Who Decides for Your Dog? The "Companion Animal" Trap
Your dog’s a member of the family. You think so and we certainly agree. The law, however, considers your dog property. That seems to be changing a bit. But we’re not entirely sure that’s a good thing.
Eight states have special provisions about pets in divorce cases, considering the “best interests” of the animal. Recently, we heard about a bill working its way through the Virginia legislature that makes it a felony to “maliciously kill any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another.” Animal abuse has always been against the law. What may be changing is creating a special class for “companion animals.”
It seems like the law may be responding to what’s already happened in our society. Considering pets more valuable than a toaster is right in line with where we ought to be. But we’re always cautious when talking about the legal status of pets.
Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare
We worry that changing the legal status of our dogs could limit our ability to care for them as we choose. At this point, it’s just considering the “what ifs,” but the agenda of animal rights groups is scary.
The difference between Animal Rights groups and Animal Welfare organizations are significant. Straight from the website of Animal Rights group PETA: “Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. (Companion animals fall under their “entertainment” classification.) Animal welfare allows these uses as long as “humane” guidelines are followed.”
Who gets to decide?
While the philosophy of the animal welfare side is closer to our own, it still causes concern. As things stand now, you get to make all the decisions on the care and treatment of your dog. But if dogs are a special legal class, your ability to decide may be compromised.
As an extreme example, think about a family whose dog has attacked someone. A friend of ours was relaxing at home when her dog suddenly turned on her. When she recovered, she took the dog to the vet, seeking an answer for the sudden change. Unfortunately, she didn’t get one. There was no brain tumor, no obvious pain points, nothing in the tests to reveal a cause. She decided on behavioral euthanasia for the dog she loved.
An agonizing decision that would have been worse if some outside group was allowed input. If some entity decided that behavioral euthanasia is wrong, could they sue to force her to keep the dog? Since she could no longer trust her dog, what would its life have been?
Less extreme
There’s a lot of judgment that goes on these days. If you’re on social media, you know that everybody with a screen thinks they’re entitled to opinions on everything. Let’s say that you post a picture of your dog’s food with a special treat for their birthday. We’ve been known to add a dollop of vanilla ice cream on those occasions. What if someone reports us for violating animal welfare laws? We all know ice cream isn’t good for dogs. It’s not good for us, either, but it makes us happy.
It’s easy to support "animal rights" until you realize those rights might eventually override your own. We already live in a world where everyone with a smartphone is an amateur judge; we don't need the legal system to give them a gavel. Whether it’s a heartbreaking decision about euthanasia or a simple scoop of birthday ice cream, these choices belong to the people who actually know and love the dog—not a board of directors or a government agency.
Where do you draw the line? At what point does "legal protection" become "legal overreach"?