I am not a pet parent or a guardian: I OWN my dogs. While this may make many readers cringe, the terms ‘pet parent’ and ‘pet guardian’ really make me squirm. As a pet owner, I don’t feel that I’m entitled to push my dogs around, treat them like slaves or tie them to the bumper of my car. In fact, my dogs all live in my house, are allowed on any piece of furniture except my red fabric couches (what was I thinking?), they have their very own kitchen, their own bedroom with a real hand carved daybed to sleep on, with lovely, clean sheets that get laundered twice a week. They drink spring water, they have three freezers full of fresh food taking up much of my garage (much to my husband’s chagrin), I never think to go out for a ride without them (unless the weather is too hot), and I refer to myself as ‘mommie’ when I talk to them (which I do a lot). So why don’t I call myself a pet parent?
On the surface, it might appear to be a nice gesture to claim that I don’t own my dogs, but the fallout from that seemingly innocuous gesture could be very dangerous for our pets. That subtle slip in language opens the door to Animal Rights activists.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, “Animal welfare is the ethical responsibility of ensuring animal well-being. Animal well-being is the condition in which animals experience good health, are able to effectively cope with their environment, and are able to express a diversity of species-typical behaviors. Protecting an animal’s welfare means providing for its physical and mental needs.” Animal Welfare supporters believe in our right to own, use and enjoy animals, but insist on humane standards and treatment for all animals, including proper housing, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment and humane handling.
Animal Rights advocates such as PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals), and HSUS (Humane Society Of The United States), want to end human “exploitation” of animals. Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder and President of PETA, defines their vision: “[A]s the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship—enjoyment at ‘a distance.’” The goal of Animal Rights activists is to put an end to companion animals – and ironically, pet parents are helping them accomplish just that.
“Changing the word from “owner” to “guardian,” “custodian,” “keeper” or any other term does not convey the constitutionally protected rights of “ownership.” Sitting still for such a change is short-sighted and dangerous” says Gail T. Fisher.
“It boils down to our founding document, the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution gives citizens the right to “own” property, and not be deprived of that property without Due Process of Law. “Guardians” have no such rights. If you think that no one cares enough to want to deprive you of your rights of “guardianship,” look no further than the Animal Rights organizations, with PETA at the helm.”
Attorney Genny Wall adds, “If we are ‘Guardians’ rather than owners, then ultimately it will be the State, and not the individual, who has the power to say who will care for the animal, how it will be cared for, where it will reside, what medical treatments it will or will not undergo, and who will make all the other decisions regarding the health, welfare, life and death, or destruction, of that animal. … [H]istory has shown us that when a State is unprepared to carry out a role that has been imposed upon it, [it] delegates that function. So…who will the States delegate to? The former ‘Owners?’ The citizenry at large? Animal Control? USDA? Animal Rights organizations? Local or national rescue organizations? What is the point of making the State the owner of animals if the State is not prepared to perform this function and must delegate this right and duty? It seems pointless to engage in this kind of useless legislation if in fact the goal is to make things better for animals. But as I have said, that is not the real purpose behind the push for ‘Guardianship’ for animals.
“So, what is the true purpose behind this push for using the term ‘Guardian’? From my legal perspective I see that purpose to be to achieve public acceptance for the concept of animal ‘Guardians’ in a general sense, so that the door can be opened to animal rights activists who don’t believe humans should have or keep animals and who seek the removal of animals from their owners on simple, perhaps unfounded, allegations of abuse or neglect.”
Think this is far fetched? A number of municipal governments around the US and in Canada have already revised their city codes, county ordinances and state legislation as they related to companion animals, replacing the term “owner” with “animal guardian.” In addition, animal welfare professionals, such as animal shelter staff and police and humane society officers, were referred to as guardians. The idea was to reflect in official language the role our dogs, cats and other animals play as members of our families and our role in protecting and providing for them.
The first city to make the change was Boulder, Colo., in 2000. But during the next four years, 40 cities and the entire state of Rhode Island adopted the guardian language. Fortunately, there has since been a decline in the number of cities adopting this terminology. But the number of pet owners referring to themselves as “parents’ or “guardians” seems to be increasing.
Here in the US, and in most provinces in Canada, we already have laws in place that force us to vaccinate our pets for rabies. This is done for human safety, certainly not for the safety of our dogs. If we continue to view ourselves as “guardians” however, there may soon be laws in place to “protect” our dogs and our right to refuse it will be stripped away, along with our ownership. Soon, we may be required to vaccinate for other diseases like bordetella or coronavirus. We may be required to feed kibble because somebody else has deemed raw food unfit for the dogs that we used to own. Eventually, there may be no companion dogs left, except the feral dogs rummaging through our trash at night.
I make no apologies when I say I own my dogs. It doesn’t minimize the love I have for them (or the love they have for me) and it doesn’t mean I treat them as property, like my van or my washing machine. I learned the hard way that nobody – nobody – cares for my dogs in the same capacity that I do. Everybody else has an agenda. Vets must look after their practice first and my dogs come second. Pet food manufacturers have learned that it is cheaper to pay lawsuits than to regularly test their foods for contaminants. Pharmaceutical companies care only about the bottom line, not about my dogs. When I say I “own” my dogs, it means I’m taking a stand. It means that I value the ability to make choices for my dogs because they can’t – and that the choices I make will be based on the love, respect and understanding that I share with my dog family. I’m proud to be a dog owner!
“as their God-given right to mistreat, neglect and abuse animals.”. really? SERIOUSLY?
PETA kills over 97% of the animals it takes in each year.. if that is not “mistreatment’ and “abuse” I don’t know what is
By the way we already have laws for all of the three things you mentioned ( which tells me most Peta employees should be in jail). and nothing could be more true than Laura’s last paragraph Google the Alabama 44 for a good example of theft under the color of “deplorable conditions”
as for the author here.. KUDOS you OWN this article..!!!!!!!
As a vet tech, I was a little miffed to see the line about vets having to look after their practice first and pets second. Putting our clients’ animals first is what helps the hospital be successful. (The only exception is when it comes to people paying for treatments, medication, etc. As long as people are willing to work with us on payments, we can manage, but we can’t give stuff away for free. Even when a hospital owns the property, there’s still taxes, utilities, wages, and equipment to worry about. )
Hurray! We need to hear more of this kind of thing. This article should be PASTED on the front door of every pet supply store, every vet office, etc. I have been saying the same thing for years (i am really concerned about forced rules on feeding, vaccinating etc., and the CVMA Kennel Guidelines which the CKC adopted into their Code of Ethics is rampantly full of that “proper care consists of this and not that” kind of stuff. We need to nip this totally in the bud. Thanks for writing that article Dana!
@Debbie Buchanan, trying to marginalize this as a “tea party republican” issue is not going to fly. I’m a liberal Democrat, and I agree 100% with Dana.
One does not need to imagine hypotheticals to see why animal rights extremists are attempting to undermine the legal protections afforded to both animals and their humans by the concept of pet *ownership*. Laws, legislation, and animal control practices that allow pets to be seized from their owners without due process are becoming increasingly common — all of which derive from the hateful agenda of animal rights extremists. There has already been an erosion of animal ownership rights — and sadly, animal welfare has been the first casualty.
It’s useful to share a lesson from history, demonstrating why the concept of animal ownership and animal welfare are inextricably linked. In his book, “Redemption”, attorney and nationally-recognized animal welfare advocate Nathan Winograd writes about 19th century New York City:
“Every year for a ninety-day period beginning in June, the New York City pound opened its doors to round up stray dogs with the help of local boys and men. The payment of fifty cents for each dog brought to the pound led to a profitable trade in dogs. Stray or not, dogs were rounded up off the street, from yards, and from people’s arms, and turned into the pound. At the time, it was not possible to punish the thieves, because many courts hold that dogs were not property under the statistics for larceny.”
- Nathan Winograd, “Redemption”, page 9.
Classifying dogs as property helped put a stop to this horror. It empowered law enforcement authorities to intervene and stop these thieves, and return dogs to their loving homes… their *owners*. History shows that a classification of dogs as property… as owned … increased protections for dogs and improved animal welfare.
Unfortunately, a modern variation of the above horror is happening today with increasing frequency. Animal rights thugs operating under color of the law have seized animals from their owners, accompanied by contrived pity stories about abuses that a gullible news media repeats without question. If the animals are lucky, they become merchandize that is quickly resold (adopted). Sometimes the animals are not so fortunate, and suffer and sometimes die due to the incompetence of their delusional animal rights saviors.
I OWN my dogs. That means that I am responsible for their training and their behavior to people and other dogs. I am responsible for their feeding and health. They live in my house and they go almost everyplace I go. They are my partners in agility, sheep herding, and therapy work at a local assisted living home. I am fortunate enough to have a job where my dogs can take turns going to work with me. I am the ONLY one who makes decisions for these dogs because I OWN them. No dizzy “animal rights” type will break their hearts by deciding they can no longer run agility because it’s “cruel”. No clueless trainer wannabe will turn them into ill mannered curs by stuffing them with cookies when they misbehave. No vegan will feed them plant material instead of the meat protein their bodies demand in order to “stop the killing”. I am not their “guardian”. I am not a “pet parent” (whatever that is). I am not their mommy. (How twisted is that?!) I am their owner. They respect me as their pack leader and our relationship is wonderful. Dana is absolutely right — both PETA and HSUS hate the kind of relationship I have with my dogs. It is imperative that everyone who cares about their dogs take a zero tolerance stand against the “guardian” label.
Seriously, I mean S E R I O U S L Y?
First, this article is very o n e – s i d e d.
To lump all AR activists with PETA & HSUS is a great misnomer. And shame on anyone who does. I am an AR activist and like the author, I make no apologies.
I do NOT support PETA or HSUS.
I am conservative (read Republican) and like the author, I don’t want the government in my and/or my dog’s face. So at least we can agree on something.
That said, I find it interesting and convenient that the author lays out all the pros of the term “owner” (in terms of legal protections and what not) but fails to mention the mentality of MOST people out there (no, not you folks on this board) who equate dog ownership the same way they equate owing their TV. “It’s mine. I can do with it as I want.” Think that is far-fetched. Take a stroll almost anywhere in Los Angeles, and you’ll see firsthand.
Over the years, I had the true misfortune of witnessing these trolls, (and that’s a compliment, dear reader) who firmly believe and use the “owner” title as their God-given right to mistreat, neglect and abuse animals. Again, be very clear, I am not suggesting everyone who calls themselves “owners” mistreat their pets nor am I suggesting everyone who calls themselves “parents/guardians” does right by their animal. Personally, I say to each is their own (no pun intended). But I find your article judgmental and bordering on senseless.
Ironic too that you quote the AVMA which (as I see) is the most blatant threat to our companion animals with their overzealous vaccination protocols and lack of understanding of the role food plays, their toxic “medical treatments”.
I mean, really Dogs Naturally!
I am the proud PARENT of a thirteen year old doberman pinscher. I do not vaccinate him, EVER. He’s been on raw meat diet most of his life and is now on homemade. When he doesn’t feel well, I spend extra time giving him homeopathy, healing herbs, massages, etc.
When my toaster or other belongings “I own” doesn’t work, in the recycling bin they go. Have a nice day.
Great article. I agree and consider myself a pet owner.
They are constantly trying to pass laws that DO intend to take our rights away.
Just one (of many) example. . . how about mandatory microchipping which is being proposed some places. There are several studies indicating that they cause cancer, but making them mandatory takes away my right to decide if they go into my dog or not.
Some of you readers have your head in the sand. Pull it out before it’s too late . PETA and HSUS are no good. Did you ever look on line and see what their board of directors pay checks look like. Have you ever read how many dogs they “rescue” and how many are actually put up for adoption?. (90 percent are put down ) Wake up people before they let the government get involved and our beloved pets will be in the hands of one of them. I would put my girls down myself before they ever left home with either of those heartless organizations
I agree i have 3 dogs and i am their owner never thought i was anything else, only thing i will not share with them is my bed they have comfy beds of their own i put old sleeping bags on my leather furniture so they can spend the night there if they wish. I seem to be the only one who doesnt sleep with my dogs in the bed these days.I work for a vet he is often faced with owners who cant control their dogs the dog will get in bed then growl at one owner if they try to get in, he thinks by sleeping with a dog you are putting it on an equal footing with yourself, he said all owners love their dogs but if they want to get obedience dont sleep with them
This must be in the air right now, because I was thinking about it recently, too. I even wrote a post about it: http://thediydog.com/is-your-dog-a-partner-or-a-child
I don’t consider myself a parent to my dog or cat, more of a partner or friend. I absolutely agree that ‘guardian’ is starting down a dangerous path. Everyone has different ideas about what’s best for their dogs, and different dogs, people and situations call for different feeding, exercise, etc. regimens. No one organization (I won’t even address their agendas) can decide what the ‘right’ food or whatever is for all dogs everywhere. Good post!
To Debbie Buchanan, you might want to read up on PETA’s practices – http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8651
My thoughts exactly Dana, I do not trust our Govt at all. And in legal terms a simple word can mean the difference between who controls what happens to my animals.
The word Guardian reminds me of a law guardian. That person only looks out for the best interest of in this case the child. They do not decide or control what happens to them. They only make sure that others who are able to make those decisions follow thru.
I will always be a pet OWNER and proud of it!!
No matter the words, I am their family and protector. Nice Article.
The Constitution protects people and property. From a post on Facebook (that I happen to agree with): I have a deeper problem with the term “guardian”. A guardian is a person placed to protect the rights and interest of another until that person can independently re-assume their own rights and/or determine their fate. Children lose their guardians when they reach the age of majority and can vote, etc. the disabled have guardians with the explicit assumption that if they recover self-determination they regain their full rights and responsibilities. Animals have no such expectation of achieving or regaining self-determination or assuming the responsibilities thereof. Therefore, animals cannot have guardians; they must have owners who bear the duty and responsibility to provide care, nurture, and sheltering all their lives. The key is owner responsibility, not guardianship.
Dana,
I think it was an excellent article. When I look at my dogs and remove all the anthropomorphasizing we do. Sometimes I have to do that as a dog trainer/behaviorist. I see a much different creature than the one that lives in my heart.
Thank you! I have been saying this for years and am very proud to own my dog.
It saddens me to think that people still buy into the press and commercials of both PETA and HSUS. Neither organization helps shelters, or individual pets but adamantly support both pit bull bans (pushing for the annihilation of several breeds of dogs and mixes there of) and mandatory spay/neuter laws. Both make money, hand over fist, by airing gut-wrenching commercials and use that money to lobby government, not protect animals.
Thankfully, it will take both HSUS and PETA generations to achieve their goals. I can’t imagine my life without a dog in the house. I just hope that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren can enjoy the same experience.
I just want to say that if anyone thinks PETA doesn’t want to take your right to have a companion animal living with you, then they have no idea what PETA’s goals are. PETA thinks it is cruel for you to own, how ever you want to word it, a pet.
The fact of the matter is, dogs are nothing more than wolves who found it an advantage to align themselves with humans. The very existence behind canis familiarus is cohabitation with humanity. It was by choice that dogs co evolved with humans and not out there on their own. Just look at what that has done for them. Has any other species thrived and become a more prominent position on this planet besides humans themselves?
Debbie, the constitution has already been overwhelmed by amendments that do nothing more than further restrict American Choice. We don’t need more laws, but they are constantly upon us. Congress appears to think they are obligated to create law. We need simpler laws that don’t require a month of deliberation to determine meaning. Why is it anyone’s business who someone else is married to? Who cares if a church recognizes it. If you don’t think there are those out there who want to force their way of thinking on you, you need to step back with an open mind and get a better perspective. I’m not a member of the Tea Party, I don’t even like them.
Much ado about nothing.
First, HSUS and PETA are not fungible. HSUS gains nothing (and loses much) if people no longer have companion animals.
Second, the article cites Boulder for the terror of choosing the term “pet guardian” more than 10 years ago, but notes no resulting harm. I found a few articles, including this one, http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr11/110401a.asp which says, in part:
When you look at the actual code sections, it’s very clear,” Lutz said. “They have a statement in there that for all purposes ‘owner’ is ‘guardian’ and ‘guardian’ is ‘owner.’ Essentially, it was a distinction without a difference. It didn’t change anything.” For guardian codes to have any legal power, Lutz said, language is needed to clarify how a pet guardian is different from an owner, but such a distinction isn’t made.”
This sounds like the kind of overly emotional “they’re out to get us” argument often found on animal-use lists. Not what I expected from Dogs Naturally.
just making a correction in my email address, for above article-
Dana,
and the others. sorry but I must respectfully and vehemently disagree!!!
Although, the use of this term, I believe, ultimately, isnt going to change that much either way,, what is most important is the treatment of those animals put in your care.
This sounds like the ranting of a tea party republican,who because , someone may want to take away her right to own her assualt rifle,, that one day it will be the end of the 2nd amendment and the beginning of govt take over of everything.
Give me a break. I am sure that Peta , on many occasions has gone a little to far, in their quests to do good for animals, but to have a goal to stop senseless breeding of companion animals , or at least to start regulating the industry in a way that would help eliminate the senseless enormous over popualtion of unwanted results from these litters would be a good thing. Not all people who “own” dogs are like this and youa all are good examples of this, But there are many , who think that they do own property and can do what they want with these animals , breed, exessively, all the dogs life,, in a cage for ever. these dogs in many cases never see the light of day.. I could on and on,, The US humane Society, although not perfect, does good work, and to dis these amazing things they do for dogs and other animals is horrible- I could site example after example,, No one is gong to take your rights away to feed a certain way or – Its a dangerous trade off you are making , and a sentiment to the others that read your article to compromise the ability to raise funds for these organizations to do good work,,, and to be advocates for these animals that need rescuing from horrible conditions ,,that were put there by people who most likely believe it is their right to treat them any way they want, as they are their property and the ” OWN” THEM
To Debbie Buchanan and Emma,
Perhaps a bit of research into the real agenda and workings of the organizations you defend is in order. Perhaps a few facts would help you to the see the truth.
May I suggest to you that you start with http://PetBreedersAndOwners.com from there you might want to consider http://humanewatch.org Both of these sites contain well researched documentation of both of the organizations you defend.
Excellent article.
Dana,
Excellent article! The title did in fact give me pause, as I struggle with this myself. I believe my animals are unique, individual, special ANIMALS with thoughts and feelings all their own. I do not attempt to anthropomorphize them, I do not treat them as humans or as my children. They are not. They are animals. But the implications of a term like “ownership” in some way, suggests that I consider them nothing more than chattel. Replaceable, with no emotional or personal value. It seems as though that our society as made the term “ownership” as it applies to any living being, a negative, dirty word. I reality, I suppose I do view myself as more of a guardian. Not a parent, but guardian. However, in light of the information you shared in this article, I am certainly rethinking this my own assumptions about the term. I don’t “own” them… but I also don’t think anyone else should either (nor should someone else be making decisions about or for them.) If I have to use a term like “ownership” to ensure that I protect my rights to make decisions related to them (which in tin turn protects their rights, because I believe I am best equipped to make decisions in their best interest, although that too may be somewhat arrogant) then “owner” I am. As you write here, neither do I treat my dogs like my home appliances or my car, they are far more valuable than that (in fact irreplaceable) and the least they deserve is for me to take a stand for them. This quote sums it up: “When I say I “own” my dogs, it means I’m taking a stand. It means that I value the ability to make choices for my dogs because they can’t – and that the choices I make will be based on the love, respect and understanding that I share with my dog family. I’m proud to be a dog owner!” Really fantastic article Dana, thank you!
Thank you for lighting this from a different angle. I have been torn about what title to use, which one is PC, and you have shown not only that ‘owner’ is not a negative term, but also is protective.
Dana,
What a terrific article. You have connected many of the “dots”…points about where, in particular, we are headed with the current political agenda(s), not even the pets we OWN are outside the scope of their ideals.
Rick
Wonderfully said in a concise manner that echoes my own sentiments. What those organizations have done to destroy the health and lives of the animals is appalling and I’m glad to see more and more people becoming aware. Thank you for a well-written article that is easy to share!!
BRAVO!!!!! You said it soooo much better than I could have!
Awesome article, Dana – thank you for posting!