Hi Bryan,
Thank you so much for taking the time to provide such thoughtful feedback and for looking at the proposal from a veterinarian's perspective. This is exactly the kind of discussion we were hoping to have when we launched this effort.
We know there will be opposition. As others have mentioned, some groups may view this as a slippery slope toward broader animal welfare reforms involving livestock and agriculture. While we personally believe all animals are sentient beings, we intentionally chose to focus Daisy's Law on companion animals-specifically dogs and cats-because we believe that gives the proposal the best chance of gaining support and moving forward. There is still so much work to be done to improve protections for all animals, but we see this as an important and achievable first step.
I completely understand your concerns regarding non-economic damages. We absolutely want veterinary support and do not want to create unintended consequences that would increase insurance premiums or make veterinary care even less affordable for pet owners.
At the same time, this issue is very personal for us. Daisy was my sister's service dog. We fought incredibly hard to keep her alive, including taking her to London for mitral valve disease surgery. The surgery was successful. When she returned home, she was prescribed medication, but CVS dispensed the wrong drug. The emergency care that followed cost approximately $14,000 before we ultimately lost her.
From our perspective, limiting recovery to a dog's market value-or even a flat cap that doesn't account for actual veterinary expenses-feels unfair when the harm was caused by negligence. Many people may view spending that amount on a dog as unreasonable, but for us she was family, and we did everything possible to save her.
I do see both sides of the issue. Perhaps there is a middle ground that distinguishes actual economic damages, such as veterinary expenses and other documented costs, from non-economic damages such as loss of companionship. We are very open to discussing approaches that protect families while also addressing legitimate concerns from the veterinary community. Our goal is not to punish veterinarians or create excessive litigation but to create a fairer system when negligence causes serious harm.
Regarding the court-appointed advocate, I agree that decisions should be informed by expertise and evidence, not solely emotion. In our own ongoing case against CVS, the court has required expert opinions from both a pharmacist and a veterinarian regarding the medication error that led to Daisy's death. That demonstrates that courts already rely on qualified professionals when evaluating complex cases involving animals, just as they do in other negligence and medical cases.
I would expect a similar approach in cases involving companion animals, where veterinarians, animal welfare experts, behaviorists, or other qualified professionals could provide expert opinions when appropriate. We would certainly be open to clarifying the qualifications and role of an advocate to ensure decisions are guided by sound science, welfare standards, and the best interests of the animal.
The feral, stray, and community cat issue is another excellent point. Cats often seem to fall into a legal gray area. We certainly would not want Daisy's Law to create confusion for TNR programs, shelters, rescues, or responsible colony caretakers. In many European countries, animal identification systems, microchips, registration databases, and pet passports help establish ownership and responsibility, but community cats still require special consideration. I do see microchip and passport of the animals as in Europe as good option.
At the same time, we believe there should be accountability when someone intentionally harms or poisons community cats. This is definitely an area where additional input from veterinarians, shelters, rescues, and community cat advocates would be extremely valuable, and we would welcome suggestions on how best to address it.
Your point regarding service animals is also very helpful. Daisy herself was a trained service dog, and the loss of a service animal goes far beyond the loss of a pet. Replacing and training a service animal can cost tens of thousands of dollars and take years. I think explicitly addressing restitution for service animals, including replacement and training costs, is worth considering.
We intentionally focused on dogs and cats because we all saw what happened when emotional support animal rules became overly broad and inconsistently applied. There will always be people who try to exploit loopholes. Personally, I think there should be clearer standards and stronger regulation surrounding both service animals and emotional support animals, although that may be a separate issue from the core goals of Daisy's Law. That said, if experts in that area want to help shape language, we would absolutely be open to including it.
At the end of the day, we are not lawyers, scientists, or policymakers. We are advocates trying to build something meaningful from Daisy's story and from the experiences of countless families who have lost beloved animals. I've spent a great deal of time researching laws in Europe, other countries, and U.S. states that have adopted similar protections, trying to identify approaches that work and have political viability.
What we are actively looking for now are veterinarians, attorneys, scientists, shelters, rescue organizations, and animal welfare professionals who can help strengthen the proposal and frame it in a way that has the best chance of gaining broad support and ultimately passing.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments, your expertise, and your willingness to engage in the discussion. Feedback like yours is exactly what will help make Daisy's Law stronger and more practical.
Best regards,
Krasimira Mircheva
President, Daisy's Legacy
🐾
------------------------------
Krasi Mircheva
President
Daisy's Legacy
VA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2026 06:14 AM
From: Bryan Langlois
Subject: Support Daisy's Law: Pets Are Sentient Beings, Not Property - Can You Help Us?
Hi,
I think you have hit on a lot of good points with this bill and crafted it in a way that tackles what some of the immediate opposition to it would be. I also agree with others that the agriculture lobby will likely oppose it over the "slippery slope" they perceive it could lead to. A couple of thoughts just based on my experience talking to others about this issue and from a veterinarian perspective.
- I like the idea of a "cap" on non-economic damages, but in the bill a strict number would have to be established. Some other states have put caps in at $5,000 or $10,000 unless there are egregious circumstances. If no cap is put on, I can almost guarantee vets and the vet associations will never support it. We all agree that pets should be in a special designation under the law, but our biggest fear is no cap being put on non-economic damages, and lawyers jumping on it to start suing for 2 million dollar awards and such. If that were to happen, our insurance premiums would skyrocket. Owners are already dealing with difficulty in affording veterinary care. If our premiums were to go up, that cost would be passed on to the owner through higher fees.
- Would the "advocate" appointed by the court on the animals behalf be required to have a certain level of qualification in animal care or welfare? Ideally you want someone who has the science and welfare background to ensure decisions are made based on fact and not just emotion.
- The wonderful "feral/stray/community cat" issue that plagues a lot of places. Will these cats be given a different legal definition? I ask because a lot of feral caretakers will argue that the cats bring them "companionship" and may reside mostly on their property, but they are not technically "owners" of the cats under most laws (Actually...in general in a lot of states cats seem to fall into this void of existence in the law...as no one really knows how to define them in the law). An example would be someone poisoning or harming the feral cats that a caretaker would then claim were part of her colony.
- Other states have aspects of their cruelty or negligence restitution bills that if the animal was a true "service animal" and not and "emotion support animal" then the offender would also be required to cover the cost of acquiring and training of a new service animal. It might be something to specifically add so that distinction is made right away.
It is a great framework you have there and, as I said above, already takes care of a lot of the issues that arise when other bills like this are created or suggested. Kudos to you for the advocacy and working to move this forward.
Bryan
------------------------------
Bryan Langlois
Medical Director
Spay/Neuter Save Network
PA
"Greatness is a title never to be self imposed"
------------------------------