If there is one thing I cannot tolerate it is cruelty to animals. Currently here in Pennsylvania animal cruelty is treated as a misdemeanor. This is a lesser criminal act usually punished by a monetary fine. This is the least severe of all crimnal acts.

I'm going to petition my state senators and congressmen to elevate animal cruelty to felony status. This is a crime of high seriousness punishable by imprisonment.

Under the present law, a dog is considered a thing-like a chair or any other object. Those of us who own dogs or any other pets regard them as much more than things; they are loved members of the family.

It is up to us to act in behalf of these innocent creatures who cannot speak for themselves.

How is animal cruelty handeled where you live?

Sadly, I don't know what the penalty/consequence is in CT. Cruelty to animals should be treated with harsh penalties. There is NO excuse for it. Whether it's neglect or direct commission, it's very serious and antisocial behavior. We are animals, too, and in almost all cases we have the upper hand, but animals are used for entertainment, wagering, profiteering, baiting and worse. Our kind have advanced so far but remain beasts. I thoroughly agree with you, vendome.

I just checked the UK and found this...

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the maximum fine for animal cruelty and welfare offences is £20,000. The maximum term of imprisonment for offences is six months.

Er, the maximum term of imprisonment in the UK is now 51 weeks - it's gone up from six months. Plus for some offences you can both be fined and put in prison for the same offence.

Section 32: "A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
(b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,
or to both."

Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Act cover such things as unnecessary suffering, mutilation, docking dogs' tails for cosmetic reasons, poisoning, and fighting. There's a similar Act in Scotland.

Better still then ... Thanks

Speaking as someone who has a rescue dog, and knowing just how much patience and work has gone into the last 18 months to get her to the right weight, to trust me and my husband, to be able to go out for a walk without freaking out with fear at the sight of almost everything, but epecially strange men, I would treat animal cruelty in exactly the same way as child abuse. In neither case can the sufferer do anything about it, and both are equally innocent, they did nothing to bring down the cruelty and abuse upon themselves.

Here in Pennsylvania (again!) there is an unusual way of treating rescue dogs. Separate from the ASPCA there is an emergency rescue operation that handles mistreated animals. When I wanted a new dog I called the rescue to see what dogs were available. During the phone call I was asked where I live; I told the rescue representative that I live in a condominium. The rep immediately told me that I did not qualify to adopt an animal. When asked why I was told the following:
* They don't place animals in homes with children (this did not apply to me)
* They visit the potential home to ensure that there is enough space for an animal
* They insist that there be a yard big enough for the pet to run and exercise
* They will inspect the yard and make sure that it is fenced in accordance with their requirements.

Based on the above I do not qualify to own a rescue dog; my condo does not have a large fenced yard. This is too bad because I am a responsible person and a dog lover; plus I wanted a small dog who would have the run of my home.

I feel the requirements of this operation eliminate many worthy potential pet owners. Since these animals have been abused I can certainly understand extra care being taken when placing them with a family. But I don't think it reasonable to deny responsible people the joy of pet ownership just because they don't have a large yard or an approved fence.

Thoughts?

I think they are extra careful because the dog has already had a very bad introduction to humans and they don't want that to happen again.
Lack of an outdoor area would be an issue for a lot of re-homers.
We had to meet several criteria to adopt a cat, including a home visit. I could have bought one for £20 with no checks at all. I appreciate the effort rescues put into getting a suitable home for any animal.

Oh, another thought. They often rehome cats here with the proviso that they have to be an indoor cat only, on medical grounds. I wonder if there are dogs available under similar conditions. Or you could get a teeny tiny dog that couldn't jump very high?

My thoughts are that if they did number two on the list before making a judgement they would home more poor little dogs.

I know here in Jersey they do a home visit before anything else.

That sounds a bit unfair Vendome. In South Africa, the rescue societies also do home checks. We have had so many rescue animals that if we want another all we do is ask the society to phone our Vet and she gives us a glowing reference.

We have had both a rescue dog and a rescue cat "own" us over the last 30 years. I SO completely understand the "patience" involved Christina.

And yes I agree that animal cruelty is despicable. But I still believe that humans being horrifically cruel to other humans needs to stop FIRST.

I'm so paranoid/not trusting of strangers that I specifically chose a rescue organization that didn't do a hoe visit. I don't like the idea of a complete stranger coming into my house. I have no problem providing references or whatnot, but the idea of a strange person who I have no knowledge of... I've seen too much bad in the world to want to take that risk.