2007-11-29 06:11:48 · 13 answers · asked by MiMi ♥ 4 in Pets ➔ Dogs
we live in the state of WA
2007-11-29 06:15:41 · update #1
Dogs became considered as property due to legality issues of dogs attacking people. Because it can be linked to an owner under the rule of "property" this gave people the ability to sue for damages.
Cats never really had this issue since they don't attack people for the most part.
2007-11-29 06:17:56 · answer #1 · answered by Ryan P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here in New Mexico the law states:
"That dogs, cats and domesticated fowls and birds shall be deemed and considered as personal property, and all remedies given for the recovery of personal property and of damages for injuries thereto are hereby extended to
them."
Yet a screw driver is also personal property...Should you also get in trouble if you bang it with a hammer, don't use it, or destroy it in a grinder or something like that???? I do not believe that animals are personal property as they have rights of some sort....I believe the law should be rewritten for Companion animals and Commercial animals as well... If your life long companion gets beaten by someone or a irresponsible dog owners property shouldn't you be able to do more then fight for the value of the animal. Does he not mean more???? I believe they should have rights similar to children.... for some they are....
2007-11-29 08:44:44 · answer #2 · answered by alreadyfubar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wait, no, it depends on where you are. Probably in most US places the cat is considered property and not a wild animal. Only wild animals are not owned - anything else (cows, chickens, dogs, pigs) are considered personal property or 'chattel' and the owner is repsonsible for any damage caused by their chattel.
In some places, cats roam wild and would not be considered property. It all comes down to reasonable expectation of corralling/controlling the animal. So it depends on locale.
2007-11-29 06:43:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as I know both are considered Chattel. Property of the owner. I know no difference between the two. They are both animals and are treated as such. Given that logic, then a hamster would not be considered property.
You know, given the way laws used to be written, it is unlawful to wear red. It is consider a royal only color.
2007-11-29 06:46:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends where you are and what the local state law says, here in England, yes as you have to have a license or did have to own a dog. Cats are different as they are less domesticated. Thus if you hurt a dog you could be charged with criminal damage or take a dog can be charged with theft/burglary.
2007-11-29 06:16:34 · answer #5 · answered by Dave T 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federally ALL animals are considered property. Each area may have a difference in their laws but by Federal law all pets are property.
2007-11-29 06:16:16 · answer #6 · answered by Scelestus Unus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would think that if the cat is on or inside your property, then it should be considered "property". Just don't tell the cat that!
2007-11-29 06:30:50 · answer #7 · answered by keeper0137 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both are considered property in Illinois.
2007-11-29 06:13:50 · answer #8 · answered by Bear 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I have heard of this law, it is farely old I think but by law a cat cannot be owned.
2007-11-29 06:14:59 · answer #9 · answered by Linwe Elensar 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
actually a dog is property.
if you have a cat, then in fact YOU are the cats property.
2007-11-29 06:23:48 · answer #10 · answered by captsnuf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋