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
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
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
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
In the
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
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