An animal is not an iPod
By DIANE SULLIVAN

Those of us who teach animal law know one pervasive theme that resonates throughout our courses: American society's convenient classification of animals as property, oftentimes, as expressed in existing law, worth nothing more than a piece of merchandise -- and a low-priced one at that.

That treatment inevitably leads to the most basic question of how a society as great as ours can equate life -- any life, much less woman's best friend -- with a piece of furniture or even the latest iPod. We all must find a way to answer the question debated in our classrooms and scholarly research. How can the law better protect our animals, our pets, and yes, our companions, when they most need sanctuary from harm's way?

Legal textbooks on animal rights are replete with judicial decisions that, in case after case, make all too clear that the law does nothing to genuinely protect animals. It certainly does not recognize their true value and special place in our homes. Our legal system fails to recognize the bond between us and our pets when that bond has been severed, and therefore completely fails to compensate for that loss.

Until recently, I have been telling my students that societal attitudes toward animals are changing. A brighter day is coming, I tell them. I assure them that, over time, the status of our companion animals will evolve into one that is marked by compassion and humaneness, and that our laws will reflect that new status.

But Hurricane Katrina has shaken up my professorial prophesying. The stories and images have been unbearable. Months after hurricane Katrina I still see people clinging to their companion animals on the top of their roofs and then being forcibly separated. I still see refugees escaping with their pets to designated bus pickup areas, only to be commanded to abandon their pets or remain behind with them and in danger. To forbid people access to safety and shelter when they and their pets are giving deep emotional support to each other is unconscionable. This is all the more so in our most prosperous of countries. We learned of animals abandoned, drowned, starved and left for dead ... perhaps 50,000 in all.

The loss of these lives and the separation of thousands of others from their human companions have given urgency to the need to reclassify, legally, the status of domestic animals from property to beings. Defining companion animals as property is morally wrong and prevents their full protection.

Legislation is now being proposed that mandates pets be included in evacuations. For instance, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts is one of the sponsors of a federal bill that requires provisions for pets and service animals in disaster plans in order for those plans to qualify the state or municipality for federal emergency funding. This is, of course, to be praised, but it's too late to save the animals who perished during the hurricane and its aftermath. But we need more progressive legislation to reflect the role of a companion animal's place in the family and within society.

First, we need to vigorously prosecute those who abuse, neglect or harm animals. The good news is that penalties for these actions are now more severe. The not-so-good news is that many police chiefs and district attorneys do not pursue these stronger penalties because they still have a mindset that an animal is property with no rights and little protection under the law.

Second, those of us who care about the welfare of animals must bring about a change regarding the classification of "standing" in animal cases. Standing is a legal term that is defined as a right to initiate a lawsuit. Historically, someone seeking relief on behalf of a harmed animal has very little power to so do. Lawsuits could be more easily advanced on behalf of animals if the law in all states was changed to provide standing to assert claims on their behalf to their companions.

There is resistance to this from commercial interests, which brand animals as chattel. Animals are defined as property because it is convenient ... and profitable. This allows them to be exploited, harmed and used for experimentation and entertainment, all with impunity.

Our unfortunate history shows that slaves, women and children were previously treated as property. The law was changed to stop this deplorable treatment. It is time to reclassify the legal status of companion animals.

Diane Sullivan is professor of law at the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.