OWNERSHIP – A DIRTY WORD?
Own (vb) possess; to have legal title to
Guardian (n) one who guards; custodian; one having the care of the person or property of another
Currently there is a movement underway in parts of the United States to change the word, owner, to guardian. If you doubt this, please go to the Internet (if you are computer friendly) and type in the words "dog guardianship". There is plenty of information for you to read.
But isn't this really just semantics, what impact does this have on you as a breeder, owner, exhibitor, hunter or performance event competitor? Right now no one is sure because organizations like the GCC are trying to fight this movement. But think about it. What happens to you if the "guardianship" concept becomes law? Does that mean you can’t buy or sell your dogs? Does this mean you have to interview people who might buy your dogs and then if they don’t work out, or decide they tire of the idea of a dog, the animal gets returned to you? What if the dog has not been taken care of properly? Who is liable? What type of contract would you have to have in order to “place” a dog in guardianship? And if you are a breeder, do you really own the dog or are you just the “guardian”? What happens if you decide that your dog is too sick and suffering too much to force them to continue living in pain? Do you have to go to court for an order permitting euthanasia? After all, the dog isn't your property any more.
Let's not even begin to address puppies and dogs that are deserted. Will a court have to decide who gets "guardianship" of them?
The American Kennel Club believes that the term “owner” places responsibility on people for the care and actions of their dogs, while the term “guardian” does just the opposite by eliminating the rights and obligations that humans have as owners; to keep, nurture and protect their animals.
An international, California-based animal advocacy organization called In Defense of Animals has made the following statement: "It is the policy of In Defense of Animals to no longer use language that accepts the current concept of animals as property, commodities and/or things. Rather than refer to ourselves or others as "owners" of animals, we now refer to ourselves and others as 'guardians' of our animal friends and to animals as 'he' or 'she' rather than 'it'. Guardians do not buy or sell animals, instead they rescue and adopt." (emphasis added)
Another well known, international group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has long been on record for its position on ownership: "You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV," -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990. (emphasis added)
What a concept, all animals to live in the wild. The obvious impact would be packs of roving, starving carnivores, ridden with disease such as rabies, preying on anyone and anything not able to fight them off.
"The animal rights agenda is against all animal use ... It seeks to ban all animal ownership or use, no matter how humane... No zoos, aquariums, circuses, rodeos, horse racing, carriage rides, or animal actors in films. No [meat, chicken, fish,] butter, cheese, yogurt, ice cream. No meat-byproducts in your dog or cat food--not that it makes any difference, because there would be no pets, not even seeing eye dogs." AnimalScam, Kathleen Marquardt, 1993. (emphasis added) If animal "guardianship" had been the ruling concept on 9/11, there would have been no rescue dogs at the World Trade Center.
There is an old axiom that those who sit on their rights lose them.
Folks, this is no laughing matter and it's not limited to one geographic area loaded with extremists. Once this “guardian” idea catches on, it could spread like wildfire. GCC will keep a watchful eye to make sure this does not get a foothold in Georgia, but the Coalition can't do it all. Ultimately, it will be up to every individual person who owns an animal, whether it be a goldfish, dog, cat, horse, cow, chicken or any other animal to individually to demand that their elected representatives remember who put them in office and vote the interests of their constituents rather than bowing to the wishes of a tiny special interest group, however vocal. The Coalition will help to warn voters of the danger but the voters will have to act to protect their rights.