It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Quazga
Although I agree with your sentiment, I fear that this would only serve to foment a black market of common domestic pets.
Originally posted by Quazga
Sorry to hear about that. I have two wonderful Russian Blues (one blue the other white) that are amazing additions to our family. They are THE MOST trusting and loving cats I have ever met. We don't even have to clip their nails because they never use them expcet on their toys. They follow us around like dogs, and the boy even plays fetch.
Anway, I've gushed enough.
Originally posted by SantaClaus
I don't know about the UK, but pet insurance in the US is a huge racket, and not worth a dime.
Originally posted by SantaClaus
If you want my honest opinion? I think anyone sadistic enough to truly harm an animal for fun or even out of frustration should get a bullet between the eyes. I know, pretty heavy, but I think we'd have a lot less stupid people in the world if we just started ridding our world of them now.
Originally posted by marg6043
While I agree with people been prosecuted for Animal cruelty I will never ever submit my pets with anything that I would not want on myself.
Originally posted by marg6043
So electronic devices implanted on me or my animals is a nono, now for licenses and insurance I would agree to some point but depending how much profitable this will become for the money makers out there.
Originally posted by marg6043
I own three pets and never in my mind I could possible picture them been in any inflicted pain by somebody's hands as I regard them as part of the family, but I have seen how others around love to have pets to abuse them and neglect them.
Originally posted by marg6043
Sad but is part of human nature for some to treat the lesser forms of life as nothing more than expendable things.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
1. Anyone purchasing a pet should legally be required to have insurance arranged for it.
2. Many pet abusers are often banned from owning them for a limited number of years. This should be changed to a blanket ban
3. All pets should be electronically tagged so that if abandoned the owners can be prosecuted.
Originally posted by scientist
I understand the idea, but consider the impact this would have on people that can't afford insurance. Surely, pets are better off with an owner (regardless of insurance) opposed to roaming as wild animals. If you take away the ability to keep pets, then those pets will just turn into roadkill instead.
Originally posted by scientist
by electrically tagged, do you mean implanted with a chip? If so, I would consider THAT animal cruelty. Also, how do you determine the difference between a pet that ran away, and a pet that was abandoned?
I am very hesitant when it comes to creating more laws (which in turn create more criminals). Do we really need more people being punished? I think we are more in need of education and understanding opposed to negative reinforcement.
.
Animal RFID Chip Implants Linked to CancerFrom 1996 to 2006, a handful of studies reported incidences of tumors in lab mice and rats that had been implanted with chips. Specifically, malignant tumors (sarcomas) developed near and around the chips, in some cases completely enveloping them. A 1998 study in the US found the incidence of cancer to be higher than 10 percent in a group of 177 tested mice. A 1997 German study revealed a cancer incidence of one percent in a group of over four thousand, with the researchers noting that the tumors "are clearly due to the implanted microchips." And just last year a study in France saw 4.1 percent of 1,260 chipped mice develop cancer.
Animal Cruelty
Originally posted by amatrine
Animal insurance does not work. Here , a lot of them require you to pay up front then get reimbursed. I for one do not have money for a 1200 upfront surgery.
Originally posted by amatrineMy cat Majestic who I adopted at the pound as a baby,got sick at 11, and after paying $400 and the tests did not show what was wrong, they wanted another 300, and said most likely kidney and to fix if fixable would be at least another grand, I had to put him to sleep. It was the hardest thing I ever did. I tell you if I had the money I would have tried.
Originally posted by amatrine
He was not eating, I was force feeding him his water and food which he hated. I could not watch him suffer any more.
Originally posted by amatrine
Not to mention, insurance for all of my animals would run me aprox. 300 a month at least. I can not do that. All my animals are rescues, and have wonderful lives. They are treated as human. Should I have to give them up or pay insurance? No way. That is not an answer.
Originally posted by amatrine
I think A different answer is to have people get a license to own a pet. Take a course, and a test at least.
The Guardian Promise
I promise to:
* Make a lifetime commitment to my animal companion
* Adopt animals only through responsible rescues and ethical breeders
* Spay or neuter my animal companion for their health and to prevent overpopulation
* Provide nutritious food, fresh water and daily exercise for my animal companion
* Care for the emotional needs of my animal companion
* Understand and work through my animal companion’s behavioral issues
* Treat my animal companion with compassion and gentleness
* Report suspected animal abuse or neglect
* Call myself and others "guardians" rather than “owner”
* Encourage others to embrace guardianship
Originally posted by Ceara
Calling yourself a Guardian is only a social movement. It does not alter any laws of pet ownership at all. It is to encourage others to think of their animal companions as MORE than property.
Originally posted by Ceara
And inviting the government into your personal life is never a good idea. That gives the government the impression people are unable to control things on their own, and then the government has to step into the parental role.
Originally posted by Ceara
Yes, there needs to be change. But change shouldn't be brought about just because Big Brother says so. People need to WANT to change.
Originally posted by Ceara
It's a choice.
Originally posted by Ceara
Licensing doesn't prevent people from abusing animals. Anyone can get a license, or "permission" from the government. But a change in social awareness would be a catalyst for change.
Originally posted by Ceara
Just take a while and think about all that before you reply with another emotionally-charged post.