Animal Cruelty Laws Have No Teeth

Animal Cruelty Laws Have No Teeth

Although not a lawyer, I am the founding director of Spirit Animal Sanctuary, so I have some knowledge regarding animal abuse cases. The main problem that our judicial system runs into are, dogs are considered property.

Not living, breathing and feeling creatures of God. In the eyes of the law, dogs are the same as any other purchased merchandise. So unless we change an animals distinction at the state and federal levels, the laws will always be lacking real teeth for prosecution. Regardless of how horrific the animal abuse crimes committed may be.

I for one, unfortunately do not see these laws changing anytime soon. To do so would open up a Pandora’s box of civil litigation for veterinarians, veterinary clinics, pet product manufacturers, pet food manufacturers, dog walkers, puppy sitters, boarding facilities , groomers everybody and anybody involved in the pet service or product field. The additional liability and malpractice premiums that the respected industries would be required to carry, would put all but the most basic of services out of reach for a certain percentage of the pet public.

You may say this is a good thing. But even in the best of economic times, enacting such legislation would undoubtedly cause undue financial hardships on all the families employed in these industries. Pets would become luxury items for most people, and sad to say, but maybe this would be the only way to stop the homeless pet population.

Now maybe someone much smarter than me, can figure out a way to accomplish one without the other.

THE SPIRIT DOG

Alan Papszycki

COPYRIGHT©2008 A.S.PAPSZYCKI

6 Responses

  1. The only problem i see with animal abuse laws is they are a joke when it comes to protecting our animals.
    We as a nation need to accept animals as a breathing, living beings, not a piece of property to abuse, torture or kill. Our animal abuse laws should be as strick as the abuse laws for humans.
    All convicted animal abusers should be made to report they are abusers and never be allowed to own pets or animals, or work in any animal related businesss.
    We need to stop making excuses for why our laws are not working and force our elected representives to make better laws that are enforced.

  2. I absolutely believe that people should have more responsibility when it comes to animal cruely laws.

  3. Only in rare instances should anybody keep their trap shut. Even the comments I receive from ( I’m going to use your great analogy here, jumped-up monkeys) calling me an asshole, I welcome and I leave for all to see.

    The civil lit thing is in reference to contaminated feeds, but it would be nice to sue on grounds of useless shit as fillers.

  4. I’d like that too. And call me prejudiced against many humans, but it would be no bad thing if pet owning did become a “luxury” – people don’t abuse luxuries, starve them, or abandon them.

    I could rant on, but I’m sure you know as well as me the evil crap us jumped-up monkeys can do to our fellow creatures.

    One thing I’m curious about – when you mention the possibilities of civil lit. against pet food manufacturers, are you thinking in the recent cases of contaminated food, or in the more general sense of the amount of utter crud that’s in some commercial pet foods?

    BTW sorry for the comment storm here – I just found your blog and well, can’t keep my trap shut sometimes!

  5. Thank you Stefani

    Although I for one, would love to see animal professionals held financially accountable in the form of higher judgments against them. Unfortunately I can’t see this happening any time soon.

    The only problem I can see with a $25,000 cap on judgments, is that it may be to small of an amount to peak the interest of some attorneys.

    Thank you again for bringing some interesting reading to my attention.

    And even now it’s been a while, I’m so sorry about Toonces.

    Alan

  6. You are incorrect when you say:

    “To do so would open up a Pandora’s box of civil litigation for veterinarians, veterinary clinics . . . The additional liability and malpractice premiums that the respected industries would be required to carry, would put all but the most basic of services out of reach for a certain percentage of the pet public.”

    This is not true.

    Currently, veterinarians carry liability insurance that costs approximately $300 a year for a $1 million policy.

    An insurance company did a statistical analysis of what would happen if non-economic damages were allowed for our pets, but capped at a maximum of $25,000. The results were published in DVM magazine. They concluded that if this level of recovery were allowed premiums would rise $212 per vet. Dividing this by the number of clients, they concluded that if the cost was passed on, it would cost pet only 13 cents a year.

    I don’t know about you, but since my cat was given a massive insulin overdose by his vet, I can tell you: I would be more than happy to pay an extra 13 cents a year to establish my standing to sue for veterinary malpractice. Currently, we are limited to “market value” typically when we are limited to economic damages. Any pet owner will tell you that’s not a reasonable valuation of their pets.

    Here are some links to back up what I am saying:’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: