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

This is where to talk about Pit Bulls!

Postby TheRedQueen » July 25th, 2009, 9:29 am

LMM wrote: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.


I'm with you Jenn...exactly what I'd say too. I don't like the word property...but I'm not their guardian either. ;) The word property seems too callous for a living being.

And just in case anyone is interested...in the matter of Assistance dogs (since police dogs were brought up)...they are considered "Adaptive Devices" under the law (yeah, Sawyer is a such a DEVICE). They are property, just like a wheelchair or hearing aid...and have no rights under the law. The human partner has the rights...not the dog.
"I don't have any idea if my dogs respect me or not, but they're greedy and I have their stuff." -- Patty Ruzzo

"Dogs don't want to control people. They want to control their own lives." --John Bradshaw
User avatar
TheRedQueen
I thought I lost my Wiener... but then I found him.
 
Posts: 7184
Location: Maryland

Postby LMM » July 25th, 2009, 9:57 am

See Erin, that's what I am talking about. This is a living, breathing being we are talking about and calling said being a "device". I know this is a hard topic and can get highly emotional for some (yes, me for instance) but property just seems so devoid of feeling. I don't know the right answer other than I don't agree with guardian either.
User avatar
LMM
I'll Kick Your Ass
 
Posts: 1834
Location: Bitch please....

Postby TinaMartin » July 25th, 2009, 10:19 am

Both Charles and I consider Gator and Sorsha property. I wish there was more in the line of emotional in the laws to account for when an animal is miss-treated. Guardian rubs me the wrong way on so many levels.
Not only am I a member of the Michelle says my dog is fat club I'm the president!
I can Alpha Roll hair!
User avatar
TinaMartin
The Hair Whisperer
 
Posts: 1240
Location: Rochester NY

Postby Jackuul » August 1st, 2009, 9:23 pm

Mmm. In my perfect little dreamworld animals would be "Living Property" and everything else "Property". But they would still be a type of property - only that if they are found mistreated the punishments are harsher, considering. Additionally Living Property would be split into Domestic and Livestock, hence governed by differing rules as livestock usually equals animals bred for human consumption. So killing livestock for food would be legal, while killing domestic animals would not - and in either case if someone that is not the owner and has no permission kills the animal (drunk d-bags shooting cows or a--hole neighbors shooting dogs) penalties would be a lot steeper.

But that would be too logical for the government.
http://jackuul.com/blog/goodnight-sweet ... 2004-2009/ My Spot.
http://arachnists.com my spider obsession.
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89...
User avatar
Jackuul
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 56

Postby furever_pit » August 2nd, 2009, 2:37 pm

Jackuul wrote:Mmm. In my perfect little dreamworld animals would be "Living Property" and everything else "Property". But they would still be a type of property - only that if they are found mistreated the punishments are harsher, considering. Additionally Living Property would be split into Domestic and Livestock, hence governed by differing rules as livestock usually equals animals bred for human consumption. So killing livestock for food would be legal, while killing domestic animals would not - and in either case if someone that is not the owner and has no permission kills the animal (drunk d-bags shooting cows or a--hole neighbors shooting dogs) penalties would be a lot steeper.

But that would be too logical for the government.


I really like this suggestion. I had not thought of that.
That being said, my animals are my property. I refuse to refer to myself as a "guardian". But I think the above mentioned "living property" is a good compromise.

As far as the amount of abuse and neglect that goes on...don't you think that a good part of that is a matter of a lack of education? I mean, when kids grow up seeing their dogs kept in kennels or on chains 24/7 and only being fed when their parents remember to, how are they supposed to know any better? How are kids who see their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, etc fighting their dogs supposed to know that that is wrong? I would LOVE to see some kind of educational system put into place...kind of like D.A.R.E. or something where someone comes into the schools and talks to the kids about how to properly care for an animal. I think if more people saw how amazing the bond between a person and their can be and how much fun it is to work together that we would see a big change in the way many animals are treated. JM2C.

I know that, for me, the fact that my elementary school celebrated the Day of St. Francis and let every student bring their pets into school to be blessed made a big impact on me. It was a fun and very positive experience for me.
User avatar
furever_pit
Supremely Bully
 
Posts: 1138
Location: NC

Postby Jackuul » August 2nd, 2009, 2:44 pm

Almost every domestic animal sold at pet stores is neglected thanks to the pet stores misinformation. Dogs being one - arachnids being the other. Someone tried to sell me a hamster ball for my spider.
http://jackuul.com/blog/goodnight-sweet ... 2004-2009/ My Spot.
http://arachnists.com my spider obsession.
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89...
User avatar
Jackuul
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 56

Postby Nizmo357 » August 11th, 2009, 11:26 am

I believe our dogs and other animals are our property. the second we forget that the vets aren't going to let us crop ears, or dock tails. which banfield has already stopped doing. we pay for them to eat, sleep, and just be all around taken care of. if they could take care f themselves there might be a different answer.
Nizmo357
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 26

Postby furever_pit » August 11th, 2009, 12:52 pm

Nizmo357 wrote:I believe our dogs and other animals are our property. the second we forget that the vets aren't going to let us crop ears, or dock tails. which banfield has already stopped doing. we pay for them to eat, sleep, and just be all around taken care of. if they could take care f themselves there might be a different answer.


Not only has Banfield stopped, but the AVMA's public position at this point is against cropping and docking. The one local vet I know who actually did a good job cropping ears won't do it anymore because of the statement that the AVMA sent out. :rolleyes2:
User avatar
furever_pit
Supremely Bully
 
Posts: 1138
Location: NC

Postby pitbullmamaliz » August 11th, 2009, 1:01 pm

Nizmo357 wrote:we pay for them to eat, sleep, and just be all around taken care of. if they could take care f themselves there might be a different answer.


Alright, I'll play devil's advocate here (though for the record I believe they are our property). If we take care of something that is incapable of taking care of itself, then does that mean children or invalids are property as well?
"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 mnp13 » August 11th, 2009, 3:57 pm

pitbullmamaliz wrote:If we take care of something that is incapable of taking care of itself, then does that mean children or invalids are property as well?


No, because though their care may end up being perminant, they also have some automony. In the case of a child, you can assume that they eventually will be out on their own. In the case of an invalid they are or were able to take care of themselves and may be able to in the future. I think people have basic human rights. Animals have the right to proper and safe care and housing but not other rights.

Frankly, I find the laws in other countries that are against spay and neuter etc, to be a little "out there." Dogs don't have a "right" to reproduce. :rolleyes2:
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: 17234
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby Nizmo357 » August 11th, 2009, 4:21 pm

pitbullmamaliz wrote:
Nizmo357 wrote:we pay for them to eat, sleep, and just be all around taken care of. if they could take care f themselves there might be a different answer.


Alright, I'll play devil's advocate here (though for the record I believe they are our property). If we take care of something that is incapable of taking care of itself, then does that mean children or invalids are property as well?


animals cant talk for therm selves and cant express what they need. so they will forever NEED us. kids grow up and can take care of themselves if they have to at an early age. they dont need us to do fill up a water dish for them for there entire life.

my next dog i was planning on getting in a couple years was going to be a doberman, but i WILL NOT get one if i cannot crop its ears. i think there are many breeds that will suffer greatly if ear cropping and tail docking is illegal. not to mention the scum bags that will do it them selves. people already crop dogs ears by themselves. i can only imagine how many more people will begin doing it themselves also.
Nizmo357
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 26

Previous

Return to Pit Bull Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron