Many people find that Pet Guardian to sound nicer than owner, and give them the warm fuzzies, however these folks generally are not thinking past how, exactly, it sounds. See, ownership brings to mind things like cars, or tvs, or toasters. Inanimate objects that have no ethical connotation with ownership(well, cars do - if you drive a hummer, people think you're a prick who has more money than sense.) Some of these same people prefer to think of their animals as little furry people, their four legged offspring, their "furbabies"(I hate that term, threw up in my mouth a little while typing it). They just don't like to think of animals as objects which humans can own.
So, do you own your animals? Or are you simply their guardian? See, the way I think of it, guardian is something that you are to a minor child - you make the choices for them, you try to guide them and help them become caring, responsible adults. Pets, well, they never become responsible adults. They never really grow. They cannot take responsibility, because they rely completely on their humans for cues and training.
And that's another thing. You don't teach animals, you train them. You provide them with a basis to build behaviours on. Your pet, your "furbaby" will never think independently, they will always merely react. An animal will never think in reasonable, rational terms like humans will, they can never be held responsible for their own actions, for it is your failure in training that causes their negative behaviours.
Do animals really need rights? Do animals need guardians rather than owners, and to be considered non-human persons? For a laugh, let's look at that as a whole. What would happen if animals were granted non-human persons status?
Well, your dog could sue you. It would, in fact, be some greedy lawyer suing you on their behalf, but the fact of the matter is, it would be John Doe v Fluffy in court documents. Fluffy is suing John because Fluffy is demoralized and verbally abused by John's name choice. Fluffy is angry about his name, and he wants money for pain and suffering, and Lawyer Smith has taken the case to represent Fluffy.
Think I'm being a bit silly? Well, I am, kind of.
See, guardians can be sued by their charges. A human can sue their parent or guardian for emancipation, for various reasons that I don't care to research because they don't really apply to this, but one of the reasons is for medical treatment. Now, for humans, this would primarily be for a child who is old enough to understand what is happening to them, and their parents refuse treatment, or choose a treatment option that the child does not agree with. A child can then petition the court, to gain medical emancipation, so they can choose their own treatment options.
So, let's go back to Fluffy. Fluffy is actually a livestock guardian dog who watches over a flock of sheep. He loves his job and does it well, except Fluffy got rammed by the ram during breeding season. His pelvis is broken, shattered in fact, and it will require several thousand dollars in surgery to help him recover, and Fluffy will never be able to resume his job.. John decides that while he loves Fluffy, Fluffy will not be happy during recovery, Fluffy will not be happy with his diminished capacity once he is healed, and Fluffy will have poor quality of life after the surgery and recovery. John decides it is in Fluffy's best interest to euthanize Fluffy rather than have the surgery and force Fluffy to change his lifestyle.
If John is a pet owner, it is his right to euthanize the dog rather than have the surgery and force the dog to go through huge lifestyle changes. In John's mind, it is nothing to do with the cost of the surgery in money, but the cost of the surgery to the dog's lifestyle. He pays the fee to have Fluffy euthanized, and then buries Fluffy near the sheep pasture, where he would lay and watch his flock.
Now, that sounds fine to an average pet owner, does it not? It's a hard choice to make, and it's never completely about money(though sometimes it is, I won't deny it, sometimes you just cannot afford those thousands of dollars to save your pet). John did what was best for the dog, and unfortunately death was the best for that dog in that situation.
How does this pertain to pet guardianship? How does the situation change if John is a pet guardian rather than a pet owner?
Well, John makes the choice to euthanize the dog, however, since he is legally considered a guardian, and not an owner, the vet calls a local animal rights group and lets them know what's happening. The AR group immediately jumps into action, contacting their lawyer and having a lawsuit started on behalf of Fluffy, against John. They are asking for Fluffy's medical emancipation, so Fluffy can have the right to make his own choices(or have another guardian appointed to make those choices). John, because he firmly believes in his choice, opts to fight the charges. He knows that Fluffy is a LGD breed, that his lines have been selectively bred to have those amazing guarding genes. He also knows that Fluffy will not be happy as a house dog, and doesn't take well to strangers, so would be a poor candidate for rehoming. Thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees later, Fluffy is successful in his bid for medical emancipation, and he is given the surgery that he needed(we'll just ignore the fact that these court proceedings would have taken months, during which Fluffy would accumulate massive medical bills, and his pelvis would have healed incorrectly, leaving him permanently crippled).
So... Who pays those medical bills? Is Fluffy still John's dog? What happens if Fluffy is placed in a home and attacks someone, who's liable?
You might think that this is an extreme case, but this is very possible, and VERY LIKELY, should animals be given guardians and non-human persons status.
And as always, I end up back at the Animal Rights issue. How I don't believe that giving animals rights is in their best interest, nor is it even possible - rights imply the ability to take responsibility for one's actions. Animals cannot take responsibility for their actions.
Other things that come to mind... If animals have guardians, who is to blame if a dog goes out and rips the face off a toddler? Any sane, rational person I talk to has said that that is the owner's fault, and that the dog should be euthanized.
Except The Lexus Project.
Now, for those not familiar with TLP, they take animal rights cases to have dogs who attack or kill people released to a rescue to live out the rest of their natural life. For 5 years, they have been negotiating the release of dogs on death row for violent crimes - animals they deem innocent. They seem to blame the humans that are bitten - one page I opened stated "He bit her. She had the nerve to be surprised." She had taken away the dog's food while the dog was eating. If that dog was in a shelter, the dog would have been euthanized for his food aggression(my own dog has been well trained and conditioned that the HUMANS own the food, not him, and anyone can reach into his mouth to fish something out without being bitten). Another blames a cat owner for the cat being outdoors(they claim that the owner was on vacation and left the elderly cat outdoors to "fend for itself", but provide no proof), and state that the cat owner only went against the dogs as a form of revenge. Another involves a husky who routinely killed chickens - the dog owner is blamed. A golden retriever who had fought other dogs while unattended at a beach - the retriever's owner is blamed. A german shepherd attacked a dog and bit the person trying to break up the fight - the rescue AND the foster owner are blamed. A pitbull bit a child - the victim and the victim's father are blamed. Seeing a trend here? Never the dog's fault.
I don't agree with this, at all. Dogs who attack humans are likely to attack again. Dogs who attack other animals are likely to do it again. A vicious dog, a dangerous dog, is a liability to pet owners. I'm not saying I disagree with all that TLP does, however I fully believe that a dog who attacks other animals, who attacks humans, is dangerous and needs euthanizing. With such an "overpopulation" of animals, why save the vicious ones?
Now if that dog does not have an owner, if that dog has a guardian, who's responsible for that bite? Who pays those medical bills? The dog cannot, it doesn't have an income, making it judgement proof. Does the guardian take on that liability? Or can they argue against it, because they don't OWN the dog, the dog should be held responsible for its own actions?
I mean, it just gets sillier from there. If an owner's legal rights as an owner are taken away from them, where does it go? Can any lawyer sue you on behalf of your animal for perceived abuse? Do I need to be worried that someone will sue me on my dog's behalf because I threw snowballs at him, or because I make him go out in the snow? Because I don't give him kibbles someone deems adequate? How about if someone lets their pet become fat, are they going to have to be anxiously awaiting those summons stating that they've abused their animal by allowing it to become obese?
I know some readers are writing me off as a crackpot at this point, thinking that simply using the term "animal guardian" could not possibly lead to the type of anarchy I am describing... But they'd be wrong. Maybe I jump right to the extreme, but using the term "pet guardian" will slowly lead down that path. There are a lot of groups right now that are wanting to take pet ownership away, and too many people don't realize that "pet guardian" is a step down that path. The Lexus Project is a group of lawyers FOR DOGS. I'm sorry, my dog doesn't need a lawyer, and I don't think anyone else's dog does either. The Non-Human Rights Project wants animals to be proclaimed non-human persons, and be given ALL THE SAME RIGHTS as a human.
It brings up interesting ideas, though. If pet animals are given non-human personhood, and rights, does that mean that it will be illegal to desex your animal? They used to do that to the physically and mentally disabled - forced sterilization - and it was deemed a violation of their rights. Would it be illegal then to leash or muzzle your animal? Against a horse's rights to be ridden, or against a cat's rights to keep it inside? Would a collar be deemed a sign of slavery, and a microchip or tattoo be the animal equivalent of the Nazis tattooing the Jews? Really, once animals are given non-human personhood, where does it end?
In my opinion, it is in the best interest of the animals to have owners, not guardians. To continue being considered property, not "non-human persons". People like to debate the fact, but animals are best protected when they are deemed property, rather than their own "non-human person". From a legal stand point, it is very cut and dry when animals are considered property, not so if they are considered "non-human persons".
I am a pet owner, I will always be a pet owner, and I will never identify myself as anything else. You won't hear me call myself a "pet guardian" or a "pet parent" or a "refugee camp for animals"(true story, I read it on someone's blog once that they call their animals refugees...). I have pets. I bought them, I own them, and I am proud to say that.
What about you?