This is why I am AGAINST "Guardianship"

[Gina Heitz <brier@oregonsbest.com>]

Hi Guys,

Thought I would pass this on.  While sure there are some rights I
would like to see our pet's have I think this guardianship thing is going
a way bit to far...  Ramifications could be very costly: 


Pets or Furpeople? Owners or Guardians?
Americans LOVE our pets. To be more specific, the American Pet
Products Manufacturers Association says that 63.4 million households of
Americans love 141 million dogs and cats (plus untold numbers of other
sundry critters normally kept as pets). This love translates to an
estimated $31 Billion dollars in 2003 to keep them fed, vetted, trained,
groomed, and just generally pampered. All of these numbers are steadily
climbing. 
Listen in at a vet's office or a grooming parlor or a dog park. The pets
are often described as "my children," "my
companions," "fur persons," "my four-legged
babies," and many other designations that reflect how deeply the pet
has become a part of family life. Because of this attitude, a movement to
push the envelope has taken root, and threatens to undermine pet owners'
rights and the well-being of the nation's pets. This movement is a giant
Trojan horse rolling across the states, stopping in local Council
chambers and in state legislatures. 
Does language mean kindness or confusion? 
The Trojan horse is taking on one of several different guises this
year. The most prevalent, and seemingly innocuous, is to either change
the term "pet owner" to "pet guardian" in all law in
a jurisdiction, or to add it and call it interchangeable. This winter San
Francisco became the only major city to join a handful of smaller cities,
including West Hollywood and Berkeley, CA, Boulder, CO and others to
adopt this change. The state of Rhode Island placed the "pet
guardian" terminology into state law last year. 
Thousands of pet owners have been lulled by supporters of this campaign
into believing that nothing of significance was changed. Their assertion
is that "guardian" is a benign sounding word that will improve
society's treatment of animals and end their exploitation and abuse.
However, this year the belly of the Trojan horse has opened, and the real
intent is becoming clear. That intent is that ownership of animals should
be ended, and that pets and other animals, including wildlife and food
animals, be awarded the same legal protection that human children have.
Some animal lovers might find this idea appealing until the real
ramifications of such a move are known. Consider bills introduced in the
early days of 2003 in Colorado, Rhode Island and California to begin to
grasp what this "brave new world" might mean to people and
their pets. 
State of Colorado. Following on the heels of the city of Boulder
passing the local ordinance to initiate the use of the term "pet
guardian," the Trojan horse made its way to the state capitol. A
measure, HB 03-1260, sponsored by Colorado State Rep. Mark Cloer would
have allowed people to sue veterinarians and animal abusers and seek
damages for "loss of companionship" up to $100,000. Supporters
said that this would elevate animals to a status greater than that of
property. The bill also would have limited veterinarians from what was
called "over-vaccinating." The bill suffered a firestorm of
criticism in the media, especially from veterinarians who pointed out
that such a measure would put veterinary care out of the financial reach
of most pet owners as increased liability insurance would be recouped.
The bill was also opposed by the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association,
the American Humane Association and the Colorado Federation of Animal
Welfare Agencies, as the ramifications became apparent. Sen. Steve
Johnson said in an interview that it would complicate the
veterinary-client decisions on what is the best care for pets, as it
would create a three-way relationship. In response to the wide-spread
criticism Rep. Cloer killed his own bill. 
State of Rhode Island. As the only state to pass an ordinance
changing pet "owners" to pet "guardians", supporters
of the campaign to remove rights from people and grant them to government
and agencies of government in pet matters, have made their agenda plain
in 2003. A complete rewrite of the state's animal protection and
husbandry law is included in H 5817. As with the withdrawn Colorado bill,
this one would award "non-economic damages" - up to $10,000 in
cases in which the pet dies, as well as punitive damages of not less than
$1,000 and damages for "emotional distress and loss of
companionship." Other provisions of this bill are patterned on
crimes against persons, and the punishment levied is similar. For
instance, there is a provision for "termination of unfit interest in
an animal" for alleged conduct in violation of this act. Since
"animal" is defined as "any nonhuman living
creature", if a person should let his fish die ("aggravated
animal neglect") or kills a mouse ("with malice
aforethought") he is subject to felony animal cruelty. Likewise,
still another provision suggests that if a person should injure a
squirrel or other animal on the highway and fail to "render
aid" or immediately stop to call the police or Animal Control
(possibly causing traffic mishaps), that person could be charged with a
misdemeanor. The motorist must ascertain the extent of the animal's
injuries and give reasonable attention (perhaps getting bitten in the
process). Supporters obviously believe that now that pet owners are
merely "guardians", it should be easier to deprive them of
their pets if some government entity should deem the guardian unfit.
State of California. While Colorado and Rhode Island legislators
appeared to attempt to take giant steps toward this eliminating of legal
distinctions between animals and people, the State of California is
moving incrementally. Senate Bill 225 would also award
"non-economic" damages of up to $4,000 to dog or cat owners
whose pet is killed because of another person's intentional or negligent
actions. Unlike the Colorado bill, this would specifically exempt acts by
"a licensed veterinarian for professional negligence." 
State of California and City of West Hollywood, California. Billed
in a newspaper interview as "a great first step to putting some
teeth" into the change of terminology from pet "owner" to
pet "guardian", Councilman John Duran proposed a ban on
declawing cats. Following a public hearing the city attorney was directed
to explore the possibility of a legal ban, and in the meantime Resolution
No. 03-2827, "condemning the practice of animal declawing ... and
urging the veterinarian community to encourage animal guardians to use
other available techniques intended to avoid declawing." 
Shortly after this municipal action, AB 395 was introduced in
Sacramento, which would ban declawing of both domestic and large
cats statewide. 
Opponents of the declawing bans include CFA and other animal welfare
groups who point out that such a ban might mean that immune compromised
persons, those with bleeding disorders, and some elderly people could no
longer keep pet cats, as well as apartment dwellers whose leases include
a declaw requirement. Certainly the numbers of cats relinquished to
shelters will increase, as well as the associated euthanasia rates.
Veterinary medicine is continuously evolving, with new techniques and
pain alleviation methods. The bottom line, CFA and others say, is that
while declawing can be reduced and should not be performed routinely,
lawmakers have no business interfering in valid medical procedures, the
decision for which should remain between a pet owner and his or her
veterinarian. 
CFA stands firmly behind the concept of property rights as the means by
which we exercise our inherent obligations and freedom of choice that has
marked our human-animal bond throughout time. We believe that pet
ownership is the ideal way to protect our pets and to be called to
account should we not care for them properly.