Animal Guardianship Vs. Ownership
crossposted from personal blog
In response and support of Wendt Worth's Corgis
Animal Guardianship:
Animal Guardianship is a campagin to change the term to describe pet owners from "owner" to "guardian".
On the surface it just looks like an attempt to make pet ownership feel more fuzzy and PC. You don't own your dog! You care for your dog, like a child or an elderly adult. There's more to this change than terminology, though.
The idea is that if people think of their dog as their "ward" and not as their "possession" they will be forced to treat them better, and will not relinquish their dogs to shelters as readily. There is really no reason that people should think this, because if someone is so incosiderate of another life, it's doubtful they'd be considerate of pretty words. Unfortunately, there are no laws that will make people treat their animals right or be mindful of how their actions effect others. There are, however, already laws against animal cruelty
Now, it doesn't matter to me if people want to feel all touchy-queery about their pets and treat them like their children and all that. I'm sure there are more harmful things that they could be doing, so that's not my problem with this shift.
My problem with this is that this terminology carries legal consequences that are more than feeling a little more politically correct about your dog ownership. Usually when you think of Guardian you're a guardian of a person, or of a minor.
If you are your dogs owner; your dog is your property so;
Your dog is your property.
Your dog is covered by insurance, as property.
Your dog cannot be taken without due cause.
You are responsible for your dog's actions.
You are able to transfer ownership or sell your dog at any time.
If you are your dog's guardian;
You may not be able to make medical decisions for your dog, if they are construed by others not to be in the animal's best interest. (i.e. euthenasia)
You could be responsible for all of your animal's financial obligations. These obligations may be decided by a third party, such as a vet. If treatment is too costly for the Guardian, they could be in trouble.
Veterinary records could be made public without consent of the Guardian.
An animal could be given legal rights, and a third party could file a lawsuit against the guardian on behalf of the animal.
Veterinarians may report Guardians who don't act in the best interest of the animal.
If Guardianship is terminated or if someone is seen as an unsuitable Guardian, animals (before personal property) may be taking without compensation.
I can certainly see, if people are made Guardians of their animals and not Owners, many people abandoning their pets because they know that if they take them to the vet, they'll be forced to pay for medical treatment that they cannot afford. Even the milder risk of people waiting to get treatment because they're afraid of what they might get forced to pay for, is troubling.
I'm kind of confused by what people are trying to accomplish with this. If the real intent is to protect your animals, there's already animal welfare legislation to do that. If they are trying to set up the framework for animal rights or breeding restrictions... well, I don't think I'm down with that.
Read more:
American Veterinary Medical Association
Oregon Veterinary Medical Association
NAIA
International Association of Canine Professionals
Organizations that Support Animal Guardianship(so that you can make an educated choice when donating):
A.R.F.
A.A.F.
Noah's Ark Animal Foundation
Earth Island Institute
Habitat for Wildlife
The Association for Veterinarians for Animal Rights
SHARK
Houston Animal Rights Team
Pet-Abuse
In response and support of Wendt Worth's Corgis
Animal Guardianship:
Animal Guardianship is a campagin to change the term to describe pet owners from "owner" to "guardian".
On the surface it just looks like an attempt to make pet ownership feel more fuzzy and PC. You don't own your dog! You care for your dog, like a child or an elderly adult. There's more to this change than terminology, though.
The idea is that if people think of their dog as their "ward" and not as their "possession" they will be forced to treat them better, and will not relinquish their dogs to shelters as readily. There is really no reason that people should think this, because if someone is so incosiderate of another life, it's doubtful they'd be considerate of pretty words. Unfortunately, there are no laws that will make people treat their animals right or be mindful of how their actions effect others. There are, however, already laws against animal cruelty
Now, it doesn't matter to me if people want to feel all touchy-queery about their pets and treat them like their children and all that. I'm sure there are more harmful things that they could be doing, so that's not my problem with this shift.
My problem with this is that this terminology carries legal consequences that are more than feeling a little more politically correct about your dog ownership. Usually when you think of Guardian you're a guardian of a person, or of a minor.
If you are your dogs owner; your dog is your property so;
Your dog is your property.
Your dog is covered by insurance, as property.
Your dog cannot be taken without due cause.
You are responsible for your dog's actions.
You are able to transfer ownership or sell your dog at any time.
If you are your dog's guardian;
You may not be able to make medical decisions for your dog, if they are construed by others not to be in the animal's best interest. (i.e. euthenasia)
You could be responsible for all of your animal's financial obligations. These obligations may be decided by a third party, such as a vet. If treatment is too costly for the Guardian, they could be in trouble.
Veterinary records could be made public without consent of the Guardian.
An animal could be given legal rights, and a third party could file a lawsuit against the guardian on behalf of the animal.
Veterinarians may report Guardians who don't act in the best interest of the animal.
If Guardianship is terminated or if someone is seen as an unsuitable Guardian, animals (before personal property) may be taking without compensation.
I can certainly see, if people are made Guardians of their animals and not Owners, many people abandoning their pets because they know that if they take them to the vet, they'll be forced to pay for medical treatment that they cannot afford. Even the milder risk of people waiting to get treatment because they're afraid of what they might get forced to pay for, is troubling.
I'm kind of confused by what people are trying to accomplish with this. If the real intent is to protect your animals, there's already animal welfare legislation to do that. If they are trying to set up the framework for animal rights or breeding restrictions... well, I don't think I'm down with that.
Read more:
American Veterinary Medical Association
Oregon Veterinary Medical Association
NAIA
International Association of Canine Professionals
Organizations that Support Animal Guardianship(so that you can make an educated choice when donating):
A.R.F.
A.A.F.
Noah's Ark Animal Foundation
Earth Island Institute
Habitat for Wildlife
The Association for Veterinarians for Animal Rights
SHARK
Houston Animal Rights Team
Pet-Abuse
Comment
-
Comment by Parker on November 3, 2008 at 10:03pm
-
Sarah C., congrats on studying to be a social worker. It's a challenging and rewarding field and we need more social worker!
And I understand that Queer has other meanings, but using a word like that in the way that you used it caught me off gaurd. Secondly, I recently worked long and hard with a family in therapy who were struggling because the kiddo has two moms and is being called "queer" at school on a daily basis. I get now that you meant "touchy-wierd" with their pets, but it sounded as if you were replacing the phrase "touchy-feely" with "touchy-queer"....you can see how that might be misconstrued.
Anyhoodle. Sorry to be so off-topic.
-
Comment by Sarah C. on November 3, 2008 at 7:46pm
-
QUEER is a word that means a thing, as all words do, but has come to mean many different things to many different people its original meaning is to mean wierd or odd or just off of normal. touchy-queery means, then, touchy-strange, evincing a feeling of familial oddness.
And I did write it. I meant no offense, since i've been called a bit queer myself, i just forget that my way of saying things means different things to different people.
I'm studying to be a social worker. Wish me luck. ;)
-
-
"Now, it doesn't matter to me if people want to feel all touchy-queery about their pets and treat them like their children and all that." Okay is this a qoute from another article or what? I'm confused and offended...Saying "touchy-queery" is totally offensive. I'm sure what the article is saying is somewhat true on the whole and I get that they are opposing the term Gaurdianship of animals...but Seriously, "touchy-queery" is such a bigoted statement. You wouldn't say "touchy-faggy" or "touchy-whitey". Just puts a bad taste in my mouth. That's just off putting to me. Sarah C., I'm not sure if you wrote this yourself or not, so I'm sorry if I just jumped you about it, but I'm a social worker and that language is just offensive.
Okay sorry to high-jack the post. Everyone, as you were... :)
-
-
I highly reccomend the article by the AVMA linked in the post too. It has a clear bullet list of rights one would lose to Animal Guardianship.
-
Comment by Worthington Natalia on November 3, 2008 at 6:22pm
-
People tend to take better care of things they 'own'.
-
Comment by Carmen on November 3, 2008 at 6:19pm
-
Very well written!
-
-
smells like socialism to me......and I know what socialism is, trust me:)
Rescue Store
Stay Connected
FDA Recall
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recall
Groups
We support...
Badge
© 2024 Created by Sam Tsang.
Powered by
You need to be a member of MyCorgi.com to add comments!
Join MyCorgi.com