You put together a really good case for receiving a legitimate financial compensation for the dog, but your case is still purely financial. You spent money to get the dog, you spent money (in the form of not working) to train the dog from youth. Most of the things you said are quantifiable and able to be verified by paper documentation and financial records. They are wholly different from an emotional attachment case. I believe courts rightly should award people compensation from the aggressor for breeding, training, feeding, taking time off, and medical care. It is the idea that you should be awarded more compensation based on the level of emotional investment you have made which is more difficult to objectively quantify and prove in court.
I think we agree more than we disagree, partly based on my inability to come up with the proper wording.
If you reference this of my post:
"I understand your point.
And Dragon Lady’s point as well, I should clarify that I don’t mean “emotional pain” in the sense of “he hurt my feelings” but rather a tangible loss of a companionship that the owner of an animal purchases and works towards."
My meaning here being that as far as my two years work investment in the animal goes I believe the compensation should go beyond what I can prove by my financial records.
For example, in those two years I obviously wasn’t training the dog 24/7. Lets say I had 1 hour a day direct learning/training time with the animal. I believe compensation shouldn’t reflect the value of my time by the hour, but rather the greater value that was created by the culmination of the years. Because I can’t condense time. If I get compensated for my hourly input into the animal it will still take two years work to get a new animal to that level. That becomes harder to quantify, which is probably why I am having trouble coming up with a proper wording for it.
I think we’re pretty much on the same page and I’ve just expressed myself poorly in this matter.
One thing I would disagree with is this:
"I think direct violence to an animal is easier to stop than the ones who simply bought a dog, found out it was too much work, and now just leave it in their yard, forgotten, giving water and food to it maybe on a monthly basis. In these cases, the person is not acting violently toward the animal and thus creating a ruckus to distract neighbors with. The animal is just slowly dying. I think these cases are more common than direct violence. "
I’ve had neighbors that have done this and have usually called the police. I agree with you that negligence is (and should be) harder to justify prosecuting than direct abuse. These animals don’t tend to suffer quietly. They tend to bark, howl, scream and whine nonstop. On that basis, and perhaps that alone, one can justify punitive action for neglect- that the noise (and often smell) is offensive and disruptive to neighboring properties. But this is an issue of disturbing the peace, not one of violating an animals “rights” as many try to see it.
A further question-
In many cases when a person has habitually created a nuisance with misuse of something they will be denied the right to possess said thing.
Guns and weapons come to mind, as do vehicles. Someone who has multiple arrests based on drunken behavior will often have, as terms of their release, a restriction put on them that they may not enter, inhabit or frequent bars.
Could it be justified that someone who has had multiple violations involving animals would lose their right to possess animals?
I think it could.