The Republican-sponsored measure, which has drawn national attention, would allow people to sue veterinarians and animal abusers and seek damages for "loss of companionship" up to $100,000.

Colorado has more than 2 million dogs and cats in 1.6 million households and is viewed as one of the nation's pet-friendliest states.

Under current law, they are classified as property and pet owners can seek only "fair market value" in a lawsuit.

But the proposed law would recognize the emotional suffering that occurs at the death or injury of a pet, laying the foundation for elevating their status to companions, supporters say.

"It would be the first of its kind in the nation," said lawyer Josh Pazour, who recently conducted a nationwide review of laws relating to companion animals in preparation for the bill's introduction.

Veterinarians are adamantly opposed to the measure, which they say will increase the cost of veterinary medical care.

"Veterinarians will have to pass on to consumers the increased costs of doing businesses, including time spent responding to frivolous lawsuits and additional diagnostic tests that will now be required to practice defensive medicine," the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association said in a statement to its members.

Colorado is among 14 states with a law recognizing dogs and cats as beneficiaries and allowing people to leave money and other property to their pets, which is more than what most other states have. Supporters of the new proposal say the current trust law supports the underlying legal claim of House Bill 1260 that some pet animals are more than property.

"If you can leave something to your animal, they're obviously a status beyond property," said Rep. Mark Cloer, R-Colorado Springs, the chief House sponsor of the measure. "You don't leave your assets to your color television."

Retired financial planner Jim Schwartz of Centennial is the primary force behind the measure. His 11-year-old poodle Moolah had to be euthanized after falling ill following her annual rabies vaccination.

"This is watershed, this is landmark legislation," said Schwartz, who started Next-To-Kin Foundation to advocate for dogs, cats and their owners and eliminate unnecessary vaccinations. "They've gone from the backyard to the bedroom. In this legislation, we're recognizing what is, not what should be."

In addition to Cloer, Senate President John Andrews, R-Centennial, and Senate President Pro Tem Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville, are sponsoring the legislation. The three sponsors are owners or former owners of dogs and cats.

"Anybody that would equate an animal that lives with you at home to property, seems to me that's heartless and clueless," said Andrews, noting he once had three Brittany spaniels, J.R., Dolly and Mustache, who have gone to the great fire hydrant in the sky after full lives. "You can't possibly equate them."

Andrews admits he voted against legislation in the past two years that increased criminal penalties for animal cruelty. But he said the current proposal is different.

"When you have a chance to hold the veterinary profession to a higher ethical standard in the courts, it is different from criminalizing things," he said.

Chlouber is the chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate.

"Anybody that would consider their pets property, I don't think they deserve to have them," said Chlouber, who is grieving the loss of his two Labradors last year.

The bill would prohibit veterinarians from administering any vaccine more frequently than recommended by experts.

The legislation is expected to be debated soon in the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee, where it could face a tough challenge from Republicans who traditionally oppose legislation that would increase the ability of consumers to bring lawsuits.

"It's kind of novel to have Republicans doing pain-and-suffering kinds of things," said Democratic Sen. Doug Linkhart of Denver. "They don't usually support those kinds of bills. They usually try to limit lawsuits. ... Democrats are the ones often on the side of consumers' ability to sue."

Gov. Bill Owens declined to say whether he would sign such legislation if it reaches his desk, but added with a laugh, "Hannah is very much in favor of House Bill 1260."

Hannah is the governor's 7-year-old springer spaniel.

Sen. Steve Johnson, a licensed veterinarian from Fort Collins, said he doubts the bill will survive House scrutiny. But if it does, he said, he will oppose it in the Senate.

"If you elevate their status, it will complicate the client-veterinarian relationship," he said. "If the pet is elevated, do I then question the owner (about their decisions)? It's now a three-way relationship."

Johnson said he believes that toughening criminal penalties for animal cruelty is a better way to go.

Andrews admits he is not keen on lawsuits but will amend the legislation in the Senate to cap the allowable damages at under $100,000.

Although only about 10 pet-related cases nationwide in the past five years have been awarded emotional damages, more judges are taking the claims seriously, according to the American Animal Hospital Association.

Pazour said that fears of large damage awards are unfounded. Nationwide, few have exceeded $20,000, he said.

The Colorado bill also requires that lawsuits first go to arbitration before proceeding to the courts.

Andrews said he hopes the legislation passes.

"This bill makes sense to me. It's a reasonable opportunity to recover damages from veterinary malpractice. It's sort of in memory of J.R., Dolly and Mustache and how much they meant, especially to our children growing up," Andrews said.