Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

Subject: GUARDIANS OF DOGS? Author: WAF [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 18:17:46 10/13/02 Sun Guardians, is it possible? Copyright WAF 2001 Legal Status of the Dog? The laws governing dogs in those countries with an Anglo Saxon background are based upon English common Law. Under this law dogs have a staus which is inferior to man. Some authorities divided the animals into two classes. One class were placed the food and work animals. They were given "property status". There value as property was easily established, dogs and other pets were said to be owned for whim or pleasure. They were to have no value and could not come under the protection of larceny or illegal killing statues. English and American courts placed dogs in another classification, under the Common law concept of a base nature it is not considered to be property however the dog may be considered to be an inferior type of property. The dog is therefore entiltled to less protection under the law than animals such as cattle and sheep. The owners rights might be upheld under civil action but not the criminal code. The dog is not ordinarily required to be listed for personal property taxation. Nor is it listed as an asset in an estate. With the development of dog shows, obedience trials, agility and field trials, and the owners purchasing expensive equipment and veterinary care the status of the dog has been elevated to an animal with a value. Some courts still consider the dog to be of an inferior nature. One of the main reasons for this is the dogs ability to for getting in trouble, many owners allow their dogs to roam and the dog can move from being a nuisance to being mischievous, dangerous and a killer real fast. Alot of the governments in the world have made the dog subject to drastic police control. Some courts have ruled the police action against the dog is not unconstitutional and is not against the right of due process of the law concerning seizure of personal property. Some governments permit dogs to be killed on sight depending of the severity of what the dog has done. Some go even farther and permit dogs to be killed on the property of anyone but the owner. Dog taxes which are in the form of licences are levied by local or county governments. the fees are used for enforcement costs of administrating the law. Under the old Common Law the owner of a dog is to be held liable for any damage done by the dog. Some courts have refused to modify this. For example; a badly bitten trespasser or burglar can win a damage suit against the owner of the dog. In some cases the courts rule the dog was extremly vicious and order it destroyed. The Common Law concept is so strong that many courts have upheld decisions even in the presence of laws to the contrary. An example is a case where a young boy attempted to rob a junk yard and was attacked by guard dogs. The family sued the junk yard and the lower courts refused the claim. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the family. The Supreme Court ruled the attack by the dogs was too great for the crime being committed. The courts in our country allow for provisions, if a dog is provoked or protecting it's owner depending on the severity of the injury inflicted by the dog verses the provocation, dogs are protected under our laws. In the issues dealing with Police K9 dogs and service dogs the fact is brought up that the injuries inflicted by the dog in most cases is less severe than the use of a gun, so therefore the constitutionality of K9 dogs is upheld in most cases. So would it therefore justified to say that dogs are personal valueable property? YES In our country dogs are considered a domestic pet and the dog is subjected to be taxed. This is refering to a license. This gives the dog some legal rights but also brings their owner under liablities and holds the dogs responsible in some cases to warrant being detroyed. If a dog is allowed to live on a persons property the person is regarded as the owner unless he can prove otherwise. So therefore if the word Guardianship is put in place of owner then it would greatly affect the taxing (licensing) of dogs and raise serious question to constitutional rights of personal property and liability. The guardianship legislation also greatly affects the dangerous dog laws and all other laws that regulate and control dogs where the word owner is used. Copyright WAF 2001 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Re: GUARDIANS OF DOGS? robin schafer (law) 07:16:32 02/04/12 Sat