Skip to comments.
Colo. May OK First Pet Companionship Law
guardian ^
| 2/9/03
Posted on 02/09/2003 10:59:54 AM PST by knak
DENVER (AP) - Several Colorado lawmakers are supporting legislation to elevate the status of cats and dogs from property to companions.
The measure would allow people in Colorado to sue veterinarians and animal abusers and seek damages for ``loss of companionship,'' up to $100,000.
Colorado has more than 2 million dogs and cats in 1.6 million households. Current law classifies them as property, and pet owners can seek only ``fair market value'' in a lawsuit.
If passed, it would be the first such companionship law in the nation, said lawyer Josh Pazour.
A related ordinance, making pet owners guardians so pets will not be seen as property, was recently passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. ``We're really trying to get to the heart of trying to treat animals more humanely and promote guardianship,'' said Matt Gonzalez, the board's president and chief sponsor of the ordinance.
Eshelman said Boulder was the first city to make pet owners guardians, followed by others including Berkeley and West Hollywood in California and the state of Rhode Island.
The Colorado measure is opposed by the state Veterinary Medical Association, which contends the proposed changes would increase the cost of veterinary care.
``Veterinarians will have to pass on to consumers the increased costs of doing businesses, including time spent responding to frivolous lawsuits and additional diagnostic tests that will now be required to practice defensive medicine,'' the association said in a statement to its members.
Colorado already is among 14 states legally recognizing dogs and cats as beneficiaries and allowing people to leave money and property to their pets.
``If you can leave something to your animal, they're obviously a status beyond property,'' said state Rep. Mark Cloer, the chief House sponsor of the companionship measure.
Republican Gov. Bill Owens, who owns a springer spaniel named Hannah, would not say if he would sign such a bill into law if it passes. But he added: ``Hannah is very much in favor'' of the bill.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: theFIRMbss
Many people spend more time with their computer than a cat or dog. True, but people are advised to periodically back up their computers; any harm which comes to people from failure to backup is thus attributable in part to their own negligence.
By contrast, how does one "back up" a cat?
21
posted on
02/09/2003 12:19:02 PM PST
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: knak
Well. Such a law if passed will increase our diversity. We could nominate a beagle for a vacant Supreme Court seat-this would beat the crop of nominees Bush seems to be contemplating.
22
posted on
02/09/2003 12:19:40 PM PST
by
AEMILIUS PAULUS
(Further, the statement assumed)
To: Hildy
The notion that you can put a price on "companionship" whether it be human or animal is insane to me. Then you obviously have never sat through a wrongfull death suit in civil court.
To: RWG
Seeing eye dogs and security dogs are more than just property according to the people who have them. I've taken my dog to several nursing homes because it adds benefit to the treatment of the patients. Feelings trump logic - a typical Liberal argument.
Animals are property. I love my dogs (http://www.kressworks.com/Family/family_index.html) and treat them better than many humans teat their children. However, they are NOT humans nor are they 'entitled' to a special, higher legal status.
If you wish to combat animal cruelty, then pass laws that criminalize cruelty to animals, not laws that attempt to provide legal status to animals that make them equal to a human.
24
posted on
02/09/2003 12:23:00 PM PST
by
jimkress
To: Capt. Tom
That comes after states who adopt this "loss of companionship law" require a motorist to carry additional insurance in case you run over a cat or dog with your vehicle.
I'd hope that this would be a "two way street" then....if you damage your car by running over said 'companion', then you should be able to sue the owner......er,um.....other companion.
25
posted on
02/09/2003 12:23:48 PM PST
by
ErnBatavia
((Bumperootus!))
To: jimkress
If you wish to combat animal cruelty, then pass laws that criminalize cruelty to animals, not laws that attempt to provide legal status to animals that make them equal to a human. How about allowing substantial punitive awards to those who cause harm to other people's pets through recklessness or malfeasance, but not through negligence?
26
posted on
02/09/2003 12:28:09 PM PST
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: knak
Anybody that wants to be a vet in Colorado raise their hand...
Well?...
27
posted on
02/09/2003 12:30:14 PM PST
by
meyer
To: Hildy
What do you think these two would be worth?
28
posted on
02/09/2003 12:30:50 PM PST
by
Hildy
To: knak
If dogs and cats have such status what about the chimps and apes.
Oh, I forgot, they already allowed some to be elected to the Colorado legislature. ;-)
29
posted on
02/09/2003 12:31:27 PM PST
by
cgbg
(My chow chow can defend himself, thank you very much.)
To: knak
I cannot even believe I am reading this and it isn't from the Onion!
To: Hildy
What do you think these two would be worth? Since the one on the left resembles the annoying dog next door that woke me up at 12:30 AM last night barking at shadows, I will reserve judgment.
31
posted on
02/09/2003 12:36:37 PM PST
by
meyer
To: supercat
if you kick a dog that is trying to bite you, would it be considered "domestic violence" and thus require jail time, anger management classes and lengthy probation?
To: supercat
People have recourse through existing laws concerning property and damage to it. If those are not sufficient, then make them more punitive. Do not assign a legal status of 'human' to animals.
33
posted on
02/09/2003 1:16:21 PM PST
by
jimkress
To: cajun-jack
LOL!
34
posted on
02/09/2003 1:17:00 PM PST
by
jimkress
To: knak
The measure would allow people in Colorado to sue veterinarians and animal abusers and seek damages for ``loss of companionship,'' up to $100,000. I wonder if a trial lawyer thought this up? </sarcasm>
To: jimkress
Feelings trump logic - a typical Liberal argument.. it is but I did not do that, I pointed out that some 'living property' have qualities that inanimate objects do not. I have had my dog for 13 years. The longest time interval we have been seperated is 8 hours and that only happened once. I have taken my dog to work when I have/had city jobs and been able to see her for her comfort breaks every 2 to 4 hours. Those who depend on their animals for help with the environment or security all report special relationships with their 'property' that is qualitatively different than loving a vintage car or a favorite weapon. Not only does this qualitatively different relationship include 'feelings' but it also has a component wherein the property and the owner are able to somehow communicate in a way beneficial to say a cop or a blind person. No matter how much you may love your gun it can hardly 'sense' circumstances where it must do its job in a unique fashion.
36
posted on
02/09/2003 1:54:45 PM PST
by
RWG
To: jimkress
Trial lawyers will stoop to ANY level to insure their revenue stream. Yep. Sick lot.
37
posted on
02/09/2003 1:56:30 PM PST
by
Republic
(tommy daschle is a WEASEL OF MASS DISTORTION (tractorman)-so truthful, it almost HURTS!)
To: JoeSixPack1
I would have found a way to break his kneecaps...or better yet, his hands...after a discreet waiting period of course.
Revenge is a dish sometimes best served cold.
38
posted on
02/09/2003 2:08:46 PM PST
by
PLMerite
("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
To: supercat
> By contrast,
how does one "back up" a cat?
One calls Genetic
Savings & Clone. Cat crashes
are things of the past...
"Our colleagues at Texas A&M University recently produced the world's first cloned cat, named "CC", as part of Operation CopyCat, which we also underwrite. CC the cat clone encounters her own reflectionCC is shown here checking herself out for the first time.
"After receiving thousands of requests, we're transferring the expertise generated on Missyplicity, CopyCat, and other research projects as quickly as possible to you and your pets. At present, our only commercial service is gene banking, which is the best way to store DNA for future cloning. When cloning your pets becomes feasible and affordable, their DNA will be safe even if they're no longer with you."
To: knak
The measure would allow people in Colorado to sue veterinarians and seek damages for ``loss of companionship,'' up to $100,000. Carnac the Magnificent predicts a mass exodus of veterinarians out of Colorado.
40
posted on
02/09/2003 2:19:05 PM PST
by
Polybius
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson