Legal Worth of Companion Animals

[RhodaGrits]

I read this story this a.m. and wanted to weep for this young girl. I have been closely watching the way the laws on the value of animals are being re-examined and recently attended a meeting of veterinary ethicists on the subject. It is a very complex issue and there are no easy answers. I wanted to generate a discussion of the issues and how the laws might best be changed rationally to reflect the importance of the human animal-bond and the intrinsic value of sentient creatures. Property laws now say that a dog or cat has value similar to a coffee table... its market value. There are precedents for changing this - your treasured family photos have more legal value than your best furry buddy. As I understand it, legally everything that is not a human being is property (i.e. your thoughts are property). We have a constitutional right to our property.

My first question to you all is: How do you define a pet or companion animal?

(Some of you may want it to happen, but you aren't going to see a cow raised for meat consumption given legal status anytime soon - let's just stick to companion animals -which could encompass companion horses and even a cow if carefully defined - and limit this argument which I think may get heated enough :-) )

This story is heartbreaking and this is why a gut reaction of "horse thieves should still be strung up" is not incomprehensible:

Girl's horse stolen, slaughtered

By Heather Yakin
Times Herald-Record
[e-mail]

Roscoe – Somewhere out there is a heartless thief who stole a 13-year-old girl's horse and sold him to a slaughterhouse.
Sky Dutcher learned on her 13th birthday, Nov. 26, that her Arabian-Morgan mix horse, a beautiful silver bay called Cimmorron, was gone. He'd been stolen from his pasture on Morton Hill Road.
Sky hoped to get her horse back by Christmas.
But Thursday night, she and her dad, Dale Dutcher, got the news: Cimmorron had been sold to a slaughterhouse in Quebec.


http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2004/12/11/horse11.htm

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Replacement value. A seeing eye dog might get you

pain & suffering $$$.

[China_cat]

6. Nope,

a seeing eye dog will get you a lot more than that. All states have laws protecting the 'worth' of a service animal. Stealing or injuring one will have the same impact as stealing someone's wheelchair from under them.

Most of them look like this one from Maryland (which was the easiest to find), some of them with a lot higher penalties;

interfering with, stealing, injuring or killing a service animal. The penalty for such a crime would be 90 days in prison and/or a $3000 fine. A conviction of intentionally injuring or killing a service animal would result in up to 1 year in prison and/or a $6000 fine.

[kori]

18. Stealing a seeing eye dog again treats the animal as property

Even a service animal. The owner may be entitled to more compensation but only because of the worth and training of the dog, not because of the emotional attachment. So the punishment to the criminal may be more but I see no kind of compensation to the owner over and above the cost.

[China_cat]

23. stealing a 'pet' may get him a fine

but it won't get him any jail time. stealing a service animal will.

[Deja Q]

2. That thief is vile.

That poor girl. :cry: It's akin to being raped.

[sweetheart]

3. legal worth of a human being

Frankly, it seems america is having a hard enough time providing
basic human rights to human beings.... actually eroding rights...
and adding animals to the mix, may not make things better. What
importance is love to a government of criminal war murderers, to
whom 100,000 iraqi civilian dead are just irrelevant.

Animals of all sizes are a serious concern, i agree. Just discussing
this, is truly blue sky, as no traction can be made with war criminals
on the ground. Should we give the family dog legal status like
a child for custody rights in divorce? What about a pack of dogs?
How many animals can be companions to a person?

Our tradition in law comes from 1000's of years of domesticated
farming, livestock and pets. On a farm, life and death of animals
is a daily experience. The laws are from the farming times, and our
new modern solipcist lifestyles where dogs are the only family of
some city dwellers, is so difficult to weigh when other dogs are
working on farms hearding stock, and even others are being raised
for korean meat delicacies. Can fish be companions? What about
insects, like tarantulas?

Besides effective animal cruelty laws, i think this area is a
political quagmire, that can, like gay marriage and abortion can only
serve to weaken the electoral power of champions. Perhaps getting
human rights to human animals would be a start, as surely a global
race of decent humans will be more inclined to be decent to other
species. As the US is controlled by criminal scum, there is little
hope of fixing human rights... and then what is the value of a
grasshopper?

[RhodaGrits]

5. Excellent points. But the Trial Lawyers Association has

made it an item on their agenda to push for more legal rights for animals - therefore, it will happen. No one is suing on behalf of the slaughtered Iraqis.

There are some parties that want pets to be wards of a "guardian" - we would not "own" our pets. This would require government to oversee them and provide foster care etc. It is going to be a political quagmire and it is going to happen.

Your remarks about how to differentiate a herding dog from an asian dog raised for meat is the point I was making. And that is going to be the first issue that must be discussed.

Current law says that the man that stole and killed that young girl's horse will be treated no differently than if he had stolen a valuable bicycle. There will be many people that will rally around the "wrongness" of this. You might believe (and I agree) that that the atrocities against humans we are witnessing are more pressing - but this is an issue we are going to be facing in the U.S. politically.

[radwriter0555]

9. Austria has outlawed mutilation of dogs, no more cropping ears or tails

and they've also made new laws about not caging chickens.

Suddenly, they seem so civilized compared to Americans.

Protecting animals we've made our companions is our duty, not some "Trial Lawyer's" fantasy issue...

Animal Rights organizations are taking up these causes, NOT TRIAL LAWYERS.

PEOPLE who love animals are taking up the defense of creatures WE have chosen to enslave and torture, maim and make into food and clothing; this isn't some pet cause for a few TRIAL LAWYERS. This is a myriad and complex issue brought up by humans with CONSCIENCE.

[amazona]

12. not caging chickens sounds INHUMANE to me

In my area such a law would be a death sentence for the chickens. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume there are no raccoons or possums or other chicken-munching wildlife in Austria. When I kept chickens, they were given a secure place where they could sleep undisturbed at night.

[RhodaGrits]

14. I don't disagree. It is an issue whose time is overdue.

But what changes in the laws would you like to see enacted?

Most states have dodged changing the laws about earcropping and taildocking by saying that it is all the fault of the breed clubs - that the breed clubs should be pressured to change to their standards requiring these cosmetic changes.

And it is coming to the forefront now because of the trial lawyers new interest. The animal rights groups have promoted these issues actively for years without making a lot of headway.

And people with conscience need to discuss the details and the ramifications and move forward toward change.

"Protecting animals" is easy to say but the devil is in the details.

[kori]

16. I did not think the question was necessarily about animal rights

Although that should also be a part of any discussion. I thought the question was what is the relationship of human to animals. Are they pure property or is there such a more emotional attachment to certain animals that we should be considered guardians rather than owners?

I know there are many people, and many in this group that believe animals should have the same rights as humans, that none should be raised for food. I disagree with that.

We are omnivores, I still choose to add meat as part of my diet. There are many things on large corporate farms that could be termed cruelty to animals. Efficient production does not take into account the suffering of some of these animals. I would like to see some of those practices ended also.

However, a specific chicken, that I will eventually put into a pot, does not have the same emotional attachment to me as my big lazy furry cat. If someone came along and stole my chicken I would be out of a meal. If someone came along and took my cat, I would be out a friend. How do you measure that? What rights does my cat have my chicken doesn't? What duties do I have to that cat that I would not have to a future dinner? And when does that chicken become a friend after I put off ringing its neck for several years because he is so darn cute? Does the chickens status at some point then change? These are just some of the questions that this issue will need to address.

[RhodaGrits]

20. There are certain baselines below which almost all would agree

constitute cruely. All animals, companion or otherwise should be covered by animal welfare and cruelty acts. This is not the point of the discussion I was trying to generate.

Someone with a pet rat may have a greater attachment and even financial commitment to that individual animal than someone that throws food at a dog chained in their yard (which might constitute abuse IMO). Should our legal system acknowledge the differences in emotional value of animals/fish etc?

Do you think Cimarron's life had more value than the price it took to replace him through the local horse dealer? I would argue that he might have had more value than the miserable creature that stole him and led him to slaughter for dog food. (In my early years I thought people inherently had more intrinsic value than animals. I now know that many animals have more "worth" than some people.)

I have chickens. When I bought our old farm, I wanted to raise chickens free-range for the table. The coyotes slaughtered dozens. I cage them now in a giant birdcage off the hen house for their own safety. I also now have an old age home for chickens because I was able to slaughter the first batch of roosters, clean and pluck them and put them into the freezer until I no longer knew their names. I buried them 2 yrs later and I've been a vegetarian ever since. They make nice big brown eggs and they enjoy the vegetable and grain table scraps and garden compost in addition to their layer feed. These chickens are not "pets" the way my dogs and cats are. I'm sad when one dies but I don't grieve the way I do with a pet that has become part of my family.

[kori]

21. I would agree that allowing chickens free range, as is popular,

may well constitute a form of neglect. I suspect at the moment under current property laws if Wiley E Coyote had chicken lunch the loss is to your asset only, sans the guilt about chicken little. However, should those laws be changed to guardianship of an animal rather than ownership of property could not a case of neglect of this guardianship of a free range chicken be cause for some punitive charge against the guardian? Maybe by some state watch chicken group?

Lets face it Wiley E. will do what Wiley E can. We know that, so would there be a legal duty above your moral duty to protect Chicken Little? What if instead of a chicken my furry fuzzy friend wanted to play outside and were to be consumed by Wiley E? As the Guardian of one fat slow cat is it encumbering on me to also protect him overtly from nature as I would say a young child? Could I be fined or possibly jailed for failure in my guardianship as opposed to the failure of losing property?

[sweetheart]

22. You've got the issue

In a farming community, the livestock are the "money", and anything
that screws with the stock is a pest, including dogs and cats if
they are in the wrong pens. This is in old scottish law going back
hundreds of years, before the US was formed.

Our "new" culture now values doggies and cats as more than ratters
and shepards to chase off foxes and varmits. In scottish law, it is
still legal to shoot a neighbor's dog if it is chasing sheep or
potentially a threat to a lamb... just like a fox. So what makes
a fox worth nothing economically and a dog worth more?.. economics.

The food chain has warped the economic chains in to disrespecting
animal rights based on their property value as food. All along, we're
fighitng against the biology of mother nature.

In raising dogs myself, what happens when a dog gets hit by a car,
do i need to file a failed-guardian report and get a criminal
record? ? What happens when a dog falls off a cliff, like happened
to me recently, and i was able to rescue it, and pay 400 quid to
have a hip operation... what if i just left it to die on the rocks,
like would have happened in nature, or had i not been present to
do a cliff rescue.

Treating animals like property may not be right, but i am concerned
that the laws of nature will be forgotten, and like the perception
of gun-control in rural areas, similarly, laws on pets and whatnot
don't agree with wild nature... bobcats eat cats and dogs, so do
owls. Sometimes its cruel... criminalizing people for failing to
protect an animal from nature is the potential danger in this
and i myself would call the lawmakers stupid.

I hope the people who try to walk through this quagmire are wise to
the pitfalls... as otherwise, like gay marriage, they will only be
a political disaster for whomever sticks up for the issue.

Legislating against cruelty would probably be a first start... as
for the guardian stuff.... i'm not so sure. It seems that mother
nature is already guardian, and she has her own adgenda.

[RhodaGrits]

24. Guardianship vs Ownership Issues are one of the most

contentious to be settled. If we are guardians and not owners, then the government has a much greater responsibility for overseeing our stewardship. In the U.S., we are not doing a very good job of fostering needy children let alone pets.

If you are the guardian and not the owner of your pet, what is to stop your neighbor for suing for guardianship if she has a larger yard and more time to devote to your pet? If your cat is dying do you have the right to determine whether it is time to euthanize him? If a veterinarian decides you are declining necessary care, can your pet be removed for neglect? These are extreme cases but things to be considered carefully.

If animals are made wards and are no longer property, will you be compensated for the loss? (property being a constitutional right).

Most would agree that our companion animals have more value than an inanimate object - but does that warrant some sort of special legal status? The NY Trial Lawyers recently promoted legislation that would allow for pain and suffering compensation to owners who lost their pet because of criminal/illegal acts - it was defeated when it was pointed out that the penalties and awards exceeded that which one would receive if a person lost their spouse or child. I expect it will be re-introduced next session.

[sweetheart]

25. And what about the pet's old age

Older animals, like humans are more likely to involve expensive
medical treatment for a diminishing life span. When does the
state come in and start paying for treatment, if the guardian can't
afford care? In all seriousness, i would hope that they would make
medical treatment a right for all humans before we get to this
point.

In a farm field, not far from here, i met a sheep with an infected
teet, swollen and clearly painful for the sheep. The cost of
vetrinary treatment was more than the market value of the sheep,
and if the "guardian" is an economist, then what is the taxpayer,
a free ride?

[RhodaGrits]

26. These are exactly the issues that society must examine -

everything has a cost... emotionally and economically.

There are always hard choices. I watched a local humane group provide thousands and thousands of dollars in care to an aged sow with a fractured hindlimb. The procedures were painful and she never really had any quality of life. (Some breeds of pigs are not bred to live past market weight - they can't support that weight for a long lifetime. This is our fault for selecting them that way but that is the way it is.) But did they do her any favors?

[ernstbass]

17. I totally agree radwriter

[itzamirakul]

4. I wouldn't take a million...

dollars for my little 10-year-old toy poodle, Babette. I have had many dogs, but never one that I loved so much or that loved me back so much.

Now maybe TWO million...(just kidding...not even THAT!):)

[GoldenOldie]

7. Why does anyone have to compare Iraqi deaths vs animal deaths???

I agree that attention should and must be paid to the civilian deaths in Iraq. The story is about the theft and slaughter of a pet/horse.

One might use the context that our media whores and self-centered politicians will use the pet story to minimize or ignore the human deaths stories and even the deaths of our troops and therefore one is more important than the other.

Why can we not ackowledge that both are horror stories and that there should be enough empathy, consideration, journalists, activists, etc., to work for both of them....why does one have to be the enemy of the other.

Those that kill and brutilize animals have little concern for their fellow human beings and many noted serial killers have been known to have started their process in the torturing and killing of animals.

There are many serious problems with our world and the humans that live within it. Let those that have passion for animal rights, educate and fight for them. Let those that have a passion for peace and peaceful solutions, educate and fight for it. Let those that have a passion for the environment educate and fight for it. Whatever passion one has, let them educate others with sound, researched information and allow a reasonable debate based on fact and not fiction.

We cannot all devote time or energy to those things that make life better for us all and I for one appreciate those that are willing to devote time, energy, money and most of all their passion for those things that make our world a better place.

[Branjor]

10. Well said!

All this business of comparing one thing to the other, which is "more important", blah blah blah, serves no purpose other than to divide groups of people who are all working for a better world in different ways one from the other.

The oppressors' first law is always DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

[K-W]

13. If this were a fox news story about the same young girl being kidnapped,

everyone here would be saying "Its just one little girl, thousands of people are dying in Iraq."

And in that case and in this case, they would be right.

Thousands of people are being slaughtered in Iraq and you are asking why people would point out that in comparison, one horse being slaughtered is not high on the list of world injustices?

[kori]

8. A very tricky question

How do you define the loss of a loved one like one fat cat. There are times I might pay someone to take him, but then I would ransom him back quickly. I know there is no market value to this kitty yet he means much to me. But how do you define that?

There is more to this question than just intrinsic value of a beloved friend. If our legal status is changed to guardian from owner how do you differentiate a pet and a breeding dog? A corporate race horse vs this girls friend and pet? The breeding dog may well be worth thousands more than the pet dog but is a tear shed when that dog is gone?

Another complication is that with the stated future of tort reform, by this administration, removal of reimbursement for pain and suffering is one of their goals, so even with a different definition of pet ownership vs guardianship would it even change potential compensation for this kind of loss?

[amazona]

11. thanks, good points, just one tiny nitpick

your treasured family photos have more legal value than your best furry buddy.

Your treasured family photos have NO legal value. Check your homeowner's insurance. They are not covered under mine and I think this is standard -- they are considered to be of sentimental value only.

The legal and insurance industries can't protect you against sentimental loss. They exist to provide financial compensation and protection.

This is why you hear of people fleeing from a burning house with the birdcage in one hand the family photos in the other. The coffee table you mention can be replaced. The pet and photos can't.

We can't insure against heartbreak, would that we could. For photos, I recommend storing some photos off-site, such as in a safety deposit box or online picture hosting. For pets, we just do the best we can to protect them from natural disasters and the bad guys.

[RhodaGrits]

15. I may have misunderstood - what I was told that if someone

destroyed your valued photos that they had been shown to have more intrinsic value than just the cost of a reprint and that this might serve as some kind of precedent. Anyone know anything about this?

[liberalequestrian]

19. It's horrible

and to anyone who views horses as livestock- MOST horse are dear companions to their owners. Some replace significant others, some replace children- many are dear friends of their owners who devote hours and hours a day to their care. I am one of the latter group. Imagine your dog being stolen and slaughtered-

The slaughterhouses have been GIVEN microchip readers as to insure that they do not slaughter stolen equines and other measures have been put in place to ensure against what happened to their girl... they disregard these in a blatant fashion.

It has always been one of my greatest fears as a horse owner.

My heart goes out to this girl.

[roguevalley]

27. She should set the precedent. I feel animals have enormous

worth, especially pets. No one can value the good they give to someone unconditionally. I hope whoever did this rots in hell and this girl gets some satisfaction some place.