Rights for Dogs?

Risible · 03-30-2007, 01:19 PM

There is another thread in The Lounge discussing the recent rash of pet deaths due to poisoned pet food made by the Menu Company. This thread, regarding legal rights for pets, is on separate issue that arose from this calamity.

The article from the Los Angeles Times raises some interesting questions. Should pets be considered more than just personal property under the eyes of the law? Should pet owners be able to sue for, and receive, awards that include pain and suffering in addition to damages? Are you ready for higher bills at the vet's as a consequence of your pet's new legal status?

A dog's life: What's it worth?
Moves to raise the legal status of pets may lead to damage awards. But there are other issues.
By Molly Selvin and Abigail Goldman, Times Staff Writers
March 30, 2007

If you think of Rover and Fluffy as members of the family, you may figure you could collect damages for pain and suffering if they were to die as a result of wrongdoing.

The law in California and many other states sees things differently. It treats pets as personal property, just like cars and computers.

But that could be changing.

Lawsuits filed in the last week by owners of dogs and cats felled by contaminated pet food could press lawmakers and courts to upgrade pets' legal status. The food, produced by Menu Foods of Canada, is believed to be responsible for the deaths of dozens of dogs and cats nationwide.

"You'll see a lot of pressure on legislators to remove liability barriers, to not see these animals as property but as entities like humans," said Jon Katz, the author of several books on the changing relationship between dogs and people.

Some barriers have already been removed. Appellate court decisions in at least six states permit damages for emotional distress in some instances, said Alan Calnan, who teaches product liability law at Southwestern Law School.

Though California isn't among the six, Beverly Hills lawyer Kenneth Phillips says several pet-owner clients have collected for pain and suffering. In one case, he negotiated a settlement for a woman with muscular dystrophy who was distraught after her dog was attacked by another and died. And in a 2004 malpractice case in Orange County, a jury awarded owners of a rescue dog $30,000 for its unique emotional value, on top of $9,000 in vet bills.

What's more, the state of Rhode Island and several cities, including West Hollywood, Berkeley and San Francisco, have legally defined pet owners as "guardians" — in effect equating animals with children, which is how many people regard their pets.

"Brutus was very special. He was my companion; he was my best bud; he was with me 24 hours a day," San Clemente resident Catherine Golden, 46, said of her cat, who died of kidney failure after eating the tainted food. "All of our cats have always been members of the family. I don't have any children, so I love my cats seriously."

For all that, Katz warns that granting pets human-like legal status could create troublesome consequences for veterinarians, pet food and toy companies, shelter operators and perhaps even pet owners themselves. Higher damage awards for malpractice could lead to unnecessary testing and higher vet fees. And clothing animals with human-like status might eventually limit an owner's ability to decide to euthanize a suffering pet.

Tina · 03-30-2007, 02:07 PM

I'm not in favor of something like this encouraging even more greedy whackadoos that will sue over anything; however, I am in favor of dogs not being seen as personal property, and in turn, situations like this being less likely to happen. When companies don't need to care so much about it as their losses are generally small if they do, this sort of thing could only get worse.

TearInYourHand · 03-30-2007, 02:28 PM

Of course most people, myself included, don't see their pets as 'property'. They're alive, property usually isn't (well, I guess plants excluded). Anyhow, I do not see them on the same level as people. I love my cat to death, but god forbid I ever had to choose between him and a human life....well the choice would be easy. Whether I knew the human or not. I know I may get flamed for this, but I just plain think that human life is on another level than animal life. This is not saying that animals should be mistreated, abused, thought of as property, or not loved. I just think that to have them on the same level as humans in the law is ridiculous!

I mean, if we are looking at pets as legally equivilant to humans, then allowing to meat industry to legally exist just does not make logical sense to me. I mean, are we saying that animals can be killed carelessly (as they often are in the meat industry...just pick up a copy of Fast Food Nation...) if they are not owned by a human? That somehow being a pet makes them special? What about the stray cat that isn't my PET, per say, but that I feed nightly when he comes onto my porch. Where would we draw the line?

I understand the love people feel for animals. I love animals and I think that people who mistreat them are sick fucks. However, I do not feel that they are equivalent in 'value' (to use a crude term....but I couldn't think of how else to say it) to humans.

Alicia Rose · 03-31-2007, 07:36 AM

This is silly. Of course pets are property, same as children and slaves.

=Divals

Ned Sonntag · 03-31-2007, 08:21 AM

Hogs and dogs are on an equal rung of the evolutionary ladder. Potbellied pigs are bred as pets and Southeast Asians eat the Little Black Dog bred for that purpose. All of which goes to prove conclusively...

G D Guy · 03-31-2007, 08:43 AM

The only known picture of the 4 garageDogs of the Apocalypse is right here

Please protect our FurryFriends

Fuzzy Necromancer · 03-31-2007, 10:05 AM

I think that there should be more legal protection for animals, and what's more certain animals should have more protection than others. I think that gorillas, for example, should have something extremely close to human rights. If you kill a gorilla, you should be tried for murder, not poaching. If you sell "bush meat", you should have the same penalties allowed to somebody trafficking in human flesh.

None of this "monkey see, monkey do" BS. Gorillas can talk in sign language, and not just to say "koko want food". They've proven they can emote, the can express themselves creatively, invent new words, care for a member of another species, and generally express all basic traits of humanity.

Parrots don't just copy words. One person trained parrots to acquire and meaningfully use a vocabulary of over 300 words. These birds didn't just mimic. They formed scentences, and even employed humor, and if that's not a sign of sapient life, I don't know what is.

I'm not one of those PETA nutjobs who things that swatting a fly should be punishable by execution. There are some things that are just things. However, a good deal of animals are much more sentient, more sapient, than they are legally given credit for. They can communicate meaningfully with us.

If you can talk to it, you shouldn't be allowed to eat it, sell it, or butcher it. Anything that can argue a case for it's own intelligence is by definition of humanoid intellegence.

Bagalute · 03-31-2007, 12:04 PM

I think on an ethnical/philosophical basis it's an interesting new aspect that chimpansees have proven to have a sense of self-consciousness, meaning they are able to recognise themselves in a mirror. Our legal system is based on the assumption that man is the only creature with a "Bewusstsein" so people might have to reconsider that some time...

GWARrior · 03-31-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TearInYourHand

Anyhow, I do not see them on the same level as people. I love my cat to death, but god forbid I ever had to choose between him and a human life....well the choice would be easy.

Im actually the opposite. I cant stand humans and animals are. MY. LIFE.

If i had to choose between my sweet loving dog, and say... an animal abuser...well the choice would be easy.

Pets arent "property". Pets are companions, and to a lot of people they are sole companions! I see it everyday at work, espescially with the elderly. Their pets are the only ones keeping them going, giving them someone to be around, talk to and do things with.

Give me a dog anyday! Humans are just a pain in the ass.

Risible · 03-31-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWARrior

Im actually the opposite. I cant stand humans and animals are. MY. LIFE.

If i had to choose between my sweet loving dog, and say... an animal abuser...well the choice would be easy.

Pets arent "property". Pets are companions, and to a lot of people they are sole companions! I see it everyday at work, espescially with the elderly. Their pets are the only ones keeping them going, giving them someone to be around, talk to and do things with.

Give me a dog anyday! Humans are just a pain in the ass.

GWARrior,

Are you familiar with Peter Singer? One of the original animal rights activists as we know them. Check him out.

I don't know about rights for pets, but I'd sure like to see the primates get more rights. They are so close to us in terms of ancestors and DNA in common, let alone the intelligence that they evince, that they deserve rights akin to that of human's IMO. I hate to see them performing in circuses and movies, being sent up in space (I know, that was forever ago), being hunted for bushmeat, being treated as pets, and forced to live a life behind bars as if it were they who did something wrong.

I know it's impossible in today's world, but ideally I'd love to see primates in habitats where they could roam freely, without interference from humans, able to forge the societies that each species would have in nature.

Bagalute · 03-31-2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagalute

I think on an ethnical/philosophical basis ...

ethical, of course

03-30-2007, 01:19 PM	#1
Risible Monkey Daze Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Muy Caliente Posts: 7,758	Rights for Dogs? There is another thread in The Lounge discussing the recent rash of pet deaths due to poisoned pet food made by the Menu Company. This thread, regarding legal rights for pets, is on separate issue that arose from this calamity. The article from the Los Angeles Times raises some interesting questions. Should pets be considered more than just personal property under the eyes of the law? Should pet owners be able to sue for, and receive, awards that include pain and suffering in addition to damages? Are you ready for higher bills at the vet's as a consequence of your pet's new legal status? A dog's life: What's it worth? Moves to raise the legal status of pets may lead to damage awards. But there are other issues. By Molly Selvin and Abigail Goldman, Times Staff Writers March 30, 2007 If you think of Rover and Fluffy as members of the family, you may figure you could collect damages for pain and suffering if they were to die as a result of wrongdoing. The law in California and many other states sees things differently. It treats pets as personal property, just like cars and computers. But that could be changing. Lawsuits filed in the last week by owners of dogs and cats felled by contaminated pet food could press lawmakers and courts to upgrade pets' legal status. The food, produced by Menu Foods of Canada, is believed to be responsible for the deaths of dozens of dogs and cats nationwide. "You'll see a lot of pressure on legislators to remove liability barriers, to not see these animals as property but as entities like humans," said Jon Katz, the author of several books on the changing relationship between dogs and people. Some barriers have already been removed. Appellate court decisions in at least six states permit damages for emotional distress in some instances, said Alan Calnan, who teaches product liability law at Southwestern Law School. Though California isn't among the six, Beverly Hills lawyer Kenneth Phillips says several pet-owner clients have collected for pain and suffering. In one case, he negotiated a settlement for a woman with muscular dystrophy who was distraught after her dog was attacked by another and died. And in a 2004 malpractice case in Orange County, a jury awarded owners of a rescue dog $30,000 for its unique emotional value, on top of $9,000 in vet bills. What's more, the state of Rhode Island and several cities, including West Hollywood, Berkeley and San Francisco, have legally defined pet owners as "guardians" — in effect equating animals with children, which is how many people regard their pets. "Brutus was very special. He was my companion; he was my best bud; he was with me 24 hours a day," San Clemente resident Catherine Golden, 46, said of her cat, who died of kidney failure after eating the tainted food. "All of our cats have always been members of the family. I don't have any children, so I love my cats seriously." For all that, Katz warns that granting pets human-like legal status could create troublesome consequences for veterinarians, pet food and toy companies, shelter operators and perhaps even pet owners themselves. Higher damage awards for malpractice could lead to unnecessary testing and higher vet fees. And clothing animals with human-like status might eventually limit an owner's ability to decide to euthanize a suffering pet. __________________ Last edited by Tina : 03-30-2007 at 02:08 PM. Reason: Edited so that the whole article isn't posted and copyright isn't violated.

03-30-2007, 02:07 PM	#2
Tina Di's claimed me. :) Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: location, location. Posts: 20,592	I'm not in favor of something like this encouraging even more greedy whackadoos that will sue over anything; however, I am in favor of dogs not being seen as personal property, and in turn, situations like this being less likely to happen. When companies don't need to care so much about it as their losses are generally small if they do, this sort of thing could only get worse. __________________ "It is possible to believe in something and still fail to live up to it." -- Wilson, House M.D. "I'm really tired of a fat woman's sexuality being just another fat joke." -- Felicia/Supero "Sookie! I am so over Sookie and her precious fairy vagina and her unbelievably stupid name! Fuck Sookie!" -- Pam Last edited by Tina : 03-30-2007 at 02:09 PM.

03-30-2007, 02:28 PM	#3
TearInYourHand Mistress Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: location location. Posts: 1,078	Of course most people, myself included, don't see their pets as 'property'. They're alive, property usually isn't (well, I guess plants excluded). Anyhow, I do not see them on the same level as people. I love my cat to death, but god forbid I ever had to choose between him and a human life....well the choice would be easy. Whether I knew the human or not. I know I may get flamed for this, but I just plain think that human life is on another level than animal life. This is not saying that animals should be mistreated, abused, thought of as property, or not loved. I just think that to have them on the same level as humans in the law is ridiculous! I mean, if we are looking at pets as legally equivilant to humans, then allowing to meat industry to legally exist just does not make logical sense to me. I mean, are we saying that animals can be killed carelessly (as they often are in the meat industry...just pick up a copy of Fast Food Nation...) if they are not owned by a human? That somehow being a pet makes them special? What about the stray cat that isn't my PET, per say, but that I feed nightly when he comes onto my porch. Where would we draw the line? I understand the love people feel for animals. I love animals and I think that people who mistreat them are sick fucks. However, I do not feel that they are equivalent in 'value' (to use a crude term....but I couldn't think of how else to say it) to humans. __________________

03-31-2007, 07:36 AM	#4
Alicia Rose Fat Chick In Training Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 3,766	This is silly. Of course pets are property, same as children and slaves. =Divals __________________ *You called down the thunder, now it's time to reap the whirlwind!*

03-31-2007, 08:21 AM	#5
Ned Sonntag Outermost Hoodoo Doctor Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Cape Cod Posts: 8,362	Pigs is Pigs Hogs and dogs are on an equal rung of the evolutionary ladder. Potbellied pigs are bred as pets and Southeast Asians eat the Little Black Dog bred for that purpose. All of which goes to prove conclusively...

03-31-2007, 08:43 AM	#6
G D Guy Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10	garageDogs The only known picture of the 4 garageDogs of the Apocalypse is right here Please protect our FurryFriends

03-31-2007, 12:04 PM	#8
Bagalute Master Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 1,120	I think on an ethnical/philosophical basis it's an interesting new aspect that chimpansees have proven to have a sense of self-consciousness, meaning they are able to recognise themselves in a mirror. Our legal system is based on the assumption that man is the only creature with a "Bewusstsein" so people might have to reconsider that some time...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode