I heard recently that governments might test people when they buy a pet.If you don't pass you don't keep your pet.What do you think?
2006-06-09 19:08:23 · 21 answers · asked by Mariah♥ 3 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
I rehabilitate horses that have been abused or neglected. having seen some of the horses I have had to sort out I think anything that means more responsible animal ownership would be fantastic although probably very difficult and expensive to impliment. most of the horses that I work with have been ill treated through people that do not know how to look after the horse properly or do not have the funds to finance keeping an animal. By getting people to show that they are capable of caring for & understand how much that animal cost to keep there would be less animals getting abused & ill treated.
i think that you would need to get things into perspective so that you dont go overboard over things like goldfish, but I do think maybe a lisensing system where you have to show a basic level of knowledge on how to care for your chosen pet before you get issued a lisense could work. it would also help organisations such as the RSPCA bring about prosecutions more easily when need be & hopefully make it easier to get a life ban on people who are deliberately cruel to animals - eg the charming sort of people that do pleasant things like tie cats to car bumpers before driving off. i think animals such as those classed as 'wild' which are kept as pets already have to be kept under lisence in the UK, but as with anything - how can you monitor what people get up to in their own homes?
Regarding the comments about having a lisence to have kids, I completely agree with these comments & strongly believe that certain people should never be aloud to have kids. However, try telling that to the Human Rights organisations out there!!!
2006-06-10 00:55:44 · answer #1 · answered by ATP 3 · 14⤊ 7⤋
I'm not sure what kind of test you're talking about but I'm sure that would be awesome. It's so sad when people get a pet and they have no idea how to care for it or anything and the pet ends up being abused or neglected. People should only be allowed to get a pet if they are able and willing to give it the proper care.
The first answerer said that you don't have to take a test to have a child... well how about when you adopt a child? Think about all you have to go through for that. And maybe if young parents were required to take a test to determine if they are ready to have a baby, this world would be a better place for the children.
2006-06-10 02:37:34 · answer #2 · answered by stacyj913 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with this idea is the same as everything else. Honest people would do it, and dishonest people wouldn't. If even credit cards and m.o.t's can be faked, how would this work in the real world?
You can test for basic standard of knowledge, and thats all; not common sense or humanity.
I think it's one of those ideas that has the best intentions, but wouldn't achieve what it intended to.
Cruelty and neglect are already illegal. Animals already have legal protection.
You should vaccinate and worm your pet, if you don't you are witholding basic healthcare and are guilty of neglect. But still loads of people just don't bother.
Basic animal care and first aid is a subject that needs to be added to the school curriculum. Most kids would enjoy the lessons, even kids who are failing in other areas would be interested and you'd start a new generation with a new attitude.
2006-06-10 10:51:17 · answer #3 · answered by sarah c 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell no that's not a good idea - the government is already spending (wasting) way too much money trying to control our lives. What business is it of theirs if I get a stupid dog or not? If they even tried to get into this business it would end up to be another avenue to throw away tax dollars on an ineffective and unnecessary program.
Maybe we should bring ourselves back into perspective and remember that we are talking about DOGS and CATS here - some people in the world still eat these animals. Maybe instead of paying that next $500 vet bill, you should put a little more effort into making the world a better place for everyone.
Cheers!
2006-06-10 03:18:16 · answer #4 · answered by sal the dog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That will never happen for the average pet. It could for people who want something out of the norm... large snakes, wolves, lions, monkeys...
A better law would be to place an age restriction. Under 18, requires an adult to co-sign.
Even with all of that, nothing would change. If passing a law would stop bad choices we wouldn't have any crime.
Think about it... kids have kids and that's a much bigger issue, and we haven't found a fix for that yet that is 100%.
2006-06-10 02:27:32 · answer #5 · answered by Robin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't think test's were a good idea until two weeks when I saw a teenage girl in the pet shop point to some guinea-pigs and say
"Look at the cute mice!"
As I was leaving, her mother was buying her two, while she was getting them rabbit food to eat.
Poor guinea-pigs...Anyway, yes I think a test before you own a pet is a very good idea.
But, I don't think a test once you have a pet is a good idea. I would be distraught to have to part with a pet once I'd bonded with it and people would always lie and say they had no pets.
2006-06-10 07:57:05 · answer #6 · answered by sweety_chick162 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about a test, but I do believe a background check should be necessary. Too many people who have domestic abuse problems are allowed to adopt pets because they are not required to report these problems. As a consequence they are just as likely to abuse a pet, if not more likely, as they are a family member. Sometimes rather than take out their frustrations on a person, for they know they will most likely be reported, they take them out on a family pet. Who then suffers in silence.
Frustrating, isn't it?
2006-06-10 13:54:05 · answer #7 · answered by woodsprite_50 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good answer bozobabe - I agree completely.
I do, however, believe that if you are ever seen to have mistreated your pet there should be a jail term & a lifetime ban on owning any others.
If you abuse your kids they are taken away, the same should apply to pets or even farm animals.
Another thing which I would like to see happening is owners being more responsible & taking their dogs to be neutered/spayed if the do not intend to breed from them.
2006-06-10 03:43:48 · answer #8 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I approve of the decision because some people treat their pets cruely (no offense). The pets would love caring owners, and a test is a really good way to filter the caring people from the other people. I say, go and approve of the test (government).
2006-06-10 03:22:55 · answer #9 · answered by grimlar_whitegold 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely!! I think that there are too many ways to obtain pets and no one is ever questioned or checked out before a animals life and well-being is placed in their hands. There are too many people committing animal cruelty and getting away with it. The laws are too few and the punishment too forgiving. I believe anyone who commits these kinds of crimes should face automatic counseling and have their name registered the same as sex offenders.
2006-06-10 02:16:51 · answer #10 · answered by july 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the government should do that. I do however think the pet stores should do something similar to that.
Like send a potential buyer home with a book to read, have them come back and take a test - And then they can have the pet.
2006-06-10 02:35:44 · answer #11 · answered by Miss. Kitty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋