amandap
Well-Known Member
Up.
Petition for the law to value animals properly
- Thread starter cptrayes
- Start date
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
No. I am just not interested in a discussion that is going nowhere.
Moya_999
Well-Known Member
Well for someone who is saying they are not interested in a discussion that is going nowhere , you have participated loads on this thread.
Well I hope more do not have an attitude like that, because if they do no one will help any sort of petition.
Talk about negative vibes, well excuse us if we choose to at least try and not give up. How does the old saying go?? If you don't succeed the first time try try try again.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
So let's leave civil law out of it then, if is to difficult our risky to include it, and restrict it to criminal prosecutions. That isn't a reason not to get this debated, surely?
Are you happy that the police will not investigate dog theft because of the low value of the property?
Spring Feather
Well-Known Member
At present an owner, if they believed there was a case for prosecution, would take out a civil suit against a vet, although most likely would contact the RCVS and wouldn't they deal with any disciplinary action? I'm not actually 100% sure exactly what you are proposing, or specifically what changes you feel is necessary, however if you are suggesting that a proposed change in the law whereby a vet could be held up on criminal charges, then no that doesn't sit right with me.
Illusion100
Well-Known Member
If I advised a neighbour that their dog was pooing on my lawn and I was sick to the back teeth of it, they did nothing and once again there it is, cr*pping in my garden. Having had enough, I killed it will a shovel and dragged its carcass back to the owners house and dumped it in their garden, have I not committed a crime?
If according to the Law I am guilty of nothing more than possibly criminal damage, WOW!!!!
This is why the Law needs changing. It's horrifying Kit paid this price. People need to do more than speak out against this, they need to act and petitioning is a way to do this.
If according to the Law I am guilty of nothing more than possibly criminal damage, WOW!!!!
This is why the Law needs changing. It's horrifying Kit paid this price. People need to do more than speak out against this, they need to act and petitioning is a way to do this.
Last edited:
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
The situation with vets putting down horses in an emergency would not change, Spring Feather, and I am mystified why you think it would.
You aren't even in this country, you can't sign the petition and I'm finding it a bit upsetting that you are putting other people off having their animals recognised in law as more than just a piece of property
Last edited:
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
Wagtail
Horse servant
Ok so we have established that you do NOT think purposely killing someone's pet should bring a more severe penalty than breaking a window. As that is your view, and that was all I accused you of, then how was it a personal insult? :confused3:
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
Let me modify my post. I am not interested in discussing anything with people who do not seem to understand the normal rules of civilised behaviour nor will I be bullied.
honetpot
Well-Known Member
Sorry I don't get it. Someone has a different point of view to you, its called a debate.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
Let me get this right.
This petition wants to change the law so that if someone comes into my garden and kills my favourite dog with a shovel, I should get compensated for the mental stress that causes me as well as the financial loss?
But there is no suggestion that the law as it stands should be changed as regards humans in a similar scenario. For example, if someone comes into my garden and kills a personal human friend of mine, who I have known for years and I am very fond of, with a shovel, I do not get compensated for the mental stress that might cause me unless it is a spouse or a close relative? (And, as I understand it, that is the current law).
That puts a higher value on a companion animal than on human friendship. Is that what this petition is attempting to achieve?
Please don't reply to this post if you want to hurl insults or make personal comments as I really can't be bothered trying to have a logical discussion with stupid people.
This petition wants to change the law so that if someone comes into my garden and kills my favourite dog with a shovel, I should get compensated for the mental stress that causes me as well as the financial loss?
But there is no suggestion that the law as it stands should be changed as regards humans in a similar scenario. For example, if someone comes into my garden and kills a personal human friend of mine, who I have known for years and I am very fond of, with a shovel, I do not get compensated for the mental stress that might cause me unless it is a spouse or a close relative? (And, as I understand it, that is the current law).
That puts a higher value on a companion animal than on human friendship. Is that what this petition is attempting to achieve?
Please don't reply to this post if you want to hurl insults or make personal comments as I really can't be bothered trying to have a logical discussion with stupid people.
Merrymoles
Well-Known Member
Hi DR. I hope I am not stupid but who knows 
.
My reading of the debate was more about punishment than compensation so that if someone came into your garden and killed your favourite dog, they would face a more appropriate punishment because of your attachment to the dog than the punishment be based purely on the value of the dog.
I think what is being suggested is that there should be a debate on whether harming an animal should carry a bigger penalty than digging up your favourite rose bush. Killing a friend of yours would already attract a severe penalty so from that perspective the law doesn't need changing.
I am all in favour of debating such issues. From my perspective, compensation for stress/grief etc is very much a secondary issue. What I would want would be a proper penalty for harming an animal for vindictive reasons - as much as a deterrent to such behaviour as anything else.
.My reading of the debate was more about punishment than compensation so that if someone came into your garden and killed your favourite dog, they would face a more appropriate punishment because of your attachment to the dog than the punishment be based purely on the value of the dog.
I think what is being suggested is that there should be a debate on whether harming an animal should carry a bigger penalty than digging up your favourite rose bush. Killing a friend of yours would already attract a severe penalty so from that perspective the law doesn't need changing.
I am all in favour of debating such issues. From my perspective, compensation for stress/grief etc is very much a secondary issue. What I would want would be a proper penalty for harming an animal for vindictive reasons - as much as a deterrent to such behaviour as anything else.
WelshD
Well-Known Member
I think the compensation thing is muddying the waters. I personally think that the words 'emotional value' are possibly not the right words to use in the petition, words like that often switch other people off no matter how they were intended
Removing that from the equation do I want a pet being killed placed higher than a broken window in the eyes of the law. yes I do and that's why I have signed
Removing that from the equation do I want a pet being killed placed higher than a broken window in the eyes of the law. yes I do and that's why I have signed
Wagtail
Horse servant
Dry Rot, I am not trying to bully or insult you; I am merely trying to establish your viewpoint, and for the record I actually admire you being one of the few people willing to stand up and say, hey, I didn't sign because...
However I do find your argument lacks logic (note I said 'argument' not you, yourself). Firstly because the most important bit of the petition focusses on the 'punishment' of the offender as this is by its very nature, compensation, and secondly because you cannot insist that everything we legislate for in terms of animals has to also be legislated for in terms of humans. It is irrelevant.
Meowy Catkin
Meow!
I agree with this.
Spilletta
Well-Known Member
I don't use Facebook but I read earlier in this thread that someone had posted on the main Kit ones where there are a lot of users. Is there any indication that the users are going to get a bit more active in signing so the issue can at least be debated?
I haven't thought to look in the dog part of the forum until just this moment, but wondered if the petition is in there (I can look myself in a minute!) - I'd have thought lots of dog owners would be interested in getting the law looked at, and where possible spread the word on Facebook/dog forums.
I haven't thought to look in the dog part of the forum until just this moment, but wondered if the petition is in there (I can look myself in a minute!) - I'd have thought lots of dog owners would be interested in getting the law looked at, and where possible spread the word on Facebook/dog forums.
Spilletta
Well-Known Member
Re: my post above. I couldn't see it on the dog part of the forum, but not sure I'm best person to add a new thread as I have a bit of a complex that I'm a thread killer (not on this one I hope!) Any regular dog forum users willing...
Spring Feather
Well-Known Member
I can sign, if I wanted to. I'm a British citizen, have a house in England, pay taxes there and am on the voters rollYou aren't even in this country, you can't sign the petition and I'm finding it a bit upsetting that you are putting other people off having their animals recognised in law as more than just a piece of property
honetpot
Well-Known Member
Sad as it seems registered guide dogs have been attacked whilst in the company of their blind partners, at the moment there is very little they could be charged with apart from criminal damage and perhaps cruelty. A working dog of this kind it perhaps the ultimate companion animal, they not only guide and help protect but provide a way into society for their partners. The loss of one of these animals,or injuring them so they could not perform their work would probably be far greater than any value that could be paid for their replacement, to the blind person they would be perhaps losing a sense of themselves and the grief would be intense.
Through lobbying the law has been amended, so it is possible to change things.
http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/supportus/campaigns/dog-attacks#.VEpOlWd0ztQ
For most people horses and dogs are no longer kept for work they are kept as companions, their value as such may be more than their purchase price.
Through lobbying the law has been amended, so it is possible to change things.
http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/supportus/campaigns/dog-attacks#.VEpOlWd0ztQ
For most people horses and dogs are no longer kept for work they are kept as companions, their value as such may be more than their purchase price.
Last edited:
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
I can sign, if I wanted tosince. I'm a British citizen, have a house in England, pay taxes there and am on the voters roll
Thank you for explaining. I was under the impression that you run a stud farm in the US and that you lived there full time.
Spring Feather
Well-Known Member
amandap
Well-Known Member
Up.
Grumpy Herbert
Well-Known Member
Signed.
BBH
Well-Known Member
I have signed.
I would only add that I would have like to have seen pain and distress recognised for the animals not just emotional distress to the owners but thank you OP for doing something to make a stand .
I would only add that I would have like to have seen pain and distress recognised for the animals not just emotional distress to the owners but thank you OP for doing something to make a stand .
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Pain and distress for the animals is recognised in the Animal Welfare Act. It's only killing them quickly and stealing them that's the real problem.
cremedemonthe
Well-Known Member
Signed