– Personhood for dogs and other animals is a concept many of our readers may not be aware of. This is understandable, given it is a recent term, coined by the Politically Correct to make the dangerous agenda behind it sound more palatable.
The Daily Dog would like to warn our readers therefore of the true aim behind those pushing “personhood” for animals, and the direct hip-pocket cost it places on dog lovers where it has already been legislated into existence. The groups behind “personhood” come from the same philosophical bent as those behind campaigns for farm animals to be treated the same as companion animals.
Personhood in its simplest form means animals have the same rights as people. Now for many dog-lovers out there, our dogs are indeed our best friend – and for good reason. So emotive campaigns designed to leverage that affection into a push for legislation to enshrine the concept into law sounds very appealing – on the face of it. In fact such is the appeal of this concept, that clever marketing and lots of promotional dollars has resulted in some jurisdictions enacting laws to codify personhood for animals – with disastrous consequences for dog owners who live there.
France and the United States are currently the main locations where personhood laws have been passed by their respective legislatures – and with predictable, disastrous results, as we demonstrate below.
The Daily Dog has come across numerous examples of such laws being used in law suits in the United States particularly, but of course what trends there tends to trend here – especially if similar legislation is enacted. One such example is from the State of Colorado, where Mrs Robin Lohre successfully sued (and put out of business) a house cleaning company whose cleaner had left the door to Mrs Lohre’s house open, which saw Robin’s dog run outside and onto a road, where it was fatally struck by a car. Mrs Lohre used personhood laws to sue the cleaning company, and was awarded $65,000 for mental anguish. It is important to note the award was not for any economic loss suffered by Mrs Lohre – as her dog was originally purchased for $299 – but for the emotional distress caused by her loss.
This is an important distinction personhood advocates try to hide. Pre-existing laws allow for compensation where economic loss and/or animal cruelty is involved – such as a working farm dog being shot by an intruder and so on. Personhood laws make no such distinction however and open the floodgates to litigation where people have (understandably) been emotionally affected by the death or harm that has happened to their pet.
You may be saying to yourself that the cleaning company in the above case should have been held to account – and rightly so. Yet the large damages awarded in Mrs Lohre’s case and in other States (particularly California) have had a direct effect on the cost of pet-related services in the US, such as Veterinary care. The reason? Spooked insurance companies have massively hiked premiums for animal related industries, including Vets, groomers, dog-walkers and so on – costs that have been directly passed on to the consumer of course.
So the pups4sale team believes it is important to warn our members and readers of the Daily Dog that personhood laws need to be opposed should they raise their ugly head in this Country in any serious way. Whilst they may make some people feel all warm and fuzzy, their enshrinement in law will see a massive jump in the cost of pet related services for all, as has been seen overseas.