Rebecca Allbritton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>Anyway, animals are property in this country. In order for them to be
>valued, they must be assigned a monetary value. The higher, the better.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Several people have said
that it is important to put monitory value on animals for them to have
any value in people's eyes or for them to have any value in law.
All I can say here is that mileage may differ. I have been quite shocked
by the views in some recent e-mails. I am most familiar with people in
this country where there is a very strong consciousness of animal rights
and animal welfare. Vets bills seem significantly lower than in the US,
but people seem to be far more prepared to spend money on their pets.
Commercial considerations rarely apply. A sick animal needs help and
people without the means have access to charities like PDSA and Blue
Cross who will help the animals if the owners cannot.
Legislation on animals welfare and animal cruelty is very strict. This
legislation, with the exception of commercial animals like sheep dogs
and farm animals, ignores the commercial value of the animal. This seems
right to me. People who injured and killed cats as mentioned above would
be in real trouble as the laws on animals cruelty look at the suffering
of the animals concerned. The penalty would depend on the extent of that
cruelty.
Another point that Eva's post put in my mind, if gerbils are more
valuable because a lot has been paid for them, does that make ones you
have bred yourself worthless?
Of course not.
If people put monitory value on their pets and treat them accordingly I
think we should ask if the person really want the pet or whether a more
inanimate status of wealth and importance would not be more appropriate!
--
Julian
************************************************************************
* Jackie and Julian *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* National Gerbil Society *
* http://www.gerbils.co.uk/ *
************************************************************************
