Pets as Companions: Words Mean A Lot: Changing the Legal Status of “Pets” and Changing Mentalities

A good article that touches on the changing view of pets to that of companion animals, and even legal objects. As the following quotes state, we’re already seeing it some cities. The implications being that people will start to view “pets” as what they are – beyond simple objects. What follows of course, is better treatment and respect for them and for life in general.

“Changing legal terminology also reflects the cultural shift. Since 2000, several cities have officially switched from the phrase "dog owner" to "dog guardian" -- first came Boulder, Colo., then Berkeley and West Hollywood in California; Sherwood, Ariz.; Amherst, Mass.; Menomonee Falls, Wis.; the state of Rhode Island; and San Francisco.

"We want people to understand that a dog isn't a piece of garbage," Mark Bekoff, a professor of biology at the University of Colorado, told me not long after the Boulder initiative. Proponents of this change argue that children will benefit from thinking of themselves as an animal's guardian, with the responsibilities toward living beings, as opposed to inanimate objects, that the ownership term implies.”

Article:

What's the value of a pet?
While Fido and Fluffy traditionally have been seen as property, a litigious society increasingly considers our furry friends as family

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/
index.ssf?/base/editorial/115101871328510.xml&coll=7

Sunday, June 25, 2006
RICHARD LOUV
The Oregonian

Banner, a collie, was 6 weeks old and I was 2 years old when we became best friends. One day, when I was 7, my little brother, stubborn and red-faced, crawled out onto the hot asphalt road. Banner appeared, grabbed his diapers with his teeth, pulled him back into the yard and sat on him.

Banner was a worrier. When either of us was in the kind of trouble he couldn't control, he would go home. But he always came back.

That same year, I fell through the ice of the creek in the woods. Up to my waist, I tried to climb the steep and snowy bank but slipped back. Banner left. I climbed and slipped back, climbed and slipped. And then Banner's head appeared again above the bank. I remember him at one end of a fallen branch, tugging. I tell you this with some embarrassment, knowing the trickery of memory, especially a child's memory.

Just the other day, Banner came back to me again as I read a story about the Estacada man who ran over a neighbor's dog in 2004. He was convicted of animal abuse, and last month the dog's family made international headlines when they sought $1.625 million for the loss of companionship of Grizz, who they'd raised as a puppy. A victory would have turned on its head the centuries-old legal tradition that pets are merely property.

After a judge tossed out the emotional-loss portion, saying the law doesn't provide for animal companionship, a divided jury decided that Raymond E. Weaver should pay Mark Greenup and his two daughters $56,400: $50,000 in punitive damages, $6,000 for their suffering and $400 for the value of Grizz. The damages were substantially less than the $1.325 million the judge allowed but still among the highest ever awarded for a family pet.

Had that been my dog -- had it been Banner -- I would have wanted the maximum penalty. But Weaver's attorney wondered if Clackamas County wanted to "set itself up as a venue where any cat that gets run over gets a trial?"

Good question. Legally and culturally, just how far do we want to take this?

At a time when aging baby boomers are turning corgies, retrievers, Labradors and the rest into "their children" -- with regular trips to doggie day care, doggie boutiques and doggie parks -- should the law be changed to catch up with society? Or does society need a reality check?

Judges have resisted letting animal owners sue for loss of companionship, a right traditionally reserved for spouses. After all, a parent who loses a child can't make that claim in court (although a parent, unlike a pet owner, can sue for wrongful death). All sorts of furry questions

But the line is blurring. Consider the case of Dog v. Cat. In May 2005 a Seattle court awarded a woman more than $45,000 as compensation for the death of her cat, Yofi, killed in her backyard by a neighbor's dog. The neighbor had failed to adequately seal gaps in his fence, the woman's lawyers charged.

Adam Karp, founder of the Washington State Bar Association's Animal Law Section, defended the size of the award: "There tends to be a culture that says dogs are more of man's best friends and cats are aloof and can't bond, but if anyone has ever shared their bonds with a cat, they know that's utter nonsense," he told the Associated Press.

But wait. If we're looking for legal parity, why are there so few leash laws for cats? Should cat owners be sued for letting their cats roam the neighborhoods, where they kill endangered birds? If a coyote has my cat over for lunch, should I sue the city for inadequate control of coyotes? Once you start asking questions, it's hard to stop. Just like family

That's a harsh pill for many animal lovers to swallow. A 2005-2006 survey by The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association says three-quarters of dog owners consider their dog like a child or family member; more than half of cat owners feel the same way.

Eight out of 10 dog owners and 63 percent of cat owners buy gifts for their pets. Nine percent of dog owners host birthday parties for their furry friends. Doggy day-care centers are hot; in Oregon, for example, you can drop your companion off at A Dog Gone Good Place or the Barka Lounge ("Where Portland's hip dogs hang").

In the U.S., Canada and Great Britain, the newest trend is doggy dancing, or "canine freestyle," where the dog and costumed human companion move together in choreographed competition.

Changing legal terminology also reflects the cultural shift. Since 2000, several cities have officially switched from the phrase "dog owner" to "dog guardian" -- first came Boulder, Colo., then Berkeley and West Hollywood in California; Sherwood, Ariz.; Amherst, Mass.; Menomonee Falls, Wis.; the state of Rhode Island; and San Francisco.

"We want people to understand that a dog isn't a piece of garbage," Mark Bekoff, a professor of biology at the University of Colorado, told me not long after the Boulder initiative. Proponents of this change argue that children will benefit from thinking of themselves as an animal's guardian, with the responsibilities toward living beings, as opposed to inanimate objects, that the ownership term implies.

An interesting argument, but it's doubtful legal terms have much influence on the thoughts of children. I certainly don't recall mistaking Banner for an inanimate object. Costly procedures abound

If the legal line between pets and people continues to blur, will increased litigation balloon veterinary malpractice premiums, resulting in more expensive care for pets?

Vets worry about that. Yet they have no problem offering increasingly costly procedures once available only to human beings: heart pacemakers, CT scans, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, kidney transplants and hip replacements, chiropractic treatment, acupuncture, orthodontics, whitening strips, mouthwash.

One vet even recommends brushing your dog's teeth three times a day -- with garlic.

Even as the number of Americans without health insurance increases yearly, pet health insurance is becoming growth industry. So is the pet remembrance business. According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, we can commission "created diamonds," gemstones made from carbon captured during cremation; 20 percent of all created diamonds are made from pet remains. A one-half carat ring costs $2,500.

The current popularity of "The Dog Whisperer," a television reality show, comes to mind. In the program, a charismatic pet trainer helps pet owners -- er, guardians -- change the behavior of unruly or seemingly mean dogs by changing their human behavior.

By treating dogs as if they were humans, we forget the particular nature of pack behavior, we ignore the value of their dogness. By making our companions into something they're not, do we objectify them, make them objects -- things -- of our affection? How is that different, in practice, from owning them? Human emotions tricky

Love and rationality are never easy companions. More than sentiment or terminology is at play here. Our litigious society devalues what we love most by substituting a dollar value for meaning. And our fragile and far more complicated relationships with members of our own species get lumped into this brew.

One dark morning, when I was 11, I woke to the sound of my mother crying. I was convinced something had happened to my father, a troubled man. I ran down the stairs and out to the porch. Banner, carried from the road by my father, was lying there cold and stiff. I cried, but the crying was fake -- I was relieved my father was still alive.

For a long time, I felt guilty for that secret fakery. But as an adult I understand that, as much as I loved Banner, I loved my father more.

Sometimes when I return to Kansas City I walk back behind the old house, to the depression in the ground, and recall how, in the darkness before dawn, my father and I dug that simple grave. And I remember how Banner always came back.