What do you think about animals having the right to sue their owners?
By: Petplace Staff
Read By: Pet Lovers
Tatjana wrote, "Good Grief! A pet suing their owner! What next? God has given us human beings dominion over the animals he created. They are meant for our use but not our abuse. We are stewards of all God has given us. We are told " A righteous man (or woman) regards (or cares about) the life of his beast. Though we should treat our animals humanely, ultimately we do not answer to them nor even to a human agency (though they have their place) but to God for their care."
No Standing to Sue
Ariel & Pucks mom wrote, "Under common law animals are chattel or property and, therefore, have no standing to sue. Persons alleged to have abused an animal should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If lawfully found guilty, they should receive the maximum punishment or fine allowed. It is not a federal matter unless taking the animals across state-lines is involved or there is a conspiracy, such as dog-fighting, that can be prosecuted under RICO. In many states, abuse is statutorily defined and is generally a civil matter. Fines rather jail time will most likely be the penalty."
Dogs are Not Humans
Ruby wrote, "These are the issues that are being pushed by HSUS animal right activists and peta radicals. Dogs are not humans. They should never be granted human rights. When your dog catches and kills a rabbit or ground hog are we to expect they understand they murdered that creature?? So now they are a felon due to murder?? What about you when you feel your dog is suffering and in pain near death, you have the dog put down...are you now to be charged with murder?? This is not the real world now, but wait until HSUS and peta get done with all of us.
Let Abusers Pay
Lizette wrote, "Stiffer penalties for abusers is a much better idea, and please leave politics out of the pet world. It creates an environment where uninformed people rant and rave about things that have absolutely nothing to do with our pets. Let abusers pay for the care of the animals that they abused through the courts."
Agency Should Be Able to Sue
Diane wrote, "I agree with Shelly that organizations such as ASPACA or an agency/person who has rescued the animal should be able to sue. We have laws protecting animals giving them rights. Why shouldn't the organization/person now caring for the animal have the right to sue for coverage of the medical bills and supplies needed to get the animal healthy again? I also agree with Marion: "...FOR THE DURATION OF THE PETS LIFE. TO SEE THAT THEY LIVE OUT THE REST OF THEIR DAYS ON CLOUD NINE... YOU HURT ME MY ADVOCATE WOULD SUE YOU ON MY BEHALF FOR WHATEVER AND HOWEVER LONG". I work for lawyers who are out to make money. There may be animal caring lawyers who would "volunteer" their time to put down a criminal in defense of an innocent animal. People get fined for abuse - but it's not being sued,. If they were sued for the sake of paying for the animal's care for the rest of its life, that would be GREAT!! It might make people think twice the next time they have a need to act out in violence by abusing an animal..."
Has the World Gone Mad?
Miranda wrote, "LMAO! "The case of Mr. Snuggles VS The Petersons" This has got to be the most ridiculous, fool-headed idea I've ever heard of. True, that people who mistreat and neglect their animals should be brought to justice, but not like that. Stricter animal abuse laws, and the requirement that the offending party pay for the veterinary care needed to help the animal are one thing; but what exactly are we going to accomplish by giving animals the right to sue their owners? We may as well put out legislation that allows cats, dogs, small animals, birds, and livestock the right to vote while we're at it. Why don't we take it a step further and start arresting strays and bringing them up on "disturbing the peace" charges? We could lock them in detention centers for a pre-determined amount of time based on the type and severity of their crimes, and then release them for good behaviour. Has the world gone COMPLETELY mad?"
How About Foster Care?
Nancy wrote, "I think that an abused animal should be taken away from its owner and placed in foster care. The owner should have to pay the upkeep of this animal based on the annual amount needed/year X the approximate years it has left to live plus all bills incurred because of his abuse."
Merilyn wrote, "Under certain circumstances YES. Such as cruelty, abuse, starvation, not taking them to the vet when needed. There should be limitations of course so it does not get out of hand. Some people would forego owning animals if they are the type to abuse and know they could be sued. It would make people more conscious of the care their pets need. For people who cannot afford certain types of care there are organizations that will help out. Even food banks has pet food. Here is hoping an end to all cruelty, human and animal."
What a Slur!
Unhappy Camper wrote, "What a slur on Obama and his administration!"
When an Animal can Call a Lawyer
Mhck52 wrote, "When an animal can call a lawyer and ask that a lawsuit be filed, sure. This makes as much sense as the other theory about someone marrying their pet dog or cat. How does the animal sign the license and how do you get a birth certificate?"
People that sure are...
Marsha wrote, "I think most of the people that sue ARE animals!!!"
Abbie wrote, "I think that the actual idea of an animal suing it's owner is unreal. YET what's more unreal is the way some people treat animals! The manner in which these animals are raised, trained, and treated is absolutely ABSURD. Maybe it's what this world needs to come to- maybe then people will think twice before they abuse or neglect man's best friend."