Permit me to engage in a bit of pre-holiday Grinchness in response to yet another of those news articles about people who let their dogs run loose, then sue others for the consequences of their own irresponsible behavior. These owners routinely remind us that these beloved animals were like their children and thus possessed value far above and beyond the value of the animal him/herself.
I have no problem with that kind of thinking up to a point. For sure, every one of my pets is worth far more to me than I paid for them, and even more than the amount of money I’ve invested in their care. However, it’s precisely because I do value them that I would never think of turning them loose in a strange environment or any environment in which I did not feel I had full control over them in some way. Nor would I think of holding someone else responsible for what happened to them if I so foolishly did.
Relative to the human-campanion bond, I accept that this trend does reflect the same way some parents relate to their kids: If you believe it’s all right to turn a toddler loose without parental supervision and blame others for any pain and suffering that child suffers as a result of this, why wouldn’t you feel the same way about doing likewise to your pets?
I, for one, don’t believe this in either human or animal case, but I also admit that there’s a certain, albeit sad, logic to these cases. Within the human-companion animal bond community, the idea that pets would have the status of family members, specifically as one of the kids, has always been viewed as the epitome. Unfortunately for some animals, their elevation to the status of kids is no guarantee that they won’t be exposed to the same negative effects of poor parenting skills that undermine the health and behavior of human children.