A serious lack of common sense is occurring in animal circles these days. It’s not just people who treat their pets like Air Jordan 20s children (they’re kind of cute) or those who respond to animal tragedies with more passion than human ones.
I speak of the eager prosecution of so called animal cruelty cases. A standard of animal care is being set so high that people must fear owning a pet in case they can’t stand up to the rigorous rules required.
I’m going out on a limb to make a confession. I did not regularly brush my little schnauzer’s teeth. It was hard to keep that little rubber finger brush in his mouth and, besides, it was kind of a slimy, gross job. On top of that, I was already supervising the tooth care of three humans so sometimes the non human got away without a regular tooth brushing.
That may be why our little dog eventually had to have 25 teeth pulled or maybe it was due to the human food I gave him on occasion as a treat. Please don’t put me in irons. I just couldn’t resist those pleading eyes.
He died a few years ago at a fairly ripe old age or I wouldn’t be Air Jordan 14s admitting to these terrible acts of neglect. I don’t think there are retroactive criminal charges for dog care, although who knows. Maybe the SPCA constable will be arriving at The Daily News office later today to arrest me.
I probably shouldn’t admit either that our little guy had an eye infection that just wouldn’t clear up before he died. I did, however, seek regular veterinary advice, which I followed faithfully, so maybe the judge will take that into consideration.
I’ll just have to hope I get one with common sense because there’s a smidge of that lacking on the provincial court bench too.
Veterinary care is the key to avoiding a cruelty charge. I was lucky. I had the financial capabilities to pay the $2,000 or whatever it was for the teeth removal and the $50 for eye cream and the countless other bills associated with owning a pet.
People without extra money run the risk of finding the long arm of the law stretching into their home.
I am an animal lover. Aside from rogue dogs that run snarling out at me those ones I temporarily fantasize about shooting in the head I like people’s pets. If I am to be scrupulously honest, I am not terrifically fond of cats and I cannot bring myself to touch a rodent. But I feel as sad as the most ardent animal supporter to see any creature suffering.
I do not, however, support the Kamloops SPCA’s penchant for bringing charges Air Jordan 12s willy nilly against everyone who does not measure up to their officers’ expectations for animal care. I have also been aghast at the overzealous prosecution of cases that would have been far better handled with a little understanding of the owner’s predicament.
People who have a passion for animals that outweighs their passion for humans can go too far in their defence of the pets. Rather than looking at the opportunity for education or even assistance to the pet owner, they choose the route of prosecution.
Kamloops resident Linda Watt was convicted this week of neglecting an animal because she didn’t seek proper care for her dog and a bunch of cats. Linda has a tough life. She has her problems and despite the fact that she actually loves animals, she was not the ideal pet owner. But as is the case in many instances of animal cruelty cases, her pets lived in about the same condition that she did.
The difference is her medical care is free and she had to pay for theirs, which she could Nike LeBron 11 not do. As a result, she was charged and convicted despite there being no evidence of any intentional cruelty on her part.
When people are not malicious in their treatment of animals a trip to the courtroom and Air Jordan 6s a financial penalty seems more to be a harassment of the poor than a reasonable way to deal with these issues. It’s also harsh to forbid them from owning animals for several years. Believe it or not, these people often love animals as much as the prosecutor on the case.
It would be more sensible and fruitful to offer education to people who are overwhelmed by life circumstances and are unable to care for their pets properly. Rather than prosecute, the SPCA, which ends up paying for the vet care anyway, may want to consider a special fund when purposeful cruelty has not occurred.
Adding vet care costs to the penalty against people who didn’t have the means in the first place to pay for the animal’s medical care is crushing.
There is no benefit to persecuting people like the woman who couldn’t bring herself to put down her old cat or Linda Watt who takes in stray animals even when she cannot afford to house them.
These relentless prosecutions also send the message that only wealthy people are allowed to have pets.
The standards of animal care cannot be set by people who love animals so passionately that they have no compassion or understanding of the humans who own them.
Leave A Response