Do animals have rights under the United States Constitution?

AGK so you are saying one that purposely putting an animal in a harms way situation as responsible as one can be about it would be okay but not one out of neglect? Is the end result not the same putting ethics and personal oppinion aside? Don't get me wrong I don't believe torturing an animal is right but there is little to no difference in the outcome. I respect most on here for doing what they do because I feel it is okay but that does that make it right? It's all personal oppinion but I not one to dress things up and make it look like something it is not. Just my 2c.

 

No, im saying its about ones own ethics and animals are property owned by us. I also don't believe AR nuts should be placed in positions to judge what others do with their own animals either but certain things simply should not be allowed, things like I mentioned should not be tolerated in a so called civilized society. I don't believe a animal has any rights under our constitution but it certainly has the right to be and you as the owner have a degree of responsibility in it's care. I can watch a match all day long and it doesn't constitute as cruelty to me but once they cross over to the mind state that one or the other no longer wish's to be there anymore and the owner keeps them there anyways, that is cruel to me. Im not as smart as TDK and his vocabulary is much superior than mine is, im just some stoner with dogs but TDK's first post says everything I meant to say but lack the education to sucessfully verbalize my point of view properly and much more effectively.
There is a fine line between cruelty and sport IMO. I hunt animals regularly, I dont feel hunting is inherently cruel yet i would never hunt on fenced in reserves or bait the area I hunt simply because I believe in fair chase. While I have the right to feed myself, the animal has a right to be able to out smart me and escape. I also would not sit and watch a dog fight between a Bulldog and say a lab or a lesser breed, to me, that is cruel. Starving a horse to death out of negligence is cruel to me too, culling an animal for whatever reason is not cruel to me when done ethically and not in a tourturing manner.. Setting an animal on fire is cruel, culling with a bullet, not so much. See, it really depends on the circumstances of the event as to what I feel is right or wrong or cruel or not which can leave a lot of room for misinterpretation because it really just depends on the specifics of a particular instance as to whether or not I think it is cruel or not. Plus, this is a very complex issue and in no way could I fully get my point across in a handful of paragraphs.
It's like there is 2 ends of the spectrum, one end you have groups like PETA, HSUS, ASPCA etc. and on the other end you have some POS that get a hard on when they curb stomp a cat to death for fun. Somewhere between those 2 extremes, the middle, is where I feel I stand on the rights issue. I feel I have a farm mentality so certain things I don't see as cruel someone who lives in a high rise and carries their dog around in their purse with them might feel is cruel, like branding or culling as an example..

 

Pretty good post , at least some one gets it LOL. I guess you are a lot brighter then you seem Ursaminor lol.

 

AGK and I are very similar but different in a lot of ways. I do agree with most everything he has said. Regardless of our different views, I respect him.
Except, I don't have a problem baiting animals that I hunt, just like I hunt for rack size even though I do fill all my doe tags each year. I also hunt bucks for rack size/ body size. It's not wrong in my eyes to do this because I also take care of my food plots year round and make sure the deer and wild life around has plenty to eat.
My friend owned a few blue healers that his family used as cattle dogs. They were bred for this reason, they were designed for this purpose.
People brag about owning the APBT but they are against what it's designed to do.
IMHO, If you are against it, you don't need to be in this breed! Just like you don't own a lab or gun dog as a house pet. These dogs were designed for a special reason, they have been bred for a purpose and when you take that out of them. You have a shell of an animal! It's no longer a gun dog or hunting dog, it's just a dog.
Animals have the right to do as we want them, they rely on us to feed, water and clean up after them. I give them the right to live by not killing or neglecting them. I give them what they need and they give me what I ask from them. If they don't do that, they have no place at my house.

 

Very well said Dunlap.

 

So stemming from your last sentence, you do believe that cruelty to animals is in the eye of the beholder?

 

Animals have the right to do as we want them. With that said shouldnt we be allowed to do anything with them or are you just picking and choosing what you deem is not cruel in YOUR EYES?

I give them the right to live by not killing or neglecting them. So you dont cull or eat animals? LOL

 

There once was a dude who told me he never killed any living animal in his life.

So I said WHAT? You mean to tell me you aint never killed a cockroach, ant, or a mouse or even flush your pet gold fish down the toilet?

His reply was those are NOT animals LMAO.

 

I believe any animal in the possession of a person should be granted good husbandry. If a person isn't going to allow that animal that he or she does not deserve that animal. I feel cull animals should be given a swift demise with minimal pain as possible. I feel animals that are hunted should be taken and utilized with respect to said animal. All of these beliefs are engrained in me. I was taught good animal husbandry and also how to be a responsible hunter as a child. An animal has no rights per se but under these two beliefs they have some things that should be afforded to them. If a person is not willing to do so he has no right to own or hunt said animal


Shotgun
Arkansas

 

If a person is not willing to do this he has no right to own or hunt said animal???

 

No where did I say an animal has constitutional rights. No where did I say an animal has rights. What I said is if a person does not care for their animals they should not be allowed to have them. If a person kills animals solely for the fact of killing he should not be allowed to do so. So yes I did get more into what is correct morally than if an animal has constitutional rights.


Shotgun
Arkansas

 

Saiygin, what do you do with your animals? Do you use them for anything?

A definition for Domestic Animal- a relatively docile animal kept by humans for work or food or as a pet.
A definition for Animal Cruelty-
Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon non-human animals, for purposes other than self-defense or survival. More narrowly, it can be harm for specific gain, such as killing animals for food or for their fur, although opinions differ with respect to the method of slaughter. It usually encompasses inflicting harm for personal amusement. Diverging viewpoints are held by jurisdictions throughout the world. Laws concerning animal cruelty are designed to prevent needless cruelty to animals, rather than killing for other aims such as food, or they concern species not eaten as food in the country involved, such as those regarded as pets.
Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to the issue. The animal welfare position holds that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for human purposes, such as food, clothing, entertainment, and research, but that it should be done in a humane way that minimizes unnecessary pain and suffering. Animal rights theorists criticize this position, arguing that the words "unnecessary" and "humane" are subject to widely differing interpretations, and that the only way to ensure protection for animals is to end their status as property, and to ensure that they are never used as commodities.

According to these to definitions, MY ANIMALS are DOMESTIC. They are kept for working purposes. Now, as for animal cruelty, depending on which side of the pond you would like to stand. It could mean different things. According to the Animal Welfare Position, I am doing nothing illegal by putting a dog down. AS LONG AS...I do it in a humane way that minimizes unnecessary pain and suffering. Bullets limit what he/ she feels.

Again, read what is above. I do cull my animals but not for entertainment such as burning them, beating them to death or suffocating them. My way is humane according to the law. I do hunt and fish which is legal and nothing is cruel about that in not just my eyes but the eyes of hundreds of thousands of others. According to the president you voted for Mr. Obama, it's the minority that matters, not the Majority. Live on hunting!!!

 

Ah the humane way huh? LOL....I am not allowed to vote lol

 

Should not be allowed to have them? BSL people think the same way as you do LMAO.

 

No I said nothing about BSL. My statement has not one thing to do with a breed of any kind. It has to do with the man that has a yard full of sick and starving animals. Animals that are not cared for. I don't care if it's cats. If u can't afford to feed and care for an animal u should not have them period. Anyone that has a problem with this thinking probly has a bunch of half starved mangy mutts covered in fleas and ticks in their yard.


Shotgun
Arkansas

 

For anybody or any thing to have "rights" they would need to have the cognitive ability to understand & exert those rights3

 

Since when does an exclamation point appear as a 3?

 

In some instances yes however certian acts are universally cruel.

 

Using an animal for its intended purpose is not cruel..setting one on fire is. Seems common sense isn't so common.

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk