I will be the first to admit that my dog is spoiled. In our house, he has pretty much free reign, within reason, and I prefer his company to most people. No offense to humans; my dog is appreciative, doesn’t want to talk about politics and is always happy to see me. Judging by the number of products on the market targeted for our canine companions, popping up at drug stores and dominating the majority of the SkyMall catalog, I think it’s safe to say that many dog owners across America agree with me.
One can purchase almost anything for our furry friends: hip harnesses to help those that are a bit on in years, Tempur-Pedic beds for their four-legged frames, action cameras designed to capture the world from their point of view, and dog booties to protect their paws on various terrains. Technology has also progressed to aid in the recovery of the faithful companions when they get separated from their owners. Microchips, like HomeAgain, GPS dog collars, and smart phone tags are available to help finders locate a lost dog’s owner. These advances in dog technology make me curious what the impact may be on the legality of custody battles over lost dogs. Previously, owners of a lost dog had few options other than posting flyers around the neighborhood. With the ability to track animals, is it necessary to revise the standard finders laws associated with lost pets? If someone finds a stray dog, are they required to check if the dog is chipped? Or, if an owner loses their dog, must they notify the microchip company in order to avoid a dispute later? Many states address the custody of lost dogs through statutes. In Tennessee and other states, it is a misdemeanor to remove a microchip from a dog with the intention of preventing or hindering the owner from locating the animal. In Guam, it is a second degree felony to demand payment of a reward for the return of a lost dog. On the other side, Michigan law requires that the owner must pay the finder twenty-five cents per day for boarding a lost dog. How does the case change, though, when there is evidence that the dog has been abandoned? Does chipping a dog mean that it technically cannot be abandoned, since there is always a link back to the original owner?
As reported by ABC this summer, a Colorado man took his 100-pound German Shepherd, Missy, on a hike to the top Mt. Bierstadt, one of Colorado’s fourteen-ers. (Mt. Bierstadt stands 14,065 feet tall). The tops of these mountains are often difficult to navigate, with the trail disappearing into fields of sharp boulders. Missy’s paws were cut, and her owner made the decision to leave her on the top of the mountain so as to make it down before inclement weather hit. He did not make further efforts to recover her. Six days later, a local couple was hiking the same path and found the dog tucked under some rocks. After a forest ranger expressed regret that they could not offer any assistance, the couple organized a group of eight volunteers to return up the mountain on a nine hour rescue mission through a snow storm to get Missy and carry her back down to safety.
Missy’s original owner has been charged with animal cruelty, but now wants his dog back. The couple that found Missy, as well as other members of the rescue team, would like to adopt her. Here, a straightforward law that usually leads to the morally “right” solution might fail. If the law favors returning lost dogs to their original owners, should there be room for exceptions? What role should technology play? If Missy is chipped, does her original owner have a stronger claim, even though she was not technically lost? Should the fact that her original owner could have outfitted her with booties before the hike to prevent the situation weigh in on the custody battle? My opinion as a dog owner differs from my opinion as a law student. What do you think? Please feel free to leave a reply below.