Pet Ownership and the Definition of Animal Abuse

There is a bill seeking legislative sponsors in Wisconsin which would end the status of pets as property. A few weeks ago, I wrote about why the owner vs. guardian debate isn't as black-and-white as it may seem. The Wisconsin bill, written by the Humane Society of the United States, appears to be a shining example of how pet emancipation can go very wrong.

Forget "beyond a reasonable doubt" — a new category of evidence, "reasonable grounds to believe," allows them to take your animals away based on mere suspicion or the subjective ideology of the local shelter or humane officer.

While I'm as frustrated as the next rescuer about how hard it can be to prosecute cruelty, I'm also aware of the vast philosophical differences on what constitutes "good" pet care. Differences in opinion on subjects like indoor vs. outdoor, crating, spaying and neutering, training style, nutrition, specialty vet care and cancer treatment, could become enough for pets to lose their homes.

Running a close second in the red flag department is where the proposed law would repeal the current statute's language which says "the animal shall be retained in custody" as evidence during a trial and if the charges are dismissed or the owner is found not guilty, "the animal shall be returned to the owner."

This all sounds well and good if we're talking about someone who is guilty, according to traditional solid evidence, of animal abuse. But imagine the scenarios that this proposal can create:

Your neighbor doesn't like you or your dog and calls the local humane society. They decide that they believe the complaints that your dog who barks at the fence is vicious or your skinny cat who is being treated for hyperthyroidism isn't getting proper vet care. They take your animal. You love your pet and you're going to fight for him (of course, not everyone will have access to the information or funds to be able to take this step ...), but before you get your day in court, they euthanize your companion, because the law no longer says they need to keep him alive until things are settled.

Or, they adopt him out to another family and, according to new statutes, they don't have to tell you who has your pet. Which makes it difficult to serve the court-required petition to whoever has custody for the return of your animal. Even if you're found innocent, you no longer have any rights to get your animal back. Oh, and in addition to court costs, you'll have to pay for the care of your animal during all of this.

This law has gone too far in the direction of what's good for the animal shelters instead of what's good for the animals. In case they haven't noticed, millions of unwanted animals are euthanized each year. Why look for excuses to take away animals who are wanted?

Animal abuse shouldn't be subjective; when there are obvious signs (a.k.a. evidence) of mistreatment, it can be prosecuted.  Animal cruelty laws on the books already distinguish pets from other forms of property, providing additional protections to your dog and cat that your car and house don't get.

What we need is better education on responsible pet care and better enforcement of existing laws. Let's not allow animals' lives to get caught in the crossfire of ideological battles.

Photo credit: AJTx0