START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Should D.C. Law Force You to Say Your Dog is Your “Property” if You Donít Agree?

Should D.C. Law Force You to Say Your Dog is Your “Property” if You Donít Agree?

Jay Johnson loves his beagle, Liam, with all his heart. Though he’s shared his home with his beloved rescue dog for nearly a decade, he’ll never tell you he’s Liam’s “owner.” He’s Liam’s guardian.

Oddly, publicly stating that he doesn’t “own” Liam could get Johnson fined or even arrested in the District of Columbia. Surprised?

It’s true. A provision of D.C.’s Animal Control regulation prohibits “knowingly and falsely deny[ing] ownership of any animal.”

As an animal activist and frequent public speaker on the issue of animals as property, Johnson sees D.C’s regulation as an infringement of his First Amendment right to free speech. To ensure he and others can talk about this issue freely and publicly when in D.C., he’s challenging the constitutionality of this provision of D.C. law.

Animals as Property

Most of the time, sadly, the law treats companion animals no differently than they treat your refrigerator or your sofa. They’re considered your “property” and nothing more. This has meant, for example, that lawsuits over the injury or death of a beloved pet often resulted only in reimbursing the plaintiff for the animal’s “fair market value” or “replacement cost” rather than the costs of the pet’s medical care, its pain and suffering, and the guardian’s attorney fees for seeking such restitution.

In many cities across the country, however, this perception of an animal’s legal status is slowly changing. A number of governmental bodies have added the term “guardian” to their animal-related municipal codes. They’ve done so in recognition of the fact that for many of us, animals are family, not commodities.

Liams Life, Then and Now

For the first four years of his life, Liam the beagle lived a hellish existence as a research dog for Abbott Laboratories. He wasn’t known as Liam then. He was beagle number 8888884. How does Johnson know Liam’s life was so tragically cruel?

In an essay written by Johnson in 2010, he says it was crystal clear from the moment he met Liam:

People sometimes ask me how I can know that. How I can know what it was like for Liam in the lab? I know because I was the first person to see him when he came out. When Liam came to live with me, he was terrified. Not just of his new surroundings, but of everything. The sound of metal clinking, the feel of grass or anything soft, it all scared him.

The thing that broke my heart most, was that he was afraid of me as well. When I touched him, he would put his head down and put his tail between his legs. The only touch he had known had been the touch that was always followed by something painful. Something unpleasant. I could see it in his eyes when I touched him, he was afraid of what I was going to do to him. Afraid that myself and my friends would treat him exactly how all the other humans he had ever encountered had. As a thing. A tool. Nothing more than a number.

These words crush your soul a little, don’t they? These were four years of a life so bad it made this little dog afraid of absolutely everything.

Jay Johnson and Liam the beagle

Jay Johnson and Liam, happy together. Photo credit: Jay Johnson

Today, of course, Liam lives a happy, secure life with Johnson and knows he’ll never face the shocking cruelties of life in a research laboratory again. It’s a hope-filled future we’d wish for every innocent, helpless animal still held in labs around the world.

D.C.s Regulation and its (Perhaps Unintended) Effect on Free Speech

So why can’t Jay Johnson discuss Liam’s life and the fact that he does not view Liam as his property? Eleven words in the D.C. code are to blame.

Included in the “Prohibited Conduct” section of D.C.’s Animal Control regulation is section 8-1808(b), which says: “No person shall knowingly and falsely deny ownership of any animal.” According to Johnson’s complaint:

Each time Johnson would deny ownership of Liam in the District of Columbia, he would be subjected to arrest; a fine of up to $100; mandatory collateral posting of $5,000; and either the forfeiting of the $5,000 collateral, or a trial. These penalties have worked to prevent Johnson from scheduling and giving a speech about Liam in the District of Columbia and from privately speaking, denying ownership of Liam.

Of course, the likely reason this subsection is part of the regulation is to keep people from avoiding liability for animal-related incidents like dog bites or escaping accountability for incidents of animal neglect or cruelty. The problem is that the prohibition makes any assertion by Johnson that Liam is not his “property” just as culpable under the law.

Who’d enforce this law in that speech-stifling way? Maybe it would never happen — but it could. That’s enough. If a law can be used against them, seasoned animal activists know eventually it will be.

What Jay Johnson’s lawsuit seeks, in part, is a declaratory injunction that section 8-1808(b) is either unconstitutional on its face, or at least unconstitutional as applied to Johnson’s public and private speaking.†Mr. Johnson is represented by attorney Jeffrey Light.

Johnson filed his lawsuit in late December 2013. The government has not yet filed its response. This one’s worth watching to see just how D.C. and Jay Johnson work this issue out. Johnson has important things to say. He’d like to be able to say them in the District of Columbia.

Read more: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Photo credit: Thinkstock

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

461 comments

+ add your own
12:52PM PST on Nov 7, 2014

thanks for sharing :)

5:59PM PDT on Apr 26, 2014

Was that directed to me, Tricia?

9:33AM PDT on Apr 26, 2014

They are family and friends to a majority of humans. Stop what you are trying to do. It is horrible. This will give people the right to kill them with no protection under the law.

2:10AM PST on Feb 11, 2014

noted

12:52PM PST on Feb 1, 2014

Well, Suba, I don’t agree with all of your hypothetical conclusions, but most of them I do and very much appreciate the intelligent thought behind it.

4:54PM PST on Jan 30, 2014

If “something happens” and the animal is suffering, how do the authorities determine who is responsible for their care? A person who has neglected the animal might say “it isn’t mine” and avoid charges of animal cruelty.

I was a ‘guardian’ to a colony of homeless and feral cats because I fed them, medicated them and neutered them, one by one. But I did not own them, and the ranger was instructed to ‘get rid of them’ (by the local vet!). I trapped them all again and brought them home.

Now I OWN them: I am not their “guardian”. They cannot mate or hunt and are not free to roam (they would be killed and I would be fined thousand$) but they have room to run, comfortable shelter, clean water, free health care, full tummies and a life without fear and stress, and in return I have the pleasure of their affection, their beauty, and of watching them play and enjoy their lives. Nature does not offer this to any animal: this is the contract of ownership.

2:00PM PST on Jan 30, 2014

tricky question but I believe you can never own a animal. You ARE, however, responsible for their care and if something happens.

5:49AM PST on Jan 30, 2014

This sis a tricky question - the pertinent part of it is 'under the law' .

10:21PM PST on Jan 29, 2014

Suba, if animals had rights there would be no dogs or cats in our homes to neuter. The animal rights agenda demands their extinction, and they are covertly arranging that outcome by convincing government to introduce mandatory neutering and legislate impossible restrictions for responsible breeders.

According to animal rights ideology, we couldn’t ‘own’ a cat or dog because you can’t own a person. You couldn’t neuter them because that’s an ‘invasive procedure’ against their will. You couldn’t confine them to your property (imprisonment). If your pet was running loose and got hit by a car, you could not choose euthanasia because the surgery will cost $150,000 and will only buy 6 months more time. You could be sued for more than that at any time for “animal cruelty” by some opportunistic ‘Animal Law’ lawyer acting “on behalf” of your dog, who does not look well. That’s because you couldn’t feed him/her the diet they physiologically require, since cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc. would all have a ‘right to life’ as well, and couldn’t be owned (enslaved) or slaughtered for meat (murder).

Animal rights activists have absolutely no interest in rights for dogs: only to see their extinction: they eat meat, and as long as they exist, there will be a demand for meat. That’s why PeTA kills thousands of them. It’s about forcing the vegan diet on us all.

2:05AM PST on Jan 29, 2014

I’m guessing that Care2 doesn’t like the ‘greater than/lesser than’ arrows, because that is where my comment got slashed. I’ll try and piece together what I wrote...

Now if Fido doesn’t do well on it (physiology over ideology) then, as a responsible owner you have two choices: find him another home, or feed him his species-appropriate diet of meat. However, since all animals have ‘rights’ and can’t be eaten, there is no meat (unless you get it on the black market for big $) Poor Fido is looking awful - you can’t make him better, and your vet is legally obliged to report you for animal cruelty. You can’t euthanise Fido either, because he has the ‘right to live’ and that would be murder.

Fido would be your last dog. Thanks to mandatory neutering and no more breeding, there are no more cats and dogs in the world the animal rightists work unethically towards. No more nasty little carnivores to keep the meat industry alive. No more purrs, licks, companionship, love.

Is this what you want?

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

It begins to be more and more obvious that their is NO length to which control freaks, hiding behind…

and most of us who live w/our furry family members can ID even more barks Dogs have a pretty detailed…

ads keep care2 free



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.