SPCA leads by example ...

[danielle]

How about when a snake escapes because someone forgot to secure the lid, an animal dies while being shipped, or in transit to shows. These are some of the exact reasons people want to ban our hobby and in these cases we don't agree so why the hypocrisy now? Any death is sad and unfortunate, but intent and knowledge of the scenerio has a lot to do with whether or not someone should receive real punishments. Accidents are not always punishable by law because things like intent and knowledge do come into to play- all humans will make mistakes period. If she knew the dog was in there and chose to leave him in the car thats negligence and punishable, but do we really want to condemn someone for not being able to avoid a situation? I don't search my car for my dogs when I leave if I didn't put them in there. Should it be illegal to ship and transport animals because its common knowledge death and injury can and have occured? What would that do to our hobby? There is a HUGE difference between negligence that results in an accident and accidents that are out of our control.

 

[Stregone]

Jeeze. They aren't guilty of anything more than a lack of communication. If anyone is at fault it is the husband for not telling her he put the dog in the car. Unless you think he snuck the dog in there hoping it would be overlooked and left to die then there was no crime committed.

 

[danielle]

If it were an average Jane it would be this SPCA person doing the decrying. She would be the one leading the charge for Jane's prosection! :shrugs:

So just because historically the SPCA and similar groups show no remorse for these situations, use them against hobbiests, and neglect to give humans room for error we should too? What I ask my children is how many wrongs make a right? The answer is none! If it were one of us we wouldn't react the same way and haven't- we call these situations unfortunate mistakes and tell eachother its o.k accidents happen don't beat yourself up. Be bigger and better than the hypocrites

 

[Emily1188]

I must be missing something...

I see the husband as guilty of negligence, by leaving the dog in the car and failing to inform the car's driver that said dog was inside. No, he didn't want to fry the dog - that would be abuse. Accidentally frying the dog because you failed to keep track of it is negligence... He put the dog in there, it didn't climb in itself. He should have kept track of it.

I'm not suggesting that he wanted to kill the dog, but that his irresponsible behavior got the dog killed. It's murder vs. manslaughter, or in this case, abuse vs. neglect.

I'm just having a hard time seeing it any other way, even though I am sincerely trying. Maybe I'm just not very sympathetic in general... :uhoh:

 

[Stregone]

Bottom line is the DA gets to decide who gets charged for what. Sure the husband may have been negligent, but you have to prove it to a jury. Just ask yourself if it is worth the time and tax payer money to attempt to get someone in jail over this?

Someone else would probably complain they are wasting time doing that when they could be looking for rapists and murderers.

 

[Drizzt80]

Bottom line is the DA gets to decide who gets charged for what. Sure the husband may have been negligent, but you have to prove it to a jury. Just ask yourself if it is worth the time and tax payer money to attempt to get someone in jail over this?

Someone else would probably complain they are wasting time doing that when they could be looking for rapists and murderers.

. . . or people that spill hot coffee on themselves.

D80

 

[Nova_C]

. . . or people that spill hot coffee on themselves.

D80

If you're talking about that lady who sued McDonald's, it's a lot less ridiculous than the media made it out to be.

 

[Ricky87]

How about when a snake escapes because someone forgot to secure the lid, an animal dies while being shipped, or in transit to shows. These are some of the exact reasons people want to ban our hobby and in these cases we don't agree so why the hypocrisy now? Any death is sad and unfortunate, but intent and knowledge of the scenerio has a lot to do with whether or not someone should receive real punishments. Accidents are not always punishable by law because things like intent and knowledge do come into to play- all humans will make mistakes period. If she knew the dog was in there and chose to leave him in the car thats negligence and punishable, but do we really want to condemn someone for not being able to avoid a situation? I don't search my car for my dogs when I leave if I didn't put them in there. Should it be illegal to ship and transport animals because its common knowledge death and injury can and have occured? What would that do to our hobby? There is a HUGE difference between negligence that results in an accident and accidents that are out of our control.

So just because historically the SPCA and similar groups show no remorse for these situations, use them against hobbiests, and neglect to give humans room for error we should too? What I ask my children is how many wrongs make a right? The answer is none! If it were one of us we wouldn't react the same way and haven't- we call these situations unfortunate mistakes and tell eachother its o.k accidents happen don't beat yourself up. Be bigger and better than the hypocrites

I agree 1000%!!!. Every single one of your posts has been honest, sympathetic, realistic, and so far from hypocritical. I would have spent a little of my time posting my views, but you've covered it all, so instead I'll say thank you Danielle for the insight and I'm SO in agreement!. I know it's not an argument, but still you make very great points; have yourself a Santa!!. :santa:

 

[Shiari]

Yeah, Shiari, do a search for people's dogs dying in hot cars and see how much sympathy there is.

In turn, do a search and find out how many of those were NOT "I was just going into the store for a minute"-type situations where the owner KNEW the dog was in the car.

Most cases of dog-cooked-in-car were people being utter morons who *purposefully* left the dog in there. Or put the dog in there, subsequently forgot about them, and then they died.

This lady did NOT put the dog in the car. I repeat my previous statement. If I put 0 cats in my car, I am not going to look for a cat in my car.

 

[danielle]

Don't worry Shiari maybe Nova should do a search on here about how sympathetic we are when someone cooks a snake...oh wait we are. Only snake lovers can make mistakes

 

[ceduke]

I'm thinking about when I worked in an emergency vet clinic for a few months. The roasted dog we *barely* managed to save during my first week was a Newfoundland, whose owner had left it in the car in 95 degree weather WHILE SHE GOT HER NAILS DONE.

Even though the dog (barely)survived, I feel that in this case she should have had the book thrown at her. That is the kind of person who needs to be locked up and barred from owning animals. Not someone who makes an honest mistake that has tragic consequences. Perhaps a negligence charge should be filed, but I don't think this is a case where the law should throw its full weight at her.

Just my opinion.

 

[Criosphynx]

As a owner of 5 dogs I can say without question that 4 of my 5 would be silent and still on a car ride...My 5th is silent and still but is big enough to be seen in the rear view mirror.

The dog that died was a small dog, really easy to not hear, to not see...also the type of vehicle has to be taken into account...in my Saturn I can see my dogs when I exit, in my focus I can't see them unless I LOOK for them.

I have HORRENDOUS memory issues. What happened to this woman is my biggest fear. Maybe thats why I sympathize...because I could see it happening to me if I wasn't anal about remembering them...

I have to put my purse with the dog and tape a note to the steering wheel so I wont forget they are there.

that said the HUSBAND needs negligence charges. I don't fault the woman if the story is true.

Very sad, if it were me, I'd be hysterical.