Looney Left Goes to the Dogs

As mentioned in the earlier post, “Dog Crazies,” an Oregon family was suing a neighbor over the death of their beloved 14-year-old Labrador pet for 1.6 million dollars! The case went to court and before a jury. Just what the looney left animal rights morons wanted.


However, they did not get to reclassify dogs as people, or whatever they think they are, besides a damned dog. Clackamas County Circuit Judge Eve L. Miller excluded a loss-of-companionship claim but allowed the family to proceed with other claims they were making.


Comments made by animal rights loons over this ruling were predictable;


“Once we can manage to have the terminology of "property" removed from animal-law….it will begin to give them more value than an inanimate tv or chair.:(“


“How long will it be before our legal system changes ? An[y] judge who views pets as mere property is inhumane and needs to be removed from office!”




The response from these two would make one think it was the death and molestation of children that being ruled on in the court. Sorry to say, but some people seem to think dogs are better than even human children. Makes me wonder just what sort of ‘humanity’ they assign to animals in the wild and why they aren’t pressing for laws on wild animals eating each other!


To be fair, the neighbor who ran over the dog and injured it enough that it had to be euthanized still claims he did not do it on purpose, but that it was an accident. A previous jury did not believe him and he was convicted of animal abuse and sentenced to 90 days in jail. I wasn’t there, so have no first hand knowledge, but reading some claims from the family makes me wonder.


From the original article I posted about;


Weaver was convicted last year of first-degree animal abuse and sentenced to 90 days in the Clackamas County Jail. Weaver’s attorney, Larry Dawson, said the incident was an accident. But Greenup and his family said Weaver drove over the dog several times outside their Estacada home and did not stop when they called out to him or when they tried to drag the dog from under the truck.”


The claims towards the end disturb me if it was intentional. “Drove over the dog several times.” “did not stop when they called out to him or when they tried to drag the dog from under the truck.” It disturbs me due to why would anyone, a child especially, get so close to a truck, somewhat in a ditch, driving back and forth over a dog? Regardless, a jury found him guilty and sentenced him.


The family’s attorney, Geordie Duckler, is a Portland, Oregon animal law attorney who has tried for years now to get a ‘loss of companionship claim’ before a jury. Do I smell a big ‘animal rights’ attorney trying to set a precedent? This claim of loss of companionship has been historically reserved for spouses, not pets. The ramifications of allowing a pet to be claimed a “companion” and suing at their loss staggers the imagination. But that is what animal rights activists wish, to legally stop us from “abusing” animals by eating them or wearing their skins in leather or furs.


Letting citizens vote for such a thing would be an utter failure and they realize that. So, they use our courts and hope for a willing activist judge that will basically write laws from the bench, instead of interpreting law, as they are entrusted to do. Fortunately, once again, the effort failed.


In the end, the ‘award’ was lessened from the requested $1.6 million and the family was awarded $50,000 for “punitive damages,” $6,000 for “emotional distress,” and $400 for “economic loss,” or, the “value of the family pet, a 14 year old dog!


Since this was awarded, we now have a big push being announced for “Bring Your Dog to Work Day!” My God, where will it stop? We stop people from smoking in businesses and even deny private business owners the choice of allowing smoking within their establishments; yet, we are going to encourage people to bring their dogs to work?


It has been said this will increase work output. A hollow claim, I feel. How do you get more work when someone must walk the dog throughout the day? It must be fed, watered and if a close family pet, it will want a lot of attention. If an ‘accident’ occurs, or two dogs get into a tussle, where is that beneficial for the workplace?


Businesses are seen already turning a blind eye to customers carrying their mutts into stores, even grocery stores, claiming they are “service animals.” Traditionally, service animals were Seeing Eye dogs, a highly trained animal that does benefit its owner. I have no problem with a Seeing Eye dog, due to their necessity and training. Some dogs have even been trained to help people with epilepsy, or other handicaps. However, I see extremely obese people, in motorized wheel chairs carrying a small dog, claiming it too is a ‘service animal.’


Merchants may not inquire if they are disabled or if the dog is properly trained, by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), but must accept the customers answer if they claim it is a ‘service animal.’ Some dog loving merchants have been seen walking up to dog owners forcing their dogs on us in stores and outright asking, “that is a service animal, right?”


Health codes prohibit animals in stores that stock and sell food. Misuse of the ADA trumps health codes, apparently and so, our food is subject to whatever may be on the dog.


These animals are placed in carts where children will be setting. Their saliva and fur may be left behind with either disease, since not all owners keep their animals properly vaccinated or cleaned. Even with constant bathing, dogs must use the outdoors, unlike a cat, which has a litter box in the house, usually. Once outside, fleas and ticks may get on the animal and they may be left behind at the store, in the very cart your child may sit in next.


There is also the prospect of a child being bitten by a small animal, the child running up to the animal and scaring it. I’m sorry doesn’t cover that, the child could be severely injured; all because you cannot leave your dog at home for an hour while you shop.


Now that someone has won an award of $56,000 over the death of an aged dog, I’m afraid there is a precedent set for making animals even more acceptable in shops and the workplace. That people can turn such a blind eye to the possible harms in this staggers my mind.


People, IT IS A DOG, NOT A CHILD!!!! It won’t hurt to leave it home when you shop. An aged dog isn’t worth $56,000, even if intentionally killed. It was a family pet and sorry, but pets die. They don’t live forever and no matter how much you love your dog, IT IS STILL A DOG!!!!








Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: