8 Comments:

• Yeah, it's a lot better to let people like the ones that live up the street keep their dogs locked in travel crates 24/7 for the last 3 years because animal control refuses to do anything about it.

  By  Anonymous, at 5:17 AM, November 02, 2005  

  ---

• And of course, it doesn't matter if you routinely starve and beat your dog, because it's your 'property'.

  By  Anonymous, at 12:56 PM, November 02, 2005  

  ---

• I'm reasonably sure that the average well cared for animal won't need to be concerned about being 'passed around'. This change in law was to assist those whose job it is to intervene on behalf of neglected and abused animals. So give your paranoia a rest. These animals need some help from the legal system.

  By  Anonymous, at 5:55 PM, November 02, 2005  

  ---

• Well, don't the previous messages say it all? These are the comments of an animal rights extremist... fanatics... nutcases... folks that are seeking legal ways to seize dogs from humans. They use extreme examples to attempt to make a point... without citing any evidence or facts.
  
  Who is locking their dog in a crate for 3 years straight? Give the author of this blog the address and phone number and I'm confident they will call animal control and get it fixed immediately.
  
  Who is beating and starving their dog? This blog will get that person arrested.
  
  If you have been involved in the dog world for many years, you can cite many examples of nutcases who make false claims against innocent dog owners. I can refer you to a pro-dog attorney who can give you names, phone numbers, and case numbers. I'm sure that pro-dog activists like us can refer you to such an attorney in your town.
  
  The article in this blog cites facts and references them. Who do you think I'm going to believe?
  
  These comments prove why these types of "guardian" laws are dangerous. This is the kind of person who wants that kind of law enacted... so they can accuse you of these outrageous and unsubstantiated crimes.
  
  Animal rights activists are self loathing humans with a variety of emotional problems. Isn't that obvious?

  By  Anonymous, at 7:56 PM, November 02, 2005  

  ---

• No, I don't have to cite articles, because I saw the dogs that these acts were perpetrated against. Unless, of course, cutting off a dog's ears with scissors and starving her until every bone is visible is not cruelty, and just a false claim.
  
  No, I don't like PETA. However, I also don't like people being able to continually abuse a dog because it's 'property'.

  By  Anonymous, at 2:57 PM, November 03, 2005  

  ---

• So, you're okay with having your dog taken away when he drinks all of his water out of his bowl and the person supposed to be taking care of him doesn't when you're out of town? That will be considered animal abuse and your dog will be taken away because the guy who was supposed to feed and water your dog doesn't step up and you have no proof he was supposed to. Your dog will then sit with strangers in a strange place, confused and scared and stressed and might attack other people. Then, seeing as it is now a "dangerous dog that has been abused," will be put to sleep. All because of a new law and some guy who was supposed to take care of your animal didn't.
  
  Whoever says it's okay for dogs to be passed around like fruitcakes doesn't understand the nature between dogs and their owners. Continually moving a dog from ownership to ownership will confuse him or her and stress them out. Their entire world crumbles. Dogs whose owners die before them sometimes will starve themselves to death because of depression. Some dogs freak out and attack people that are trying to help and then they are put down. You never move children from home to home, why would you do it with a good family pet? You cannot calm down an animal like a child as a child can understand you, a dog can't. Yes, there are good examples on how this is supposed to be a good thing. But that is why there are animal abuse laws to help this out. People call in animal abuse all the time and you what happens? Sometimes, animal control won't freaking help.
  
  Example, I'm walking my dog and see a Lab-mix puppy with an extreme case of non-contagious mange. His hair was almost all gone, his skin was rough and lumpy, and he could barely see because of the skin around his eyes had swollen over. I take him home and feed him and water him but we can't keep him. I have to drop him off in the middle of the neighrborhood and hope he'll make it. Like heck I'm going to leave him alone to be hit by a car. I take him door to door and no one recognizes him or has lost a Lab-mix puppy. By then, it was obvious he had been abandoned. Finally, someone offers to help and calls animal control. No one picks up. He offers to take him to the animal shelter as I can't drive. They won't take him. This kind man and his family took him in and paid for all of his vet visits to cure the mange. He recovered in weeks and they had to give him away because he was a puppy and they couldn't handle him. He now lives on a lakeshore property with other dogs where he can play and is loved.
  
  Sometimes all it takes is common sense as the people knew they couldn't handle him anymore. So, instead of hurting him, they gave him to someone who could properly take care of him. There are times when people themselves need to take action, not the legislature. Yes, there are crimes that need to be taken care of in animal abuse. But when the police show up at your door, saying that your neighbor told him that your dog was being mistreated just because he was whining at the door to be let in and they were taking him away with no say on your account, what then?
  
  The law already takes animals away if they are mistreated or abused. We don't need anything else where ludicrus crimes of your dog whining to be let in and you're a little slow getting there or someone not taking care of your dog when you're out of town are enough to have your dog taken away.
  
  Understand that yes, police sometimes don't care about animals like they should. They have to deal with abused children all the time. That's why animal control was organized. To help get justice for the horror the animals had to suffer. This will do more harm than good in the animals' case when perfectly good people with pets who love them and will fight for them when threatened are separated.

  By  RJ, at 1:01 PM, December 04, 2005  

  ---

• You're WRONG. Guardians are owners, except if abuse occurs by the guardian and you call the SPCA, the SPCA will only respond to the guardian. NO ACCOUNTABILITY IS REQUIRED OF GUARDIANS_NONE. IT IS A MYTH AND APPARENTLY WELL BELIEVED MYTH. So here's the real story. GUARDIANSHIP AND OWNERSHIP ARE THE SAME except when an animal is abused and someone reports it, the animal police come and take the animal away from the owner. No police ever take the "ward" away from the guardian. Maybe its because the living creature who is ordered to have a guardian becomes a "ward", hence, "a thing", "inanimate object" such as a piece of wood, plastic, etc.

  By  Guardianship Gulag, at 5:29 PM, December 11, 2005  

  ---

• Let me ask this: Is there any investigation on the matter of the reported abuse? Does animal control just appear out of nowhere, claim that someone reported that you were abusing an animal, take your animal, and leave? Or is the investigation done after the animal has left? The dog can't say he was being abused. The cat can't say his owner left him without water for several days. How do you go about investigating a crime if the animal is taken away and with one witness who may not even be very reliable?
  
  There are animal abuse laws in place. This is what they protect. If someone is abusing an animal, you already call the animal control or the shelter to report it. If they don't show up, well then call again. If that doesn't work and the animal is still being abused, it should be your moral right to get that animal any help availiable, be it to move the animal away from the abusive owner. But you better have some good proof. Video tape or take pictures of the abuse, what the animal looked like before it was taken, get some solid proof with a cheap, plastic disposable camera that is not digital and get negatives to show this is the truth.
  
  Thing is, this puts stress on an innocent person and the animal. Forcing them into a kennel because of a wrongful accusation is torture on the animal's part. He or she is being separated from their owner who they have a special bond with. This puts strain on the animal, causing them to do things they normally wouldn't, like vicious behavior, biting, or growling. It's like taking children away from their mother because someone reported abuse when there wasn't any. Then you have a hysterical mother and terrified kids that are going to react badly. What happens then?
  
  There is a good side to the law, it allows people to help animals. But we have that already. This just makes it easier for people who dislike dogs or cats to call and make wrongful accusations on your behalf. You need proof people, not just rumors. The entire law is based on witnesses and proof. Dogs cannot talk and hence are a bad witness. Bruises can mean nothing, the dog could of slipped on ice in the winter. Get actual proof of the man beating the dog, setting a cat on fire, or, as someone said earlier, chopping their dog's ears with scissors.
  
  What is this "no accountability?" That just means the owner isn't responsible for their abusive and inhumane actions. You want an abusive and inhumane owner responsible for their actions to other animals as this can escalate to abusive and inhumane actions against humans. Then the police can really screw themselves over by saying, "Oh, well he was abusing and toruring animals before this crime." Oh, that makes me feel safer. The police could've prevented a crime if they stepped in when they were supposed to but couldn't because the owner is not held accountable. It contradicts the animal abuse law in this way. They need to be tried in court under the animal abuse law that is already in place.

  By  RJ, at 5:24 AM, December 12, 2005  

  ---

Post a Comment
Back to Homepage