Women Sues To Prove Dogs Are 'living Souls' Not Property

[berly]

When Elena Zakharova looks into the eyes of her puppy as it suffers from bad knees and achy hips, she does not see a defective product to be returned to the store for a refund.

The New York City resident believes Umka, her 1-year-old Brussels Griffon, is a living soul who feels pain and emotion. Now her attorney aims to prove it in court.

Zakharova has filed a civil suit in a New York court against the Upper East Side pet store that sold her a puppy who went on to develop numerous medical complications. The suit seeks to hold the store liable for the dog’s pain and suffering, as well as its medical bills, as if it were a person rather than an inanimate product.

Under New York law, pets are considered “property,’’ but the complaint is trying to change that definition. The ultimate goal is to help shut down the puppy mills, many of them based in the Midwest, that often mass-produce the animals sold in boutique pet stores like Raising Rover, where Umka was purchased.

to read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45873492/ns/today-today_pets_and_animals/t/woman-sues-prove-dogs-are-living-souls-not-property

[tarope]

Very simple solution here, don't buy a pup from a pet shop or BYB. :D

[Mags]

Very simple solution here, don't buy a pup from a pet shop or BYB. :D

True and a tiny amount of research would have informed her not to buy where she did.

Will legislation like this be playing right into the hands of the animal rights movement after all they don't want any of us owning animals and I would think this is the first step in that process.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Mags

[Sandra777]

Very simple solution here, don't buy a pup from a pet shop or BYB. :D

True and a tiny amount of research would have informed her not to buy where she did.

Will legislation like this be playing right into the hands of the animal rights movement after all they don't want any of us owning animals and I would think this is the first step in that process.

Too true. A VERY scary preceedent could be set with this courtcase.

[Alkhe]

The case isn't about buying from a pet shop though, it's about how the law recognises animals. If they're treated as objects that can be owned, pet shops (etc) will be able to be held responsible for the puppies they sell. If a precedent is set and pet shops are more likely to be held accountable, they will surely think twice about what they sell and where they source it.

I don't think it's particularly helpful thinking about "the animal rights movement" as not wanting anyone owning animals. It's creating a big bogeyman conspiracy; like "the left" and "the right" as supposedly coherent beings.

[Atanquin]

The case isn't about buying from a pet shop though, it's about how the law recognises animals. If they're treated as objects that can be owned, pet shops (etc) will be able to be held responsible for the puppies they sell. If a precedent is set and pet shops are more likely to be held accountable, they will surely think twice about what they sell and where they source it.

I don't think it's particularly helpful thinking about "the animal rights movement" as not wanting anyone owning animals. It's creating a big bogeyman conspiracy; like "the left" and "the right" as supposedly coherent beings.

I'm with you

[Janba]

The case isn't about buying from a pet shop though, it's about how the law recognises animals. If they're treated as objects that can be owned, pet shops (etc) will be able to be held responsible for the puppies they sell. If a precedent is set and pet shops are more likely to be held accountable, they will surely think twice about what they sell and where they source it.

I don't think it's particularly helpful thinking about "the animal rights movement" as not wanting anyone owning animals. It's creating a big bogeyman conspiracy; like "the left" and "the right" as supposedly coherent beings.

The suit seeks to hold the store liable for the dog’s pain and suffering, as well as its medical bills, as if it were a person rather than an inanimate product.

This is the dangerous bit. It could have repercussions for registered breeders as well as pet shops.

[KOE]

The case isn't about buying from a pet shop though, it's about how the law recognises animals. If they're treated as objects that can be owned, pet shops (etc) will be able to be held responsible for the puppies they sell. If a precedent is set and pet shops are more likely to be held accountable, they will surely think twice about what they sell and where they source it.

I don't think it's particularly helpful thinking about "the animal rights movement" as not wanting anyone owning animals. It's creating a big bogeyman conspiracy; like "the left" and "the right" as supposedly coherent beings.

The suit seeks to hold the store liable for the dog’s pain and suffering, as well as its medical bills, as if it were a person rather than an inanimate product.

This is the dangerous bit. It could have repercussions for registered breeders as well as pet shops.

And so it should,they should all be accountable

[Sandra777]

The case isn't about buying from a pet shop though, it's about how the law recognises animals. If they're treated as objects that can be owned, pet shops (etc) will be able to be held responsible for the puppies they sell. If a precedent is set and pet shops are more likely to be held accountable, they will surely think twice about what they sell and where they source it.

I don't think it's particularly helpful thinking about "the animal rights movement" as not wanting anyone owning animals. It's creating a big bogeyman conspiracy; like "the left" and "the right" as supposedly coherent beings.

The suit seeks to hold the store liable for the dog’s pain and suffering, as well as its medical bills, as if it were a person rather than an inanimate product.

This is the dangerous bit. It could have repercussions for registered breeders as well as pet shops.

And so it should,they should all be accountable

But the crux of the matter is.....AS IF IT WERE A PERSON RATHER THAN AN INANIMATE PRODUCT.

No way. Dogs are certainly animals with feelings and needs and emotions, but they are not PEOPLE where "pain and suffering" can be measured in an emotional manner such as in the case of a woman who is raped or a child who is abused - emotional suffering rather than physical I mean. Yes, shonky breeders who don't take all reasonable care should be accountable for the shonky "product" they produce, but the emotional suffering of the "product" - no sorry that is a human term to me.

Very dangerous territory for the reputable breeder because the next step is even if you take all reasonable care a pup you breed could end up with a problem and even if that problem is unforseeable the breeder is sued for not only the actual cost of medical care but ALSO the "emotional suffering" of the pup? No thank you!

[felix]

Another imbecility coming from good old USA. What surprise.

[Janba]

The case isn't about buying from a pet shop though, it's about how the law recognises animals. If they're treated as objects that can be owned, pet shops (etc) will be able to be held responsible for the puppies they sell. If a precedent is set and pet shops are more likely to be held accountable, they will surely think twice about what they sell and where they source it.

I don't think it's particularly helpful thinking about "the animal rights movement" as not wanting anyone owning animals. It's creating a big bogeyman conspiracy; like "the left" and "the right" as supposedly coherent beings.

The suit seeks to hold the store liable for the dog’s pain and suffering, as well as its medical bills, as if it were a person rather than an inanimate product.

This is the dangerous bit. It could have repercussions for registered breeders as well as pet shops.

And so it should,they should all be accountable

Yes but what happens when you get a disease like TNS?. TNS in border collies was only recognised as a genetic disease, or even as a disease until about 20 years ago but the incidence of carriers means it has been around a lot longer - how many other genetic diseases are there that we don't know are genetic yet?. Most affected pups die very young but some do live to an age to be sold to new owners. Or a pup from lines of dogs with good hip scores that develops HD?

If the breeder is held responsible for the dogs future vet bills as well as compensation for suffering despite offering to take the pup back and refund/replace it then it would mean that it could become a financially unfeasable to breed purebred dogs.

[Sandra777]

If the breeder is held responsible for the dogs future vet bills as well as compensation for suffering despite offering to take the pup back and refund/replace it then it would mean that it could become a financially unfeasable to breed purebred dogs.

Dogs full stop I would "hope".

Annoys me no end on other boards when someone with a crossbred pup has a problem not one person says talk to the breeder and hit them up for some financial help - but the moment they say it's a purebred pup it's all the breeders fault.

[Alkhe]

She's actually not suing to have her dog considered a person under the law. The commentary used that word but it doesn't reflect the rest of the article. She's seeking compensation for surgeries and medical treatment the dog had, and seeking to have the dog considered an animate being. That's not the same as a person.

[Alyosha]

Demanding a refund of purchase price, plus interest seems a bit much. Medical expenses yes, but interest? Really?

I hope some serious questions are raised about this poor dog's ongoing quality of life...

[GeckoTree]

Of course dogs feel pain and emotion. All animals do. Its just some dipshit 'Human animals' think themselves so above everything else that we think we own the earth and other beings are "Chattel".

Good on her. Live in the human world, reap the human lore oops law.

Edited January 8, 2012 by GeckoTree

[Erny]

The case isn't about buying from a pet shop though, it's about how the law recognises animals. If they're treated as objects that can be owned, pet shops (etc) will be able to be held responsible for the puppies they sell. If a precedent is set and pet shops are more likely to be held accountable, they will surely think twice about what they sell and where they source it.

I don't think it's particularly helpful thinking about "the animal rights movement" as not wanting anyone owning animals. It's creating a big bogeyman conspiracy; like "the left" and "the right" as supposedly coherent beings.

I'm with you

I'm not. If it becomes law that animals have rights, where do you expect the boundaries to be drawn, period?

[sandgrubber]

The case isn't about buying from a pet shop though, it's about how the law recognises animals. If they're treated as objects that can be owned, pet shops (etc) will be able to be held responsible for the puppies they sell. If a precedent is set and pet shops are more likely to be held accountable, they will surely think twice about what they sell and where they source it.

I don't think it's particularly helpful thinking about "the animal rights movement" as not wanting anyone owning animals. It's creating a big bogeyman conspiracy; like "the left" and "the right" as supposedly coherent beings.

I'm with you

I'm not. If it becomes law that animals have rights, where do you expect the boundaries to be drawn, period?

It is already law that dogs and cats have rights in most European-derived cultures. You are legally required to provide food, shelter, and a minimum standard of care for your pets. The question is what direction the push for further rights goes. This lawsuit is just one tiny skirmish on the edges of this evolving area of law. I don't see any reason to get excited. There's a good chance the woman will loose her suit, but the newspapers won't report that.

There's little question that any mammal is more like a human than an inanimate object. Does that mean rats and mice have rights?

[sandgrubber]

Another imbecility coming from good old USA. What surprise.

The US press loves wacky lawsuits. So? Very few wacky lawsuits become precedent.

[Mum to Emma]

Of course dogs feel pain and emotion. All animals do. Its just some dipshit 'Human animals' think themselves so above everything else that we think we own the earth and other beings are "Chattel".

Good on her. Live in the human world, reap the human lore oops law.

So mating an unwilling bitch would constitute rape. Taking and selling her puppies would be a particularly heinous crime (without her permission of course - I wonder how you'd get that??)

And, of course, euthenasia would be murder ...

No, dogs are NOT human. And perhaps they're lucky that way.

[tdierikx]

The story doesn't actually mention that the issues the dog is having are definitely genetic in origin or caused from it's ignoble birth in a puppy mill. No info forthcoming from the vets involved. How is anyone to know that the owner didn't allow the dog to do things as a young pup that caused it's medical issues? The story says the issues started some months after the dog was purchased.

T.