Should Animals Be Seen As Property Legally?

[feemandvm]

This is something which is actually a VERY serious topic in many states right now. When you superficially read the above comment... the answer emotionally would be no. My dog means a lot more to me than my couch!!! The fact that the legally they are only seen as property with no intrinsic emotional value seems unfair... however, keep the following in mind when it comes to legislation looking to change this:

 

If animals are seen as more than property and this is going to open up a BIG can of worms. Malpractice insurance fees will increase dramatically (as they are very high on teh human side) and this will force veterinarians to raise their fees to cover their bottom lines. So the cost of health care in general will increase. Furthermore, parents are required by law to take care of their children's health to a certain degree. If a child has pneumonia and dies at home w/o medical care, the parent would likely be charged with a crime. Could this same scenario now be extended to pet owners? If an owner brings a pet in after it has been doing poorly at home for an extended period would a vet now be required to legally report these owners as neglectful? if an owner cannot afford a recommended treatment could they be forced to surrender a beloved pet?

 

This is something which I believe is currently up for debate in Vermont and possibly in other states. As I've said it makes me sick to think that a dog (or any other pet) is seen as no more valuable than a couch in the eyes of the law but the can of worms that changing that designation would make is something that I would be very worried about.

 

 

[greysmom]

Things are already changing. In this instance I believe the value of the media is a huge factor. All the Animal Planet programs that follow humane investigators, and the numberof hoarding cases reported all serve to bring animal issues to the eyes of the general public. Attitudes are changing.

 

Our laws here in Oregon are along the lines you mentioned already. Pet owners are required to provide appropriate food and shelter and vet care for their pets, and the pets can be seized if humane investigators deem the owners have not met the requirements set out in the law. Bad cases are felonies, not misdemeanors- and fines and jail time are stiff. This includes farm animals and other livestock as well. Seizures recently in our news have included rabbits, donkeys, horses, and exotic birds along with the usual dogs and cats.

 

The vets I've been to and gotten to know are mostly great about working with owners for payment of expensive treatments, and there are several groups that help people who can't afford vet care. Two shelters in our area are starting pet food banks - like people food banks only for pet food - to help low income and elderly folks keep their beloved pets. And one local Meals on Wheels chapter also delivers pet food.

 

Our lawyer didn't bat an eye when we put language in our wills about the dispensation of any pets we have at the time of our death, and our executor knows that they are his first priority. Pet insurance is creeping into the main stream - with one national company even advertising on TV that your pet is covered in auto accidents.

 

We have recently had a couple of high profile cases in which a family pet has been run over/killed. The law states that owners can't be compensated beyond the material value of the pet - several hundred dollars in most cases. But legislation has been introduced to change the definition of property as it relates to "companion animals" which will most likely pass (if it hasn't already). Court proceedings and apeals are ongoing, too, so the law may be behind the judiciary soon.

 

These issues are only going to become more complicated as animals become integrated into society as companions instead of property. I think that tipping point has been reached already. We can only hope and pray that common sense and compassion will come out on top.

 

greysmom

(BTW we are currently watching the case of a family belonging to a particular religion whose son refused medical treatment on religious grounds and died. His condition would have been easily treated with a simple procedure, not even requiring hospitalization. In Oregon, children over the age of 14 can so refuse treatment on religious grounds. Under 14 the parents are required to provide normal medical care to their kids. Interestingly, this boy's niece (15-18 months old) died last year of a treatable pneumonia. The baby's parents were arrested and are facing trial, but the older boys parents will likely not be charged.)

[MP_the4pack]

The reason I would like to see pets elevated above couches is that when a pet is killed (thinking along the lines of purposeful destruction).......compensation is pretty much left to the price of the pet. The offender generally gets a slap on the wrist. If someone were to wontonly murder my four babies I would reach a point of dispare that I may not return from. But little would compensate for the loss of my entire family.

 

I think a third class needs to be defined which is where animals would be labeled and belong. Not at the level of humans. But not as couches either. But as living creatures.

 

 

 

Of course..........as is human nature, whatever happens will be abused.

 

 

 

[CaliforniaGreys]

What bothers me is that if they are considered "property" they are more legally protected than if not. That's scary

[Guest LynnM]

I think a third class needs to be defined which is where animals would be labeled and belong. Not at the level of humans. But not as couches either. But as living creatures.

 

That's sort of where "livestock" animals fall, and oftentimes, it's because of the distinction between livestock animals (cattle, etc, that are also under the jurisdiction of the USDA, state Ag departments, FDA, etc) and companion animal (city/county animal control if they're lucky) that the pet dog/cat/hamster falls through the cracks.

 

Lynn

 

[Sighthounds4me]

My emotional answer is pets are far more than property. I can't fathom how anyone would see them as otherwise.

 

But the logical answer is, they are property. Though they are living things, like humans, they are NOT humans, and should not have the same rights. Laws are in place to make sure pets' welfare is protected, but animals are not the same as humans, so they do not have the same rights. I do think that laws alloow too much for gray area in a lot of realms (like what is truly considered "shelter" for a pet? We all agree that our pets should live inside our homes with us, but other folks don't see it that way, so shelter could be defined as many things).

 

I feel that since we humans domesticated these animals, we should also be responsible for their emotional and mental well-being, through socialization and training. But that is not something that can be defined by any law, and shouldn't be. And even if it is to be defined by law, who's to say which of us are actually providing those needs? And isn't it something that varies by animal? Just more food for thought...

[RobinM]

And the 3rd issue that you didn't address is who decides when a pet gets put down. While it can be an amazingly emotional decision, we recognize for the most part that it can be the most humane choice that we can make for our pet. If the law were to be changed, the state, almost of necessity, would have to enact guidelines (read laws) setting forth when/if euthanasia is appropriate.

Imagine being told you have to allow your beloved pet to continue suffering because his current condition doesn't meet some legislature's guidelines.

On the other hand, the analogy of comparing our pets to a couch is incorrect. There are laws that set forth minimum standards of care. (animal cruelty laws) whereas I can do anything I want to my couch but the law will prevent (in theory) the most horrible abuses. These laws should be enforced and strenthened A LOT more.

 

It's a very hard and thought provoking question with no clear answer on either side.

 

 

[Guest KennelMom]

Yes I think animals should legally be considered property. Just like other property we have (i.e. cars), states can decide rules that govern ownership of that property. In NC, vehicles must be inspected yearly. There are rules for houses, such as railings for stairs, distance between outlets and on and on....I don't see any reason states can't issue minimum standards of care for animals even though they are legally considered property - in fact, they already do.

 

If dogs and cats aren't property, then what are they? They're not human beings. A pet may have great emotional value to a pet owner (and most do)...but some dogs are, well, just a dog to many families. They are loved and cared for, but the dog doesn't hold the same emotional value to them as other families where dogs may as well be human children. Similarly, a couch may have as much meaning to a person if that couch was handcrafted by their great great great grandfather and passed down through each generation. It may be a crappy old couch to some, but a beloved family momento to others. Value is often in the eye of the beholder.

Edited June 24, 2008 by KennelMom

[greysmom]

It's incredibly sad that the only value we can legally assign to anything in our society is monetary value.

 

Though in the case of couches - whether they are handcrafted antiques or just a crappy old couch - the replacement value is something that is readily and acceptably definable by an appearance on Antiques Roadshow. The value of companion animals has not yet been so defined beyond their value as "livestock." How much can you buy a similar breed and age of dog with similar training on the open market - which may have nothing to do with the animal's "value" as a companion to the owner who has suffered the loss. The trouble comes in trying to equitably determine that value both for punishment and redress. There is a huge gray area between the value of the loss of a couch and the value of the loss of a human life.

 

Another difference between property and companion animals is that property can be insured against loss. Unless you have a particularly valuable show or breeding animal it is virtually impossible to include them on an insurance rider - and in fact, having some breeds of dogs may cause your insurance to be cancelled. I seriously doubt if anyone ever lost their homeowner's insurance for having a certain brand of couch (though I've seen some that should have qualified!).

 

It is an incredibly complex question, and an interesting discussion!

 

greysmom

[feemandvm]

On the other hand, the analogy of comparing our pets to a couch is incorrect. There are laws that set forth minimum standards of care. (animal cruelty laws) whereas I can do anything I want to my couch but the law will prevent (in theory) the most horrible abuses. These laws should be enforced and strenthened A LOT more.

The comparison to the couch was made in that if a person destroys your couch you are entitled to sue for the monetary value of the couch. If someone kills your dog, you are only able to sue for the monetary value of the dog. So if someone killed my lab/beagle mix that I got from the pound I could sue for $35? The emotional value of a dog is much greater than that of a couch but legally it doesn't matter. That to me just seems inherently wrong. However, for the reasons that I discussed above, I think trying to change that is going to open Pandora's box!

 

 

 

 

 

[robinw]

Personally I think animals, especially companion animals, should have rights. owners should be required to provide proper care and should be prosecuted if it is withheld. As Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" and I think North American has a long way to go. Hopefully future legislation will bring us closer greatness.

[greytlucy]

Personally I think animals, especially companion animals, should have rights. owners should be required to provide proper care and should be prosecuted if it is withheld. As Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" and I think North American has a long way to go. Hopefully future legislation will bring us closer greatness.

 

You think North America has a long way to go? Seriously? Maybe you haven't traveled to other parts of the world much but really...companion animals here, for how desparate it can seem at times, have it pretty well compared to many other places on the planet....

 

 

[robinw]

Personally I think animals, especially companion animals, should have rights. owners should be required to provide proper care and should be prosecuted if it is withheld. As Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" and I think North American has a long way to go. Hopefully future legislation will bring us closer greatness.

 

You think North America has a long way to go? Seriously? Maybe you haven't traveled to other parts of the world much but really...companion animals here, for how desparate it can seem at times, have it pretty well compared to many other places on the planet....

 

as a matter of fact i've traveled quite a bit including throughout the "third world". i agree that animals are treated pretty well here compared to other places, but that doesn't mean there isn't lots of room for improvment. poor treatment in, let's say rural africa, doesn't justify neglect or lack of care here. for me this isn't a relative issue.

[Guest KennelMom]

Personally I think animals, especially companion animals, should have rights. owners should be required to provide proper care and should be prosecuted if it is withheld. As Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" and I think North American has a long way to go. Hopefully future legislation will bring us closer greatness.

 

What rights do you think companion animals should have? Would this include *any* companion animal (eg, hamster, fish or worm?) How would you define a companion animals and/or designate it from any other animal. Mostly I'm interested in what rights you think animals should have. Most places, if not all, already define a minimum standard of care (shelter, food, water, basic vet care). There are animal cruelty laws in place in most, if not all, areas (though I do think penalties for animal cruelty and neglect should be stiffened).

 

p.s. If our dogs are going to be getting the right to vote, they say they are all voting Republican. Except Wuzho...long hair hippy that he is

Edited June 25, 2008 by KennelMom

[RobinM]

On the other hand, the analogy of comparing our pets to a couch is incorrect. There are laws that set forth minimum standards of care. (animal cruelty laws) whereas I can do anything I want to my couch but the law will prevent (in theory) the most horrible abuses. These laws should be enforced and strenthened A LOT more.

The comparison to the couch was made in that if a person destroys your couch you are entitled to sue for the monetary value of the couch. If someone kills your dog, you are only able to sue for the monetary value of the dog. So if someone killed my lab/beagle mix that I got from the pound I could sue for $35? The emotional value of a dog is much greater than that of a couch but legally it doesn't matter. That to me just seems inherently wrong. However, for the reasons that I discussed above, I think trying to change that is going to open Pandora's box!

 

Unfortunatley, the law has no way of compensating a person for death or injury other than money. (assuming there is no criminal liability)

 

But I agree 100% that by opening this up to change, will create new problems that may be even worse.

[Batmom]

Guess I'm not convinced that a dog or cat or other pet *needs* to be seen as more valuable than a couch. He/she needs to have humane treatment, but there are already laws in most parts of the U.S. to cover that (altho they are not always well enforced and there are questions of misdemeanor vs. felony, etc.).

 

I suppose setting a higher monetary value on a pet might have a deterrant effect in some (certainly not all, nor probably even a majority of) cases of animal abuse/cruelty ... but it would surely be meaningless to me if someone harmed my pet. I'd want to recover vet costs if applicable. Beyond that, $50 or $500 or $5M for "pain and suffering" or whatever -- what good would it do?

 

I also can't see the point of the state mandating when you can humanely euthanize and when not. The freedom to choose humane euthanization is one of the great gifts of pet ownership. Take away someone's freedom to euthanize a pet for what seem stupid reasons, and you take away someone else's freedom to do so for what you might believe are good reasons. Wouldn't get my vote.

 

[Guest SabrinaInDE]

As Alice Walker said, "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.”

 

In answer to the question, no. Animals should not be seen as property.

[feemandvm]

As Alice Walker said, "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.”

 

In answer to the question, no. Animals should not be seen as property.

Remember... we are not talking about "in theory" here... but true legal guidelines. All of the previously mentioned risks:

 

1. Significantly increased veterinary costs

2. Possible legal ramifications if a treatable problem is not treated

3. Possible loss of a pet if an owner cannot afford a recommended treatment

4. Possible loss of right of euthanasia

 

If you support a bill that wants to change animals legal classifications... these are real risks that go along with that. The issue seems obvious on face value... an animal should be more legally than a piece of property... but in addressing what seems to be something obvious... you have to dig deeper to see that it really may make things a LOT worse!!!

 

 

[Guest SabrinaInDE]

you have to dig deeper to see that it really may make things a LOT worse!!!

 

A lot worse for whom? All of those arguments seem to point to the fact that it would be a lot worse for the human, not the animal (with the possible exception of humane euthanasia, but I'm willing to bet there would be guidelines placed around this; and there should be anyway. today, anyone can go to their vet with a perfectly healthy dog and have it put to sleep because they just don't want the dog anymore).

 

ETA: Really it wasn't my intention to argue this point, I debated whether or not to even get involved in the topic. I realize that my views may vary from that of the average person. I don't wear animals, I don't eat them, I don't believe they are ours to exploit. They are sentient beings who should have their own rights. Are they humans? No. Should they be allowed to vote? No. Should they be property? No. No more than my husband should "own" me.

Edited June 25, 2008 by SabrinaInDE

[MerlinsMum]

I don't think Robin was talking merely about theory.

 

If a new, successful treatment for neo-natal cancers proved to be prohibitively expensive, should we rule it out completely because it will eliminate the need to work hard at finding ways to improve these babies lives?

 

I think you're missing the point. If you do the right thing, you don't do it because it's convenient or because it makes financial sense, you do it because it's the right thing to do. Doing the right thing mostly involves change, and change is often very inconvenient and sometimes hard to implement because people don't want to give up the ways they're used to. But this is beside the point. Laws have changed throughout the centuries because they have had to step up to the times and people's changing attitudes - their realization that treatment of a particular category of people was unjust, for example.

 

The same goes for animals. I find it interesting, and very sad, to note the parallels between the arguments against giving rights to animals today, and the argument against giving rights to slaves. Back then, too, people cited expense and "whatever next??" kind of questions. Same thing happened when women argued for the right to vote.

 

IMO, the movement that opposes a change in the legal status of animals is motivated by a fundamental unwillingness to disturb its interests or challenge its (arrogant) pre-conceived ideas about the supposed moral superiority of human animals. It doesn't surprise me, of course: the change would be, indeed, nothing short of gargantuan, and people are fundamentally selfish.

 

If animals had legal rights, they would have a right to be protected from suffering, from exploitation, from abuse, from neglect, from being treated as disposable commodities. Some of the comments I've read in this thread send a chill down my spine. I don't think there is much hope for animals in the short term. If people whose lives are allegedly touched so deeply by their dogs cannot find the empathy to move forward towards a deeper (yes, inconvenient) understanding of those dogs' worth as living creatures with rights of their own, I despair of animals' chances for justice anywhere in the near, maybe even distant future.

Edited June 25, 2008 by merlinsmum

[Guest whatahound]

p.s. If our dogs are going to be getting the right to vote, they say they are all voting Republican. Except Wuzho...long hair hippy that he is

 

He's such a rebel.

[giadog]

I think the current laws we have regarding animal cruelty and neglect need to be changed, but I don't think it would do any good to give the animals 'rights'. Regardless of whether or not they have rights, the animals cannot speak for themselves or use the laws themselves. It will still come down to the human intervention to dictate whether or not their rights are being met. However, changing and enforcing the laws surrounding animals would give the humans, acting on their behalf, more impetus and opportunity to offer the animals the treatment and respect they deserve.

[Guest SabrinaInDE]

I don't think Robin was talking merely about theory.

 

If a new, successful treatment for neo-natal cancers proved to be prohibitively expensive, should we rule it out completely because it will eliminate the need to work hard at finding ways to improve these babies lives?

 

I think you're missing the point. If you do the right thing, you don't do it because it's convenient or because it makes financial sense, you do it because it's the right thing to do. Doing the right thing mostly involves change, and change is often very inconvenient and sometimes hard to implement because people don't want to give up the ways they're used to. But this is beside the point. Laws have changed throughout the centuries because they have had to step up to the times and people's changing attitudes - their realization that treatment of a particular category of people was unjust, for example.

 

The same goes for animals. I find it interesting, and very sad, to note the parallels between the arguments against giving rights to animals today, and the argument against giving rights to slaves. Back then, too, people cited expense and "whatever next??" kind of questions. Same thing happened when women argued for the right to vote.

 

IMO, the movement that opposes a change in the legal status of animals is motivated by a fundamental unwillingness to disturb its interests or challenge its (arrogant) pre-conceived ideas about the supposed moral superiority of human animals. It doesn't surprise me, of course: the change would be, indeed, nothing short of gargantuan, and people are fundamentally selfish.

 

If animals had legal rights, they would have a right to be protected from suffering, from exploitation, from abuse, from neglect, from being treated as disposable commodities. Some of the comments I've read in this thread send a chill down my spine. I don't think there is much hope for animals in the short term. If people whose lives are allegedly touched so deeply by their dogs cannot find the empathy to move forward towards a deeper (yes, inconvenient) understanding of those dogs' worth as living creatures with rights of their own, I despair of animals' chances for justice anywhere in the near, maybe even distant future.

 

Kerry, I think I love you.

 

Thanks for putting that much more eloquently than I could.

 

[robinw]

I don't think Robin was talking merely about theory.

 

If a new, successful treatment for neo-natal cancers proved to be prohibitively expensive, should we rule it out completely because it will eliminate the need to work hard at finding ways to improve these babies lives?

 

I think you're missing the point. If you do the right thing, you don't do it because it's convenient or because it makes financial sense, you do it because it's the right thing to do. Doing the right thing mostly involves change, and change is often very inconvenient and sometimes hard to implement because people don't want to give up the ways they're used to. But this is beside the point. Laws have changed throughout the centuries because they have had to step up to the times and people's changing attitudes - their realization that treatment of a particular category of people was unjust, for example.

 

The same goes for animals. I find it interesting, and very sad, to note the parallels between the arguments against giving rights to animals today, and the argument against giving rights to slaves. Back then, too, people cited expense and "whatever next??" kind of questions. Same thing happened when women argued for the right to vote.

 

IMO, the movement that opposes a change in the legal status of animals is motivated by a fundamental unwillingness to disturb its interests or challenge its (arrogant) pre-conceived ideas about the supposed moral superiority of human animals. It doesn't surprise me, of course: the change would be, indeed, nothing short of gargantuan, and people are fundamentally selfish.

 

If animals had legal rights, they would have a right to be protected from suffering, from exploitation, from abuse, from neglect, from being treated as disposable commodities. Some of the comments I've read in this thread send a chill down my spine. I don't think there is much hope for animals in the short term. If people whose lives are allegedly touched so deeply by their dogs cannot find the empathy to move forward towards a deeper (yes, inconvenient) understanding of those dogs' worth as living creatures with rights of their own, I despair of animals' chances for justice anywhere in the near, maybe even distant future.

 

Kerry, I think I love you.

 

Thanks for putting that much more eloquently than I could.

 

me, too. thank you

[Batmom]

If animals had legal rights, they would have a right to be protected from suffering, from exploitation, from abuse, from neglect, from being treated as disposable commodities.

 

In most jurisdictions, animals already do have the right to be protected from suffering, abuse, and neglect. Depending on what you mean by "exploitation" and "disposable commodity," some of that's covered too.

 

I guess I'm not understanding exactly what changes you're envisioning in laws, and then in practice.