This country is getting to be so screwed up on so many levels it is mind boggling.

That is so wrong in so may ways, makes me ashamed to live in Oregon...

that dog and Juno has a good home now.

It's shameful.

it is me. Kitty owns me more than I own kitty.

And I mean that in all seriousness. It is ridiculous to think of pets as "property". This ruling exposes the flaw in our system where everything is "property". It is absurd.

In fact they get breakfast before I do.

Animal abuse is one of the classic "sticky issues" for the Libertarian party (the other being civil rights laws). They don't believe in anti-cruelty laws but they sure don't like it when it's discussed or comes up in debates.

But pets are property. I buy my pets (or adopt them), pay for their food, shelter and licenses. I pay to euthanize them when they are too old or expensive for me to care for them.
Yes, they bring great joy, are capable of caring for other creatures, and have soulful eyes that evolution has uniquely selected for extracting treats from me.
But they are property.
My cats, however, might disagree with me.

Are they property? And when they are "too old or expensive" do you "euthanize" them?

I am unable to fathom how you went from feeding and sheltering a pet to euthanizing children. Are you saying that euthanizing a pet is the equivalent of euthanizing a child? Are you saying that if a person provides kibble and a blanket for a dog that it is the equivalent of parenting? Your response is nonsense at this point.
We treat children differently because they are people rather than property.
I understand the sentimental aspect of pet ownership, and that an individual may treat pets more like people (a bizarre practice) or even think of them as free entities, but that has little impact on the fundamental fact that, in most modern human cultures, pets are property.

You fail to understand the question because you are arguing that animals=property is somehow a priori. My argument wholly rejects that idea. I am saying that sentient beings are not and can never be property. The same argument (forgive me, this is not meant to bring a charge of racism into the argument but is the best example) was made by slave owners. They bought the slaves, clothed and fed them, and therefore they were property. And as you say, most cultures agreed with that idea. That idea is wrong. Even with livestock bred for food, they have a right not to be abused or mistreated. That's why animal abuse laws exist and should be made stronger. Humans may be so stupidly narcissistic as to believe we are the masters of the universe--just as some believed the universe revolved around the earth--able to use and abuse nature and animals for our own avarice, but that does not make it so. Humans are animals too and we would be wise to remember that.

First, and the greatest flaw, your most recent statement is simply a pivot from the previous argument where you created a false equivalency between rearing children and caring for pets.
Second, we need to agree on a definition. From Google, Ownership = the act, state, or right of possessing something.
I'm not saying all animals are property. I'm saying that if a person possesses, or if the community acknowledges possession, or if the court can force an animal to return to your possession, then you own it.
You may not like the fact of it, philosophically, Regardless, you own the animal. You have the right to confine it for its own protection, control its diet, determine where it defecates, pay for damages it causes, choose its mates, provide healthcare, and exercise the right to allow an animal to live or die.
As far as argument regarding slaves, it is a simple rejection of the practice (which I agree wholeheartedly), and has little to do with the condition of ownership. Make no mistake, by any reasonable definition of "ownership" people have owned other people on-and-off for thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years. It's an atavistic practice, but a pragmatic truth nonetheless.
I agree the idea of owning people is wrong, and part of me wants to say that we shouldn't own animals. However, if you buy an animal, the community acknowledges the animal belongs to you, and you have the right to possess that animal, then you own it.
Unless you allow your animals to roam freely wherever they want, tell everyone that none of your pets are actually your property, and (with court approval) inform the police that the animals no longer belong to you and your are free of any responsibility for what the animals do to your neighbor's property, then your argument is simply obfuscated hypocrisy.
As I've said before, I suspect some house cats might not be property. Not all, but some.
Finally, you stated, "Humans may be so stupidly narcissistic as to believe we are the masters of the universe--just as some believed the universe revolved around the earth--able to use and abuse nature and animals for our own avarice, but that does not make it so." It's a sweet sentiment, but ownership of something has little to do with a feeling ownership of the universe. I doubt if there is a sane individual out there who believes that owning a dog is a direct extension of ownership of a volume that is over 14 billion light years across.
Anyway, people do own their pets.

Did she live out in a remote area where she had no visitors or friends?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around visiting my friend and seeing his dog abused like this and not
doing anything about it.

Had a job interview once and the panel asked me what was my greatest weakness.

I told them animal abuse ,Don't ever let me see you abuse your animal , I won't tolerate it at all
I think maybe they saw something in my eyes they didn't like


I didn't get the job

to do with pain in 1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals
instrumentalism will always see EVERYTHING as basically ambulatory furniture--and, no, being human doesn't exempt one

I was happy to see this other article yesterday where an abuser actually got jail time for abusing an animal. Too many years did I hear that animals don't feel pain (or don't remember it). Look at just about any animal on Earth and you see two eyes, two ears and a couple of hands used for gripping and a couple of strong legs. If we feel pain so do they.

Believe it or not it was Florida that actually gave jail time for non-lethal animal cruelty. Kudos to them for getting it right. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2618902/Jail-man-accused-pouring-hot-sauce-dog.html

She obtained that defense. As a fella with a legal mind, I think it was kind of brilliant. Doesn't change the fact that she's apparently an animal abusing sack of shit. Juno, the dog in question here, is allegedly no longer in the hands of any abuser. Frankly, that's fine with me. I'll take a win for the animal physically with a loss in court against the abuser all day long.

Is the animal safe? Supposedly, yes. All that matters. The abuser is nothing more than shit on the bottom of a shoe. Let them be ruined at the normal whim of friends.

If you don't like this outcome, I recommend visiting In Defense of Animals "Guardian" campaign.

http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/the-guardian-campaign/

That said, never walk away from nor ignore abuse. Document, document, document. Pictures, video, report. What happens with and to the animal is more important than getting after the abuser. Leave that to...others, if needed. Don't be afraid to do the right thing.

Getting the animal away from the abuser is absolutely the most important thing. I hope she doesn't have children because in my experience, any person who mistreats animals also mistreats people and most especially children.

by mistreating and killing animals and others weaker than themselves.

n/t

not your dog. An animal is a living breathing being and not something disposable as property. If animals are property, are your children or your wife property too?

1.-This is not the state of Oregon, but one judge.

2.- This is why, fucking judicial elections MATTER.