F
Former 'ambulance chasers' are now 'hydrant followers'
5/9/2008 | Today's Georgetown Times Online Edition
Published on 3/23/2008
By John Brock
Headline: "Animal lawyers unleashed on courts; Family pets gain legal status." Please tell me it ain't so! Has Fido has now become known as "litigant," "plaintiff," "beneficiary," or even ""defendant?"
I'm afraid it's true. Ninety-two out of the 196 US law schools now offer classes in Animal Law. Bob Barker of television's "The Price is Right" fame got the trend underway when he gave a million-dollar gift to establish animal law classes at prestigious schools, including Duke, Harvard, Stanford and Columbia universities. A few lawyers have even made the move to a full-time practice representing animals in the nation's courts
Once considered as property, animals are more and more becoming individuals worthy of legal human-like rights. This comes about, in part, because animal owners are naming their pets as beneficiaries of their estates. What's next? Legal adoption of pets?
The whole notion sounds pretty crazy to me. Lawyers take enough heat as it is. I've done my share of ridicule, but, honestly, some of my best friends through the years have been lawyers - and dogs. There are predominantly decent ones in both categories but initiating legal activities treating animals as humans discredits both groups.
What's next? Animal law precedents. For instance, will animal cases be argued by introducing precedent from previous cases - further overloading our already overworked court system? "Fido vs. Rover, 2008" as adjudicated by the SC Court of Appeals, becomes legal argument.
Will there be paternity suits? The collie, Bruno, violates his next door neighbor, cocker spaniel, Mitzi, and eight offspring result. Is Bruno or his owner obligated to puppy support? In fact, was it rape or consensual? What about DNA tests to prove fatherhood? You get the idea of how ridiculous this could become.
How has it come to this? Only decades after black folks and women obtained full legal status, we are now becoming embroiled in the legal rights of animals?
A lot of the impetus for this came when New York hotel queen Leona Helmsley bequeathed $12 million to her Maltese cat. The animals name is "Trouble" and trouble she has become for the court system. Helmsley is not alone. Other benefactors have left fortunes to their animals, further complicating the matter.
I didn't know newspaper folks made this kind of money but High Point, N.C. publisher, Randall Terry Jr. not only left $20 million to open the "Companion Animal Medical Center" at N.C. State College of Veterinary Medicine. He also left $1 million to care for his six golden retrievers when he died in 2004. A full-time caretaker now lives in the benefactor's home and will care for the dogs until they die or until the money runs out. What a life that must be: "Let's see, Rover, do we vacation in Florida or Hawaii this winter?" And, should we get the 60-inch or the 52-inch widescreen, high-definition television for the doggie den?
On the same day that this story broke, we also learned that many zoos now have full-time nutritionists for the animals because they are becoming overweight in their sedentary captivity. Will animal lawyers sue McDonald's because zoo visitors toss half-eaten Big Macs to the caged animals? And, how long before animal lawyers sue the zoos for involuntary servitude of the animals? Who knows? The new ACLU (American Canine Liberties Union) might sue for reparations. Where will it all end?
There should be laws against cruelty to animals but as usual, Americans can often carry matters to the extreme.
As property, animals have long been part of divorce settlements. I was introduced to this fact when my wife and I had to put down a much-loved pet several years ago. My wife had taken the aged dog to our usual veterinarian and neither she nor he could do the deed. It fell my duty to find a vet who knew neither us nor "Brandy," our noble Australian terrier. But our little friend had aged to the stage that his quality of life was much less than what had been. The time had come.
I took our pet to a vet, unknown to us all, and made the necessary arrangements. I had to sign a form swearing the little fellow belonged to me. I was surprised and asked why this was necessary. I was informed that there had been complicated court cases in which a jilted lover had had his or her owner's healthy pets exterminated for spite. I couldn't believe someone could do something like this. In cases like this, there should be some legal penalty for such a cruel act.
But, we have now gone to the extreme and our court dockets will become even more overburdened as full-time "Animal Lawyers" strive to make a living.
First we had "ambulance chasers." Now, "hydrant chasers" have appeared on the scene. What else does the future hold for the legal profession - vegetable rights?
*
John Brock is a retired college professor, newspaper publisher and motion picture producer who lives in Georgetown County. He can be reached by mail at this newspaper, or by Email at: brock@johnbrock.com
