I wish

[Cidney]

there was a website to list people who should not own pets!

I am thinking this would be a terrific cross-posting tool for those who sell or give pets away to people they know nothing about. Why am I wishing this?

Well, I know a man who had two dogs. He emotionally neglects them, never walks them, leaves them outside all day in the Texas heat and has not taken them for reg vet checkups or annual shots in 10 years. He asked his ex-wife to dog sit the smaller dog and she was a mess, had several bald patches in her fur and where she did have fur it was matted and god knows how long it had been since she had been groomed or had a bath. The ex-wife felt so sorry for this dog that she asked to keep her and the man agreed and even confessed he didnt really have the money to take care of his pets properly. She asked about the second (bigger) dog who is old and in bad shape, the guys said she probably needs to be put down and will do so in a couple of weeks.

This was all about a month ago and guess what? This a-hole man called his ex-wife with news he just got another puppy!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can you belive???? I am so angry and I told him that if I find out he is not properly caring for the new dog that I would report him the humane socitey. He told me he doesnt care what I think or do and basically told me to F'off.

 

[Renee750il]

I wish that were possible, too, but the liabilities for libel could be prohibitive. Shelters and breeders should definitely share that information though . . .

 

[JennSLK]

It woul be considered slander and posibly defermantion of charcter. You can get sued

 

[Renee750il]

Law dictionary lesson for the day

slander
n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.
See also: defamation fair comment

libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.
See also: defamation libel per se public figure slander

Good site - handy things to know to keep out of hot water, lol! http://dictionary.law.com/

 

[LabBreeder]

It would only be slander if it was untrue. Seems to be the same for libel, but more tricky.

Either way, if we can have an online database for sex offenders and criminals there should be one created by humane societies for animal abusers. IMO

 

[good_dog]

Many rescue groups (at least in this area) have such a list they share with other groups... they just don't post it where it can be seen by the public.

Beth

 

[Keana]

It's a good idea. Too bad BYB and puppymills wouldn't even care enough to look at it.