Letters: Is Fido a Person Under the Fur?

To the Editor:

Re "Dogs Are People, Too" (Sunday Review, Oct. 6):

As a dog "guardian" and animal lover, I was intrigued by Gregory Berns's study of the canine mind, but I take issue with his conclusion that we should further the legal concept of "personhood" for dogs.

Personhood for animals is part of the animal rights movement, but I worry that it is undermining the goals of animal welfare because the legal terminology can be confusing. Simply put, when I look at my rescued smooth fox terrier, I see a long furry nose and soft ears. He is a dog, not a person.

Suggesting that we consider "dogs as persons" blurs a legal concept that is already fodder for cynics. Mr. Berns writes that puppy mills, for example, "would be banned for violating the basic right of self-determination of a person." Self-determination for dogs? What does that mean — my dog demanding longer walks?

There has to be another legal approach. Let's use studies like Mr. Berns's to capitalize on our shared appreciation of animals and to create a more logical legal concept of animal welfare that the majority will embrace.

EMILY HEMPHILL
Washington, Oct. 7, 2013

To the Editor:

Gregory Berns writes that dogs "seem to have emotions just like us." His evidence? Parts of their caudate nucleus show increased activity in response to food signals and familiar odors, and regions of the human caudate nucleus show increased activity during positive emotions.

His data don't justify such a dramatic conclusion. Neuroscience is far from understanding what makes emotions feel the way they do. In fact, there are strong philosophical arguments that such feelings defy scientific investigation.

There may come a day when neuroscience offers insight into the nature of animal consciousness, but for now that belongs to the realm of speculation, not science.

STEPHEN SERENE
New York, Oct. 6, 2013

To the Editor:

The issue of extending basic rights to other species is undeniably a matter of societal interest and a legal and moral imperative. Irrespective of the traits animals share with humans, they have the fundamental right to not be cut up in laboratories, skinned alive in slaughterhouses, beaten in circuses and shot in the woods for "fun."

Scholars weighed in positively on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' groundbreaking case calling for SeaWorld's captive orcas to be granted protection under the 13th Amendment, including the Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence H. Tribe, who said, "People may well look back at this lawsuit and see in it a perceptive glimpse into a future of greater compassion for species other than our own."

New laws already reflect this cultural evolution. India recently joined the European Union in banning testing cosmetics on animals. Several countries around the world have banned the use of animals in circuses. The National Institutes of Health is sending most of the chimpanzees it has used in painful and invasive experiments to sanctuaries.

The question being asked now is, "Why shouldn't animals have rights?"

JEFFREY S. KERR
General Counsel, PETA Foundation
Washington, Oct. 7, 2013

To the Editor:

For the last 20 years, our family has included several canine brethren. In that time, our floppy-eared and tail-wagging family members have taught the bipedal among us the meaning of loyalty, devotion, empathy and compassion.

The recent findings in canine neuroscience provide dog lovers with scientific evidence to rebut those who question the care and attention doled out to our whining, growling and barking children or who remark dryly and dismissively, "It's only a dog."

As I write this letter, guess who's cuddled up to me on our couch? That's right, Kahlúa — a 6-year-old female, black and tan double dapple dachshund whose place in our lives and hearts reminds us daily that she's a person, too.