Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
I like guardian. I think it more specifically defines our relationship. I don't feel that I 'own' Molly so much as I love, protect and care for her. Living in the Bay Area as I do, I'm pleased to see more localities taking this step. It may seem silly but language is important and if "guardian" makes someone take their role more seriously, which I think we all agree would be a good thing, then it's worth the change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,355 Posts
we're partners....we watch out for each other....but mostly i do call them my kids (and there have been people that have really jumped on me for that)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,193 Posts
I want to be an "owner" because I always want to be able to make all medical and training decisions for my dog. While I like the sound of guardian and it does better describe how I feel about my dogs, I want absolute control. I want to be able to decide about pain management, euthanasia, feeding, training... With the word "guardian," I worry that it becomes easier for an outside force, like city regulations, to decide how I should live with my dog.

Could be misplaced paranoia on my part. I've been guilty of that before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
I consider a pet a best friend for life, but in diezel's case i like to consider myself his mom/guardian. I don't like to think i OWN him
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
I want to be an "owner" because I always want to be able to make all medical and training decisions for my dog. While I like the sound of guardian and it does better describe how I feel about my dogs, I want absolute control. I want to be able to decide about pain management, euthanasia, feeding, training... With the word "guardian," I worry that it becomes easier for an outside force, like city regulations, to decide how I should live with my dog.
I agree with all of this, especially the bold part.
My animals are my property and therefore I own them. "Guardian" is a nice, warm, and fuzzy term but it makes me think of "foster." If you are a dog foster you are taking care of the dog but it is not yours. The term "owner" is pretty definitive. This doesn't mean that I love my dogs any less. They are both my "babies" - in a non creepy sense and my doberman is one of my best friends, I feel. I will always care for them and, yes, guard them.. Still, they are my property and legally I own them - I will always call myself an owner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
I want to be an "owner" because I always want to be able to make all medical and training decisions for my dog. While I like the sound of guardian and it does better describe how I feel about my dogs, I want absolute control. I want to be able to decide about pain management, euthanasia, feeding, training... With the word "guardian," I worry that it becomes easier for an outside force, like city regulations, to decide how I should live with my dog.

Could be misplaced paranoia on my part. I've been guilty of that before.

I agree completely.
like Patchwork said, 'guardian' may very well be a better sounding word than 'owner' but in the eyes of the law it makes a big difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
I want to be an "owner" because I always want to be able to make all medical and training decisions for my dog. While I like the sound of guardian and it does better describe how I feel about my dogs, I want absolute control. I want to be able to decide about pain management, euthanasia, feeding, training... With the word "guardian," I worry that it becomes easier for an outside force, like city regulations, to decide how I should live with my dog.

Could be misplaced paranoia on my part. I've been guilty of that before.
Couldn't agree more with this statement. The day we give up our right to "Own" dogs and instead become their "Guardians" is the day we are no longer allowed to train them the way we want, and are not allowed to put them to sleep when they are clearly suffering and in awful pain, along with a list of other things.

It might make you feel happy to call yourself your dog's "Guardian" but think of the implications of that word before you do. Imagine your dog being taken away from you because you didn't want to put it in some special government regulated obedience class.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,761 Posts
I agree completely.
like Patchwork said, 'guardian' may very well be a better sounding word than 'owner' but in the eyes of the law it makes a big difference.
Does it really?

Personally I find this argument doesn't hold up very well. It would imply there are laws in place that prohibit the killing of sick, dying, or wounded animals. There aren't such laws that I know of, so how can that difference be "big" or exist at all? The laws are written to define neglect and suffering, and in this regard, our animals are NOT ours to do as we see fit - this is the implication of "owner." Guardian is a more accurate definition in terms of the relationship, and the laws don't change as a result of this accuracy. All your legal rights are still in place, and so too the penalties if you decide to abuse your dog. At the end of the day you're still RESPONSIBLE for your pet. You could change it to "owned by dog", really, it doesn't change your responsibility as far as the law is concerned. So why do it at all? Education. When talking about our pet's care, a guardian reference makes it more clear where are humanity resides - owner, not so much when educating others. Likely not represented here, but there are a lot of people who do treat their animals like furniture. They are more than this, and deserve better than that. But I'm preaching to the choir. Nevertheless, the argument that your rights will be lost from the name change, are simply unfounded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,765 Posts
I'm sure all the alarmists will say "OMG!!1!1!, crazy animal rightists conspiracy!", but I can see another reason for a city to write the ordinances that way. The same reason they put "guardian" instead of "parent" for children--not everyone who has custody of a child is a parent. In that same way, not everyone with custody of a dog is the owner. How many people will try to weasel out of a loose dog ticket by saying that the dog isn't theirs, that the dog belongs to their son who's living somewhere else, see here's the rabies certificate with his name on it? If they put "guardian", anybody who's looking after the dog can be held legally responsible, not just the legal owner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
Couldn't agree more with this statement. The day we give up our right to "Own" dogs and instead become their "Guardians" is the day we are no longer allowed to train them the way we want, and are not allowed to put them to sleep when they are clearly suffering and in awful pain, along with a list of other things.

It might make you feel happy to call yourself your dog's "Guardian" but think of the implications of that word before you do. Imagine your dog being taken away from you because you didn't want to put it in some special government regulated obedience class.
It's an interesting argument and one I hadn't really considered. I can understand the concern but I still like guardian. Living in the Bay Area where a lot of this is coming from, I have not heard of one instance of the gov't stepping in to control a guardian's, or owner's if you prefer, right to make all decisions for their pet.

The change from owner to guardian does nothing to change the legal responsibility that the owner/guardian has for the pet or their right to make all decisions regarding the pet. Given how overcrowded shelters are, I just can't see the state seizing people's pets or insisting on a particular training method.

I think the overarching intent is less about warm fuzzies and more to make people more aware of how deep the responsibility we have to our pets is. Ownership implies 'object' to many people and objects are disposable We don't "own" our kids but we are their legal guardians. I think it's the same kind of thing here. However, like I said, I do understand and respect that other people prefer the term 'owner.'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
Dogs are not pets..
They are family members and should have social security numbers.
After just spending over $1000 in vet bills yesterday.......I sure wish I could put my dogs on my health insurance plan.....or at least be able to include vet expenses as an FSA expense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21054460/richmonds-pet-lovers-go-from-owners-guardians

Another city has changed from pet owner to pet guardian.

Regarding your relationship to your dog, what are you? A dog owner? Dog Guardian? Dog mom/dad?
Legally, I am very proudly my dogs' "owner". It gives me the right to make decisions for them that come from someone who cares about them and loves them rather than an impersona government entity. As to the dogs, I don't think they have a concept of whether or not they are owned, and are perfectly fine with it as long a dinner doesn't come late.l
 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
Top