How do you define "animal cruelty"?

Karma25

I use a combination of dominance, reward and work for everything. For housetraining I used reward ( although at 10 months she still hasnt completely cracked it) based training. All training is basically reward based. She is so good with people that three people who were terrified of dogs now dont mind them. She has to sit or lie down when she gets her food every day. She is not allowed go upstairs unless she is behind us and given permission. She doesnt sleep in our bed, she has her room and bed. We give her a small treat before bed. She knows it's bedtime when we boil the kettle for her water bottle and she gets so excited and jumps into bed.

The only slaps I gave her were when she was younger. I slapped her a couple of times and shouted No. After those couple of times all I had to do was shout no and she stopped. I didn't think this should be classified as cruelty.

Graces7

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I've 'reconditioned' 4 different horses for re-sale (1 never left) because they had 'gone bad' due to being kept alone. Sometimes what happens is the parents buy a pony for the kids, stick it in a field behind the house. All is great, the pony loves company of course, no problems at all to catch and lead. One day the child goes for a little ride along the road and the pony sees horses in a field in the distance for the first time in 3 months. Not hard to work out what happens next :rolleyes:. Pony needs to be gotten rid of course because it has nearly killed the child but is now useless because he/she basically goes into a panic any time it is separated from other horses hence the psychological damage. A pony that has no use is worthless and they've already spent so much money on it so clearly they were 'done' by the seller and now have figure out what to do with this . . . liability :rolleyes:

Reminds of the little black and white pony from two winters ago in the old house. Shut up alone, tied, in a barn to "put manners on" it. The barn being near no house save ours. The SPCA were called and thought it was fine.. It took us several months to get the pony released.. the state of it was dreadful. He sold it; took an hour to get into the horse box. Had I been the buyer that would have had me walking away.

The pony was back within two weeks.

We got evicted over that; but ..The year before, a horse left to graze alone all winter. Food and water and trees for shelter. Came running every time we passed.

Discodog

slashygoodness wrote: »

For the legal definition try here for a lay persons definition : http://www.ispca.ie/Legal-Chapter-1-2.aspx (I know a 'suspect' source, but it is easy to understand)

It's a totally reliable source & written by lawyers - it has to be as it's the guide used by inspectors. The OP asked for a legal definition:

Cruelty occurs if any of the acts set down in Section 1(1)(a) -(f) of the 1911 Act are committed by any person. More generally cruelty is “causing unnecessary suffering” to an animal. In addition to positive acts constituting cruelty, it is also unlawful, to abandon or neglect animals, where by doing so the animal is caused unnecessarily to suffer.

Section 1 (1) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, as amended creates the offence of cruelty “if any person” causes, procures or (if the owner) permits the following acts to be perpetrated on animals:-

1 (a) to cruelly beat, kick, ill treat, over ride, over drive, over load, torture, infuriate, or terrify any animal; or
1 (b) to convey or carry an animal in a manner or position which causes unnecessary suffering; or
1 (c) to assist in the fighting or baiting of an animal (including the provision of premises and obtaining admission fees for the same); or:
1(d) the administration of poisonous or injurious drugs or substances to animals; or
1 (e) subjecting an animal to an operation which is performed without due care and humanity.

Section 1 (1)(f) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (inserted by Section 4 of the 1965 Act) introduced a further category of cruelty which arises:-

"(Where) being the owner or having charge or control of any animal [a person] shall without reasonable cause or excuse abandon it, whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause it unnecessary suffering, or cause or procure or, being the owner, permit it to be so abandoned.”

According to Section 1(1)(a) it is further an offence to:

“..cause or procure, or, being the owner, permit any animal to be so used, or shall, by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act or causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, cause any unnecessary suffering, or, being the owner, permit any unnecessary suffering to be caused to any animal;”


Not only is it an offence actively to commit acts of direct cruelty such as kicking or beating animals but acts of omission and neglect are also prohibited. These latter forms of cruelty are the most usual perpetrated in our society. It is, therefore, likely that members of the public will have encountered this type of cruelty at some stage. Many of these individuals may have had questions in relation to the course(s) of action open to them when they witness acts of cruelty to animals. The following may answer some questions individuals might have in relation to general cruelty.

Little_Focker

Food, water, clean shelter, being brought to the vet when its sick & human companionship would be a good start.

I would agree that some people have very extreme views ie if you dont let your dog sleep in your bed, that is cruel

kildare.17hmr

slashygoodness wrote: »

For the legal definition try here for a lay persons definition : http://www.ispca.ie/Legal-Chapter-1-2.aspx (I know a 'suspect' source, but it is easy to understand)

For my opinion:
I believe that companion animals should be affored the same rights as children. I use the term companion to refer to any animal that we invite into our home for the duration of their life.

IMO:
I would prefer to see all animals free of enslavement and being breed for eating/wearing/testing of products. I recognise that this will take many years to accomplish and significant development of humanity, and that we have a moral obligation to those born into our current system to provide them with the most 'humane' existance possible.
As such I have adopted 4 domesticated companion animals - which some may consider cruel - but I try to ensure that I do no harm to them (accidents will happen ) or others of their kind (avoid food and products that have been animal tested, but do feed them meat). I can't force the world to change as rapidly as I would wish, but I can make changes within my own environment.

Do you actually believe that will ever happen?? not in our lifetime or even our grandkids, grandkids lifetime!

I would agree with scudzilla, i give the dog a slap if he needs it, he is a hardy hunting dog and it doesnt faze him just lets him know whos the boss now it only takes a change of tone in my voice and he knows most of the time. the dog is walked every day and comes with me every weekend for a hike or hunt for the day and he is a very happy dog.

Not feeding, torturing or leaving a dog outside without good shelter is cruel in my books, my lad was happy to stay outside during the snow because he has a good shelter.

slashygoodness

Discodog wrote: »

It's a totally reliable source.

That's a matter of opinion - the legal content may be reliable in an Irish court of law, however the source of the link, the ISPCA is considered by some as suspect on the matter of cruelty. Particularly considering their poor record of putting an unnecessarily high number of dogs to sleep.

slashygoodness

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Do you actually believe that will ever happen?? not in our lifetime or even our grandkids, grandkids lifetime!

You are probably right, considering how long it has taken for basic human rights to evolve, however, it has to start somewhere...and it's up to me to control my environment, so I choose to make it as enjoyable an environment for myself, my family and my animal companions as I can.

Discodog

slashygoodness wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion - the legal content may be reliable in an Irish court of law, however the source of the link, the ISPCA is considered by some as suspect on the matter of cruelty. Particularly considering their poor record of putting an unnecessarily high number of dogs to sleep.

Trust me it's 101% correct. I have checked it against copies of all the relevant legislation - it's easy because there is not a lot of it. The main "cruelty" act is 100 years old this year.

We are currently about 15 to 20 years behind Europe in welfare legislation & there is no sign of an animal welfare bill even though both FG & Labour have promised it. If the DBEB is anything to go by we will end up with even more watered down & useless law.

23 years ago Italy, Norway, Portugal etc signed the European Convention on Pet Animals. 8 years ago Azebaijan, Bulgaria & Romania signed it. We have not even considered signing it.

The Sweeper

Animal cruelty to me is anything that causes sustained distress to an animal.

Temporary distress is sometimes necessary. For instance, I will be moving house next year, and I will be taking my six cats and my dog along with me. This may involve a long car ride, or a flight.

This transport will distress all of my animals. The car will possibly distress them less, but the car journey will be a lot longer than a plane. The plane may distress them more, but it'll be over and done with far more quickly.

However the alternatives are rehoming - which would be enormously distressing, or euthanasia, which would also be really the ultimate distress. Subsequently I have to cause my animals short term distress - peaking for 24 hours in transit, and then continuing for over seven days as they settle into their new home.

To me, my responsibility in this instance is to minimise the distress in as much as I can, by maximising comfort in transport crates and so on.

Discodog

The Sweeper wrote: »

Animal cruelty to me is anything that causes sustained distress to an animal.

Even very short distress can be cruelty. For example hitting a dog can be a quick act that has long term consequences. The point is that you will do all you can to minimise it & it is necessary. We all have to subject our animals to unpleasant procedures or experiences from time to time. But non of us do it unless we have to - it's the same with children.

Unfortunately some words give problems in prosecuting under our 100 year old law. "Unnecessary" as in unnecessary suffering is open to interpretation as is "adequate" referring to food, water etc & "excessive" when applied to inflicting pain & suffering.

slashygoodness

Discodog wrote: »

Trust me it's 101% correct. I have checked it against copies of all the relevant legislation - it's easy because there is not a lot of it. The main "cruelty" act is 100 years old this year.

So we both agree that the content is accurate - my comment was referring to the fact that the ISPCA are unreliable and suspect.......

doctor evil

slashygoodness wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion - the legal content may be reliable in an Irish court of law, however the source of the link, the ISPCA is considered by some as suspect on the matter of cruelty. Particularly considering their poor record of putting an unnecessarily high number of dogs to sleep.

Where is the cruelty in putting an animal to sleep providing it is done properly and humanely?

There are worse things that could happen than to be pts.

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

Even very short distress can be cruelty. For example hitting a dog can be a quick act that has long term consequences.

Thats stretching it I feel, how would it be defined? There is a difference between short term distress and cruelty.

To compare a slap to awful cruelty like Amersham farm and say they are the same (which is the feeling I get from the above) is absurd.

Discodog

doctor evil wrote: »

Where is the cruelty in putting an animal to sleep providing it is done properly and humanely?

There are worse things that could happen than to be pts.

When you claim to be a welfare charity & you kill more dogs in your Pounds than most others do in theirs. When you claim to support rehoming but you rehome far less dogs than practically anyone else. When you claim to be preventing cruelty but you make far fewer prosecutions than similar organisations.

The cruelty is killing a dog when you could be rehoming it. That is unnecessary killing.

Discodog

doctor evil wrote: »

Thats stretching it I feel, how would it be defined? There is a difference between short term distress and cruelty.

To compare a slap to awful cruelty like Amersham farm and say they are the same (which is the feeling I get from the above) is absurd.

Very simple. If you beat a dog for 30 seconds & caused injury, damage to the skin etc or caused it pain & distress then that is cruelty. The only proof required is evidence from a Vet that the animal suffered. For example the woman who put the cat in a wheelie bin didn't physically hurt the cat & the act was over in seconds but the distress to the cat was obvious.

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

That is unnecessary killing.

But is the unnecessary killing causing unnecessary suffering provided it is done humanely? Poor rehoming performance does not mean an organisation is lying or being deceitful, it just means levels of rehoming are not very good when compared to others.

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

Very simple. If you beat a dog for 30 seconds & caused injury, damage to the skin etc or caused it pain & distress then that is cruelty. The only proof required is evidence from a Vet that the animal suffered. For example the woman who put the cat in a wheelie bin didn't physically hurt the cat & the act was over in seconds but the distress to the cat was obvious.

A beating is different from a single slap/hit.

As for the wheelie bin cat I thought the owners were foolish in letting such a friendly animal to roam outside, if there were kids with fireworks the end could have been much worse...

Discodog

doctor evil wrote: »

A beating is different from a single slap/hit.

As for the wheelie bin cat I thought the owners were foolish in letting such a friendly animal to roam outside, if there were kids with fireworks the end could have been much worse...

A single hit can cause massive damage it even death. It depends on what you hit, how hard you hit it & what you hit it with.

There are millions of friendly cats that meet people - you can't lock them all up because of the odd nutter.

doctor evil wrote: »

But is the unnecessary killing causing unnecessary suffering provided it is done humanely? Poor rehoming performance does not mean an organisation is lying or being deceitful, it just means levels of rehoming are not very good when compared to others.

I suggest you look at the ISPCA thread. Their CEO is a disgrace. If your raison d'etre is animal welfare you should be at least as good as a Local Authority at rehoming. You also should not be accepting shedloads of Local Authority money to kill dogs. People donate to the ISPCA to save dogs not kill them.

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

A single hit can cause massive damage it even death. It depends on what you hit, how hard you hit it & what you hit it with.

Exactly, how would it be defined? Each slap/hit is different. If an implement was used it is something more but then again it depends on force and intent eg using a rolled up newspaper or a water to seperate two cats from fighting so the hand doesnt't get bitten or scratched.

There are millions of friendly cats that meet people - you can't lock them all up because of the odd nutter.

If it was a dog that been left outside to roam what would the consensus be? Cats do live very full lives as indoor animals or cat proofed gardens or trained to a harness and lead. There is also damage done with kindness such as feeding other peoples pets treats they shouldn't get.

[QUOYE]I suggest you look at the ISPCA thread. Their CEO is a disgrace. If your raison d'etre is animal welfare you should be at least as good as a Local Authority at rehoming. You also should not be accepting shedloads of Local Authority money to kill dogs. People donate to the ISPCA to save dogs not kill them.[/QUOTE]

Not all dogs can be saved though.

Discodog

As I have already said Veterinary evidence is usually required to get a conviction. As with any other form of abuse there are degrees & at the end of the day a Court has the task of deciding whether an act constituted cruelty.

In reality the chances of being prosecuted in Ireland are very low. In the UK the majority of the population will report any cruelty & the RSPCA will act with police support.

Discodog

As I have already said Veterinary evidence is usually required to get a conviction. As with any other form of abuse there are degrees & at the end of the day a Court has the task of deciding whether an act constituted cruelty.

In reality the chances of being prosecuted in Ireland are very low. In the UK the majority of the population will report any cruelty & the RSPCA will act with police support.

Not every dog can be saved but, based on the performance of all the other rescues, the ISPCA should be saving many more than they are now.

Shivers26

My sister and a friend have had several run ins with the DSPCA when they tried to report people for animal cruelty. Basically they were told as long as there was food and water and some class of shelter then there was nothing they could do. They basically didn't care if a dog was never walked, brought inside, cleaned, saw a vet or was left living in its own filth in all class of weather.

I have 3 rescue dogs and the middle one was rescued from a puppy farm (ex breeding bitch) - I know its really common but if you saw the state of her when I got her :mad: Hardly any coat due to hormone deficiency from being forced to have litter after litter, her under carriage nearly scraping the ground, eyes barely opened due to infections that were never treated, stomach and digestion problems caused by god knows what, she'd panic pee if anyone tried to touch her. You'd have to wonder what she went through to be like that. She still struggles to be a 'pet' so to speak but she has come on great. Most of her health issues are much improved or resolved altogether. I'll try and put up some before and after pictures.

Also wish we could get through one year without hearing about the disgusting acts carried out by little evil scumbags with animals and fireworks, especially around Halloween.

emmabrighton

my two cents...

I think that the definition of cruelty really depends on the personality of your animal... I have a dog who is very needy and clingy and my partner is always playing rough with him to the point where he screams to get away but the moment he lets him go hes straight back over for another go... turns out he is screaming with excitement and is just playing... I, on the other hand, would never play rough with him because I think its cruel.

But like in most relationships I can have blazing rows with my OH from time to time. You can tell these really affect the dog cos he will hide under the stairs until the argument is over... I think that this is cruel and always feel awful afterwards - for the dog, that is! Not the fella :pac:

I think that if your animal husbandry is 100% and he gets plenty of play time, then it is still possible to to cause anguish in other ways... just my opinion

ppink

Shivers26 wrote: »

My sister and a friend have had several run ins with the DSPCA when they tried to report people for animal cruelty. Basically they were told as long as there was food and water and some class of shelter then there was nothing they could do. They basically didn't care if a dog was never walked, brought inside, cleaned, saw a vet or was left living in its own filth in all class of weather.

it is our laws that do not allow them to do anything about these situations. the law makes no provision for interaction walking etc.

Discodog

Shivers26 wrote: »

My sister and a friend have had several run ins with the DSPCA when they tried to report people for animal cruelty. Basically they were told as long as there was food and water and some class of shelter then there was nothing they could do. They basically didn't care if a dog was never walked, brought inside, cleaned, saw a vet or was left living in its own filth in all class of weather.

This is common for all SPCA's & the ISPCA. It stems from the misguided idea that they can't prosecute for neglect under the old 1911 Act & that they are waiting for an Animal Welfare Bill. Until quite recently the same old law applied in the UK & it did hinder prosecutions but certainly didn't prevent them. When adjusted for the size of the populations the RSPCA prosecute well over six times as many people as the ISPCA.

The RSPCA will always attend an incident such as you describe & they discuss the matter with the owner. In most cases this is enough to make them improve the conditions. But, if not, then they will get a Vet to assess the situation & they will prosecute. The ISPCA's & SPCA's are moulded to view that there is nothing that they can do in these cases - they accept defeat very easily.

But in their defence they have to prioritise calls due to their dreadful lack of resources & in some cases mismanagement. Unlike the ISPCA the RSPCA receives no government funding. Per person the UK public donate a huge amount more to animal charities than people here. To put it into perspective the Dogs Trust alone, which is one of many animal charities, received £60m in public donations during 2010.

ppink wrote: »

it is our laws that do not allow them to do anything about these situations. the law makes no provision for interaction walking etc.

It does providing that a Vet will testify that the animal is suffering as a result.