[Fitzmar Dobermans]

One of the last things you said says it all to me: "You can't have it both ways"

I think it would be a disaster of gigantic proportions if we changed dogs status from property. Only the rich would be able to afford veterinary care as their cost of doing business would skyrocket if they had to buy malpractice insurance at the same cost a medical Doctor does.

Sad to say, our society has become a sue happy "something for nothing" kind of place. People will sue for anything and are encouraged to do so by all the ads put out by the glut of attornies out there trying to drum up business.

No matter how much we love our animals, they are animals and we should not elevate them to the status of humans for our own ego. There are laws in place everywhere that protect animals from cruelty - they just need to be enforced. Making more laws is not going to help if they are not even able to enforce the ones that are already on the books.

I don't imagine that the company that used tainted wheat intended to harm our pets. People demand a cheap food to feed their pets, US produced wheat is not cheap .......... hence imported wheat. Who's fault is it? I don't know if you can really assign clear fault here. Why would you? It is a tragedy, but sueing for pain and suffering is not going to bring the pet back.

The fact of the matter is - no matter how much we love our pets, they don't live a long life. When they die, we cry and mourn, and then most of us go and get another one to love. We hope that they live a long life and die of old age. If someone is liable for their death, then fairness dictates that they should pay for a new one AND pay the costs associated with the death of the lost one. If they were criminally neglegent, then that should be dealt with as well.

I guess as a mother of two children, I know the difference between my children and my pets. I love both of them deeply, but would lay my life down for my children. They are irreplaceable, and to even think of giving animals the same status is ludicrous.

Anyone who knows me knows that my love for my dogs is deep. I don't feed cheap food and I don't skimp on vet care. I do draw the line at the idea of blurring the line between people and animals........... IMHO that would be the beginning of the end of animal ownership as we know it.

 

[Fitzmar Dobermans]

We can't have it both ways but you can also bet that those whose pets died due to the tainted wheat used in the pet foods will be suing for 'emotional pain and suffering', and rightly so. How awful would you feel if you unknowingly poisoned your pet? ...............

We of course would all feel awful........... but would money for "pain and suffering" bring them back??? I just don't get the whole mentality of getting money for our suffering. It won't bring them back, it won't change what happened. The company did not intend for this to happen.......would putting them out of business and therefore causing many people to lose their jobs make anyone feel better? It IMHO would be a lose-lose situation (except for the lawyers of course). There is no win-win possible. The company has recalled the food and seems to be doing what is possible to fix the problem. I don't have any inside knowledge of the situation, but unless they tried to cover it up or did something criminal, I think that they are already paying a big price for the whole problem. This will cause them huge bucks already and I would imagine that financially they might already be in trouble because of it.

What I would expect would be fair compensation for the cost of my pet AND the cost of my vet bills. Would it be enough? Of course not, but our pets are priceless and no amount of money could ever change that.

The only good I see coming out of this whole thing is more of a public awareness about what we feed our pets. Maybe the real benefit will be the millions of animals who might start getting better quality kibble now because their owners found out that a lot of what they were feeding was crap.