UK Pet owners face code of practice

[belfastuniguy 18]

Pet owners face code of practice

Cats are solitary creatures but need entertainment, the government says

Cat and dog owners are to be told to provide "entertainment" and "mental stimulation" for their pets under new government advice.

The code of practice also includes advice on diet and providing "somewhere suitable to go to the toilet".

It says owners should watch for signs of stress and advises on introducing cats to dogs without the fur flying.

Owners will not be fined for breaking the rules but failure to comply may be used in animal cruelty prosecutions.

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."

Hot car warning

The document, which will be published as a leaflet and on Defra's website after an eight week consultation period, says owners must provide their pets with a "suitable place to live" including "somewhere suitable to go to the toilet". It also advises providing a separate litter tray for each cat.

This means no one will be able to claim ignorance as an excuse for mistreating any animal Hilary Benn Environment secretary

And it adds: "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.

And they give a detailed description of what constitutes normal behaviour - such as scratching and clawing - and tells owners to "watch your cat closely for signs of stress or changes in behaviour".

"Dogs should be introduced to cats very carefully; the dog should be held safely on a lead at first so that it cannot chase the cat," it adds.

On diet, it advises fresh food every day but warns "an obese cat is an unhealthy cat" adding "it is a good idea in a 'greedy' cat to have the measured food divided up into a number of meals per day".

Play advice

And it tells owners to provide suitable toys and "entertainment" for their cats.

"You should ensure that your cat has enough mental stimulation for you and from its environment to avoid boredom and frustration.

"It is your responsibility to provide opportunities for your cat to satisfy all of its behavioural needs, such as play and companionship."

But, the guide adds, cats are solitary creatures and the most common cause of stress is "coming into close contact with other cats they do not like".

Dog owners, by contrast, are given detailed instructions on ensuring their pets do not become lonely or isolated as "dogs are a social species and need the company of people, dogs or other animals".

There are similar guidelines for horse owners under the proposals, which are subject to an eight week consultation period. The proposed leaflet also includes the relevant sections of animal welfare legislation.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said: "These three new codes of practice will outline the responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act and give practical advice on how to fulfil them.

"This means no one will be able to claim ignorance as an excuse for mistreating any animal."quote>

 

Readers Comments

Do you think issuing a code of practice is a good idea? Here is a selection of your comments.

We'll be given advice on how to breathe next.

Alex, Edinburgh

Unfortunately, the people in need of this advice (and there are many) are probably too stupid to read.

Martin, London

Once again the nanny state strikes, full of useless information and pointing out the blatently obvious, we need to stop wasting money on these useless things and put our taxes to more practical use.

Brian Whittaker, Manchester

Entertain a cat? When you remove the time our cat spends eating, sleeping and having a quick patrol around the garden there are no hours left in a day! That's on top of the fact that any form of disturbance whilst she's doing any of those things would be met with a look of total disgust.

Anyone who really knows how to care for and look after their pet doesn't need this advice. Anyone who does need to read it shouldn't be left alone with the poor animal. It's another waste of money that could have been put into proper animal welfare.

Des Howlett, Reading, England

Yes the code of practice is a good idea and as a dog owner I feel that a dog licence should be re introduced and it should be manditory to have i.d. on the dog i.e. a tag on the collar and/or chipped, also dogs must be kept on leads in public places and £2000 fine for dog fouling in public places.

Andy, Devon

Yes it is good to have these quidelines. People need to remember ALL animals are dumb therefore unable to communicate their needs: unlike their human counterparts

Marie Harvey , leicester

Good idea. For far too long, pets have been purchased and then neglected and people have been able to make excuses. They say ignorance is bliss - well not any more sunshine!

Amanda Caine, Cambridge

I've provided a small bridge and 'no fishing' sign for my goldfish. Is this sufficient under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act?

Phil, Berkhamsted, UK

It is a superb idea. I live next door to someone whose idea of looking after their cat is feeding it. It is only allowed in doors when they are at home, and as they are out all week, and stay away at weekends, the poor cat is like a stray, fights with my cat, eats her food, and costs me endless vets bills due to the stress it causes my cat. The sad thing is that the neighbours cat is a beautiful cat and deserves a loving home.

Alison Hammond, Mellis, Eye, Suffolk

This is the ultimate in interfering government! What next - feline rights? They should have better things to do with their time and our money than this.

Jennifer Hyde, Huntingdon

Next Gordon and his nanny state loving chums will be telling us how to walk our dogs...oh whoops he already is. Code of conduct on how to drink a cup of tea next Gordon? Has this Government got nothing better to do? Two wars, an economy on the verge of collapse failing health and education yet we all know how to feed our dogs when most people are struggling to feed themselves.

Bruce Mcaaw, Grantham

The world has gone mad or at least this government has. I wonder whether similar guidelines exist on how to treat children and elderly relatives? No doubt these guidelines will now be used by the scaremongers from the RSPCA to harass old ladies for not running around with their dogs every day or not buying their cats expensive toys. I also wonder how much public money has been spent on these guidelines. Whoever came up with this 'brilliant' idea should surely be sent to look for a real job together with the rest of the no doubt large department this person works in. What a shambles! I was entertaining the thought of having a cat as our boys are very fond of the idea. No chance of that now! Too dangerous. Better have another baby.

Mary, Cambridge

For a nation of supposed animal lovers there is a shocking level of animal cruelty in the UK. Anything that may improve this situation is a good idea although it's a shame people have to be encouraged or reminded to provide basic care for their animals.

Lorna, Ayrshire, Scotland

When will the big brother, nanny state ever stop interferring? It won't change peoples hearts or minds, good pet owners don't need the advice and bad owners won't care either way, it's just more namby pampy nonsense to keep the activists happy, who is going to keep checks and who is going to foot the bill?

Julian harris, Salford, UK

I think this is a great idea. Some people need to have these simple things outlined for them in plain English. A lot of people just get pets for the sake of it and often without thinking about the animals needs. It is also about time people were unable to get away with animal neglect. Bringing out these guidelines means they can no longer say they didn't know what they were doing or what they were supposed to be doing. I know it seems a bit of a waste of time but there are so many people out there who really shouldn't be getting away with what they are doing.

lucy, Southampton, UK

Just what we need at the beginning of a recession! An 8 week consultation on "How to pamper your pooch" Glad to see any excess from the government's rescue of the fat cat bankers is being used to teach us how to look after them.

Mike France, York

I worked in a pet shop and it is sometimes shocking how little people know about their pets health and lifestyle needs before they buy them. I think that the government is right to introduce a code of conduct or general information but 26 pages on cat care does seem a little excessive.

Natalie, Brighton, UK

It always pleases me when tougher guidelines and regulations against animal cruelty appear. However, why is there never anything about the most neglected pet in the UK (probably the world) - the rabbit? Most domestic rabbits live in tiny cages, with no exercise, poor hygiene and the wrong sort of food. It is a terrible tragedy that these beautiful animals are so often neglected by owners and the authorities.

Emma, Sussex, Englandquote>

[Aontan 0]

If you're an adult and have to be told how to take care of a pet, quite frankly, you don't deserve one.  

[belfastuniguy 18]

Entertain a cat? When you remove the time our cat spends eating, sleeping and having a quick patrol around the garden there are no hours left in a day! That's on top of the fact that any form of disturbance whilst she's doing any of those things would be met with a look of total disgust.quote>

LOL so true and completely applicable to me

[Duke87 1,070]

Wow. That's insane.

Personally, I think the idea of animals having any "rights" under the law is silly. Yes, it is morally wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals, but I don't think it ought to be a crime. If setting kittens on fire in your backyard is your idea of fun, go nuts. I see no reason why you shouldn't have the right to do that.

At the same time, if you're keeping an animal as a pet, it is of course expected that you have some degree of love for the thing and are taking care of it. But going so far as to have the governement step in and tell people the proper way to do that is too much. That's just sickening nanny statism.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Yes, it is morally wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals, but I don't think it ought to be a crimequote>

I disagree with that completely.

[Boggy1 45]

Duke, you do realise that humans are animals too?

Why shouldn't animals have rights. They have feelings, some are very intelligent. A mentally challenged person may have the intelligence and awareness of a non-human animal. Is it right to set him/her on fire? How'd you like it if I set you on fire? Sometimes civil liberties just go too far. You need some restrictions.

[6underground 11]

Wow. That's insane.

Personally, I think the idea of animals having any "rights" under the law is silly. Yes, it is morally wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals, but I don't think it ought to be a crime. If setting kittens on fire in your backyard is your idea of fun, go nuts. I see no reason why you shouldn't have the right to do that.

At the same time, if you're keeping an animal as a pet, it is of course expected that you have some degree of love for the thing and are taking care of it. But going so far as to have the governement step in and tell people the proper way to do that is too much. That's just sickening nanny statism.quote>

Are you for real?!

It is only our species that makes up morality, virtue, ethics and values. It is also only our species that makes up jealousy, racism, distrust, vengeance and hatred. We consistently judge ourselves based within complex social structures and cultures, we also maim, kill and hurt one another EVERY SINGLE DAY. It is rich therefore for you to advocate that we have "no reason" to be applying any kind of morality on any species, when we've been doing so for our own for thousands of years.

Is it because you percieve them to be non-sentient that is the issue? Because they have the inability to communicate with you in English that is the problem? That their species is so unlike yours that they are undeserving of any right to life? Justice? or Ethical place in Human morality?

Perhaps when you see a bunch of defenceless kittens screaming in pain (which they will do), it'll dawn on you that many animals are very much capable of feeling pain. Hopefully, somewhere in that dark recess of your mind, something called EMPATHY will click into place and you will picture yourself on fire, screaming helplessly as your body goes into shock and eventual death.

All for the entertainment for others.

It is morally reprehensible, and I'm rather sure those who do that, are what psychologists call "worrying cases" as those individuals exhibit all the hallmarks of a disturbed mind who can become very serious criminal offenders.

You may be offended by this supposed "nanny state" legislation, however civil rights are not without RESPONSIBILITY.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Have to agree with 6U here.

Many animals have shown to posses intelligence and feeling. Not the same levels of intelligence are some humans, but nevertheless many still have it. Another important point was raised in relation to those that engage in wanton animal cruelty are more likely to carry that on through life and end in violence against others.

[Geronimo 4]

Hmm, Im not a big fan of regulations and laws in every way, but in some  cases I see the need for it.

For instance "The guidelines warn owners they could face prosecution for cruelty for leaving animals in hot cars".

I cant see no problem with this. Why shouldnt they take the responsibility for their actions?

I hope most pet owners have at least the most basic knowledge on their pets needs and that most pet owners owns a pet cause they love animals. That`s obvious, or what?

Originally posted by: Duke87 Wow. That's insane.

Personally, I think the idea of animals having any "rights" under the law is silly. Yes, it is morally wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals, but I don't think it ought to be a crime. If setting kittens on fire in your backyard is your idea of fun, go nuts. I see no reason why you shouldn't have the right to do that.

At the same time, if you're keeping an animal as a pet, it is of course expected that you have some degree of love for the thing and are taking care of it. But going so far as to have the governement step in and tell people the proper way to do that is too much. That's just sickening nanny statism.quote>

 

First, why shouldnt animals have right to protection from humans? When human take animals in custody, of course they should have some kind of responsibility to that animal too. Besides nature aint capable of protecting its own interest therefor humans will have to take that responsibility.

Second, if you see no reason why people cant put cats on fire, you should seek serious help.

Im a pet owner myself, quite a nice person I think, peacefull and friendly but if I saw someone firing up a cat or something jesus I dont know what bad would happen.....

No offend or nothing, but I think this is why those laws are very very very needed. People cant control themselves, therefor sad to say some law has to do it for them. 

Better with "sickening nanny statism" than sick  people doing sick things to animals...

[hamsterTK 93]

Someone who has fun setting kittens on fire would most likely be a dangerous psychopath that is a threat to human society as well.

wow...kittens on fire...those are three words I never thought I'd use in that combination. nepal onion camera...jinx!

[Muck308 55]

My cat is blind, so does this mean I should get a seeing eye dog for her? gimme a break. Anyone who didn't know they need to provide clean eating, sleeping, and defication ares for their pet is a fool. Also, all of this advice has probably been given out by vets for years.

[belfastuniguy 18]

My cat is blind, so does this mean I should get a seeing eye dog for her? gimme a break. Anyone who didn't know they need to provide clean eating, sleeping, and defication ares for their pet is a fool. Also, all of this advice has probably been given out by vets for years.quote>

Think you've missed the point there....

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Aontan If you're an adult and have to be told how to take care of a pet, quite frankly, you don't deserve one.  quote>

 

Thats what the law should say.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Nice to see the government focussing on the important stuff :/

[6underground 11]

Governments do multitask you know.

[BurroDiablo 222]

A government has only so many hands... when it starts doing stuff like this, maybe its about time it stopped wasting tax payers money   This is common sense to the majority of people who have pets, I don't see why the government needs to remind us... its like running TV ads reminding us how to walk

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Duke, you do realise that humans are animals too? quote>

Yes.

Why shouldn't animals have rights. They have feelings, some are very intelligent. A mentally challenged person may have the intelligence and awareness of a non-human animal. Is it right to set him/her on fire? How'd you like it if I set you on fire? Sometimes civil liberties just go too far. You need some restrictions.quote>

Show me a species other than humans that has developed technology, formed civilized society, set up formal government, created culture and the arts, come up with a form of written communication, started recording their history.... then maybe I'd be willing to accept that they're on the same level as humans.

I'm not going to deny that many animals have evolved a certain degree of emotions and pretty much all animals are capable of feeling pain, but they're still inferior beings to us. To elevate them to our level and give them "rights" is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by: 6underground

Are you for real?! quote>

Do I sound like I'm kidding? I'm completely serious here.

It is only our species that makes up morality, virtue, ethics and values. It is also only our species that makes up jealousy, racism, distrust, vengeance and hatred. We consistently judge ourselves based within complex social structures and cultures, we also maim, kill and hurt one another EVERY SINGLE DAY. It is rich therefore for you to advocate that we have "no reason" to be applying any kind of morality on any species, when we've been doing so for our own for thousands of years. quote>

Morality and legality are two separate things. As I said, I will agree with you completely that it is immoral to abuse animals - but that does not mean it has to be or should be illegal.

Is it because you percieve them to be non-sentient that is the issue? Because they have the inability to communicate with you in English that is the problem? That their species is so unlike yours that they are undeserving of any right to life? Justice? or Ethical place in Human morality?quote>

Scientifically, no animal has anywhere near the degree of "sentience" that humans have.

And no, they don't have a right to life. If they did, we wouldn't be raising livestock and we couldn't be eating meat. And we're omnivorous creatures, so that wouldn't be very healthy.

You complain about people abusing their cats yet I don't hear you complaining when a farmer cuts off a chicken's head to make dinner with it.

Perhaps when you see a bunch of defenceless kittens screaming in pain (which they will do), it'll dawn on you that many animals are very much capable of feeling pain. Hopefully, somewhere in that dark recess of your mind, something called EMPATHY will click into place and you will picture yourself on fire, screaming helplessly as your body goes into shock and eventual death. quote>

I can tell you for a fact that's not the case. No, I wouldn't enjoy it if it was me on fire, but it's not me on fire, so it doesn't bother me. To be honest, the idea of kittens on fire actually seems quite amusing. There's this little theorem of mine that "the entertainment value of seeing something set on fire, blown up, or other wise maimed is directly proportional to its cuteness." Kittens are about as cute as things get. I wouldn't go and do it myself, but if I was watching someone set kittens on fire, I would not be glaring in disgust but rather laughing my ass off.

Does that make me sick and twisted? Perhaps. But I dare you to find a person who's never taken pleasure in the suffering of others. We're nasty creatures like that.

It is morally reprehensible, and I'm rather sure those who do that, are what psychologists call "worrying cases" as those individuals exhibit all the hallmarks of a disturbed mind who can become very serious criminal offenders. quote>

There is a distinct difference, though. Seeing kittens blow up may be easily amusing, but seeing innocent people blow up is not. That is horrible, I won't argue there.

Thing is, a human life has a value to it that the life of a lesser creature does not.

It pains me to see a fellow human needlessly killed. It does not pain me to see an animal killed.

Honestly, I find some people's apparent inability to draw these sort of distinctions between humans and other animals to be troubling.

[Boggy1 45]

And I find your apparent lack of ethics, morality, and empathy very troubling.

[your_adress_here 11]

What I find interesting is how it's perfectly fine to kill certain animals, while it is horrible to kill others.

Does a cat have a greater right to life than a chicken, just because it is cute?

[belfastuniguy 18]

Does a cat have a greater right to life than a chicken, just because it is cute? quote>

Cats aren't breed to eat..Chickens, sheep and cows are and we don't set them on fire to kill them. What an utterly ridiculous connection to make.

[Geronimo 4]

What I find "interesting":

Originally posted by: Duke87 if I was watching someone set kittens on fire, I would not be glaring in disgust but rather laughing my ass off. quote>

   

   very alarming...

Originally posted by: your_adress_hereDoes a cat have a greater right to life than a chicken, just because it is cute? quote>

This is kinda off topic, but if you ask me, no. Cute or not, both have the same right to life as the other. Maybe some even find a chicken cute? 

Whoever has the most rights I dont care but I do care about animals rights as part of the nature, yes. 

Seen in perspective people in most parts of the world dont eat cats but sure do eat a lot of chicken, its quite obvious more chikens are killed than cats. Unfortunately for the chicken thats how the food-chain works, but it doesnt mean a chicken shouldnt have some kind of rights to not be set on fire or blown up for instance. 

Tthere is a big difference between killing for food and killing for fun.

[un1 41]

Think of it this way, we are all the same so just because your cat can't say what he/she (Not saying "it" because animals are alive, not an object) wants, doesn't meen he/she can't have what it should have.

I completely agree with 6underground.

-un1

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Does a cat have a greater right to life than a chicken, just because it is cute? quote>

Cats aren't breed to eat..Chickens, sheep and cows are and we don't set them on fire to kill them. What an utterly ridiculous connection to make.quote>

I wouldn't have said it was utterly ridiculous, a few places enjoy to tuck into a Cat every now and then, it's generally not a popular practice in Western Civ because certain animals such as Cats and Dogs had uses in our cultural development. Cats killed vermin such as Mice, Rats etc, and Dogs were seen as very intelligent creatures that were easily trained to do simple tasks such as herding and guarding. We tend to hold domesticated pets in higher regard than Livestock animals due to their usefulness in the past - a Chicken, besides its meat, has absolutley no use and is therefor expendable in the search for a meal. If dogs and cats were as useless as chickens, no doubt we'd eat them too, it just happens that they have been intelligent and useful during our reign on this planet and we treat them with massive respect... so much infact that the Government gets involved to make sure it stays that way (and so we don't start eating them)

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 And I find your apparent lack of ethics, morality, and empathy very troubling.quote>

I have plenty of ethics and morality, they just disagree with yours.

As for lack of empathy,.. eh, can't argue with that one. Not giving a damn about anyone or anything but myself is something I'm known for at times.

Tthere is a big difference between killing for food and killing for fun. quote>

There is a big difference in a moral sense, yes. But I fail to see why there should be any difference in a legal sense.

As I said, animals having rights under the law is simply preposterous. Can your cat vote? Can your cat own property? Can your cat be sued? Does it have the right to remain silent? If it gives that up, can any meows be used against it in a court of law? Come on now.

Animals are not entitled to any rights or privileges because they don't have any responsibilities.

[Micah 16]

Talk about the subject and not each other. And although this topic is somewhat disturbing to discuss, it will remain open since it doesn't violate the site or CE rules unless it gets out-of-control.

[Explodingsims 3]

Well, I'm going to side with Duke on this.

Not to the point of enjoying burning kittens, I mean, animal cruelty isn't something I'd enjoy.

But, for the most part, animals deserve no rights, they are less then human.

Now, being cruel to them is bad, and I'm against it, but, when you take a pet into your care, you

kind of have an obligation to be nice to them and take care of them.

But on the other hand, for some reason, I completely support testing drugs and the like on animals.

But, this goes back to the whole, animals are less than human thing.

[6underground 11]

Do I sound like I'm kidding? I'm completely serious here.quote>

Your post was so eyebrow raising, i was compelled to ask to be honest.

Morality and legality are two separate things. As I said, I will agree with you completely that it is immoral to abuse animals - but that does not mean it has to be or should be illegal.quote>

Well of course they're different things, but you CANNOT have one without the other. That was the point I was raising. If it's so immoral to abuse animals, why did you just say that watching kittens burn to death is amusing? Sorry for the offence, but you sound like a psycho.

Secondly, I don't see anywhere in the first post of it becoming a law. Specifically mentioned were "guidelines" and "advice"

Scientifically, no animal has anywhere near the degree of "sentience" that humans have. quote>

So therefore you admit that in order for you to respect an animal's right to life (i.e not being burned to death for entertainment) requires them to be sentient? Is that right?

Please don't make this an issue about livestock being killed humanely as possibly and quickly, we're actually talking about TORTURING animals for entertainment, so don't even attempt to steer it toward that tangient Duke, because I'm not interested in that.

I can tell you for a fact that's not the case. No, I wouldn't enjoy it if it was me on fire, but it's not me on fire, so it doesn't bother me.quote>

One word: MYOPIC.

You understand that it would be terrible to burn to death for someones amusement, yet you brush your hand off of it, because it isn't happening to you. You seem rather selfish to be honest, solely concerned with your own perceptions that ultimately mean that empathy is all but silenced.

To be honest, the idea of kittens on fire actually seems quite amusing.

Yeah.... That's deeply worrying. I'd honestly seek some councilling or something. Because enjoying kittens being burned to death is most certainly a sign of mental instability.

There's this little theorem of mine that "the entertainment value of seeing something set on fire, blown up, or other wise maimed is directly proportional to its cuteness." Kittens are about as cute as things get. I wouldn't go and do it myself, but if I was watching someone set kittens on fire, I would not be glaring in disgust but rather laughing my ass off.quote>

uh huh..... *raises eyebrow*

Does that make me sick and twisted? Perhaps. But I dare you to find a person who's never taken pleasure in the suffering of others. We're nasty creatures like that.quote>

There's a difference between jest/mocking and watching an animal burn to death. That's a rather fundamental difference, is that you'd be taken enjoyment from an animals torture, agony and ultimate death. Sick, much?

There is a distinct difference, though. Seeing kittens blow up may be easily amusing, but seeing innocent people blow up is not. That is horrible, I won't argue there.

Thing is, a human life has a value to it that the life of a lesser creature does not.quote>

Again, ethics.

It pains me to see a fellow human needlessly killed. It does not pain me to see an animal killed.quote>

I see, so if i ran over your family dog in the car on accident, you'd feel absolutely no feelings what so ever? Or how about, the kid next door stabs your dog to death for "fun"? Would you also feel absouletly nothing?

Honestly, I find some people's apparent inability to draw these sort of distinctions between humans and other animals to be troubling.quote>

No one is attempting to give animals every single right a human being has, however animals do DESERVE respect, as they have every right to life as we do. They should only die to feed human beings, or where their own species is threatened and never for the enjoyment of our species.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: 6underground

Morality and legality are two separate things. As I said, I will agree with you completely that it is immoral to abuse animals - but that does not mean it has to be or should be illegal.quote>

Well of course they're different things, but you CANNOT have one without the other. That was the point I was raising. quote>

Um, yes you can. Why can't you?

If it's so immoral to abuse animals, why did you just say that watching kittens burn to death is amusing? quote>

I think I'm far from the first person in history to find enjoyment from something they know to be wrong.

Sorry for the offence, but you sound like a psycho. quote>

None taken.

Secondly, I don't see anywhere in the first post of it becoming a law. Specifically mentioned were "guidelines" and "advice" quote>

Yeah, but it's the government doing it. And in most places there are laws on the books criminalizing animal cruelty.

So therefore you admit that in order for you to respect an animal's right to life (i.e not being burned to death for entertainment) requires them to be sentient? Is that right? quote>

I don't see why not. Gotta draw the line somewhere. Where human ends and other species begin seems like the most sensible place to draw it.

Yeah.... That's deeply worrying. I'd honestly seek some councilling or something. Because enjoying kittens being burned to death is most certainly a sign of mental instability. quote>

Yes, I'm insane. You're only just realizing this now? Where have you been the past 5+ years?

Seriously, though. You'd seek counseling, but I don't see much point in that. For one thing, I have already been to see a shrink countless times in my life. For another, counseling ain't gonna change anything. If I find something entertaining, I find it entertaining. And whether society at large approves of that or not, it is what it is. No amount of counseling or medication is going to change that. I would argue that trying to repress such things is unhealthy since if you deny that you like something, you're starting to deny who you are. Much better to admit to these things and be honest about them then try and hide them because you're worried people won't like you for it.

I honestly would much rather be up front and open about who I am and have everyone hate me than deny who I am to conform to society's standards and have everyone love me. I don't need anyone's approval to validate my existence, thank you very much.

I see, so if i ran over your family dog in the car on accident, you'd feel absolutely no feelings what so ever? Or how about, the kid next door stabs your dog to death for "fun"? Would you also feel absouletly nothing? quote>

We're now comparing apples and oranges, though. There's another fundamental difference to be had here. Namely, the difference between "this is my pet that I love and care for" and "this is just some random animal I found."

I don't have a dog, I don't want one (I'm not particularly fond of dogs, I much prefer cats, personally) - but if I did have a pet, I would of course be sad if anything bad happened to it. The same cannot, however, be said about something bad happening to a stray, or some wild animal. Or even the pet of someone I don't know.

I'm not going to feel anything for someone or something I don't have any personal connection to. Something I do have a personal connection to I could potentially feel a lot for. Doesn't even have to be a living thing. My computer is very precious to me and I am more than willing to use physical force to protect it if someone threatens it with harm. Same goes for my baseball card collection.

I suppose it may be rather dysfunctional that I would hold the health and well-being of my computer in the same high regard as I would hold that of my mother or my sister, but there it is. I feel personal connection to people, animals, and inanimate objects alike all on the same level. That's just the way my brain is wired.

[Muck308 55]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

My cat is blind, so does this mean I should get a seeing eye dog for her? gimme a break. Anyone who didn't know they need to provide clean eating, sleeping, and defication ares for their pet is a fool. Also, all of this advice has probably been given out by vets for years.quote>

Think you've missed the point there....quote>

 

How do you figure? The point seemed to be that pet owners are now being informed of a code of practice for ownership, due to ignorance of the fact that decent living conditions (including a low-stress environment and a tidy domicile) need to be provided. 

The purpose of my comment was to address the fact that if you didn't know that, then you are probably too ignorant to make educated decisions about most issues. By asking if I should get a seeing-eye dog for my cat, I was mimicing just such an ignoramus. 

What did you get from the article?

Originally posted by Duke87 VVVV

I don't have a dog, I don't want one (I'm not particularly fond of dogs, I much prefer cats, personally) - but if I did have a pet, I would of course be sad if anything bad happened to it. The same cannot, however, be said about something bad happening to a stray, or some wild animal. Or even the pet of someone I don't know.

I'm not going to feel anything for someone or something I don't have any personal connection to. Something I do have a personal connection to I could potentially feel a lot for. Doesn't even have to be a living thing. My computer is very precious to me and I am more than willing to use physical force to protect it if someone threatens it with harm. Same goes for my baseball card collection.quote>

Sounds like you are lacking something. Empathy. When my girlfriend's friend was over the other day, she was very upset at the death of her family pet. I never met the dog, but I understand why she was upset. Are you telling me that you don't stop for a microsecond and try to identify with those feeling of loss? If you can empathize with others when such a thing happens it can make it that much easier to deal with it when it happens to you. And, Duke, don't mis-interpret that statement. I trust you to make your own decisions for yourself, and if I feel that  even if you lack empathy in the presence of deaths of the pets of strangers, it doesn't mean I think you lack it all together. But then again, I suppose you have empathy... just not for animals in pain.

[Hahayoudied 3]

I support limited rights for animals:

1. You may not kill them for fun.

2. You may not starve them.

3. You may not neglect them.

4. You may not abuse them in any ways unless if it is a approved, legal medical experiemt.

Think about, who wants to be neglected?