Opinion: Fucking pet parents. You may have been the bread and butter of my parents' pet store, but if you were this obsessed with the well being of your human children, the world might be a better place.
The loss of an animal is devastating. Especially if the animal's life is prematurely ended.
But if they're going to allow punitive damages for emotional distress at the loss of an animal, they need to allow for people who do not treat their pets like family. This includes neglect, abuse, and mishandling.
This issue needs to be all inclusive or all exclusive. Either the animal deserves all the recognition of being a member of the family or none of it.
If an animal is ruled to be "family", and people can seek damages for emotional distress brought on by their loss at the hands of another as though they were a human child, then other people need to be held to greater responsibility for animal welfare. The abuse/neglect of an animal needs to be just as serious as a crime against a human child, etc.
And what will this mean for veterinarians, who sometimes have to euthanize an animal? Will they then be guilty of murder? Or will it be that they can assist your four-legged family member end their life humanely, but a human doctor can't help another two-legged family member with the same? Or will veterinarians be given license to do the same for people since animals are family members and all family members are on equal footing? Will human doctors be allowed to treat animals then, since they're "family members" and not "companion animals"? What about spaying and neutering, or other decisions responsible "furparents" make? Will those be a crime? And what about taxes? Since they would be "family", they should be tax deductions, right? (Personally I kind of agree with this part - I spend a huge amount yearly on my four cats and one dog. But I don't advocate making them "family" - just tax deductible!)
There's a line to be drawn between animal welfare and insane fervor.
The whole "pets are not people" thing will need to be revamped, and personally I think the people in that article are those that make "animal lovers" look bad. Also, an interesting thing the defendant brought up was that if the court allowed this, it would be granting "animal parents" rights that grandparents themselves don't have over losing grandchildren, so where is the line drawn there?
If pets are reclassified as "family", what about taking them into stores (my local grocery store just put up a big "NO ANIMALS OF ANY KIND (except those serving the disabled)" sign - I'm sure due to people bringing in those pocket/purse dogs, ferrets, hedgehogs, sugar gliders and other small animals while they're shopping.)? Will "discrimination" laws apply to them, as it's discrimination against a "family member", though of a different species?
The term "companion animal" is just that. My animals are family to me too, but I also recognize that they are just that at the end of the day - animals. I feed them top quality animal food, take them to an animal doctor, etc. They might be family and be my "kids", but I'm still going to call these people bringing this case insane.
That is a point, but well...in fairness, it's not like MY dog's never been in someone else's yard. I have bailed the damn hound out of 4 different shelters; the Pullman shelter alone 3 times. And picked her back up from probably a dozen people that've found her, or just been stuck waiting for her to come home on her own. It's been an escalation of fencing vs escape artistry since I got her... and I can't fence all of my friends' yards. They were visiting, so it's entirely possible the dog was much better confined at home. Most folks would consider me reasonably dedicated. Except Bruce, who considers me a total fanatic.
I guess I mean more like, yeah, dogs can wander. My own dogs wander. My yard is extremely poorly fenced. But if I let my dogs out somewhere, and wasn't watching them, and they wandered off and got shot or hit by a car or whatever, then I would blame first myself for allowing the dog to get into a hazardous situation in the first place. Yes, I would be very upset. Might even say some not very ladylike things. But every time my Chow wanders over to the trailers where kids live, I'm very grateful when she doesn't get shot. Of course, I live in the country, where it's perfectly normal, legal, and expected that a wandering dog will be shot.
Now given that this occoured in a presumably civilized neighborhood, there are probably better ways to deal with a strange dog on your lawn than shooting it with an air rifle. I am guessing, based on what the article says, that it was not legal for the man to shoot the dog in his yard, thus the animal cruelty charges, probation, and community service. And the dog died on the way to the vet, so was the owner nearby when this happened? If so, the guy's a asshole, shouting "get your goddamn dog off my lawn" would have served equally well.
But restitution for something that's completely incalculable, such as the dollar value of companionship? I think that's BS, human or animal. Now dollar value on the income potential, or services provided, fine. Working animals, spouses, service animals, children who support the family... yeah. By all means, include that in. But saying "I suffered $100,000 worth by not having soandso with me" is really pretty dumb.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 04:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 05:48 pm (UTC)Especially if the animal's life is prematurely ended.
But if they're going to allow punitive damages for emotional distress at the loss of an animal, they need to allow for people who do not treat their pets like family. This includes neglect, abuse, and mishandling.
This issue needs to be all inclusive or all exclusive.
Either the animal deserves all the recognition of being a member of the family or none of it.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-19 11:34 am (UTC)If an animal is ruled to be "family", and people can seek damages for emotional distress brought on by their loss at the hands of another as though they were a human child, then other people need to be held to greater responsibility for animal welfare. The abuse/neglect of an animal needs to be just as serious as a crime against a human child, etc.
And what will this mean for veterinarians, who sometimes have to euthanize an animal? Will they then be guilty of murder? Or will it be that they can assist your four-legged family member end their life humanely, but a human doctor can't help another two-legged family member with the same? Or will veterinarians be given license to do the same for people since animals are family members and all family members are on equal footing? Will human doctors be allowed to treat animals then, since they're "family members" and not "companion animals"? What about spaying and neutering, or other decisions responsible "furparents" make? Will those be a crime? And what about taxes? Since they would be "family", they should be tax deductions, right? (Personally I kind of agree with this part - I spend a huge amount yearly on my four cats and one dog. But I don't advocate making them "family" - just tax deductible!)
There's a line to be drawn between animal welfare and insane fervor.
The whole "pets are not people" thing will need to be revamped, and personally I think the people in that article are those that make "animal lovers" look bad. Also, an interesting thing the defendant brought up was that if the court allowed this, it would be granting "animal parents" rights that grandparents themselves don't have over losing grandchildren, so where is the line drawn there?
If pets are reclassified as "family", what about taking them into stores (my local grocery store just put up a big "NO ANIMALS OF ANY KIND (except those serving the disabled)" sign - I'm sure due to people bringing in those pocket/purse dogs, ferrets, hedgehogs, sugar gliders and other small animals while they're shopping.)? Will "discrimination" laws apply to them, as it's discrimination against a "family member", though of a different species?
The term "companion animal" is just that. My animals are family to me too, but I also recognize that they are just that at the end of the day - animals. I feed them top quality animal food, take them to an animal doctor, etc. They might be family and be my "kids", but I'm still going to call these people bringing this case insane.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 07:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 07:47 pm (UTC)Now given that this occoured in a presumably civilized neighborhood, there are probably better ways to deal with a strange dog on your lawn than shooting it with an air rifle. I am guessing, based on what the article says, that it was not legal for the man to shoot the dog in his yard, thus the animal cruelty charges, probation, and community service. And the dog died on the way to the vet, so was the owner nearby when this happened? If so, the guy's a asshole, shouting "get your goddamn dog off my lawn" would have served equally well.
But restitution for something that's completely incalculable, such as the dollar value of companionship? I think that's BS, human or animal. Now dollar value on the income potential, or services provided, fine. Working animals, spouses, service animals, children who support the family... yeah. By all means, include that in. But saying "I suffered $100,000 worth by not having soandso with me" is really pretty dumb.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-18 08:29 pm (UTC)