I think you nailed the important point; serious safeguards would have to be in place to prevent pet Nazis from letting a little power over someone in your family go to their heads.
I’ve seen many nurses and doctors do similar things. They think one thing and reality is quite another.
Yes; I agree with you. We still need to identify and document these animal abusers then get them tested.
This is getting a very different reaction from what I expected here which makes me really wonder why. Are animal abusers common; far more common than I could have ever imagined?
We were subjected to a self-righteous lecture about how we were bad pet owners because our dog didn't sleep in the house but instead in an insulated doghouse, that we fed her Purina Dog Chow rather than some premium dog food, and that we didn't disregard our vet's recommendation and elect to pay for expensive elective surgery. These are the clowns who might make the call as to what constitutes abuse. Despite the "abusive" treatment, the dog lived to be 17 which is very old for any breed but stunning for a German Shorthair.
We still need to identify and document these animal abusers then get them tested.
Only if those put in the registry have had their day in court and are not listed simply on an accusation.
This is getting a very different reaction from what I expected here which makes me really wonder why. Are animal abusers common; far more common than I could have ever imagined?
You know your audience is conservatives who are leery of government or quasi-government action. Your suggestion seems to be something which can be easily abused. Conservatives are going to strongly object to something where a person could be punished by accusation alone without proper investigation and an impartial trial. It is a HUGE jump to conclude that because someone is opposed to your suggestion that they are animal abusers.