WHAT’S THE VALUE OF YOUR DOG’S LIFE, AND WHY IT MATTERS

Americans love their pets, spending more than US$70 billion last year on their beloved companions. This far exceeds the $7 billion spent on legal marijuana, and $32 billion on pizza, just for two examples.

Of the $70 billion, close to $20 billion pays for veterinary care, $16 billion is on supplies and over-the-counter medicines, and $32 billion is for food.

These large sums make it evident that Americans put great value on the lives of their pets. Yet how much value? We set out to find an answer for the pet Americans are particularly fond of: their dogs.

We did so by using an experimental survey design that has been used to establish the value of human lives and many other “priceless” things. Ultimately, we concluded that the value of the average dog is about $10,000. While some may chuckle at our research, we believe it holds important implications for human medicine, health and well-being.

When it comes to valuing human life, federal agencies have currently settled around values of  $10 million.

Yet conspicuously missing from the list has been Americans’ best friend.

From priceless … to $10,000?

So how much is a dog’s life worth? To most dog lovers, including ourselves, the answer is obvious: They are priceless. As true as this answer may be, it provides little guidance on how to value the effect of private and public decisions on our four-legged companions.

To provide an answer, we designed and fielded a large, nationally representative survey of dog owners. We used stated preferences of individuals to assess how much they are willing to pay to obtain small reductions in mortality risk for their dogs.

In our cases, the estimates ultimately amounted to a value of a statistical dog life of about $10,000.

There are a number of good reasons to get a better grasp on how Americans value their pets.

The most obvious application of our findings relate directly to the regulation of the health and safety of pets.

New regulations issued in the wake of numerous cases of contaminated dog food or pharmaceuticals present a case in point.

Of course, our findings also provide a starting point for compensation in court cases resulting from injuries and deaths of dogs. As currently adjudicated, compensation is solely based on the market value of the dog. Naturally, this severely limits compensation for many dog owners, particularly those whose dogs are not purebred. Our findings illustrate that compensation for owners should be much higher to account for the loss of companionship and associated emotional distress.

More generally, our estimates also offer a value of companionship applicable to assessing programs for the disabled as well as the broader effects of animal companionship on human health. This specifically includes the formal and informal use of dogs to provide emotional support or other services.

Finally, like the baby presented to King Solomon, dogs cannot be split in half. Today, most states still treat dogs merely as property.