Are Pets More Than Just Property?

(CBS)  Pets sleep in our beds, eat gourmet food and even drink bottled water, but there is a disconnect between the way people view pets and the way the law views them.

Denis and Sarah Scheele say their beloved pooch, Shadow, was essentially their child, but law says Shadow is mere property.

"Shadow was not just a dog," Sarah Scheele told The Early Show veterinary correspondent Dr. Debbye Turner. "None of our companions are just dogs. They are truly a part of us and members of our family."

When they took a road trip from their Annapolis, Md., home to Vermont, Shadow and Lucy went with them. They arrived early at a church for a family event. They parked in the back of the church parking lot so the dogs could get some exercise.

Shadow wandered over toward the treeline and onto the property of the residence next door, where Lewis Dustin lives. Dustin saw a dog on his property but didn't see the owners in the parking lot. He shot Shadow with a pellet gun.

"We heard this pop," Denis Scheele said, "And then heard a door slam. And in the mist of the popping and the door slamming, heard Shadow yelping — a big yelp."

The pellet pierced Shadow's heart. He died within minutes.

"That morning I said, 'We are so lucky. Everything is so good,' and soon after, we had lost him," Sarah Scheele said.

Charges were brought against Dustin and he was convicted of a misdemeanor for shooting shadow. He was sentenced to community service, had to pay restitution and get counseling. But because the law considers pets property, the Scheeles were not entitled to any compensation for the emotional distress of Shadow's death.

"We wanted the state of Vermont to create case law that would recognize that companion animals are truly members of the family," Sarah Scheele said.

The Scheeles found a Vermont lawyer, Heidi Groff, and sued in Vermont civil court.

"Count one was negligence. Count two was negligent infliction of emotional distress. And count three was loss of companionship," Groff said.

Vermont Superior Court Judge Matthew Katz dismissed the claim of emotional distress and loss of companionship. The Scheeles plan to appeal to the state supreme court.

"We're not asking the court to say that a dog is a person," Groff said. "We are asking the court to say that a dog is more than a $30 adoption charge."

Animal law expert Chris Green says the Scheele's case is bigger than Shadow's tragic death.

"The law should just reflect the way the world currently is," Green said. "The attention it generates, even if the suit is ultimately unsuccessful will make people realize, 'Wow. I had no idea that someone could kill my dog and I have no legal recourse.' "

But there are felony provisions for animal cruelty in 42 states and the District of Columbia. And in recent years juries around the country have awarded larger sums in certain cases. But these are exceptions not the rule. That is what the Scheele's hope to change.

"We have to start in Vermont and then we'll go to the state of Maryland, which is our home state," Sarah Scheele said, "and we'll just continue to go until, either all the states recognize the importance of the value of companion animals to a family and hopefully we will do that in our lifetime."

For more information on the Scheele's case, visit JusticeforShadow.com.

[GAF32]

Denis and Sarah Scheele need to put their EMOTIONAL TIES ABOUT THEIR DOG ON A LEASH !!! Otherwise, it will..... SHADOW...... them forever. Perhaps they should get 2 more dogs and name them ANGER and REVENGE ! It was.... THEIR IRRESPONSIBLE CHOICE.... TO LET THEIR UNDISIPLINED PET OUT OF THEIR DIRECT CONTROL !! The bad consequence to their pet BELONGS TO THEM..... NOT TO THE PERSON PROTECTING HIS PROPERTY.

[emald]

If the Scheeles win their lawsuit, I don't think it would change the status of dogs as property. Designating dogs as "companion animals" (or for whatever purpose) is about their value to owners, not the value they have of themselves. At best, I think this lawsuit can only speak for the owners' interest--not the dogs.

As long as dogs and other animals are bred and sold, they will be property. That's not how it should be, but unfortunately for animals, that's how it is.

[hermit22]

will the texas law have a provision for mental health testing for people who are cruel to animals? if they get the necessary theraphy, it might spare a human later.

[rmalkin]

Much has been made in these comments about the dog trespassing and not being on a leash. OK, let's think about that... First, if you have a dog, have you ever let it go off leash? Or, has your dog ever gotten loose for a few minutes %u2013 run out an open door or car door? Would you expect someone to shoot it? How many times have you seen a dog that has gotten lose, wandering around your neighborhood? Have you felt the need to shoot it? Would you think it's ok for your neighbor to shoot it?

Although Shadow was not on a leash, and had wandered onto that man's property, Shadow was NOT acting aggressively towards the man, he was not near the man, and he was not running towards the man. The dog was doing nothing threatening. Yet instead of looking around for the probable owners of the dog, who were close by, or shouting for them, or shouting at the dog, the man simply took out a gun, stood on his porch, and shot the dog.

The dog was standing at the edge of the man's property, which was, by the way, right next to the church parking lot, a public space, where a gathering was planned, and people were coming and going. I bet sometimes people step onto his property from time to time on their way to church. Would he shoot at children also if they stepped over the line?

When faced with senseless loss, the best of us try to make the world better by trying to make sure that it does not happen again to others. The Scheeles are doing that.

[susanhelit]

Odd case - the owners are both completely right and absolutely wrong.

They're wrong because their dog was off his leash, on someone else's property, where it could be considered a threat - I can't see how they got even a penny - they should be paying the owner of the property for their trespass, not getting money from him!

But, they're right that current laws are way off when it comes to pets as just pure property. Someone who kills my cats for no reason should not ever only be punished by paying me their adoption fee - they are worth a ton more than that; killing an animal wrongly is a sign of a disturbed mind (very often people who torture or kill animals graduate to humans later); and does far more mental harm than if this person merely destroys any non-living posession of mine, however treasured or irreplacable.

Maybe a higher price - the adoption fee, plus all the money I've spent keeping the animal alive and growing all these years - food, shots, vet visits, etc. And some degree of criminal charge as well.

But all of this would only apply to wrongly killing an animal, not to shooting a dog off it's leash on your own property with a little pellet gun!

[ortonmelis]

The law in Texas fails to protect innocent animals that are murdered out of cruelty or anger. Someone came onto my propery and slashed 2 of my horses. Since they are considered property and have a value of less than $10,000, the prosecutors I have talked to have a difficult time prosecuting these cases. I am working to have these laws changed so the punishment better fits the crime. These killers are not accountable for their actions. The kids that killed my friend, Darla's, horse a few weeks earlier had used the internet to plan their attack came onto her property late at night &, while petting her 14-month-old palomino, hit it in the head with a polo mallet, jumped on its back, held her down and almost cut off her head with a knife and then stabbed her in the chest and watched her suffer and die. Darla found her murdered horse the next morning. The two men that were arrested come from Texas A&M University and look like Wally and the Beav Cleaver. If you go to the website www.texashorsetalk.com in the January 2007 issue you can read "Murder and Mayheam" By Jan Loveless PhD. and it will give you a better idea of what's happened. Animals touch and enhance our lives and they are NOT JUST PROPERTY AND LIKE OUR CHILDREN THEY CAN NOT PROTECT THEMSELVES SO IT IS UP TO US. We are working hard to change the law In Texas to make this a more severely punishable crime. Research has proven that people who do this to animals often go on to do it to children and people.
Melissa

[cbm221]

As can be seen from the mix of comments, we and our animal companions have certain protections as "property." I DO want to be able to obtain a cat if and when I wish, or euthanize a dog if he's suffering. Yet we all would agree that our animal companions are completely different from other forms of property - they have feelings. Judges know that. They 'own' pets too. Yet they have a duty to uphold the law. Like it or not, advancement will occur beginning at the level the law is NOW, not where we'd like it to be.

What's the immediate solution? Animals need their own classification of property called "sentient" or "feeling" property that recognizes them for what they are and how much we mean to each other. Both the European Union and, more recently, the ASPCA have recognized the term "sentient." It is a next-step solution that can be used today and is spelled out in a book found at www.WeveGotFeelingsToo.com or by the same title on **********.

[holly249]

I think the Scheele's should be ashamed of themselves for what they have done. This man is in his 70's!!!! He has an ailing wife. Mr. Dustin paid them money (and some was for THEIR travel to come to VT to fight him in court!!) and did community service. I know Mr. Dustin personally. I have a large dog that can be quite intimidating. Mr. Dustin and my dog get along like buddies. Mr. Dustin pets him and talks to him and even gives him a belly scratch. His daughter even has a small dog that Mr. Dustin considers his "grandchild". The Scheele's won their court battle against him. How much longer are they going to drag this on? Until he is in financial ruin? Until his wife ends up in the hospital (again) because of what these people continue to do to them? If I were to EVER take my dog to another town, let alone another state, I would make *** sure he was on a leash. I have seen a child first-hand, in the emergency room, after having his arm DEGLOVED by a dog who the pet owner had on a leash. At what point do the Scheele's feel they have been COMPENSATED enough for the loss of their "mutt" (I mean, come on--it wasn't like this was a show dog)? When Mr. Dustin loses everything he owns? Or when he loses his wife because of the Scheeles' mental illness? I wonder if Mr. Scheele secretly wonders if his wife would be even HALF as devasated if she were to lose HIM......

[led_jr]

Are only dogs to be cosidered as companions? What about birds, cats, hamsters... How can you determie the level of companionship between different types of animals and different types of people in regards to the amount of compensation one would recieve? Hey, my bird is a better companion than your cat. How could we prove that? This case is about compensation not companionship. What will they think of next?

[bullsnyder77]

I too love animals, however, if a negligent owner allowed their animal to run loose in my yard and it frightened or threatened my wife or children, I would not hesitate to kill it. Also having owned several pellet guns, the fact that his killed the dog was a freak occurence, he most likely was merely trying to frighten the dog off of his property. Of all the pets I've owned, I would never allow them to simply run free in a strange environment, if they were to get away from me, and be shot, I would not even consider blaming the person who shot it. I would blame myself and get another dog, but be much more careful to ensure it did not get loose!