What's in a name?

Since the mid-nineties, individual animal lovers and influential groups have argued the issue whether or not companion animals are personal property or we are their guardians. Both sides make compelling points.

The American Kennel Club states that the “use of the term ‘guardian’ eliminates the legal rights and obligations that individuals have as owners to keep, nurture and protect their animals…Contrary to proponents’ statements, referring to owners as ‘guardian’ does nothing to promote humane treatment of animals. You cannot force people to assume more responsibility by changing a label, you must educate them instead.”

Animal Awareness has observed, “People own things...We do not own living, breathing, feeling beings. Inanimate objects can be owned, they have no rights because they don't need them! A person can…leave their car outside all day in the heat because they own it; it has no needs…”

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance expresses a concern that “animal rights groups seek the end to all breeding of animals. Their stated ultimate goal is NO USE OF ANIMALS BY MAN -- not for food, fiber, medical research nor even as pets.”

Bob Vella, host of Pet Talk America, stated “Changing the term Pet Owner to Pet Guardian is a dangerous ploy to remove the rights of pet owners, just look who is behind this movement. An Animal Rights group. But changing the name to a more Politically Correct term can have future negative ramifications.”

A debate is being waged by well-respected groups; each claiming the other has a hidden agenda and each insisting they offer the best alternative to protect our best friends, companion animals! As this debate unfolds and we grapple with issues to protect our companion animals, it is imperative we read the fine print.

I won’t reduce the value of my dog or cat family member’s life to that of an inanimate object, and I want to be able to put a leash on my dog to keep her from getting hit by a car. I want to be able to spay and neuter my furry family members. These values may seem contradictory to some leading spokespersons who are offering excellent ideas that should be considered.

Before we start passing and changing laws to decide if companion animals are personal property or we are their guardians, I believe our first step should be ending the killing of all healthy dogs and cats. With collaboration and cooperation, animals can be moved from less densely populated areas to urban areas where there are more available homes. We must take responsibility for the lives with whom we share the world. Putting healthy animals to death is an unacceptable management tool.

There is no immediate fix. It will require creativity and hard work. We can start by taking reasonable measures, like providing spay/neuter vouchers to people whose animals really need them and educating people why they should use them. We could even provide transportation to get those animals to the clinics.

There is a lot of work we can do for the animals while others debate the importance of What’s In A Name.

 
Founded in 1965, Pets In Need receives no federal, state or local government support.

Published in the San Mateo County Times, December 14, 2002