Tisket
12-10-2006, 01:55 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235240,00.html#
Case of Dog Shot in Vermont Sparks Movement to Legally Recognize Bond Between People and Pets
The death of a family's beloved canine companion in Vermont has sparked a legal battle over pets' rights and the question of whether they should be recognized family members.
Denis and Sarah Scheele of Annapolis, Md., were moved to push for the courts to give legal recognition to the bond between humans and animals after they lost their "little boy," a mixed-breed adopted dog named Shadow on a family vacation in 2003. Legal recognition would allow people to sue for "loss of companionship" damages when their pets are the victims of animal cruelty.
"Pets give so much to us, unconditionally," Sarah Scheele said. "You can't put a price on that."
I am all for any legal tool that can be used to punish those that are cruel to animals but this just sounds excessive. You can sue for loss of personal property so what's the point of further legislation? Perhaps making it easier under personal property law to seek monetary damages is a better solution. I dunno. I think this could just open a whole can of worms. I mean, jesus, in a society that can't even decide when to call an embryo "human" it'll be interesting to see how we go about legally recognizing the family dog, cat, bird, or goldfish as family members with the same rights and protections as human family members.
And before you go breaking out the pitchforks and torches...I love animals. Deeply. But my pets are NOT my children and my child is not a pet. There is and should be a recognized legal difference.
I really think this would be bad news for pet owners as well. What pet owner has never had a dog get loose or a cat for that matter. Is this to now become equal in severity to say letting your two year old wander off? Would the neighborhood be saturated with cops looking for a lost pet because it's a family member? Are vet bills going to rise to cover malpractice suits? Etc.
I mean really, I don't believe that laws protecting animals deny protection to humans. But common sense suggests that there has to be a line drawn somewhere for christ's sake.
Case of Dog Shot in Vermont Sparks Movement to Legally Recognize Bond Between People and Pets
The death of a family's beloved canine companion in Vermont has sparked a legal battle over pets' rights and the question of whether they should be recognized family members.
Denis and Sarah Scheele of Annapolis, Md., were moved to push for the courts to give legal recognition to the bond between humans and animals after they lost their "little boy," a mixed-breed adopted dog named Shadow on a family vacation in 2003. Legal recognition would allow people to sue for "loss of companionship" damages when their pets are the victims of animal cruelty.
"Pets give so much to us, unconditionally," Sarah Scheele said. "You can't put a price on that."
I am all for any legal tool that can be used to punish those that are cruel to animals but this just sounds excessive. You can sue for loss of personal property so what's the point of further legislation? Perhaps making it easier under personal property law to seek monetary damages is a better solution. I dunno. I think this could just open a whole can of worms. I mean, jesus, in a society that can't even decide when to call an embryo "human" it'll be interesting to see how we go about legally recognizing the family dog, cat, bird, or goldfish as family members with the same rights and protections as human family members.
And before you go breaking out the pitchforks and torches...I love animals. Deeply. But my pets are NOT my children and my child is not a pet. There is and should be a recognized legal difference.
I really think this would be bad news for pet owners as well. What pet owner has never had a dog get loose or a cat for that matter. Is this to now become equal in severity to say letting your two year old wander off? Would the neighborhood be saturated with cops looking for a lost pet because it's a family member? Are vet bills going to rise to cover malpractice suits? Etc.
I mean really, I don't believe that laws protecting animals deny protection to humans. But common sense suggests that there has to be a line drawn somewhere for christ's sake.