# What constitutes cruelty or neglect of an animal?



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

This is a hangover from another thread where I said:

Maybe the laws need to be more clear about what constitutes cruelty or neglect. I don't know, I would imagine they are pretty ambiguous and open to interpretation and if they are, then no wonder the penalties for similar offenses differ so much.

I mean, I think we could all agree that the owner who forgets to feed her dog one night is one thing. But certainly the owner who "forgets" to feed her dog for 5-6 weeks is something else altogether. I try to avoid reading too many rescue stories because although I always love the happy ending, I have a hard time reading about all the suffering that came before. I read one last night, probably an old one, and that's what brought the above example to mind. A full grown German Shepherd male who probably should have weighed in the neighborhood of 80 pounds was found chained in a yard weighing 37 pounds. The examining vet said to become that emaciated, he probably hadn't been fed much in 5-6 weeks. It literally made me sick. And we have all heard of even more terrible things: animals beaten, shot, burned, etc.

Anyway, I would be interested in knowing what people think are offenses that should be punishable by law? At what point does a bahavior become abusive or neglectful? If you were the person writing the laws, what would your parameters be?


----------



## Debanneball (Aug 28, 2014)

I would say neglect would be failure to provide food, water, vet care, basic everyday care, shelter for an animal. And, cruelty would be the shooting, fighting, maiming.. IMO two different things.


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

I think the laws are fairly clear and ACO generally do a good job of judging whether something is cruelty, neglect, or just ignorance. 

I feel like the issue is there isn't enough of a penalty. Most people I see who are neglecting their animals get off with many many warnings and finally maybe a small fine. Abuse is more serious, but unless it's something really hideous, most seem to get off with a fine, some community service, or at most a small jail sentence.

So I think the issue is more lack of consequence than lack of clarity.


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

Yes, neglect and abuse are two different things, I agree. 

To me, abuse is easier to quantify than neglect. I mean, there are not very many reasonable (note I said reasonable) people in the world who would think that shooting or burning an animal is ok. Neglect seems harder to define. Like in the example above, most of us would probably agree that someone forgeting to feed their dog one night doesn't constitute negligence and most of us would agree that that case of the 37 pound GSDC does. So, when does one become the other? When they haven't fed the animal in a week? When the animal has lost a certain percentage of body weight? If they are obviously dehydrated? If they do not have a dog house for shelter? When a vet says so? And how much does the animal's overall appearance play into it? A thin, filthy dog would almost certainly be judged neglected quicker than a thin, clean animal who may just be sick for all we know. And I am glad to hear you say, Pax8, that the laws are pretty clear, I was afraid they were not. Do you know how the laws define neglect?

I agree that the penalties, particularly for the really horrific cases, are sometimes ludicrous. Is there anything we can do to change that?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Abuse, cruelty, and neglect are all different in my opinion. Abuse can be cruelty I suppose. But I think of cruelty as something deliberately done to watch a critter suffer. 

I think abuse is something that owners may do when they are overwhelmed by the dog, irritated, frustrated, lose control and take it out on the dog. 

Neglect is when an owner fails to provide for a dog to the extent that the dog suffers. 

I think that when neglect becomes gross it is a form of abuse or cruelty.

I think that allowing an 85 pound dog to drop to 37 pounds is neglect that should be qualified as abuse or cruelty.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

newlie said:


> Yes, neglect and abuse are two different things, I agree.
> 
> To me, abuse is easier to quantify than neglect. I mean, *there are not very many reasonable (note I said reasonable) people in the world who would think that shooting or burning an animal is ok.
> *I agree that the penalties, particularly for the really horrific cases, are sometimes ludicrous. Is there anything we can do to change that?


 In the U.S. or Canada this may be applicable.
However, Thailand, China, Vietnam, Indonesia - Nope
Dogs in the thousands are scooped off the streets, stolen from their owners, bred for money/food. These animals are horrifically tortured. Scolded in boiling water and skinned alive.
Reason: They believe the more they suffer, the better the meat tastes

Is there anything we can do to change that?


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

I agree, Selzer, the pictures of the poor boy are enough to make you vomit.

Yes, I know GatorBytes, I wish there was. I sign petitions whenever I see them for all the good it does. It's hard enought to try to effect change in our own country much less countries around the world. At least we have a vote here and representatives that we can contact and a criminal justice system that for all it's flaws is still better than what you would find in alot of places.

If the laws here are clear, but the penalties often weak and unfairly applied, is there anything we can do about it?


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I think they all kinda go hand in hand. For example, It would be cruel and considered abuse and neglect if one didn't provide food or water, those are necessary to live. The difference might come in as to whether its physical or emotional, but both of those can be just as bad and equal to each other. i can't see how not feeding an animal is not cruel, abusive and neglect.


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

llombardo said:


> I think they all kinda go hand in hand. For example, It would be cruel and considered abuse and neglect if one didn't provide food or water, those are necessary to live. The difference might come in as to whether its physical or emotional, but both of those can be just as bad and equal to each other. i can't see how not feeding an animal is not cruel, abusive and neglect.


Yes, I would say many times a neglectful situation is often cruel and abusive as well, certainly in the more horrific cases. But what I am trying to determine is what standard the law uses to decide whether a situation is neglectful or not. In other words, animal control might go to someone's house and think "Well, they are not the greatest dog owners in the world, but I don't see anything definite enough that I can cite them" and then to another home and "throw the book at them." Is there some sort of checklist they go by, does anybody know?


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

newlie said:


> Yes, I would say many times a neglectful situation is often cruel and abusive as well, certainly in the more horrific cases. But what I am trying to determine is what standard the law uses to decide whether a situation is neglectful or not. In other words, animal control might go to someone's house and think "Well, they are not the greatest dog owners in the world, but I don't see anything definite enough that I can cite them" and then to another home and "throw the book at them." Is there some sort of checklist they go by, does anybody know?


I think the public has a very different opinion then what the laws are in different areas. The laws are different everywhere, which may or may not be the right thing. In some areas it's the norm to keep dogs on heavy chains on the property without really any human interaction. That is not acceptable to me but animal control would think differently because the law might state as long as they have food and water it's suitable. I do think that penalties are getting bigger for killing or torturing dogs. The issue I have is that it's proven that serial killers start with animals. Most of the time this starts as abuse and gets really grizzly. If the laws were stricter at the level of abuse and those people were caught and punished it might save lives down the road.


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

All very good points.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

https://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/advocacy-center/state-animal-cruelty-laws

Animal Cruelty and Neglect | Nolo.com

Best and worst states for animal protection laws in 2014


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

I have heard that there is a movement for a national registry of offenders. Of course, it would not be perfect as some people are never charged and even if the information is there, groups would have to make use of it. But still, I think it's a step in the right direction. Thoughts, anyone?


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> https://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/advocacy-center/state-animal-cruelty-laws
> 
> Animal Cruelty and Neglect | Nolo.com
> 
> Best and worst states for animal protection laws in 2014


Great, thank you! I look forward to reading this information.


----------



## Heidigsd (Sep 4, 2004)

Pet-Abuse.Com


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom (Jan 7, 2014)

Debanneball said:


> I would say neglect would be failure to provide food, water, vet care, basic everyday care, shelter for an animal. And, cruelty would be the shooting, fighting, maiming.. IMO two different things.


I would add something else here, also. In the book of Proverbs there is a scripture that says that the "righteous one is caring for the soul" of his/her animals. This means proving for _all_ their needs--physical as well as *mental and emotional* needs. JMHO. (of course this would never be legislated)

Susan


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

GatorBytes said:


> In the U.S. or Canada this may be applicable.
> However, Thailand, China, Vietnam, Indonesia - Nope
> Dogs in the thousands are scooped off the streets, stolen from their owners, bred for money/food. These animals are horrifically tortured. Scolded in boiling water and skinned alive.
> Reason: They believe the more they suffer, the better the meat tastes
> ...



Have you heard of the Soi foundation? They are on facebook, they are taking donations. They are trying to save the dogs that are taken from the streets and stolen from families in Thailand, horrific stories......


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

GSD2 said:


> Have you heard of the Soi foundation? They are on facebook, they are taking donations. They are trying to save the dogs that are taken from the streets and stolen from families in Thailand, horrific stories......


 
Yes. I received and signed the petition, but I am leery of these donation companies, especially at home the HS only uses 1% (or 10% cannot remember) of the millions donated to the actual welfare of dogs and cats (and other).

I was reading a blog of a man involved in the rescue of the Thailand dogs. 1900 on the way to torture and slaughter were stopped by officials. 1900 were accounted, counted and sent to a shelter. The F/U found they accounted for 1300 incl. 200 from a diff apprehension. The shelter said the rest died in transit, yet had no records of the deaths. This person(s) checked on the shelter to find only 20 dogs (I think, #'s not exact) The shelter closing and dogs were sent to another. Upon inspection of next shelter there were only 100 dogs of the 1900 + 200. Questions to what happened to the rest.

Sick, evil process.
Soi did FB about billboards to raise awareness to the people and donations for said billboards. The problem lies in the export to Vietnam


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

Interesting thread. I think I agree with most here and also agree that sometimes I don't think the penalty for certain cruelty against animals is strong enough. 

On another note:

How many people think there is a double standard when it comes to killing dogs and cats in another country. Do you consider that cruelty? Does anyone think it is a double standard that there is an outcry for cats and dogs being killed for food/fur vs. cows, pigs, etc... Being killed in the USA for food? In some countries cows are sacred, and killing them is barbaric. To me personally, killing a cat or dog for food is hard for me to understand or condone. Would be interested to see what you all think. Thank you.


----------



## GSD2 (Jan 27, 2012)

GatorBytes said:


> Yes. I received and signed the petition, but I am leery of these donation companies, especially at home the HS only uses 1% (or 10% cannot remember) of the millions donated to the actual welfare of dogs and cats (and other).
> 
> I was reading a blog of a man involved in the rescue of the Thailand dogs. 1900 on the way to torture and slaughter were stopped by officials. 1900 were accounted, counted and sent to a shelter. The F/U found they accounted for 1300 incl. 200 from a diff apprehension. The shelter said the rest died in transit, yet had no records of the deaths. This person(s) checked on the shelter to find only 20 dogs (I think, #'s not exact) The shelter closing and dogs were sent to another. Upon inspection of next shelter there were only 100 dogs of the 1900 + 200. Questions to what happened to the rest.
> 
> ...


Yes, I was leery of them as well, something so horrific is often used to pull at heartstrings of generous people to get money from them. I remember now, that they were asking for donations to put up bill boards. I never did check them out though. So sad to hear this....


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> On another note:
> 
> *How many people think there is a double standard when it comes to killing dogs and cats in another country. Do you consider that cruelty? Does anyone think it is a double standard that there is an outcry for cats and dogs being killed for food/fur vs. cows, pigs, etc*... Being killed in the USA for food? In some countries cows are sacred, and killing them is barbaric. To me personally, killing a cat or dog for food is hard for me to understand or condone. Would be interested to see what you all think. Thank you.


 Cruelty is how they are killed. In North America there are legislated practices put in place for the humane treatment of slaughter houses. Even though mass production of pigs living their whole lives out in a pen just big enough for them to roll over to feed their piglets is barbaric in itself, they are protected from (some) abuse.

The dog trade is a Neanderthal practice, it is illegal and flourishing. These animals are not raised for food. They dognapped, force fed via tubes shoved down their throat to get to profitable weight. In Indonesia the dog is hung from its neck, a cleaver is used to strip chunks of flesh off. The dog is alive.


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom (Jan 7, 2014)

GatorBytes said:


> Cruelty is how they are killed. In North America there are legislated practices put in place for the humane treatment of slaughter houses. Even though mass production of pigs living their whole lives out in a pen just big enough for them to roll over to feed their piglets is barbaric in itself, they are protected from (some) abuse.
> 
> The dog trade is a Neanderthal practice, it is illegal and flourishing. These animals are not raised for food. They dognapped, force fed via tubes shoved down their throat to get to profitable weight. In Indonesia the dog is hung from its neck, a cleaver is used to strip chunks of flesh off. The dog is alive.


I hate to tell you, but among the slaughter houses in the USA are those that have practices just as wicked and inhumane as what you describe in Indonesia. I have seen a video of cattle whose throats are slit just enough to reach the esophagus, which is cut and pulled out so it hangs all the way down its neck, and the animal staggers around, still alive, screaming in pain. It made me physically ill, and reinforced my decision to eliminate meat from my diet. I cannot think of any reason that should be done to an animal. It's a part of their production system, because it's a machine that does it. God loves his _whole_ creation, and such actions will not go unavenged.

Susan


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

Susan_GSD_mom said:


> I hate to tell you, but among the slaughter houses in the USA are those that have practices just as wicked and inhumane as what you describe in Indonesia. I have seen a video of cattle whose throats are slit just enough to reach the esophagus, which is cut and pulled out so it hangs all the way down its neck, and the animal staggers around, still alive, screaming in pain. It made me physically ill, and reinforced my decision to eliminate meat from my diet. I cannot think of any reason that should be done to an animal. It's a part of their production system, because it's a machine that does it. God loves his _whole_ creation, and such actions will not go unavenged.
> 
> Susan


This freaked me out too. Been vegetarian 8 years


----------

