In Defense of Pet Trusts

To the Editor:

J.J. MacNab does not seem to have well-thought-out criticism of the idea of charitable remainder trusts for pets (“In Dog We Trust — Not a Good Idea for Philanthropy,” June 28).

The reality for me, and I suspect many other pet guardians, is that this type of trust could well ensure money for charity that would not otherwise be set aside. My human children are grown and, supposedly, capable of making their own financial decisions. Therefore, any inheritance they might claim from me will be granted immediately via the assets of my estate. My pets, however, are not capable of controlling their own financial means nor even capable of ensuring their own well-being via food, shelter, and vet care. For me to feel confident they will be cared for, I will need to establish some type of fund for their needs. By use of a charitable remainder trust I could do that, with the leftover portion going to charity. Suddenly, charity receives funds I would not otherwise earmark for that purpose. So, in fact, nonprofits might find themselves benefiting from this measure.

I am not a wealthy person. I probably don’t even rate being termed “well off.” Planned giving has never been a topic to concern me personally. With a charitable remainder trust for pets, this might change.

As for potential abuses Ms. MacNab mentions: It can be established that animals protected by these trusts be micro-chipped, thus preventing “switching” animals upon the death of one. The life span of different species and different breeds has already been established. Anyone who knows anything about animals knows the distinct difference in the life span of a mastiff versus a dachshund versus a mouse. The age of pets is estimated daily by shelters and veterinarians. Do the terms of a charitable trust to benefit a human during his or her life result in people being kept alive well beyond the point when most of us would have shown more compassion? If so, then this might well be the case for the nonhuman, also. This is not a fault of a trust, but a result of the greed of humans. The other side of this coin is that many pets may receive much better care. With any number of standard measures used to care for a pet after the guardian’s death, the caretaker often benefits when the pet dies. If a trust is established that pays only while the pet is alive and well, an incentive is created for the pet’s protection.

Sandy Clabaugh
Development Director
Concord-Merrimack County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Concord, N.H.