I find it so hard to believe you when you're say he can do whatever he wants to it.
We live in a society where animals are property. The use and disposal of property should be at the absolute discretion of its owner, provided it doesn't interfere with other people. That is what property rights are, and property rights are the foundation of our society.
I am perfectly receptive to the idea that animals should not be treated as property. I think there are a lot of excellent arguments in favour of that point of view. On the other hand I have no respect for people like yourself, who are happy to treat animals as property but then get all precious about how other people's property is used when it doesn't impact on them or anyone else.
I am reconciled to the idea that animals are property, and I have certain ethical and moral rules that govern how I treat animals that belong to me. And yes, it upsets me when I see animals treated poorly. But if others do not subscribe to the same rules I do then who am I to interfere? If I accept that animals are property, then placing restrictions on their use of their property merely to satisfy my own sensibilities is quite unreasonable. It would be like a bunch of Christians passing a law to say that I can't smash up my wooden crucifix and use it as firewood.
The cognitive dissonance required to be a welfarist is staggering and I'm constantly surprised by the number of otherwise intelligent people who subscribe to the idea. I can only presume it stems from a lack of reflection and analysis, or a desire to have one's cake and eat it too.
Anyway, this is all old ground we've covered before. I'd refer people to the previous thread, and the book
Animals, Property and the Law if they still don't understand where I'm coming from.
Just because someone owns a pet it doesn't give them theright to treat them as they like. The same way that being a parent doesn't mean you can treat your child as you like.
The difference being that children aren't property.