Do you like this story?
Pets and the shift away from ‘property’ status
By Gina Spadafori
September 9, 2007
The Boston Globe takes a look at the boom in animal-related law and what it means for traditional ways of looking at legal rights of animals:
A decade ago, the idea that a divorce would involve “custody” of a pet, much less that the decision would factor in the pet’s own predilections, would have been dismissed by most lawyers as absurd. Pets were property, and not very valuable property at that, to be balanced against all of the other stuff that is split up in a divorce – nobody, after all, talks about joint custody of an armoire.
But recent years have seen an intensifying effort on the part of animal rights activists, legislators, prosecutors, and legal scholars to change the way the law treats animals.
The result has been the beginning of a qualitative shift – not merely the stiffening of animal cruelty laws, though in most states that has happened, but changes that are turning animals into legal beings with their own interests, and, in a few cases, their own enforceable preferences. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia now allow pet owners to endow pet trusts, the kind of legislation that made it possible for New York hotel billionaire Leona Helmsley to bequeath $12 million to her dog, Trouble. In some states, veterinarians are now required to report suspicions of animal abuse in the same way pediatricians have to report child abuse. Courts are starting to take seriously the claim that pet owners are entitled to compensation for pain and suffering in cases involving the death of an animal. And, in a Tennessee case this spring, a court appointed a legal guardian to represent the interests of a dog in a custody dispute.
Here’s the rest.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
While this sounds all well and good, I fear it is just another excuse for the government to meddle in the lives of private citizens. There are already plenty of welfare laws that give governments the authority to remove animals from harmful situations AS PROPERTY.
Changing the status of animals from a legal perspective does little to change their status from a private perspective. It just creates a bureaucracy that can harass well doing people.
Child protective services is already abused royally by petty disputes between people and even between children and their parents. The equivalent animal protective services would be equally easy to abuse by neighbors over silly disputes and AR wackos.
It’s already a popular harassment technique for radicals to abuse the system against people they hate by, say, putting a lien against their property. Well, how difficult would it be for AR wackos to abuse the system and file complaints against every animal owner.
This trend has Nanny-state written all over it.
Comment by Christopher — September 9, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
Gina and Christopher,
You might be interested in reading this article.
http://tinyurl.com/lubu2
Or checking out this site:
http://tinyurl.com/ypfdss
There is a very grey and dangerous area between AR & AW. I am all for enforcement of existing laws and new laws that allow me to endow my pets to secure their future should I predecease them, but I am not in favor of laws that change my legal status as Primary Care Giver/Decision Maker/Property Owner/Alpha B*tch.
Comment by Deb — September 10, 2007 @ 5:36 am
While this sounds all well and good, I fear it is just another excuse for the government to meddle in the lives of private citizens. There are already plenty of welfare laws that give governments the authority to remove animals from harmful situations AS PROPERTY.
Just the existencd of animal welfare/anti-cruelty laws says that animals are a different kind of property than you average armoire. Yes, we want to maintain the distinction between animal rights crazies that want to eliminate domestic animals, and animal welfare, ensuring that animals are well treated and healthy, but just recognizing the kind of property that pets really are means that we have to find a way for the law to recognize that part of what we want to do with this particular type of property is set up trusts that provide for surviving pets after we die, ensure that the pet really does go with the human she’s most closely bonded with in the event of a divorce, and that our pets, when we travel, are not treated like inanimate cargo whose value, if lost or destroyed, is not fully compensated by a check for the purchase price.
It’s an inherently difficult balance to strike.
Comment by Lis — September 10, 2007 @ 8:02 am
The changes mentioned in the top of this article and the points you bring up, Lis, are perfectly valid and I don’t think risk any sort of big brother syndrome with dogs.
Trusts are wonderful things, people should be able to do with their money as they see fit, and it’s a positive element to have the expectation that your animal is taken care of even if you become unable to do so (as in death).
The divorce situation is another ball of wax that I won’t get into. I’m not married and I’m a man, and I don’t think my opinions on that subject will be welcome or relevant. The custody situation with children is biased, sexist, and bizarre enough, no need to add dogs to the mix.
Anti-Cruelty legislation is a must, for as you say, Pets are not furniture. The term “sentient property” has a rather nice ring to it, as used in the linked articles from Deb.
The problem with this debate online is that the sort of people that would supposedly benefit from a societal shift from ownership to guardianship aren’t here. They don’t read dog blogs. They don’t participate in dog sports or the rich dog culture that is growing in popularity.
In writing laws to combat the careless and the cruel, I wonder, as you say, where the inherently difficult balance will tip.
Will I have to get the approval of a dog social worker or a dog court judge for certain veterinary procedures? Will dog reproductive rights be established to prevent easy access to spay/neuter programs? Will working dog owners be targeted with dog unions and mandates on the length of the working day and week?
If I defend myself against a nasty dog at the dog park, should I expect to face criminal prosecution as if it were a child? Will shelter dogs on death row be given an appeals process? If dogs are given rights, and thus a voice, who speaks for them, because they clearly can not make their wishes known.
That’s my rub. You’d need doggy social workers and doggy advocates, and where do those people come from and what is to say they don’t have an agenda?
Comment by Christopher — September 10, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Those who lobby for guardianship to replace ownership do so with red herring arguments that pets as property translates into unlimited ability of pet owners to commit animal cruelty. This is simply not true, as demonstrated by the hundreds (thousands?) of communities that have adopted animal cruelty laws even as they maintain the fundamental concept of pet ownership.
Guardianship is at its core about who makes the choices for our pets. As Christopher said, “Will I have to get the approval of a dog social worker or a dog court judge for certain veterinary procedures?”
Who is in better position to decide what food your pet eats, what veterinary procedures he receives, what activities he is involved in — you, or government? If you believe government is better able to decide all of this than you are… not just at the extremes, but across the board… then guardianship is for you.
Guardianship greatly increases the scope of government’s reach and meddling into our relationships with our pets. Animal Rights groups lobby for guardianship as a stepping stone toward destroying our relationships with our pets.
“As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves.” PETA’s Statement on Companion Animals.
Comment by Laura — September 10, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
OH MY GOD bloggers. The local FoxNews here in the Detroit, Mi area just did a story at 10pm on a German Shepard mix that was set on fire by her owner a convicted felon and then he ignored her as she FOLLOWED him DOWN THE STREET. The pictures were horrible. The humane society could do nothing to save her and she was euthanized.
Comment by VJ — September 11, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
It just makes your heart hurt. What is WRONG with some people? Poor dear … at least she’s beyond his ability to hurt her anymore.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 11, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
The Humane Society in Detroit and the judge both were swift in dealing with this low life. He was given 23 months to 4 yrs today. The H.S. said they were bombarded with calls and emails concerning this horrible, horrible cruelty to this poor dog.
Comment by VJ — September 12, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Don’t click the link if you don’t want to see a picture of the poor dog (who was euthanized).
From the Detroit Free Press:
“Michele Baxter, a cruelty investigator for the Michigan Humane Society, told the judge that the 2-year-old female pit bull/shepherd mix was so badly injured that euthanization was the only option.
“Fladger apologized before the court, saying: ‘I’m very remorseful about what happened and my soul love for dogs is great.’
“Baxter said Fladger poured gasoline on the dog and set it on fire Aug. 3 before walking to a liquor store to buy beer. She said the dog, named Lil’ Mama, followed him down the street and into the store at the corner of Warren and Bangor, where a store owner expressed concern over the dog.
” ‘He told the store owner that he was trying to kill the dog,’Baxter said.”
“MY SOUL LOVE FOR DOGS IS GREAT” ??!! Who on earth does this dirtbag think he’s kidding? Fortunately the judge did not believe him.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 12, 2007 @ 5:58 pm