What is a pet worth?

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I lean more towards Namutree's arguments. Value is subjective and both parties are interested. This is why juries are useful.

 

Just because costs are sunk by a party does not unequivocally impart value. If some jerk destroys my asparagus patch that I spent three years cultivating--I am not going to be reasonably entitled to charge him or her my substantial professional rate for all of the hours I had sunk into growing those plants. While the abstract nature of a dog's value gives reason for the plaintiff to make their claims, it also is every bit as justified for the defendants and jury to provide their own contrasting determinations of value precisely because it is abstract.

 

Laws are poor substitutes for human discretion. Whatever the ruling may be, it should not be taken as an applicable standard despite the popularity of doing that. Every case is unique, and we can only hope that in situations like this, human reason prevails. This is what juries are useful for.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I can see animals being given personhood over the next 20 years, and veterinary care costing the same as medical care, to the point of having to put pets on your medical insurance.

I seriously doubt it. Unless the concept of "person-hood" become a complete joke. That would mean no more meat, animal products (farm animals would be slavery), or even pets (also slavery).

 

 

Remember, if animals are, "people", then they'd be entitled to all the rights humans are.

 

Common sense has never stopped Progressives before.

[ShadySands]

I like pets more than I like most people so I'm not exactly impartial here but I think that dogs and other household pets should have a special category with its own rules and conditions. They are more than just property to many people and just because they don't make money doesn't put them in the same category as whatever random object (and if you feel a pet had no more value than a shoe or a toaster you probably shouldn't have one). There are no TV cruelty laws.

 

Also, as GD said already that the business in question is predicated on the notion that the pets are worth more to their owners than their replacement costs

Edited April 16, 2016 by ShadySands

[Drowsy Emperor]

IMO this obsession with pets being equated with people is unhealthy. 

 

Most people today are too divorced from country life to remember that dogs (which I love) are primarily tools. Villagers mostly regard them as no different from other farm animals, because a life in which you raise animals and then cut their throat or break their neck and eat them teaches you to stay detached and firmly separate them from us. That juicy steak was once a gentle cow. 

 

Of course, this is not some hard and fast rule, and to many people in the country their dogs/cats are dear to them - but I think they have a much more sensible attitude than city dwellers who often use pets to substitute human interaction and idolize them (cat pictures anyone?) because of boredom or loneliness.

 

PS: an obsession with the well-being of animals is a form of mental disease in a world where people starve and kill each other. Until people learn to be nice to one another things will never be good for man, let alone any other animal.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[HoonDing]

One person's pet is another person's food.

 

srsly leave ur dog at home when visiting Shenzhen

Edited April 16, 2016 by HoonDing

[ShadySands]

IMO this obsession with pets being equated with people is unhealthy.

Pets aren't people I don't think anyone here has argued for personhood for pets. They are property but not the same as any type of inanimate property and not the same as livestock either. My argument is that pets should have a special category of property for things like this case especially since the business in question is arguing against the premise of it's own existence in a way if agrees that dogs have no worth beyond their market value, it's a luxury dog hotel... 

 

From their own website

The Inn, which we've been known to call the "ultimate doggie hotel," is a quaint, lovely doggie daycare and boarding option. White picket fences set the stage for luxury dog boarding and day care at this quiet location; even the artwork is doggie inspired. In their free time, guests can choose whether to be more social and be with the other guests or to spend quiet time alone, exploring all the nooks and crannies in the stone walled building.

 

It will be interesting to see how/if it impacts their business

 

 

Most people today are too divorced from country life to remember that dogs (which I love) are primarily tools. Villagers mostly regard them as no different from other farm animals, because a life in which you raise animals and then cut their throat or break their neck and eat them teaches you to stay detached and firmly separate them from us. That juicy steak was once a gentle cow. 

 

Of course, this is not some hard and fast rule, and to many people in the country their dogs/cats are dear to them - but I think they have a much more sensible attitude than city dwellers who often use pets to substitute human interaction and idolize them (cat pictures anyone?) because of boredom or loneliness.

 

PS: an obsession with the well-being of animals is a form of mental disease in a world where people starve and kill each other. Until people learn to be nice to one another things will never be good for man, let alone any other animal.

 

Mind you, I grew up in the country and didn't live in a city until after I got out of the military (where we also had working dogs - whose handlers were also very attached to them). We cared about the wellbeing of all the animals even knowing full well we'd be killing, cleaning, and eating them later on but those animals were also not considered pets either

 

PS I'm also open to the possibility that where I grew up may just be full of hippy farmers

Edited April 16, 2016 by ShadySands

[Bartimaeus]

Earlier, somebody called pets, such as dogs, "objects", things that, if damaged, the damage-doer should only have to pay the cost to replace. Given that pets are unique creatures with unique personalities and unique memories and unique physical traits, etc., I would argue that they are non-replaceable - you cannot get a dog exactly like one you already had. So...what's the legal precedent and normal recourse for someone damaging something that has no replacement?

[Hurlshort]

IMO this obsession with pets being equated with people is unhealthy. 

 

 

I agree with this quite a bit, although I don't think anyone here was really doing that.  But the people that act like their pets are the same as children are annoying as hell.  

[Drowsy Emperor]

I wasn't referring to anyone here, just making a general comment.

 

The last two or three times I went to a restaurant some women brought their dogs with them. Even the worst redneck farmer in my country wouldn't dream of allowing an animal into a place where people are consuming food. It struck me how self obsessed some pet owners are that it never occurs to them that watching their dog lick its balls while I'm eating an expensive dinner is not the most appetizing sight in the world.

 

Then a couple of my female friends got cats and now all they do is talk about them and post pictures online. Its a cat. There are a million others like it. listening about the last "clever" thing it did makes me want to gouge my eyes out

[Gromnir]

pets are personal property.  there are scenarios in which personal property has value different than market value, but such stuff is limited.  start by discussing "sentimental value" and you are doomed.  pictures and various heirlooms may be given value by the courts when they have no actual market value, but please observe that such values given to photos and the like is gonna be less than would be typical cost to actual replace a dog.  we are talking very small values 'cause is 'posed to fill in the gap wherein the destroyed property has 0 market value.

 

courts has wisely avoided attaching value to companionship of pets as that is the role o' the legislature.  perhaps legislatures should attach value beyond market, but that is a whole different issue than is being argued by mostest folks.  is not the role o' the courts to invent new law.  however, before you go out and lobby your Congressman to change laws regarding pet value, please consider the adverse impact on the average pet owner.  in the end, is gonna be the consumer who bears the actual costs you seek to impose 'pon vets and kennel operators.  regardless, the law is well established in the courts, so go pester your legislators.

 

oh, and one more thing...

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

I wasn't referring to anyone here, just making a general comment.

 

The last two or three times I went to a restaurant some women brought their dogs with them. Even the worst redneck farmer in my country wouldn't dream of allowing an animal into a place where people are consuming food. It struck me how self obsessed some pet owners are that it never occurs to them that watching their dog lick its balls while I'm eating an expensive dinner is not the most appetizing sight in the world.

 

Then a couple of my female friends got cats and now all they do is talk about them and post pictures online. Its a cat. There are a million others like it. listening about the last "clever" thing it did makes me want to gouge my eyes out

Oh the timing.

 

I just now finished up a meal that I picked up from a local Tex Mex restaurant that actually asked me just ~30 minutes ago to bring my dogs in next time I was there. Backstory: Every time I go I always pick up a side of chicken (their favorite food) to bring home to my dogs, and tonight they asked if they were in the car. They weren't but often they are when I stop by there. So they said bring them in next time so they can meet them, and next time I happen to have them with me when I stop there, I will.

 

At least three of the local bars I go to (all which serve food) allow dogs in them, and while it's not common to see them, there are some customers that occasionally bring them in. No one complains, quite the opposite generally occurs. I spent years working in restaurants too, from the rock n roll bar to the fine dining establishment. Out of the seven different dining establishments I've worked at, about half of them allowed dogs and about half didn't. I can see and respect both allowing and disallowing depending on the type of establishment we're talking about. I personally have never brought my dogs into a restaurant, though I have brought them to outdoor picnic areas of dog friendly restaurants where dogs are regularly found.

 

There are indeed people obsessed with their pets and animals in general. There are people obsessed with all sorts of things. I've said before and I'll say it again, most people are insane to some degree. Really, well over half of the population is. However, bringing a pet into a restaurant isn't necessarily an indicator of pet obsession or of insanity. In fact, while it would take me a lot more time than I'm willing to spend, I would argue it's more often an indicator of sanity than not.

 

Insofar as pet obsession and people constantly posting pictures of them, I'll say that most people who constantly post pictures of anything are bat poop nuts. Hello most prolific facebookers, snapchatters, and instagramers.

 

Insofar as country folks having a better handle on their animal relationships. Well, as someone who bounces back and forth between the big city and the sticks relatively often, is very comfortable in both, and has traveled extensively throughout the U.S. and Canada (been to 47 of the states, and 8 of the 10 Canadian provinces, most many more times than once), it's been my observation that in general, the rural folk have a better handle on almost everything compared to the average urbanite. The stereotypical backwards redneck is in actuality a lot less brainwashed, a lot less bigoted, a lot more worldly, and a lot more grounded in reality than the average urbanite. And that said, country peoples, farmers and others, usually respect their animals quiet a lot, as well as love their pets. Having a hard working sheep dog for example does not keep a farmer from returning the great deal of love and loyalty most such animals have for their owners, if anything it amplifies it.

 

Looking at a pet as primarily a tool is akin to looking at one's spouse as primarily a means to an end as well (hello sperm receptacle/donor). Some people certainly do both. Some people are shallow and insane. Just about all people and pets bring something to a relationship insofar as 'usefulness', but if one's relationship with their family/friend/pet is only based on that... well, I feel sorry for such a person. And yea, there are a lot of such people out there. Seemingly an ever increasing amount even.

 

All this said, I don't think anyone here was advocating pet obsession, nor is the lawsuit in question necessarily brought by pet obsessed people (don't know them so can't say either way).

Edited April 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

This thread is too spooky.

[BruceVC]

Here is another question you guys can ruminate on, in SA people love there pets. In fact many people will say they care more about there pets than some human beings as people on this thread mentioned . In SA a common criticism you hear is " people spend more money on animals than addressing the appalling levels of poverty ...its immoral " 

 

Personally I dont like to pass any judgement or critique on peoples attachments to any animal....its there business and even if I may not sometimes understand the bond some people have with animals thats fine..I dont need to understand it. If it makes them happy thats all that matters

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard" 

 

So the question aligns to the whole " is the life of an animal ever worth more than the life of a human ?  " 

[JadedWolf]

Here is another question you guys can ruminate on, in SA people love there pets. In fact many people will say they care more about there pets than some human beings as people on this thread mentioned . In SA a common criticism you hear is " people spend more money on animals than addressing the appalling levels of poverty ...its immoral " 

 

Personally I dont like to pass any judgement or critique on peoples attachments to any animal....its there business and even if I may not sometimes understand the bond some people have with animals thats fine..I dont need to understand it. If it makes them happy thats all that matters

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard" 

 

So the question aligns to the whole " is the life of an animal ever worth more than the life of a human ?  " 

 

I can only throw one person overboard? Come on man, me and Doggie will have a much better chance with just the two of us.

 

 

All jokes aside... What kind of sick scenario is this, Bruce? There is something wrong with you!

 

Edited April 17, 2016 by JadedWolf

[BruceVC]

 

Here is another question you guys can ruminate on, in SA people love there pets. In fact many people will say they care more about there pets than some human beings as people on this thread mentioned . In SA a common criticism you hear is " people spend more money on animals than addressing the appalling levels of poverty ...its immoral " 

 

Personally I dont like to pass any judgement or critique on peoples attachments to any animal....its there business and even if I may not sometimes understand the bond some people have with animals thats fine..I dont need to understand it. If it makes them happy thats all that matters

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard" 

 

So the question aligns to the whole " is the life of an animal ever worth more than the life of a human ?  " 

 

I can only throw one person overboard? Come on man, me and Doggie will have a much better chance with just the two of us.

 

 

All jokes aside... What kind of sick scenario is this, Bruce? There is something wrong with you!

 

 

 

 

You make me laugh " I can only throw one person overboard " 

[Gfted1]

I myself have emotionally overspent to have freaking brain surgery performed on a differnt cat but I cant say that another entity should be responsinbe for bearing the full weight of my emotional decisions. I love all my animals but there probably should be some financil cap on damages.

 

Regarding free roaming animals, except for PetSmart, Ive never seen someone bring their pet into a bar or restaurant. What is this, France? I guess maybe out in the sticks it can happen but otherwise we have leash and pet waste laws 'round here.

[Meshugger]

A pet is priceless.

[Valsuelm]

Regarding free roaming animals, except for PetSmart, Ive never seen someone bring their pet into a bar or restaurant. What is this, France? I guess maybe out in the sticks it can happen but otherwise we have leash and pet waste laws 'round here.

 

The U.S., and it's not just in the sticks. AAA publishes a book called 'Traveling with Your Pet', where it has lists of pet friendly (many places only dogs, no cats) restaurants, hotels, attractions, parks, etc. There's probably not a major metropolitan area without some listings for attractions/restaurants. There's certainly some in NYC and San Fran (places I've looked). I've found the book to be very handy in my travels, but have also found that it's not even close to all inclusive as I've found a lot of dog friendly places in some areas that are not listed in the book (ie: not one of the dog friendly places I previously mentioned are listed). Stay away from major corporate chain restaurants and you'll find that dogs will be allowed a bit more often than you think. To that end, just stay away from major corporate chain restaurants in general, while some are decent, there's almost always a local privately owned non-franchised joint that's better in almost every way nearby.

 

In addition to the AAA book, there are a few websites out there with pet friendly (again, often exclusively dogs) listings.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Bartimaeus]

I myself have emotionally overspent to have freaking brain surgery performed on a differnt cat but I cant say that another entity should be responsinbe for bearing the full weight of my emotional decisions. I love all my animals but there probably should be some financil cap on damages.

 

I don't think a cap of some sort is unreasonable. But if someone else's actions directly lead to the need for your cat to get brain surgery in order to survive (or even just to live as they had prior to that action), I would say at least some of the financial burden should fall on them. People shouldn't be doing damaging other people's stuff, whether they're pets or anything else: pay the price to fix what was damaged if they do. Each pet is unique just as humans are (though obviously to different degrees): I don't think, "Oh, I killed one of your children? Let me help you/your wife get pregnant to replace them! (and I'll cover whatever the cost was to raise the original child up until they were killed)" really works, and I don't think that sort of excuse should fly for pets, either.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

My first wife was a volunteer in a dog & cat rescue group. We fostered a lot of dogs during the years we were together. We even sold our first house and bought another one out in an unincorporated part of Palm Beach County to make it easier to do that. When the rescue folded we had 15 dogs in our house. Four were ours, 11 were fosters with nowhere to go. I was leery about adopting them out without the legal protection of the rescue and I certainly was not going to take them to animal control. So we kept them. One of the dogs I have now Tommy, was one of those. The was just a puppy then. He was the only puppy, the rest were adults. When my wife and I divorced she took three with her and that left me with 12. As the years have passed they lived what I think and hope were happy lives. Most lived past age 14. One had cancer and I treated for as long and as well as veterinary science would allow to keep her comfortable. I sacrificed a lot of time an money on those mutts and can emphatically I do not regret one moment spent with them or one penny expended on their behalf. Except Tommy they have all passed on now. I remember them all with love and think about all of them often. 

 

I told you all that to tell you this. I consider myself something of an expert in dog behavior & psychology. I have read many books about it and I have my own experience. They are not people. They are not little furry humans. And to tell you the truth you are doing them and yourself a disservice if you think of them that way. They are dogs. They think dog thoughts and do dog things for dog reasons. They will never understand YOU. But YOU can learn to understand THEM. If I had to sacrifice one of my dogs to save a person, even one I didn't know, even one I hated, I would do it. I would hate myself afterwards but there would not be a moments hesitation. A dogs life certainly has value. Not just to itself but to all the other dogs and humans in interacts with. But in the universal scale it does not compare to the value of a humans life. I would continue on much better after the loss of a dog and a family of humans would after the loss of a parent or child.

[BruceVC]

My first wife was a volunteer in a dog & cat rescue group. We fostered a lot of dogs during the years we were together. We even sold our first house and bought another one out in an unincorporated part of Palm Beach County to make it easier to do that. When the rescue folded we had 15 dogs in our house. Four were ours, 11 were fosters with nowhere to go. I was leery about adopting them out without the legal protection of the rescue and I certainly was not going to take them to animal control. So we kept them. One of the dogs I have now Tommy, was one of those. The was just a puppy then. He was the only puppy, the rest were adults. When my wife and I divorced she took three with her and that left me with 12. As the years have passed they lived what I think and hope were happy lives. Most lived past age 14. One had cancer and I treated for as long and as well as veterinary science would allow to keep her comfortable. I sacrificed a lot of time an money on those mutts and can emphatically I do not regret one moment spent with them or one penny expended on their behalf. Except Tommy they have all passed on now. I remember them all with love and think about all of them often. 

 

I told you all that to tell you this. I consider myself something of an expert in dog behavior & psychology. I have read many books about it and I have my own experience. They are not people. They are not little furry humans. And to tell you the truth you are doing them and yourself a disservice if you think of them that way. They are dogs. They think dog thoughts and do dog things for dog reasons. They will never understand YOU. But YOU can learn to understand THEM. If I had to sacrifice one of my dogs to save a person, even one I didn't know, even one I hated, I would do it. I would hate myself afterwards but there would not be a moments hesitation. A dogs life certainly has value. Not just to itself but to all the other dogs and humans in interacts with. But in the universal scale it does not compare to the value of a humans life. I would continue on much better after the loss of a dog and a family of humans would after the loss of a parent or child.

Good insights GD

 

In my experience people tend to equate human thoughts and why humans behave a certain way to the way any animal reacts or responds to  a situation

 

Even though there often are perceived  similarities in behavior an animal thinks like an animal and we think like humans. And its different  

[Valsuelm]

My first wife was a volunteer in a dog & cat rescue group. We fostered a lot of dogs during the years we were together. We even sold our first house and bought another one out in an unincorporated part of Palm Beach County to make it easier to do that. When the rescue folded we had 15 dogs in our house. Four were ours, 11 were fosters with nowhere to go. I was leery about adopting them out without the legal protection of the rescue and I certainly was not going to take them to animal control. So we kept them. One of the dogs I have now Tommy, was one of those. The was just a puppy then. He was the only puppy, the rest were adults. When my wife and I divorced she took three with her and that left me with 12. As the years have passed they lived what I think and hope were happy lives. Most lived past age 14. One had cancer and I treated for as long and as well as veterinary science would allow to keep her comfortable. I sacrificed a lot of time an money on those mutts and can emphatically I do not regret one moment spent with them or one penny expended on their behalf. Except Tommy they have all passed on now. I remember them all with love and think about all of them often. 

 

I told you all that to tell you this. I consider myself something of an expert in dog behavior & psychology. I have read many books about it and I have my own experience. They are not people. They are not little furry humans. And to tell you the truth you are doing them and yourself a disservice if you think of them that way. They are dogs. They think dog thoughts and do dog things for dog reasons. They will never understand YOU. But YOU can learn to understand THEM. If I had to sacrifice one of my dogs to save a person, even one I didn't know, even one I hated, I would do it. I would hate myself afterwards but there would not be a moments hesitation. A dogs life certainly has value. Not just to itself but to all the other dogs and humans in interacts with. But in the universal scale it does not compare to the value of a humans life. I would continue on much better after the loss of a dog and a family of humans would after the loss of a parent or child.

 

No, dogs aren't humans. No one here has argued that. Like humans though they do think differently from one another. They have unique experiences and personalities. There are all sorts of dogs out there, dumb ones, mean ones, smart ones, nice ones, rare super smart ones (smarter than many humans I know), cranky ones, sly ones, strong ones, weak ones, and so on. Unlike you, on principle I'd save most of the dogs I've ever had before any strangers (situation matters), though it'd be an unusual situation for one to even have to make that choice. As previously stated, dogs are a part of the family, and I'll save family and friends over strangers most any day (again, situation matters). I have a great deal of respect for loyalty, and I return it when it's deserved, whatever the species (dogs are one of the few species out there where loyalty is common (cats are not), horses also often have this loyalty, if they are treated well).

Edited April 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

Well I certainly hope I'm in the boat with GD, and not Vals.  

[Valsuelm]

Well I certainly hope I'm in the boat with GD, and not Vals.  

 

Well, worry not. The vast majority of dogs wouldn't take up much room in a boat, and could sit on a human's lap or between their legs. Mine certainly could. You probably have a better chance of winning Powerball a few times than coming across a scenario where it's a choice between a human and a dog in a boat. Also, if you're really packing a lifeboat so full that even a St. Bernard couldn't fit, you're more than likely doomed anyways as that's a boat like to capsize.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Malcador]

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not