I don't know if many of you will have heard about the stables owner who shot and killed a horse due to a £30 debt. He then loaded the horse up in a JCB bucket and tipped her into the garden of the woman who had her on loan and who owed the £30. The horse did not even belong to the woman owing the debt and was a healthy 7 year old mare who was sweet natured. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-bill-30.html

Under current law, the most this man can be charged with is criminal damage. This is so wrong. The law should reflect the emotional and psychological effects these acts have on the owners of the animals. If you agree, please sign the following petition. It needs to get 100,000 signatures to have parliament consider it. Thank you.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71053

It has always been so and why dog on dog aggression is ignored by the police and law. They are items you own nothing more than that to the law. Wrong I always think.

I think in most cases, you would find some animal welfare issue.... though it depends on the species and method of slaughter.

If I poisoned the neighbours' cats, I doubt it would just be minor criminal damage.

If I set my dog on a flock of sheep, there would animal welfare and dog control offences.

etc etc.

Signed.

I've signed it too. Good luck. x

Surely this person , a stables owner, should be banned from any work involving animals at the very least .

I'd hesitate to describe him as a "man". Real men don't do things like that.

Nevermind that , the land owner would shoot the dog on site . legally !

This.

Why if he has not caused undue suffering to the animal when he euthanised it? As far as I am aware shooting is still one of the approved forms of dispatch in this country.


I wonder if the proponents of this change in law would want the award of punitive damages in those circumstances?

Anyway in reference to the title of this thread, aren't horses considered livestock rather than pets?

Either you're on a wind up or you didn't bother to even read the story.

The RSPCA inspector said the horse was killed illegally and arrests have been made.

I hope the animal rights nutters pay this scummy man a visit.

Arrested for criminal damage and not animal cruelty. And I always take anything the RSPCA say with a large portion of salt.

The animal welfare laws cover 'unnecessary suffering'.

Like it or not the horse was slaughtered in what is considered a 'humane' manner.
This is not against the AWA.

It's perfectly legal for people to send dud racing horses/greyhounds off to be shot.

The legal issue is that it was slaughtered without permission.
This is a moral problem.

The law, even updated, remains a bit of an ass where animals welfare is concerned.

That's appalling. I find it difficult to comprehend the mindset of a person who could do this.

The horse was apparently "leased" (from somebody) If I was the actual owner I'd be livid.

If you are for instance a milkman (my husband was at the time) and bitten badly by a large dog you can only claim monetary losses, his case one weeks wages and the replacement of the clothes that were ripped.

His terror of large dogs and suffering meant nothing to the courts.

I can't see them changing their rules for pet owners when innocent people going about their business are only recompensed for any money they lose.

I think sentencing in general with regards to animal cruelty should be increased. There are that many different petitions going around, though. I wish they could be combined.

I agree but would add sentencing in general is pretty weak in this country, even a human life is only worth a few months/years these days.

I am reminded why I am and will always remain largely misanthropic after reading the OP's link. There are a few exceptions, especially to those who show kindness and compassion to all beings.

I have signed the petition.

I have signed but it beggars belief it has a paltry 300+ sigs.

There's more outrage expressed on this forum in one session here than people bothering to sign. Mind you, you might need to push it out further afield. That is one area at least, where social media comes in useful. Animal forums, RSPCS discussions, You Tube, etc.

"Euthanised"? The article says the horse was "perfectly healthy", so I'm not sure where you got that term from. The horse was killed, not euthanised.


I know some horse owners who love them dearly and definitely see them as more than property.

Whether an animal is classed as "livestock" depends on the reason the animal is being kept, i.e. for meat, or other produce, rather than the species of animal. Horses kept by private individuals, for pleasure, are not livestock. Just like a pigs, sheep, or cows kept as pets are not livestock either.

That's why I mentioned other petitions in my post. There are lots going around on the same subject of animal cruelty, more or less. There needs to be one big one to make an impact. It's a shame they can't be merged. There's another below about sentencing.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/67018

Well euthanised is the term the RSPCA use, regardless of the health of the animal. I think you may be confused because the term is also used widely in the human 'right to die' debate.

So if someone owes you money you think as long as it is done quickly then it would be ok to go and kill someone's pet ? What is livestock to one person can equally be someone's pet and in this case it did not even belong to the lady concerned.

A normal, caring and rational person does not shoot an animal because you are owed money. And if you believe you are right you do not wait until night time and then dump it over a hedge into a garden.

And it would appear it was not "euthanized humanely " it was dieing from a gun shot wound and the RSPCA have said it was killed illegally.

And their excuse that they shot it because they could not get it into the box, does that mean they will be shooting all their clients horses that will not get into the box , or maybe they might call the owner first !



In this case illegally killed is the term the RSPCA have used

Well the chap has only been charged with criminal damage and not animal cruelty so the CPS/police can't have thought much of the RSPCA's 'evidence'.

http://www.minsterfm.com/news/local/...orse-shooting/