What do you think about animals having the right to sue their owners?

Interesting feedback from pet owners. Check them out!
        
Whoever Thought This up Should be in a Mental Institution
Lucy Wrote, "I never heard of anything more STUPID. Whoever thought this one up should be put in an mental institution period."

Yes, they should be able to sue!
Leana45 wrote, "If a person dumps out a pet for some one else to care for, yes the animal should be able to sue for their up keep for the rest of their lives."
        
Craziest $h*
Gone Broke wrote, "Well, then I should be able to sue my cat for vet bills & room/board……! Craziest $h** I've ever heard of…..!

Bad Poll Choices
Petra wrote, "Seriously, take a look at the answers: I think it is a ploy for lawyers to make more money I think it is a great idea and they should be able to sue I think it is another ridiculous idea of President Obama's Administration Animals should not be allowed to sue and whoever came up with the idea is stupid First: I don't think politics have a place in this, second: how about an answer that is less radical than any of the above? Why does someone who comes up with this idea have to be stupid? And on the other hand: why does this have to be a 'great' idea? I'd pick a more sophisticated and education answer if there'd been one."

Shame on Your for giving this space on your site
J wrote, "PS Shame on you for even giving this space on your site. I am canceling my subscription post-haste. This should be labeled spam and a waste of time for anyone to even bother to read. Where is your common sense?"

OH Please – Get a life!
Marion wrote, "OH PLEASE !!!! GET A LIFE… I AM A PET OWENER AND LOVE AND CHERISH MY 2 SHET-ZUE`S. BUT I BELEIVE AN ADVOCATE SHOULD SUE ON THE PETS BEHALF FOR ANY NEGLECT OR ABUSE THAT WAS INFLECTED. 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."
        
Radical Left Wing Goof Balls
Clrae wrote, "JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE RADICAL LEFT WING PEOPLE THAT OBAMA HAS APPOINTED. NO ONE CHECKED THIS GUYS BACKGROUND, THE SAME FOR ALL THE OTHER CZARS THAT OBAMA APPOINTED. WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL OF THEM."

What's Next?
Sheila wrote, "WOW What next? I keep saying that nothing will surprise me, but somehow people just keep coming up with crazy ideas. God must be looking down on his creations and thinking, what is happening to my people."

Unenforceable?
Ronit – wrote "I agree with Petra. The choices given don't really reflect my true opinion on this matter. I would have preferred a choice like: Such a law is unenforceable and therefore not practical. If such a law were in place I don't think there'd be any safe haven for animals. Keep in mind that not only individual owners could be sued under such a law. Vets, shelters who are overworked and underfunded, petshop owners, etc. could all be potential defendants. In the end we may have less stays–but for the wrong reasons."
        

Good Grief
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."
        
YES!
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!!!"        

Unreal
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."
        

Legal Advocate is needed
Mary wrote, "Yes – obviously pets don't think on this abstract level, but if a pet owner is found to be negligent, then an legal advocate for the pet should be appointed and should be allowed to sue the owner on behalf of the pet in order to remove the poor animal from the home and to provide adequate funds for lifetime shelter, basic necessities and health care. Unfortunately, in many states pets are view as property and have few rights. Pets should be viewed and treated much the same as family members, and pet families should accept this responsibility."        

Some Sort of Recourse is Needed
Barb wrote, "I think the poor animals should have some kind of recourse for abuse and being tied up day and night in a hot yard with no water or food, and dogs made to fight, and just thrown out on the road. Sueing is very mild in deed."        

What Could they Sue for?
Dave wrote, "Of course animals are incapable of suing. But responsible, caring persons should be able to sue on their behalf. But what could they sue for? Damages? Libel? Any awards won by suing would have to be given to the person caring for the animal and that would enrich the person and not necessarily the animal. I think that the civil penalties that are already in place should be more strictly enforced and possibly expanded."
        
Good Grief
Bill wrote, "Ridiculous: Better to give more teeth to animal abuse laws and stiffer penalties to animal abusers."
        
Beyond Stupid
Jooniper wrote, "This is beyond stupid. How can an animal articulate that it wants to sue? How can it go and fill out paperwork? Testify during depositions? This is truly the most foolish thing I've seen. This is just another very human way to use animals to get attention for their own cause. Cripes, my cat uses the same meow when she wants dry food, or canned food, or a treat, would that meow also be her way of saying she's filing a lawsuit? Good Lord, lets deal with actual issues, not stupidity.
        
Frivolous
J.S. wrote, "This is exactly why our country is in the situation it is in today. Frivolous law suits that sue doctors cause most GYN's to pack up shop. Now we're going to go after pet owners and while we're at it, Vets that can't cure the animal. What is the driving force behind this? How many people will now not adopt a pet for fear of someone claiming they did not or may not take proper care of an animal? How many animals will be put to death or abandoned because the owners are afraid of a law suit? How many more animals will suffer because of this? It is absolutely ludicrous to think that any adult could see a benefit from such outlandish foolishness. I can see overburdened animal shelters that can hardly exist on what little funding they have overwhelmed with pets being dropped off at the doorstep, just to be euthanized because of pet-owners fear and some irresponsible law-makers decision. Yes, those that abuse animals should be punished, but sued? We already have laws for this."        

How would this Affect Adoption?
Jacque wrote, "If animals were allowed to sue, people would be much more reluctant to adopt and many more would end up homeless and eventually euthanized. Just look at how many people are reluctant to marry because of the legal implications these days."        

Agency Should Be Able to Sue
Shelli wrote, "I think that organizations such as ASPCA 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?"        

        

number-of-posts0 paws up