Joined
·
3,000 Posts
Pets are classified as property by law. Should this legislation be changes???
Since the whole recall of pet food started recently, a lot of interesting information has come out about the rights pet owners have when they lose a pet to this sort of tragedy. According to our legislative branches, pets are classified as property, just like your car, your television, and your microwave. Under these laws, do you think it is fair that your only recourse in these matters would be the reimbursement of only the value you paid for these pets? So after raising a dog from puppy hood, spending money on training, healthcare, food, and the unknown amount of time you spent making your dog and active part of your family, you’re only entitled to the actual cost of the dog. I’m sure everyone looks at their dog as an active part of the family, just like other human family members. But in this situation, the pet owners that lost their pets due to the contaminated food, watch their pets go through this torment all along thinking they were feeding their pets food in which they trusted. So much emotional pain and suffering, from the pet and the pet owners, was experienced from this, that now these companies are protected and are only responsible for the actual purchase price of these pets and not what you have invested into them. Is this fair? Should pet owners be able to collect emotional pain and suffering also from these companies?
To have these legislative changes made to have pets not classified property, how would that affect us in the future? One obvious change I would think would be in the mal practice insurance rates for vets would rise tremendously from their insurers. The vets’ only recourse would to be to start charging higher prices for your pet’s healthcare. They would also likely be changing they way they handle pet treatments due to their liability and risk of them being sued which the judgments of these suits can cost they a lot more money. So in the long run, we the pet owners would be paying the price for this.
Even though this will make the pet food companies come up with more stringent guidelines and make them more aware of the distributors that they deal with, does this actually benefit the pet owners in the long run. Would we see increases in the price of pet foods to compensate all this extra care they are giving? Would we see pet food companies leave the industry due to not being able to this as a profitable line of work? Would, overall, the quality of food on the market get better, and at what costs?
Another aspect of this legislative change is what boundaries it would have. It seems that anything that deals with pets would be affected by this. This can include pet toy manufactures, pet care products and even breeders. I’m sure the benefit of this would curb a lot of the BYB’ers that we see operating out there, which is a good thing, but the legitimate breeders would also be affected. With the health guarantees that come along with a purchase from them, I’m sure the legal aspect will increase dramatically just so they can be protected.
These are just a few examples I came up with and I know there are many others to consider that are not mentioned. To us, our pets are more than just property. They are part of our everyday lives and are members of our family. Should the law treat them that way? We can’t have it both ways. What do you think?
Since the whole recall of pet food started recently, a lot of interesting information has come out about the rights pet owners have when they lose a pet to this sort of tragedy. According to our legislative branches, pets are classified as property, just like your car, your television, and your microwave. Under these laws, do you think it is fair that your only recourse in these matters would be the reimbursement of only the value you paid for these pets? So after raising a dog from puppy hood, spending money on training, healthcare, food, and the unknown amount of time you spent making your dog and active part of your family, you’re only entitled to the actual cost of the dog. I’m sure everyone looks at their dog as an active part of the family, just like other human family members. But in this situation, the pet owners that lost their pets due to the contaminated food, watch their pets go through this torment all along thinking they were feeding their pets food in which they trusted. So much emotional pain and suffering, from the pet and the pet owners, was experienced from this, that now these companies are protected and are only responsible for the actual purchase price of these pets and not what you have invested into them. Is this fair? Should pet owners be able to collect emotional pain and suffering also from these companies?
To have these legislative changes made to have pets not classified property, how would that affect us in the future? One obvious change I would think would be in the mal practice insurance rates for vets would rise tremendously from their insurers. The vets’ only recourse would to be to start charging higher prices for your pet’s healthcare. They would also likely be changing they way they handle pet treatments due to their liability and risk of them being sued which the judgments of these suits can cost they a lot more money. So in the long run, we the pet owners would be paying the price for this.
Even though this will make the pet food companies come up with more stringent guidelines and make them more aware of the distributors that they deal with, does this actually benefit the pet owners in the long run. Would we see increases in the price of pet foods to compensate all this extra care they are giving? Would we see pet food companies leave the industry due to not being able to this as a profitable line of work? Would, overall, the quality of food on the market get better, and at what costs?
Another aspect of this legislative change is what boundaries it would have. It seems that anything that deals with pets would be affected by this. This can include pet toy manufactures, pet care products and even breeders. I’m sure the benefit of this would curb a lot of the BYB’ers that we see operating out there, which is a good thing, but the legitimate breeders would also be affected. With the health guarantees that come along with a purchase from them, I’m sure the legal aspect will increase dramatically just so they can be protected.
These are just a few examples I came up with and I know there are many others to consider that are not mentioned. To us, our pets are more than just property. They are part of our everyday lives and are members of our family. Should the law treat them that way? We can’t have it both ways. What do you think?
