Anyone who thinks about it for a few minutes will realize the pet in the window at a pet store may not belong to that store. It could be there on consignment. It could be that ownership doesn’t transfer until the supplier gets paid. It could be subject to a lien.
A whole body of law has been developed to protect lenders because businesses of just about any size can no longer run on a cash basis. If a government seizes a house or car, it generally has to ascertain who has interests in the property and many of them get priority over the seizure when it comes to getting paid or even when determining who gets possession. In the case of animal seizures, doesn’t the seizing government at least have an obligation to determine who owns the animals? Who may have liens against them or other forms of interest? In Texas animal cruelty cases, they are required to give notice to the owner so I think that indeed they do because the person in possession may not be the owner at all.
This was touched on in the U.S. Global Exotics case where notice was given to the Shaws and the court determined that was sufficient for notice to the corporation. I disagree but there’s the bigger issue. What if USGE wasn’t the sole owner of the animals? What if other owners find out after a seizure and after their animals have been destroyed or distributed? These cases happen very quickly and the true owner may have no idea that they’ve begun, no opportunity to make a claim if not given notice.
It isn’t just the big cases this could happen in either. It could happen in many situations.
SPCA of Texas has farmed out the USGE animals to a multitude of organizations and appears to have retained ownership. Wouldn’t they be entitled to notice if those animals were subsequently seized? If someone is accused of abuse, are they likely to voluntarily provide the ownership information?
Many animal rescue groups retain ownership or some form of residual right in animals even when they are adopted out. What of notice to them?
Responsible dog and cat breeders care very much about their offspring and often retain an interest in them. They main co-own them with several others or retain an interest in those placed in pet homes.
How about animals seized from a commercial kennel, groomer, or veterinary clinic? Would the owners vacationing afar have any idea their animals had been seized?
We entrust our animals to all kinds of people and we want to think they well cared for while we aren’t there but, if that person’s own animals are seized, we know all animals present will be swept up and we can’t possibly know everything about everyone we entrust; more so for those in commercial enterprises. What if it were all the animals at a particular airline?
If animals are moved from being property to some category similar to children, all the more reason the "guardian" must be identified and notified just as would be the case when children are taken from temporary caretakers and day care centers.
Surely seizing agencies have an obligation to investigate ownership and ensure that owners get notice and, if not provided, surely they could be liable to owners not notified, not given a chance to reclaim their property. I’d bet they don’t even regularly scan animals for chips when they seize them, that they make NO attempt to ascertain ownership in their arrogance of these seizures.
Governments like to think they are immune to lawsuits and damage awards but that isn’t nearly as true as they like to think. That is even more true if they’re going to continue with big seizures in a multinational market; more so as ownership becomes more complicated even for individually possessed pets.
The animal rights activists want us to be reduced to “guardians” anyway so why not gift our animals to our family members or friends? At a minimum, it would surely make giving notice to the owner a bit more time consuming and complicated.