in the street and tying fireworks to it or throwing it from a bridge, those who steal from gardens animals that are then used to train fighting dogs. If these people are found guilty then sentencing would take into account emotional value and pain caused to owners by deliberate acts against their pets. It would give the chance of victim impact statements, to some these pets are part of their family. I would be very surprised if American law was used as precedent in this country and it should be for deliberate acts not those caused by accident. Surely this should be given the chance to be debated rather than not signed and given no chance of debate.
CPT, for what it is worth I shared it on the 2 main Kit sites and despite over 3000 members, who are up in arms about the incident and screaming for action, they are clearly not all signing and sharing! It would seem many want to be heard screaming but actually don't give a toss and can't be bothered actually doing something to make a difference!
CPT, for what it is worth I shared it on the 2 main Kit sites and despite over 3000 members, who are up in arms about the incident and screaming for action, they are clearly not all signing and sharing! It would seem many want to be heard screaming but actually don't give a toss and can't be bothered actually doing something to make a difference!
Last edited:
Wagtail
Horse servant
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.