Owners No More: County May Call People 'Pet Guardians'

[The Straight Story]

Owners No More: County May Call People 'Pet Guardians'

OSTED: 8:59 am EDT April 25, 2006

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Owning pets could become a thing of the past in Silicon Valley.

No, cats and dogs aren't being banished from the California high-tech haven. But Santa Clara County, Calif., officials are considering an upgrade in the status of pet owners.

The animal lovers would be pet guardians, not merely owners. The county Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on the issue Tuesday.

Officials saying being called a pet guardian should get people to be more responsible with their furry friends. The measure would change all references in county legal documents, but would not change any of the owners' responsibilities.

http://www.local6.com/family/8982192/detail.html

[Taxloss]

1. Ooooh, this discussion should be fun to watch.

:popcorn:

[The Straight Story]

4. I guess I guard my fish now

I am planning on installing a razor wire fence and a .50 BMG rifle in a turret.

[Igel]

5. And if they jump out, instant sashimi. n/t

[Taxloss]

7. If they jump out, they are opting to leave your care.

You don't own them. Run free, little fishy! Oh, it's dead.

[MissB]

9. bwahahahaha

:thumbsup: Funniest post I've seen on DU all day.

Thank you.

[Jack from Charlotte]

28. My animal companion prefers to be called a Canine-American so....

I guess he can call me his guardian if he wishes. Mostly he just says....woof.

[wryter2000]

2. Purchase a life, folks

Believe me, my snakes don't care whether or not I own them, as long as the dead mice appear regularly.

[Cleita]

3. Good for Santa Clara.

One of the marks of a higher civilization is how humans treat other species.

[Sugar Smack]

6. I'm my cat's "mamma" and she's my "baby".

;)

[Jack from Charlotte]

29. PLEASE don't say cat. Use Feline-American. (nt)

*

[mike_c]

8. they've got this all wrong....

The cats own me.

[MissB]

10. Exactly.

[TheLeftyMom]

15. Our guinea pig thinks he runs our house

We're just there to provide clean pine shavings and food daily.

Oh and water with crushed ice.:silly:

It's a nice thought for this governmental body to have, but aren't there more important things to do than just change the 'name' of things? If they are looking for something in the realm of pet ownership, etc., how about enacting tougher laws on people who abuse animals or do things like blowing up frogs?

[Xeric]

11. Owner, guardian...whatever

I'm not sure I get how this will make people more responsible. Assholes that abuse their pets won't change because of this. Seems like just semantics to me. Maybe if you fine abusers more that would make a difference.

I think of my 2 cats as tiny, furry retarded people with sharp knives. I figure if I don't piss them off, they won't piss me off. Seems to work.

[Lolivia]

18. There are real implications of this

The implications are less about how an owner (or guardian, I guess) treats her own pets, but about an owner's recourse when other people mistreat them.

If pets are property, and someone tortures and kills (or steals, or a veternarian mistreats) your dog, you can usually only recover for the value (i.e. purchase price) of the pet. There are animal cruelty laws - but those don't have private rights of action, and if the city/county/state doesn't choose to bring a case, the owner is SOL. Even if they do prosecute - the owner is not compensated in any way. Redefining the property status of pets means owners can bring suits for damages if someone else maims/kills/steals/whatever their dog. This means "guardians" could seek compensatory and puntitive damages. It may also open the door for veternary malpractice suits.

There are arguments for and against allowing this, whether it's necesarry or a good idea - but it is definitely more than semantics. Redefining the property status of a pet has real world legal implications.

[Xeric]

21. Okay that makes sense

Wish the article went into the legal ramifications. Now my question would be has this been tested in any court? If so, did it hold up?

[Lolivia]

23. Good question

I do not know off-hand if this has actually been tested. What I posted before were just the legal arguments and theorizing that I have heard on this subject. If I find anything I'll post it.

[theboss]

12. I own my cats

Being their guardian would imply that someday they could become independent and make their own decisions.

[slackmaster]

14. If you are actually their guardian you should get a tax exemption

I demand mine.

I have three cats a dog, an aquatic turtle, and a desert tortoise.

Where is the justice?

[slackmaster]

13. Priorities are all wrong here

They should be legalizing ferrets, and working toward full and unconditional adoption of the Metric System.

[Arkansas Granny]

16. Well, I don't see anything like this happening anytime soon where

I live, but it wouldn't affect me much anyway. My pets know that they own ME, not the other way around.

Seriously, do they think that changing the name will really make people more responsible? :shrug:

[The Stranger]

17. The revulsion that often arises from animal rights of this sort and the

fear that animals are being made "equal" to humans always calls to mind the Extreme Right's reaction to things like gay marriage.

It sounds something like, "What? THEY are going to have rights TOO? What about MY RIGHTS?"

As if one's being bestowed rights somehow detracts from those of another, or as if there was a limited quantity of rights or respect in the world.

[mark11727]

19. Behold --- Maxie the Wonderdog, She Who Must Be Obeyed

Bow Down to Me.

[Redstone]

20. And Californians wonder why we make fun of them.

Don't those government people out there have ANYTHING more important to do?

Redstone

[RebelOne]

22. Well, I don't own my dog anyway. She owns me.

She is a spoiled rotten Rottweiler.

[BattyDem]

24. LOL ... same here

My poodle owns me completely! I often tell people that it's HIS house ... but he's nice enough to let me live with him. :P

[Hidden Stillness]

25. I Like It

This is similar to the trend of the past couple of decades, to call people's pets "companion animals" instead. I like it and hope they understand why the terms are being changed, to get with the modern attitude of respect for and understanding of the animal. There are other changes of this type--dog training books now are more geared toward thinking of yourself as the dog's Mom, or leader of the pack etc., trying to relate to thier understanding of things, rather than punishing them and demanding they always adjust to us, etc. The new ways work better. Also, the whole basis of archaic laws against animal cruelaty is that the animal is "property," and it is a crime against "property." As some communities get up to date, and rethink the laws so that they are against the cruel, violent, or neglect-of-care act itself, and that the animal is the primary victim, the penalties will finally start to happen (not just fines), and there will be an elevated attitude. No one who has any love for animals at all will be hurt by this, only the "I own it, I can do whatever I want to it" types will be, as the more modern respect and compassion for animals spreads.

[warrens]

26. Embarassing

Stupid PC crap.

[AlienGirl]

27. See the posts above regarding animal cruelty as property crime

This is about establishing a way to give pet owners legal recourse against people who mistreat or steal their animals. It's a good idea, IMO; the legal concept of animals as property no different from a chair or a lamp needs to be updated.

Tucker

[High Plains]

30. Whatever. n/t