>So would they pay a lot of money to travel large distances to have them
>treated by someone competent to do so? If so, the rarity of vets should
>increase their value.
Not always possible. If you cant get time off of work/school to travel....
If you are disabled and unable to travel. If you havent the money to
travel. If you are still a "kid" (so to say) and your parents wont let you.
Also, in case of an emergancy- such travel could take more time than there
is to get the animal treated. (I once couldnt find an after-hours emergancy
vet knowledgebly with certain type of operation on rats who woudl takemy rat
at 3 am- any closer than a 3 hr drive away. At the rat the rat I had was
bleeding- it woudl be dead within the hour isf not treated. In other cases,
if an animal is injured with damaged bones and internal bleeding etc, the
motion of car travel and handling can actually causemore harm or kill it in
the process of transport.
> > It costs me $25 to have my cat see a
> >vet. if I was "poor" I could get a charity vet via the shelter for even
> >less than that. To take 1 rat/gerbil/mouse/hamster/etc in to the vet?
>$40.
> > Just for walkign inthe door. We had one rat with an injury once and we
> >were quoted a treatment fee in estimate of $850 - 1100 AND he was given
>only
> > 25% chance at surviving the operation. Now I usually dont hesitate to
>do
> >whatever necissary to help an animal, but even my credit card can't carry
>a
> >balance THAT high! Am I "uncaring" towards rodents because I dont have a
> >thousand dollars laying around? I dont think so, nor would I judge
>soemoen
> >else as "uncaring" if somethign liek that happened to their
> >rat/dog/bird/hamster whatever.
>
>But you said that it was important that people pay more for an animal so
>that the law recognises its value. So poor people who are likely to
>spend less on a pet have less legal protection for their property? Isn't
>there something wrong with that?
No because you were making the argument that the animals value should be
based on what peopel woudl spend to save its life. Our country Does NOT
decide the value of the animal that way! If I spent $5 to buy a pet rat and
$500 on its operation, our courts STILL see that rat as being worth only $5.
And yes in a way, poor peopel here DO have less protection for their
property (Ive been from middle class to rich to rags to riches to middle
class again so Im pretty familiar with the "range" of protection and
treatment one gets deoendign on it) - because their property is worth less
and therefor not "worth it" for courts and insurance companies etc to
protect. Pity the poor person who had a very very old, but very reliable
car that gets "totalled" in a car accident. Theyll be lucky to get a few
hundred to a few thousand out of it- and if they had been lucky in having a
reliable car that unfortunatly was totalled, the country doesnt care that it
was "reliable" in getting them to work etc- just what the "blue book" "says"
the cars worth. For what you will get back for that car when totalled, you
almost CERTAINLY can NOT buy another decent car for that $. On the other
hand if you are filthy rich and buy a new mercedes everyother year, you're
certain to get your car replaced. Don't even push me into the realm of
medical care for the poor vs. the rich..... I never said the country was
doing things "right" haha. But you need to know HOW it does things to get
the best protection possible in the state of the way things are run at this
very moment. (change would be nice... but it hasnt changed YET).
> >if My rat or gerbil or whatever NEVER gets
> >sick and needs to see a vet, does that mean I DONT love it as much as one
> >that I take in for a $300 operation?
>
>I referred to what someone would pay, not what they have paid. The
>courts in the US may be unable to understand that something has more
>value than what was paid for it, but everyone in the real world know
>that value has nothing to do with this. Of course laws often deal with
>replacement costs but we are not talking about this here. We are talking
>about animal welfare.<
How the courts SEE the value of the animal IS related to animal welfare
because if the courts refuse to see the animals as worth anythign you can't
get any action against those who harm animals. Thisis how so many peopel
get away with murder (litterally). Even if you changed the way most peopel
"valued" animals- they STILL will have no ability to protect their animals
against the few who do not value the animals because the laws arent set up
to protect a "property" that "cost nothing".
>I understand that you are saying that US courts
>only value an animal if it has a high replacement cost, but I would be
>interested in seeing what the relevant law actually says.
They vary from city to city, state to state etc. As I beleive I mentioned
before there are states in which rodents are well protected (I am fortunate
to live in such an area that god forbid say a rat of mine bit soemone, the
benefit of the doubt will go to me and my animal becuase who ever wrote the
laws here had the common sense to investigate if rats could transmit rabies
(theres NO recorded cases of a rat being able to do so)). If I go to
another state however, that rat could be confiscated on te spot and
euthanized to test it for rabies. Whether or not Id have to pay a fine as
well and how much would vary from location to location. In some states any
murine rodent has NO protection under Animal Welfare/Anti-cruelty laws (they
are specifically written out ofprotection) where as in ther places they are
included if domesticated.
>There are similar issues in the UK, but they does not depend on a value
>at all, but there have been cases that found that an animal did not
>suffer because death was instantaneous. Note, the suffering of the
>animal is the measure, not the type, cost or value of the animal.
It would be nice of suffering was taken more seriously in the measure of
cruelty doen to an animal.
> > CHANGE IS
> >*SLOW*.
>
>Yes, but I still don't see how charging $50 for gerbil instead of $5
>will change anything other than the type of people who will start
>breeding gerbils because they see money in it.
Well I didnt say $50, but yes a bit more than just a few dollars! the
reason is that if anythign happened to that gerbil becuase of soemoene elses
neglect or cruelty- you can take them to court and get them charged with
neglect/abuse of an animal. Unfortunately, if thatnaimal is an
"insignificant" dollar amount, you cant do that- (though ideally, you
SHOULD).
Also, you dont use that money as the only measure for screenign buyers- You
still use your usual interveiws etc to make sure you only give animals to
peopel you feel have their hearts int he right place. And For the record
also, if theres a situation where you know the animal will get good care but
the peopel cant pay the full purchase cost (lets say, the person happens to
have a vet sent to heaven who is happy to ajust fees and do minor treatments
for free even (hey they DO exist, they are just very rare!) You can still
make the animal $25 in the eyes of the court but less to the person
themselves. I do this quite often. for example, I had a girl who was 16
who wanted to get into rat breeding- I invited her to come "work" in my
rodentry for a coupel hours over a few weekends to get a feel for the work
involved. I put a dollar amount on her time when she was helping out (all
the while she got to learn how to mix up food, sex babies, soem genetic
basics etc. Kinda liek being paid to go to school (wouldnt that be nice!)).
Then i subtracted that dollar amount from the rats she selected from me
for her "pets and foundation line"... They are very expensive rats , but she
still didnt pay anythign because her "work" paid for it, butin turn her
"work" ensured that she knew what she was getting into and would start out
with experience so I knew she'd start out carign for the animals right.
See just because Im sayign the animals need a "value" amount on them doesnt
mean that only rich peopel get them or that you are trying to turn a buck or
something.
> >>Would a court say a child's life has no value because
> >>it can easily be replaced by a fertile couple? Of course not. This is
> >>all about attitudes and not money.<
> >
> >Tell that to our courts, culture, society.
>
>That is what I am suggesting you do!
Oh for Heaven's Sake! there are plenty of groups that DO. People have been
for years. My sayign soemthing isnt goign to change things over night just
like the thousands of otherpeopel who speak up havent changed things over
night!
(And for the record, i do do alot of work/volunteering in fields that
promote the value and welfare of animals, particularily through animal
shelter/rescues groups and our local wildlife and enviromental network, so
your suggestion sounds rather an insult- I can'texactly do more work than I
already do enless soemoene can magically add a few extra hours to the day!)
ag
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
