TruthaboutPetFood.com

Usually I'm on board with the causes here, but I have to disagree with this sweeping Animal Bill of Rights proposal and would encourage people to NOT vote for it. I love my animals and want to continue to have the right to care for them and keep them in my home as pets. This Bill is not about animal WELFARE, it's about animal RIGHTS and there's a huge difference between the two. Animal welfare proponents want to improve the wellbeing of animals in the context of their position as animals. Animal RIGHTS advocates (e.g., PETA) strive to elevate animals to a higher status in society. Animal RIGHTS activists don't think anyone should own an animal, that employing a dog in service (a guide dog, police K9, SAR, etc.) is "slavery." Rather than give animals additional rights,  it's our responsibility to enforce the laws that are already in place that are meant to protect animals (whether it's humane slaughter practices, enforcing dog fight laws, or actually enforcing laws regarding the conditions of commercial breeders) and increase penalties for people who break these laws.

The first stated right on the Animal Bill of Rights essentially means we're all vegetarians from here on out because slaughtering cattle would most certainly be considered abusive.

Additionally, did you know that the only reason your stolen or lost dog must be returned to you (if it has been identified as BELONGING to you via a microchip or other ID) is because he's considered YOUR PROPERTY? If your dog is given legal rights as a sentient being, one could argue that the dog CHOSE to go with him so he has a right to keep your dog.

We need to be careful of any language or legislation that changes the core definition of an animal. An animal is not a human. I agree that animals should be treated more than humanely, fed well, sheltered, and loved, but I do not agree that animals are equal to humans and defining them as such in an attempt to protect them will backfire on us.

The proposed bill is just that, a proposed idea that more than likely would go thru many changes before it would ever become law, IF it ever became law.  Something needs to happen to change the status of our pets to more than just property because without those changes, there will be no deterrents to prevent pet food recalls such as what happened in 2007.  Chem-Nutra walked away with a small fine and probation, Menu Foods had nothing happen to them.  What has happened since 2007 that will help prevent this from happening again?  Not much.  There need to be more penalties and our pets status does need to be elevated. I dont know about others but in my household, my pet IS more than just property, she is a member of the family just like the pet food companies describe in their TV commercials.  The difference is they say they view our pets as family but if my pet eats their tainted pet food, in the eyes of the law, she is worth less than a cheap bookend from Wal-Mart.  There are no laws protecting my pet the next time a pet food company decides to be wreckless with the product they sell, if this proposed rule helps change that, Im all for it. I encourage others to vote yes for this proposal.

I have to join Sandra in requesting concerned pet owners to enthusiastically vote for ALDF's Animal Bill of Rights on change.org

None of the dire predictions Sarah is making are contained in the Bill of Rights itself. Animal laws for companion animals are not being permanently altered to give all animals equivalency to human beings.

What is being requested here is a recognition that animals and companion animals/pets are recognized in a different legal status than pieces of furniture or old shoes. Pets should be entitled to decent health care, non-abusive treatment, and a healthy pet diet made of other than waste products of the human food chain that can kill them.

Because most pet owners had no clue of the legal status of pets prior to the March 2007 pet food recalls, there were no legal grounds to punish pet food makers for their negligence.

Food industry lobbyists and veterinarians fearing the need for malpractice insurance are going to massively resist changes in animal and companion pet legal status. Don't buy their theme of the last 30 years that they have animal welfare at heart. ChemNutra's wrist slap proves that as pet legal status stands, profits are valued way above pets.

Vote to begin to change companion animal legal status so that pets and other animals fed contaminated food have a right to protections in the courts. Let the powers that be understand that the pet owners of 2007 learned their legal lessons and are out to level the legal playing field.

I'm all for changing the way courts deal with cases involving pet death. Individual court rulings are already changing and moving more in favor of pet owners and precedents are being set. I'm all for coming up with laws to allow pet owners to recover all the monetary costs associated with a dead or ailing pet due to pet food or veterinary malpractice. This is a very informative site and has info. regarding property law and pet death:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/petfood.html

We should be careful to not confuse "animal rights" with animal welfare.

With animal rights you will find yourself as a guardian.

Gail T. Fisher wrote a good article on the subject for the APDT Chronicle.

You can find the article here:

http://www.alldogsacademy.com/content/view/450/5/

I have to agree with Sarah. This bill is not good news for animals nor for animal owners.

The interests which are pushing for this bill are vegans, whose goal is to legally define 'animal ownership' as 'animal abuse'.

This not only means no meat in the near future, but also no milk, eggs, wool - or pets.

Wayne Pacelle, now CEO of HSUS said: "We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." quoted in Animal People, May, 1993

HSUS has hijacked the term 'animal welfare'; they are now the primary animal rights organization in the country and are responsible for most of the bad animal laws which are blanketing the country.

If you want to keep your right to own pets (and look after them to the standard *you* set) and eat a healthy diet, vote vigorously against this law.

See, thats where the misunderstanding must be.  Im not interested in compensation for myself, what I want to see is more penalties for pet food companies and companies such as Menu Foods and Chem-Nutra.  I dont know what it takes to do that but I do know there is nothing in the law right now that holds these companies truly liable or responsible for what they did in 2007 so there is nothing preventing them from doing it again. I dont know if this is the law to do it, I do know that this law wont progress any futher because people are too afraid of its consequences.  What I do know is it apparently will take more people to have their pets die from pet food to understand the helplessness and heartache one goes thru when it happens.  I can guarantee if it happens to you, you would want Chem-Nutra to have more than a minor fine and probation. I guess Im not sure why Susan and others are fighting this battle if people are so afraid of their pets having rights.  By the way, I dont need to read an article to know how the pet food case of 2007 turned out and what laws apply, I lived it and unfortuantely, the consequence was my cat who is now dead because of the lack of laws to protect her and others like her. I dont know what the answer is but I do know the status quo is not working.