How do you define "animal cruelty"?

Wolfe Tone

Simple question on the surface really, how would you define it?

(If anyone can supply the legislative definition that would be cool)

Lots of people I know would say that certain things are cruel which I wouldn't agree with. For example, I did equestrian for a few years when I was younger, some regard forcing horses to jump fences as cruel. Less would say that simply riding a horse is cruel.

I remember one time after a rather satisfying win, only person with a double clear round, I was explaining to a cousin how I used the whip to get him to jump one particular fence (you know when you can tell when they are about to jam on the breaks and send you flying?), and by her reaction you would think I had just said I was a baby killer.

I also remember the first time I took my dog to the vet, I was 12 or 13 I think and she was just a puppy. We had never had a dog before, nor had my mam and she asked for the best way to discipline the dog. He said "You just do this" and basically karate chopped my golden retriever across the nose. She yelped and started shaking(before that she was grand) and to this day she is terrified of going to the vets(I go to a different one now, not hard to see why). He didn't regard hitting the dog as cruel, and maybe to an extent I don't think that hitting a dog in certain circumstances is animal cruelty. Before anyone says anything, I don't hit my dog.

I remember when we were housebreaking the dog with the newspapers etc and it wasn't working my Dad asked his friend who owned dogs for years and did shooting with them etc what the best thing to do was, and he said to grab the dog by the scruff and force her nose over the pee (not rub it in mind) thats what he always did with all of his dogs for fifty years or so, anyway the father did that the next time, she didn't like it, but she never peed in the house again.

Now I dare say some will say that thats cruel, but thats what this thread is about, the above is just a few examples I have come across of people with different definitions of what animal cruelty consists of than I do. How do you define it? If you had to codify or legislate it, how would you do it?

Have you come across people who say you are cruel for doing certain things and you don't think you were? (and the opposite of course).

scudzilla

Not long ago people used to teach/train dogs in a totally different way, sure it worked, but now there is so many do gooders around that is regaurded as cruelty.

With my pups i used to rub there noses over there own mess, soon stopped them, also if they were bad they'd get a slap, it never hurt them, just realised that i was in charge and if they continued to eat sofa/chew carpet/kill cat/**** on bed the there would be repurcussions. It always worked and my dogs have always led a long and happy life and been spoilt rotten. Nowadays people want ya to take the dog to therapy or some crap like that. The world has gone mad.

Cruelty i would deem as causing unnecessary suffering to an animal

scudzilla

pokertalk

scudzilla wrote: »

Not long ago people used to teach/train dogs in a totally different way, sure it worked, but now there is so many do gooders around that is regaurded as cruelty.

With my pups i used to rub there noses over there own mess, soon stopped them, also if they were bad they'd get a slap, it never hurt them, just realised that i was in charge and if they continued to eat sofa/chew carpet/kill cat/**** on bed the there would be repurcussions. It always worked and my dogs have always led a long and happy life and been spoilt rotten. Nowadays people want ya to take the dog to therapy or some crap like that. The world has gone mad.

Cruelty i would deem as causing unnecessary suffering to an animal

so necessary SUFFERING would be ok?your methods worked because your dogs were afraid of you.other peoples methods work because the reward them

Wolfe Tone

pokertalk wrote: »

so necessary SUFFERING would be ok?

Maybe you would like to give your take on the subject at hand rather than hopping in and questioning a poster on their position? Maybe?

scudzilla

pokertalk wrote: »

so necessary SUFFERING would be ok?

ah christ, here we go


I never once mentioned necessary suffering, you did that all on your own

pokertalk

pokertalk wrote: »

so necessary SUFFERING would be ok?your methods worked because your dogs were afraid of you.other peoples methods work because the reward them

i gave my methods as to their methods its a discussion:D never said that scuz was being cruel just that methods have moved with the times on a reward basis

pokertalk

you also asked people to define cruelty? so i think the old ways like scuz described are cruel to a certin extent in my eyes,sorry didnt know i was not aloud to respond to other peoples posts and disagree with them.. maybe????

Cherry Blossom

I wouldn't advise anyone else that its a good idea to keep an animal in conditions any less than I would. I don't karate chop my dog in the nose so if someone asks me should they do I don't say yes you should do it if you want because I'm not a hypocrite, why on earth would I recommend or condone something I would never dream of doing myself? If a vet karate chopped my dog in the nose I'd probably break his (cause it's always the men :rolleyes:)

I used to keep small mammals, rabbits, chinchillas etc. I had the whole house small mammal proofed, kept the outside doors locked at all times and gave them free run of the house. I wouldn't consider keeping them in any other way so when I made the decision to get a dog I was house pet-less at the time and made a decision that by getting the dog I wasn't going to have any small mammals for the life span of the dog, (or more likely never again). So if someone has a terrier and wants to get a rabbit I state the above and advise against it.

Equine company is the most basic psychological need for a horse so if I'm asked for advice from someone who wants a horse I'll advise they find a companion also or keep it somewhere with other horses. I wouldn't dream of keeping a horse on its own so I'm not going to tell someone else they should, that makes no sense at all. I have to say though I treat riding whips the same as spurs - you should only have them if you are competent enough to not need them. I always carry a whip, its only ever used to 'tickle' - literally, its just an extension of my arm I have never used it to whip, slap or even tap a horse, that isn't its purpose and if I'm asked about this, I'll say if you 'need' it you shouldn't have it, a fly pestering a horse often has as much if not more of an effect than a slap on the rump with a hand.

fatmammycat

Cruelty to me is making an animal's life miserable. Seems pretty straight forward.

Wolfe Tone

fatmammycat wrote: »

Cruelty to me is making an animal's life miserable. Seems pretty straight forward.

Dig deeper and its not that simple. Is disciplining an animal not making it miserable?

Sometimes you have to look at the big picture beyond the simplistic one you have painted.

pokertalk

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Dig deeper and its not that simple. Is disciplining an animal not making it miserable?

Sometimes you have to look at the big picture beyond the simplistic one you have painted.

i would say that imo it would be in a dogs case would be no regular excercise or moderate , food, water, not hit or worse ,that would be the basic.. the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, . It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death

scudzilla

pokertalk wrote: »

so necessary SUFFERING would be ok?your methods worked because your dogs were afraid of you.other peoples methods work because the reward them

I take my dog on 2 walks a day, one extremely long one, i play with her, i buy her a small toy a week to add to her toy bag (keeps her stimulated).

I take her to the vets at the first sign of trouble, i feed her well, with Royal Canin and also chicken/rice/scrambled eggs/sardines.

I also give her a slap on the arse if she's been naughty and shout at her, that doesn't happen often, very very rarely in fact.

When we play she gets very vocal and growls/snarls/barks at me, but it's all in jest as ya can see she's having a great time.

So no, my methods haven't worked because she's afraid of me, she realises i'm her master and she's below me.

Just like a pack of wolves in the wild, there's a pecking order, one at the top and the rest below toe the line

pokertalk

scudzilla wrote: »

I take my dog on 2 walks a day, one extremely long one, i play with her, i buy her a small toy a week to add to her toy bag (keeps her stimulated).

I take her to the vets at the first sign of trouble, i feed her well, with Royal Canin and also chicken/rice/scrambled eggs/sardines.

I also give her a slap on the arse if she's been naughty and shout at her, that doesn't happen often, very very rarely in fact.

When we play she gets very vocal and growls/snarls/barks at me, but it's all in jest as ya can see she's having a great time.

So no, my methods haven't worked because she's afraid of me, she realises i'm her master and she's below me.

Just like a pack of wolves in the wild, there's a pecking order, one at the top and the rest below toe the line

im not making you out to be a monster im sure your a loving dog owner. but you can get the same results and still be the boss without having to slap the dog .if the dog does something wrong you might give her a slap so she learns not to do it again yeah? so if dog does not find any disconfort from your slap then she is going to carry on doing the wrong thing.so that can only mean the the dog is feeling pain when she is being slapped .

scudzilla

pokertalk wrote: »

im not making you out to be a monster im sure your a loving dog owner. but you can get the same results and still be the boss without having to slap the dog .if the dog does something wrong you might give her a slap so she learns not to do it again yeah? so if dog does not find any disconfort from your slap then she is going to carry on doing the wrong thing.so that can only mean the the dog is feeling pain when she is being slapped .

Some people can't afford 20 quid or whatever it is for weekly therapy sessions, my way has worked all my life and i'll stick with it.

If one of my kids was out of order they'd get a slap too, doesn't mean i don't love 'em any less.

(Slap = just what it says, NOT a beating to within an inch of there lives)

It is also a dog, so these therapy sessions, IMO, are complete bullshit, the only people they benefit are people like Cesar Milan

Cherry Blossom

scudzilla wrote: »

I also give her a slap on the arse if she's been naughty and shout at her, that doesn't happen often, very very rarely in fact.

I find 5 seconds on the other side of a closed door pretty effective for most undesirable behavior

scudzilla

anniehoo wrote: »

Can i have some of your popcorn Scudzilla...

Sure

get yer feet up and enjoy the show :rolleyes::rolleyes:

pokertalk

scudzilla wrote: »

Some people can't afford 20 quid or whatever it is for weekly therapy sessions, my way has worked all my life and i'll stick with it.

If one of my kids was out of order they'd get a slap too, doesn't mean i don't love 'em any less.

(Slap = just what it says, NOT a beating to within an inch of there lives)

It is also a dog, so these therapy sessions, IMO, are complete bullshit, the only people they benefit are people like Cesar Milan

i never said anything about therapy and im not accusing you of beating your dog ,i just think that rewarding your dog for not having a piss in the kitchen[ as in when im training them] is better than a slap.

pokertalk

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I find 5 seconds on the other side of a closed door pretty effective for most undesirable behavior

+1

Wolfe Tone

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I find 5 seconds on the other side of a closed door pretty effective for most undesirable behavior

Sure thats just as "bad" is it not except in a different way?

Cherry Blossom

In my opinion slapping a dog teaches them nothing except to fear the human hand, what happens when a stranger comes into your home reaches down to pat him on the head and the dog thinks he's going to get a slap. He isn't going to consider a stranger his master so there is a chance he will retaliate. You may own a big soft boxer that will probably lick the approaching hand but not every dog will.

Being in your company is a privilege for the dog, dog does something undesirable, has his privilege removed briefly, comes back in and gets to decide whether to continue the undesirable behaviour of have the privilege of your company. Same thing dog is on couch, growls, the privilege of sitting on the couch is removed. Dog starts racing around in the house, dog goes outside - and learns that running around is for outside. It's simple enough, if you want to be in this room you obey the rules of this room. My dog gets to sleep in my bed during the week, if she gets out once she gets put back in, if she gets out again she goes downstairs, those are the rules of that room. The same can be applied to basicly anything as long as you introduce the rules one at a time.

Whispered

I don't agree with dominance based training at all. I think it's based on a years old study, and is misguided. I don't think this mind set in itself is cruel. But sometimes methods used to assert dominance can be, especially if used by the wrong person with the wrong dog (ie my non dominant dog being held down by the neck by a former friend - cruelty and bullying at it's finest imo). I tend to get desired behaviour by making the dog work for everything. I suppose proponents of dominance theory would say this is me asserting my status? I wouldn't see it that way tbh, but if it is, it's the only way I do it.

I would like to discuss dominance training further - OP would you prefer me to start a thread, or are you happy for it to be spoken about here? I don't want to go OT on your thread.


I've never wiped a dogs nose in anything in my life and have had no problems house training. Fair enough if you were brought up think it's the way it's done, but after hearing of more pleasant and kinder ways to do it and continuing your way - cruel and lazy in my opinion.

For me cruelty is also making an animal live outside of their nature - so I would consider a herd animal or a pack animal living alone cruel, I don't know a whole lot about horses admittedly, but as a herd animal would prefer to see them kept in groups. (can a horsey person please correct me on that if I'm wrong). I think having a high energy dog bred for hunting or herding and not in some way allowing them to use that instinct is wrong and bordering on cruel.

I think I would prefer to see a dog who gets the occasional slap on the backside, (not to cause pain but to get attention) but has all of his social needs met, than a spoiled dog who is not allowed be a dog.

Of course I think I have it sussed with my two - a perfect balance :pac:

scudzilla

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

In my opinion slapping a dog teaches them nothing except to fear the human hand, what happens when a stranger comes into your home reaches down to pat him on the head and the dog thinks he's going to get a slap. He isn't going to consider a stranger his master so there is a chance he will retaliate. You may own a big soft boxer that will probably lick the approaching hand but not every dog will.

Being in your company is a privilege for the dog, dog does something undesirable, has his privilege removed briefly, comes back in and gets to decide whether to continue the undesirable behaviour of have the privilege of your company. Same thing dog is on couch, growls, the privilege of sitting on the couch is removed. Dog starts racing around in the house, dog goes outside - and learns that running around is for outside. It's simple enough, if you want to be in this room you obey the rules of this room. My dog gets to sleep in my bed during the week, if she gets out once she gets put back in, if she gets out again she goes downstairs, those are the rules of that room. The same can be applied to basicly anything as long as you introduce the rules one at a time.

Good idea's in principle, but i've not had to use them as our's really is so good, if i recall correctly i think i've slapped her arse 3 times, the main one was when she wrecked the kitchen when we went out, even though she had plenty of toys, her kong & treat ball. She got her slap and has never done it again, that, in my eyes, worked.

Now the question of the OP is how do you define Animal Cruelty, i don't think there will ever be an answer to that, ok ya may be able to state your own own personal opinion of what Animal Cruelty is, but then somebody else will come along and say "I beat the crap out of my animal to train it" and think that is perfectly justified as it's 'training'' :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Like i said in an earlier post, my idea of Animal Cruelty is causing any unnecessary harm towards an animal, be it physical or mental, i could never see an animal harmed (unless of course it's attacking a person but that's another story)

Cherry Blossom

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:

Graces7

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I find 5 seconds on the other side of a closed door pretty effective for most undesirable behavior

Hmmm... My wee dog would find that cruel in the extreme. Whereas a swift slap and then peace works without fear.It is NO in physical form and only used when there is real danger. ( I have Raynauds so it literally hurts me more than it does her!)

Frequency? Last time was several weeks ago.

Exiling her would hurt and damage this wee one.

A lot of this does depend on the dog. The collie, so abused so many years, would not ever get slapped, period. An appeal to her affection works with her every time. She expects cruelty so the opposite disarms her. Say her name in a certain tone when she is acting up and she rolls on her back!

Whereas wee dog is rumbustious and just occasionally needs a firm immediate reminder. So now a raised hand means NO; also used very rarely. For her safety in some cases.

And re the collie, cruelty was being shut in a dark shed 16/24, chained up outside. Never any real companionship.

They are as individual as people, the dogs we love.

Graces7

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

In my opinion slapping a dog teaches them nothing except to fear the human hand, what happens when a stranger comes into your home reaches down to pat him on the head and the dog thinks he's going to get a slap. He isn't going to consider a stranger his master so there is a chance he will retaliate. You may own a big soft boxer that will probably lick the approaching hand but not every dog will.

Being in your company is a privilege for the dog, dog does something undesirable, has his privilege removed briefly, comes back in and gets to decide whether to continue the undesirable behaviour of have the privilege of your company. Same thing dog is on couch, growls, the privilege of sitting on the couch is removed. Dog starts racing around in the house, dog goes outside - and learns that running around is for outside. It's simple enough, if you want to be in this room you obey the rules of this room. My dog gets to sleep in my bed during the week, if she gets out once she gets put back in, if she gets out again she goes downstairs, those are the rules of that room. The same can be applied to basicly anything as long as you introduce the rules one at a time.

Wee dog here ( see other post, please) is the one who gets an occasional slap; it had never occurred to me to think as you are speaking. She knows the difference between a pat on the head from affection and a slap on the rump for really bad behaviour. She loves being petted by everyone. The word NO always precedes the slap and the slap is only ever used if NO is ignored and the behaviour is really bad. Which rarely happens.

Graces7

Whispered wrote: »

I don't agree with dominance based training at all. I think it's based on a years old study, and is misguided. I don't think this mind set in itself is cruel. But sometimes methods used to assert dominance can be, especially if used by the wrong person with the wrong dog (ie my non dominant dog being held down by the neck by a former friend - cruelty and bullying at it's finest imo). I tend to get desired behaviour by making the dog work for everything. I suppose proponents of dominance theory would say this is me asserting my status? I wouldn't see it that way tbh, but if it is, it's the only way I do it.

I would like to discuss dominance training further - OP would you prefer me to start a thread, or are you happy for it to be spoken about here? I don't want to go OT on your thread.


I've never wiped a dogs nose in anything in my life and have had no problems house training. Fair enough if you were brought up think it's the way it's done, but after hearing of more pleasant and kinder ways to do it and continuing your way - cruel and lazy in my opinion.

For me cruelty is also making an animal live outside of their nature - so I would consider a herd animal or a pack animal living alone cruel, I don't know a whole lot about horses admittedly, but as a herd animal would prefer to see them kept in groups. (can a horsey person please correct me on that if I'm wrong). I think having a high energy dog bred for hunting or herding and not in some way allowing them to use that instinct is wrong and bordering on cruel.

I think I would prefer to see a dog who gets the occasional slap on the backside, (not to cause pain but to get attention) but has all of his social needs met, than a spoiled dog who is not allowed be a dog.

Of course I think I have it sussed with my two - a perfect balance :pac:

Exactly so... Collie here runs with wee dog who is half Bassett and thus a scent hound. Fascinating to watch them in the fields. Wee dog runs, nose to the ground, ignoring collie.. collie gets near her and starts sneaking up sheepdog style... They rarely interact as each does her own instinctive thing. Always eager to come to me if I sit on a tree stump.

byhookorbycrook

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:

As a friend says of the pony ads' "only for sale as little Katie is still in a coma.":D
I ride a small fat cob, he takes the p with any beginners and I will give him a smack if he is bold,one good smack on his little fat rump and a growl and he knows to cop on. I don't see that is cruel,but maybe others will.

Shanao

As far as I'm concerned, anything that breaches the five freedoms of animal welfare is cruelty. I hate dominance based training and only train with positive reinforcement. I've never had a problem housetraining, my dogs are excellent with kids, other dogs and small animals despite being a breed that are 'renowned' as being terrible with other dogs and strangers.

cjf

If I could redefine the laws surrounding animal cruelty I would change what the term 'basic needs' means. By law dogs are required to be provided with food water and shelter I wish it could be expanded to cover what acceptable shelter is, to include human and social interaction which is so important for every dog, microchipping should be mandatory and in my ideal world spaying and neutering would be mandatory unless people register to breed their dogs and agree any dogs they breed will be put on a register a microchipped. Would be great to make a paper trail so if dog turns up in shocking condition dumped on side of a road it would be possible to trace back who bred the dog, bought the dog etc. Just so many dogs and pups badly treated and dumped everyday and irresponsible people who just get away scot free with no consequence for their actions it's the 'do gooders' and people who are accused of 'lecturing' and preaching that most often are the people who are working on their own time and money everyday trying to pick up the pieces of people's ignorance, selfishness and lack of any care or respect for these animals.... I don't think the current laws are thorough enough and I think the lack of consequence makes it all to easy for people to buy, abuse, dump dogs. Bit of a rant but just been one of those days!!

slashygoodness

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.

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.