Pets - are they our property, or are we simply "guardians"?

This is where to talk about Pit Bulls!

Postby mnp13 » July 24th, 2009, 6:55 pm

There has been a lot of discussion about people "owning" pets or if we are simply their "guardians"

The local shelters have big banners over the highway in the city that say "become a pet guardian today!"

I really don't know all of the ramifications of guardianship vs. ownership, but the whole idea of guardians rubs me the wrong way. I look at guardians to be the people who raise kids until they are old enough to take care of themselves. My pets will always be "mine," they won't leave at a certain age and go off to make their own lives.

I'm not sure of the legal side of it though.
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17232
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby pitbullmamaliz » July 24th, 2009, 7:00 pm

This article says it best: http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblo ... .html#more

Ownership VS. Guardianship - Keep Your Paws Off My Property

"Guardian is a kinder, gentler, nicer word than owner, don't you think"?

A friend of mine - a dedicated volunteer at our local shelter - was defending the term guardianship - we were in a passionate discussion about ownership vs. guardianship.

She went on, "After all, we don't own our children do we? And we're just temporary caretakers of children until they are adults, right"?

Now I respect this friend deeply. She was there for me, a total stranger showing kindness, sharing her time and knowledge - supporting and guiding me through the first months of owning Zsa Zsa - a (very doggy) dog.

But on this point we disagree. Strongly. I'm not shy about sharing my opinion with her or you. So as for "guardianship" of animals being kinder, nicer, gentler word for owner - I've got one thing to say..........

What a load of crap.

A Big Load Of Crap

What if you no longer owned your dog or cat, but were somehow reduced to a mere "guardian"?

Anyone or any organization that says that "guardian" is just a kinder, nicer word to replace "owner" either is naive, or has an agenda, or is just plain stupid.

Now my friend is certainly not stupid, nor is she deliberately trying to push an agenda - so she falls into the "naive" category.

My friend volunteers at the local shelter, as she has done without fail for many years. She walks the dogs, and gives them love, and socializes them to be ready for new and loving homes. She is dedicated and faithful friend to the shelter - and a friend to the animals - a friend to me - indeed.

A Jewel Amongst Thorns

My friend values kindness and humane treatment of animals. We should all share those values - as well as her commitment of sharing her time and service to others. My friend is an animal lover who genuinely cares and wants to make a difference - she is a jewel amongst thorns.

My friend - and other animal lovers like her - also fits the target demographic profile of animal rights groups. She's just been marketed to - quite effectively, by people in the animal rights movement - with a message that guardianship is kinder than ownership.

She has been sold sold a bill of goods on guardianship by those that have an agenda - and considering PETA's 90% kill rate - that agenda doesn't quite match what my friend has in mind. And HSUS seems to fall short on using the term "ownership" on its site - instead making references to "responsible guardianship".

Now many would argue that animal rights groups are concerned about the welfare of innocent puppies and kitties and dogs and bunnies - especially those groups themselves.

I think that there are thousands of people just like my friend who honestly want to help animals and are not aware of the larger agenda of those groups. They are oblivious to the difference between animal rights and those concerned with animal welfare, and oblivious to the fact that animal rights groups have hijacked the humane movement, according to noted author, Patti Strand, whose book details the history of the movement.

Exploitation Of The Innocent

Those animal rights groups are sophisticated marketers that complain loudly about the exploitation of animals, but have absolutely no qualms about exploiting the very humans who want to help animals - their members and volunteers.

These animal rights groups victimize animals as pawns - with big sad brown eyes - to build big membership rolls and big bank accounts through tons of donations by sappy-eyed 15-year olds who want to save Fluffy.

To facilitate their agenda they also victimize the good people - making pawns of the animal lovers who genuinely want to help animals.

Animal rights groups that push the term "guardianship" as an "addition" to the term "owner" , or as a replacement word for the word "owner - have an agenda - theirs.

The Not-So-Secret Agenda

What is the agenda? The agenda, my friends, is to gain control of the people, the policies and the politicians as it relates to animals and animal laws.

They want control - and they want you out of the way. You are a barrier.

To fulfill their mission - they first need to remove any barriers - animal owners. Ownership denotes property. That also means that property rights are a barrier.

To legally change property rights granted to citizens under the Constitution would be an enormous challenge, so to overcome that challenge - their strategy is to change the definition of what is considered legal property.

Which is why HSUS and PETA are working to change the legal definition of animals as property - and shift animals out from under the legal definition of ownership to guardianship. Because if your animals are no longer your property, then you no longer have inherent property rights to that animal, do you?

To accomplish all of that - they'll need to convince the public and lawmakers of the necessity of that change, and of its "reasonableness.

So they need to "sell it" first. That means they're gonna run the operation pretty much like the roll out of any strategic marketing campaign. They'll build, in what's known in the ad agency biz, a "killer" campaign. A campaign so strategic - so finely crafted - and so flawlessly executed that it'll knock 'em dead.

How To Build A Killer Campaign

To build their killer campaign, first they figure out the demographic profile of their target audiences -which groups of people are receptive to the message and why.

Then they'll "craft" the message to sound reasonable, plausible, as not to raise any alarms within the general population or the municipal governments.

Then they'll hone the message - refining it 'till it hits the sweet spot with the target audience.

They'll sugar coat it by pitching it as being "kind" so that you - the animal lover, you the dog owner will be more receptive to the message.

Then - they'll go in for the kill by adding a "goodness" factor, so that when people resist the message, they'll look like evil, Grinches

Then they'll broadcast it out through any number of communication channels to make sure it reaches the most people who are the most receptive. But there is another "target audience" - your local elected officials. They need to "sell it" to them too.

Positioning Ownership As Evil

Allow me to deconstruct the messaging surrounding guardianship, since this is a marketing concept.

In the animal rights agenda - animals are victims - and there must be an evildoer. That would be you.

They want the public, especially animal lovers, to associate ownership with something wrong, something bad, something evil.

They are inferring that ownership - and pet owners are evil - or bad by positioning guardianship as kinder and gentler, contrasted against irresponsible or cruel owners, then incorporating this positioning into all of their messaging.

Here's the mental association that these groups want you to experience when you hear these words: Ownership - Bad, Cruel, Slavery and Guardianship, Good, Kind Nice.

Here is the process they used to get you to make those mental associations:

Step 1 - Create Position Attributes

Ownership = bad, slavery, cruel
Guardianship = good, kind, nice
Step 2 - Communicate Position

Animal lover = good, kind, nice
Animal abuser = bad, slave owner, cruel
Step 3 - Repeat Position To Reach Market Saturation

Animal guardian = good, kind, nice
Animal owner = bad, slave owner, cruel
Step 4 - Target Audience Self Selects New Position

You - Animal guardian = good, kind, nice
Others - Animal owners= bad, slave owner, cruel
They create this positioning, and repeat the positioning because they want you to self identify with the "good", thereby buying into the concept of guardianship.

This is a sophisitcated, slick marketing strategy - positioning "owners" as people who are careless, cruel or irresponsible.

What's really insidious is linking ownership to "slavery" with use of the concept that "one cannot own another living creature".

Think guardianship is a good thing? You've just been sold a bill of goods - a load of crap - and it made you feel good too.

They have you pegged, don't they?

Wanna Buy A Bridge?

They use all of the marketing tools that product companies use - including using celebrity endorsements - to deliver that messaging and make it more palatable - to reach people like my friend, and the people sitting on local town or city councils.

These groups and their helpful, do-gooder followers either try to convert the language in the local municipal animal laws to "guardianship" language - all the while telling you - John Q. Public - that there's no real difference. Yeah, right.

If you believe that crock - I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for you too.

Transfer Of Power

That then means that they - or the municipality that passed that term "guardian" - can dictate to you - the former owner - the terms of your "guardianship, can't they?

From a legal standpoint - moving from the legal term owner to guardian essentially means this - there is a large transfer of power - from you to them.

Now instead of you having the power to control the terms and conditions surrounding your animals - they do.

Maybe they'd like the power to dictate to all of you former "owners" what breed of dog you can and can't have
Or what size or weight of dog you can or can't have
Maybe they'd like the power to dictate to you mandatory spay or neutering of your dog
Maybe they'd like the power to dictate to you what to feed them
When or where you can walk the dog?
Maybe you'll have to report in & you and your dog's history and movement will be logged into a database to make sure you are a compliant guardian.
Now as a guardian - if you don't like the terms - or if you fail to comply with those terms - well then maybe they'll think you are no longer entitled to be that dog's guardian, right?

What Constitutes Property?

Get this straight bub. As a parent of children, I have full legal rights and responsibilities toward my children. As a responsible and loving parent, I feed, clothe, house, nurture, educate my children as I see fit, imparting my values to them as I see fit.

Now if I were the children's foster parent - or guardian - I would have many of the same responsibilities, but not same rights. That's because there is a difference in the legal definition between parent and guardian. There is a legal difference between parent and foster parent.

My dog is my property - my private property. As a dog owner, I have full legal rights and responsibilities to my dog. I own my dog. Period. But suppose I were no longer my dog's owner - but her guardian - what then? If I wanted to be a dog or animal "guardian", meaning I did not have "ownership", I would foster a dog.

Fostering means the dog is not mine, but I am it's temporary caretaker and am bound by the rules of the organization granting me this temporary status. Fostering an animal does not grant me ownership status in the eyes of the law.

Ask yourself which organizations push the term "guardian" and "guardianship"? What interest to they have in pushing those terms? What reward will those organizations reap for the successful implementation of the term "guardian" in any local ordinance or state bill? What need or agenda will be fulfilled by those so called "animal welfare" organizations pushing guardianship?

If you no longer have control of your property - ie your dog - then someone else -or some other entity does. Who or what entity has a self interest in guardianship? I'll give you two guesses.

Replacing Ownership

Guardian is not a nicer, kinder word for owner. Guardian is not a synonym for owner. Guardianship is a strategy to to replace ownership.

If the goal of such terminolgy is to legislate responsible ownership - we already have those laws on the books - lots and lots of them. We've got cruelty laws, and dogfighting laws and we've got leash laws and pooper scooper laws.

They're busy visiting local municipalities peddling this concept as the answer to problem dog owners.

They're telling local governments that they have the answer - and that answer is that the government must take control of the situation by eliminating the big problem - owners.

But as towns and cities are struggling to balance the books and really - who has the budget for animal control these days? Not to worry, they say - guardianship can help your town or city deal with the issue of problem dog owners.

Right.

There is only one outcome for the term guardianship to any local or state laws - and that is to separate you from your dog by the successful elimination of your property rights.

They - the people and the organizations behind "guardianship" don't want you to have control over the care and feeding your dog - they want to control how you care for your dog.

Controlling The Market

Let's take the 50,000 foot view. Say over 80% of U.S. households own pets. That's a lot of households. And let's say those households no longer have ownership of their property - meaning their pets. Who then does? Who is dictating to those households the terms of having a pet?

Like real estate - CONTROLLING the property is more important than actually owning the property. And like data privacy - CONTROLLING the data is more important than owning the data.

Let's put it this way - we don't need no stinkin' guardianship. And I don't need anyone to come between me and my dog. Or my cat. Just in case I haven't made my position clear - let me spell it out for you.........

A Spelling Lesson

O-W-N-E-R - that's me.

O Is For Owner. I am my dog 's owner, you moron, not her guardian. I am her owner and will always be her owner. As an owner, she is mine to do with what I will, whether you like it or not.

If you don't like it that I dress her in a purple tutu, kiss my ass. If you don't like it that I feed her broccoli and she farts - too bad. If you don't like what I do with her - such as agility, or confirmation or hunting or flyball - because you think it's exploiting her as my animal slave - tough nuggies.

W Is For We. As in We, the people - with property rights. As in We The People whose property includes animals. And you ain't never gettin' over on that one - 'cause We will kick your ass.

N Is For Never. As in you ain't never passing any guardianship laws in my town 'cause I will kick your ass.

E Is For Ever. 'Cause if you EVER come to my town and try push your guardianship crap here, I will make sure you are sorry you EVER tried.

R Is For Rights. As in the property rights I have as a dog owner, and I ain't EVER gonna give those rights up. 'Cause if you try you're gonna wish you NEVER brought it up.

There - I feel better now, don't you?

Are Dogs A Front For Democracy?

For those of you who read this blog regularly, perhaps you' ve come to know this blog isn't really about dogs. Dogs are the metaphor for what I really write about.

This blog is about Democracy - no matter what side of the fence we sit on, no matter where we live, what color our skin is or how much money we make. This blog is really about the the Constitution - and the rights spelled out within that living document, and the Bill Of Rights.

At the end of the day - we are all dog owners, united by our love of dogs. At the end of the day, we are all citizens, living in a free and democratic society.

At the end of the day - it is up to us to protect that democracy by exercising our rights, and making sure we vote to elect candidates that will protect those rights, which in turn equates to preserving the right to responsibly own a dog.

A Kindness Campaign

Now I have some parting words here. Be kind.

Be kind to humans and be kind to animals. Walk softly upon this earth, use our resources wisely. When you take, be sure to give. When a kindness is given, return it threefold.

Be kind to all of your local elected officials, too - and anyone running for local or state office - Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Communists, etc. Call them up - they're all so lonely without you - their beloved constituents. They're just waiting to hear from you - pining away for the sound of your voice.

Reach and and touch your elected representatives - and while you're at it, ask them to kindly state whether they still support the United States Constitution - the one they swore to uphold when they were elected to office. Ask them if they support property rights - yours - the ones specifically mentioned in that very document.

Then ask them if they're in favor of enforcement of animal cruelty laws, dogfighting laws, leash laws and pooper scooper laws. Then ask them to enforce those laws.

Be Kind To Politicians

In a kind and friendly voice, ask them to kindly state - in writing - where they stand on ownership versus guardianship. If they respond in kind - great - - but make sure their actions - AKA their voting record - matches their words.

What if these local and state elected officials failed to protect those property rights - your property rights - the ones spelled out in the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment, what recourse do you have? You do have legal recourse - it's called a vote.

And what of local and state officials who fail to effectively enforce local dog laws, and yet propose ever more restrive laws concerning dogs? You do have legal recourse - it's called a vote.

So just kindly take yourself along to the voting booth this June for the primaries, and for the mid-term elections come November.

There -behind the cool curtain of the voting booth in the school gym - you can kindly vote them out of office. Then smile and wave as you leave the building - and shake their hand on the way out.

Remember This Thought

Do we "own our children? Of course not. But as a parent, I am not about to let anyone shift parenthood - and all of the legal rights and responsiblities that come with that - to some other meaning.

And any attempt to shift the term "guardian" into the legal code as a synonym for the legal term parent - well - let's just say that I guarantee you that every parent in this country would have none of it. Why? 'Cause it ain't the same - is it?

Do we "own" our dogs. In a legal sense - you betcha. Is it "bad" to own another living creature? If you want to feel bad about it - go ahead.

But don't expect me to share in your guilt or shame - over owning my dog. Guilt or shame about "owning" a dog - or a cat - or any other pet - is a concept that's been manufactured and marketed to you.

So if you feel bad about "owning" your dog - you have some sense of guilt - then I suggest you give up your dog to a rescue. Then - you can take it back and be it's foster owner.

But don't think for a minute that I should do the same.

Why Am I Telling You This?

Why am I telling you all of this?

I don't want you to be used as a pawn by these groups, like my friend. I don't want your love of animals to be taken advantage of, like my friend.

I don't want you to lose sight of what's really at stake.

My Own Killer Campaign

BTW - I've got my own killer campaign going - and I've identified my own target audiences.

Who are my target audiences? You - the dog owner, you - the animal lover - and every local and state elected official or candidate (including those that regularly read this blog :-))

I have an important message for you - one I want you to hear and remember. I want this message to be palatable, easy to digest, memorable. It must ring true.

That's why I've identified the USP - the Unique Selling Proposition - that's ad agency speak for distilling the message down to its simplest form - so it can be heard and received by the most people.

I've carefully crafted and honed this message too - designed specifically to win the hearts and minds of consumers and voters, to appeal to the goodness in people to do what's right, as well as to do their civic duty - regardless of political affiliation.

This carefully crafted message is clear, simple. It resonates with target audiences across a wide range of political, racial, cultural and economic demographic profiles.

My message doesn't need any sugar coating whatsoever. Ready? Here it is.....

My Dog Votes.
"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

http://www.pitbullzen.com
http://inaradog.wordpress.com
User avatar
pitbullmamaliz
Working out in the buff causes chafing
 
Posts: 15437
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby amazincc » July 24th, 2009, 7:34 pm

I think Demo posted this article in a similar thread already...

Personally, I always say that I'm "owned" by my pets... heart, soul, and all that entails.
I don't have a problem w/the expression "owner", per se, but the "property" thing (when it comes to pets) - to me - is a double edged sword.
Under the law, an animal and a bicycle (for example) are, basically, treated as "equals" because they are both considered property???
So, when someone steals your bike it's as much of a misdemeanor as if someone stole your dog.
Now, while the bike probably doesn't care if Joe Schmoe rides off into the sunset w/it because you left your property unattended for a nano second... a dog (pet) is a living being, and *emotional/physical* damage can/could be done in a million different ways if someone decided to steal your dog... especially to the stolen "property" him-/herself.
And, in the case of dogs being used as weapons, for example... if said dog gets wounded or killed in the process because some a$$hole didn't want to fight his own battle w/law enforcement and sicced a dog on them instead, no charges can be filed for abuse or cruelty because the dog is "property". That kinda sucks, doesn't it?

I'm owner (legally) and guardian (in my heart) at the same time... my dogs are family members to me, just like my kids. I wish the law protected them equally. :oops: :neutral:


Okay, Demo... come rip me a new one. :wink: lol
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby cheekymunkee » July 24th, 2009, 7:47 pm

I own them. Of course they mean more to me than my tv or my car but I am still their owner. My pets dont have rights. I am concerned with ALL animals welfare but not so much with their rights. Once they can vote and hold down a job, then we will discuss their 'rights'. :wink:
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Debby
User avatar
cheekymunkee
I Have Your Grass
 
Posts: 28540
Location: Dallas

Postby mnp13 » July 24th, 2009, 7:57 pm

amazincc wrote:I think Demo posted this article in a similar thread already...

Personally, I always say that I'm "owned" by my pets... heart, soul, and all that entails.
I don't have a problem w/the expression "owner", per se, but the "property" thing (when it comes to pets) - to me - is a double edged sword.
Under the law, an animal and a bicycle (for example) are, basically, treated as "equals" because they are both considered property???
So, when someone steals your bike it's as much of a misdemeanor as if someone stole your dog.
Now, while the bike probably doesn't care if Joe Schmoe rides off into the sunset w/it because you left your property unattended for a nano second... a dog (pet) is a living being, and *emotional/physical* damage can/could be done in a million different ways if someone decided to steal your dog... especially to the stolen "property" him-/herself.
And, in the case of dogs being used as weapons, for example... if said dog gets wounded or killed in the process because some a$$hole didn't want to fight his own battle w/law enforcement and sicced a dog on them instead, no charges can be filed for abuse or cruelty because the dog is "property". That kinda sucks, doesn't it?


But, there is the other side of it: some people will keep their animals alive for every minute they can, no matter what the reason. Last year, you made the kind and loving decision to end Mick's suffering. If you were simply his guardian, then the "governing body" who oversees all guardians could have made you keep him alive until he passed on his own. OR you could have been prevented from treating him at all because he didn't fit whatever profile for treatment that "governing body" set for cancer care.

It's a VERY difficult concept.

If someone killed any of my dogs, I'd want to sue them for a ba-zillion dollars. there is legal precedent for both getting the "purchase price" of the animal back, and there is also precedent for getting emotional damages for the loss.
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17232
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby amazincc » July 24th, 2009, 8:06 pm

mnp13 wrote: Last year, you made the kind and loving decision to end Mick's suffering. If you were simply his guardian, then the "governing body" who oversees all guardians could have made you keep him alive until he passed on his own. OR you could have been prevented from treating him at all because he didn't fit whatever profile for treatment that "governing body" set for cancer care.



Okay, NOW you made me cry... :sad2: >(

But that's an excellent point, even though I hate it when you guys get all logical on emotional me. :rolleyes2: :P
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby mnp13 » July 24th, 2009, 8:10 pm

Sorry about that, but that's why the discussion is so hard. It's very much a "feel good" concept but the nitty gritty isn't all that great after all.

The only weapon we have in the fight against BSL is property rights. Once our dogs are not ours we have given another governing body the right to make those decisions for us; those people could decide that the only dogs who can exist are brown dogs with curly hair that weigh under 15 pounds.
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17232
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby amazincc » July 24th, 2009, 8:54 pm

Well, then... we need a law that specifies dire consequences and/or the death penalty if/when someone steals/harms another persons living, breathing "property". Or at least make it a felony. :|
In the case of people siccing their own dog(s) on LEOs or FBI agents it would be really nice if they could be held accountable as well, in case their "property" ends up dead or hurt due to no fault of their own (since they just obey orders)... it would be pretty simple to write/enact a law like that.
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby jmashaney » July 24th, 2009, 10:20 pm

I feel that I own my dogs. They are my property. Property with a certain set of needs in order to keep them functioning at optimal levels.

The cat, however... :|

Good thread starter, I look forward to reading the discussion. :wave2:
User avatar
jmashaney
Confident Young Bully
 
Posts: 469
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

Postby amazincc » July 24th, 2009, 10:33 pm

jmashaney wrote:I feel that I own my dogs. They are my property. Property with a certain set of needs in order to keep them functioning at optimal levels.

The cat, however... :|

Good thread starter, I look forward to reading the discussion. :wave2:



I feel that I own my people. They are my property. Property with a certain set of needs in order to keep them functioning at optimal levels.

That's what the cat is thinking. :rolleyes2: lol
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby plebayo » July 24th, 2009, 11:07 pm

I would like to say pets are property, however if someone comes and shoots my dog I wouldn't want to lose a case because instead of a loss of companionship, the court rules it was a loss of property.[which has happened!] I also wouldn't want the court system to say that my pet should be treated a certain way because it is only property, and nothing more.

I definitely own my dogs. They are mine, they belong to me. But I don't know that property is the correct word. Perhaps they are my possessions?

Property is any physical or virtual entity that is owned by an individual or jointly by a group of individuals. An owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer and exchange his or her property.


POSSESSION - A person has possession of something if the person knows of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it. [More than one person can be in possession of something if each knows of its presence and has the power and intention to control it.]
Suzanne
Seth, CGC & LiLo
♥♥Sofie - Always in my heart. ♥♥
User avatar
plebayo
Mrs. Dr. Kildare
 
Posts: 941
Location: Oregon

Postby DemoDick » July 24th, 2009, 11:22 pm

They are property, AND something more in most places. I can't think of anywhere where you can be charged with "cruelty to a bicycle." Well, maybe Berkeley, but nowhere else.

The day my dog is no longer my property and is granted legal rights beyond protection from harm via anti-cruelty and basic care statutes, we have a problem, as the AR extremists will push this one as far as they can, perhaps outlawing pet ownership altogether (that IS a stated goal of PeTA and ALF).

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby amazincc » July 24th, 2009, 11:31 pm

K-9 four-legged "officers" have a certain protection/legal rights under the law, correct?

If you harm a police dog the rules change.
Don't get me wrong... I applaud that. :)
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby DemoDick » July 24th, 2009, 11:43 pm

amazincc wrote:K-9 four-legged "officers" have a certain protection/legal rights under the law, correct?

If you harm a police dog the rules change.
Don't get me wrong... I applaud that. :)


In some places, yes. It's (in general) simply an additional criminal charge designed to protect the HUGE investment of time and money in a patrol dog, as well as the human handler he is in front of.

And those same dogs would likely still be protected by anti-cruelty and basic care statutes that apply to every other dog when they are not working.

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby mnp13 » July 24th, 2009, 11:46 pm

amazincc wrote:K-9 four-legged "officers" have a certain protection/legal rights under the law, correct?

If you harm a police dog the rules change.
Don't get me wrong... I applaud that. :)

In New York, it's a separate charge - "harming a police animal"
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17232
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby amazincc » July 24th, 2009, 11:47 pm

So, when they are off-duty they are just "regular" property, and under the law protected as such? Or does it carry over?
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby DemoDick » July 24th, 2009, 11:52 pm

amazincc wrote:So, when they are off-duty they are just "regular" property, and under the law protected as such? Or does it carry over?


I would think that it would not carry over, as how can someone be reasonably expected to know that they are dealing with a police dog when the handler is out of uniform and the dog isn't being utilized in a work environment? Of course, I could be wrong on this.

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby Malli » July 25th, 2009, 12:29 am

Property.

hypothetically, when my dog gets hit by a car and requires $1000's of dollars in care, and I think the most humane option is to euthanize him, or, I don't have $1000's to fix him, I want to be able to end it for him. Plain and simple.

However, I am frustrated by the lack of power ownership gives the law in cruelty cases - this needs to be further worked on.
I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day, tomorrow doesn't look good either.
_______________________________________
"You didn't know of the magical powers of the break stick? It's up there with genies and Harry Potter as far as magic levels go." SisMorphine 01/07/07
User avatar
Malli
E-I-E-I-O!
 
Posts: 6341
Location: CANADA EH?

Postby amazincc » July 25th, 2009, 12:41 am

Malli wrote:Property.

hypothetically, when my dog gets hit by a car and requires $1000's of dollars in care, and I think the most humane option is to euthanize him, or, I don't have $1000's to fix him, I want to be able to end it for him. Plain and simple.



Hypothetically that would/should also be covered under "legal guardianship." To make decisions for someone who isn't capable him-/herself. At least that's the case for people.
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby LMM » July 25th, 2009, 7:37 am

I'm going to have to go with property but I will admit, the word rubs me wrong. Having said that, I don't think guardian is a correct word either.

I think it all sticks in my craw so much because in most cases the anti-cruelty laws don't do much to deter, well, cruelty. And as we witness every day, basic care needs are being neglected willy nilly all over the place. Even in the case of police dogs.

Obviously, something needs to change in a big way.
User avatar
LMM
I'll Kick Your Ass
 
Posts: 1834
Location: Bitch please....

Next

Return to Pit Bull Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users