Laws v. animal cruelty hurt pets Share This:





My objection: if you impose fines, a public and social stigma, the cost of car repairs, the unpleasantness of dealing with police, the possibility of legal consequences in the future, etc. etc. on pet owners, then far fewer people will be willing to assume the burden of adopting an animal. You are actively discouraging pet ownership. And you are doing so without even considering non-state options -- e.g. asking a store to page the owner of a vehicle "license plate #xxxx" in which a dog seems to be in distress. In my area, most stores would be quite willing to do this. After all, most people who travel with their dogs and leave them in sealed vehicles are not sadistic pet abusers; they are thoughtless. They don't deserve to be turned in to the cops; they don't deserve to spend hundreds of dollars to replace a glass window -- money they may have to take away from spending on their children..



In short, the unintended consequences of trying to protect animals will result in many more pets being abandoned and becoming unadoptable. Especially now, when people are cutting back on all discretionary spending, it is important to lower the barriers -- financial and otherwise -- for people to adopt from shelters.



Today's rant is occasioned by a similarly stupid, stupid policy discussed in The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said it wanted to remind pet owners of their responsibilities under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act. The 26 page document on cat welfare begins with a warning to owners: "It is your responsibility to read the complete Code of Practice to fully understand your cat's welfare needs and what the law requires you to do."



The article continues...



"Cats need opportunities to climb and jump, such as a simple 'platform' type bed or safe access to shelves and the tops of cupboards. "Cats that are not very tame, such as some farm cats, may prefer to live outdoors in more basic shelter but you still need to look after them." The guidelines warn owners they could face prosecution for cruelty for leaving animals in hot cars.



Frankly, if I were forced to live up to the standards of the Code, which include providing a sufficient number of toys to cats, then I would consider taking 3 of the 5 cats we've adopted to the shelter tomorrow. I would not allow an agent of the state into my house to determine whether I have individual bowls for each cat (I don't.) I would not leave myself open to being turned in for "animal cruelty" by a neighbor who has a grudge. And yet the cats I would (theoretically) abandon are healthy and well-fed; they have a farm to roam and regular check-ups at the vet. They each have a place in the house where they curl up and sleep warmly in winter and Brad's lap becomes Grand Central station whenever he sits down.



This British law is a form of animal abuse/cruelty in-and-of-itself because it severely penalizes people who treat their pets well but treat them like animals, not children. The law is a forumula for discouraging people from adopting that cute kitten or that heartbreaker of a puppy. When you lift the animal up, look into its eyes and fall in love, you are already balancing in your mind whether you can afford 12 years of food, vet bills, and assorted expenses. Now you have to factor in possible prosecution by the law if you fail to sufficiently entertain your pet. Of course, the law will say -- "we will only pursue cases that actually constitute clear abuse." Uh-huh. Like any government agency today will restrain itself collecting any fines it can from any person it can pickpocket. Back to category overview Back to news overview Older News Newer News



The article continues...Frankly, if I were forced to live up to the standards of the Code, which include providing a sufficient number of toys to cats, then I would consider taking 3 of the 5 cats we've adopted to the shelter tomorrow. I wouldallow an agent of the state into my house to determine whether I have individual bowls for each cat (I don't.) I would not leave myself open to being turned in for "animal cruelty" by a neighbor who has a grudge. And yet the cats I would (theoretically) abandon are healthy and well-fed; they have a farm to roam and regular check-ups at the vet. They each have a place in the house where they curl up and sleep warmly in winter and Brad's lap becomes Grand Central station whenever he sits down.This British law is a form of animal abuse/cruelty in-and-of-itself because it severely penalizes people who treat their pets well but treat them like animals, not children. The law is a forumula for discouraging people from adopting that cute kitten or that heartbreaker of a puppy. When you lift the animal up, look into its eyes and fall in love, you are already balancing in your mind whether you can afford 12 years of food, vet bills, and assorted expenses. Now you have to factor in possible prosecution by the law if you fail to sufficiently entertain your pet. Of course, the law will say -- "we will only pursue cases that actually constitute clear abuse." Uh-huh. Like any government agency today will restrain itself collecting any fines it can from any person it can pickpocket. Printer Friendly Wendy McElroy - Wednesday 05 November 2008 - 21:21:13 - Permalink It will not surprise regular readers to hear that Brad and I are animal lovers who take in rescue dogs and cats from our local shelter, which we also support through donations of pet food. As a "no kill" shelter, it is so successful at placing pets that other shelters -- including some outside of Ontario -- send animals they cannot place and do not wish to 'put down'. No one wants to kill a healthy, affectionate dog or cat. And, so, it was with real reluctance that I directed a critical vent at the shelter (see post of Nov. 25, 2007 ) because one of its founders and most prominent voices advocated calling the police whenever you see an animal in a car with windows rolled up. She explained that the police can break the window with legal impunity and impose sanctions on the pet owner.My objection: if you impose fines, a public and social stigma, the cost of car repairs, the unpleasantness of dealing with police, the possibility of legal consequences in the future, etc. etc. on pet owners, then far fewer people will be willing to assume the burden of adopting an animal. You are actively discouraging pet ownership. And you are doing so without even considering non-state options -- e.g. asking a store to page the owner of a vehicle "license plate #xxxx" in which a dog seems to be in distress. In my area, most stores would be quite willing to do this. After all, most people who travel with their dogs and leave them in sealed vehicles are not sadistic pet abusers; they are thoughtless. They don't deserve to be turned in to the cops; they don't deserve to spend hundreds of dollars to replace a glass window -- money they may have to take away from spending on their children..In short, the unintended consequences of trying to protect animals will result in many more pets being abandoned and becoming unadoptable. Especially now, when people are cutting back on all discretionary spending, it is important to lower the barriers -- financial and otherwise -- for people to adopt from shelters.Today's rant is occasioned by a similarly stupid, stupid policy discussed in an article in yesterday's BBC News that is entitled "Pet owners face code of practice."