Hi Folks!
This is very important information that each and every pet owner and breeder needs to understand. The Animal Rights Industry has worked long and hard, and succeeded in many jurisdictions, to get our property rights over animals taken away. Instead we are “guardians” of our “wards” and that is not a good thing. It may seem warm and cozy but it is actually quite dangerous and will be the ruination of all pet ownership.
When you are a guardian of a child sexual mutilation (spay/neuter/castration as it is known in pets) is a violation of the rights of your ward.
Breeding the ward to create more wards and selling them is exploitation of that ward.
Help us preserve our purebred animals, and our fundamental rights as well. Support your responsible Siberian Cat breeder and help us stop these animal rights extremists for causing the extinction of the animals we hold dear. Learn all that you can about their tactics starting with the insidious use of the term “guardian” instead of pet owner.
- Dawn
—–Original Message—–
Subject: AVMA position on “Guardians” vs “Owners” –LONG
For those lobbying, here are some links exclusively from the Veterinary perspective. One is a study from UCDavis, the other links are from American Veterinary Medical Association is AVMA.
Permission to crosspost.
————–
1. A study from UCDavis regarding whether the use of ‘guardian’
has the effect of increased attachment to pet dogs. (note date
April 2009)
http://tinyurl.com/c5bc3z
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2009 Apr 1
Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of
Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA
95616, USA.
Evaluation of owner attachment to dogs on the basis of
whether owners are legally considered guardians of their
pets.- Helms TD, Bain MJ.
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate whether dog owners who are legally considered
guardians are more attached to their dogs than those who
are not.
<<see link above for additional details>>
CONCLUSION:
Dog owners residing in a city where owners were legally
designated as an owner/guardian were no more attached to
their dog than those living in a city without such a
designation. Although results did not indicate a negative
impact of the term guardian, its use was not associated
with an enhanced bond between owner and dog.
—————-
This is what the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) has to say about language change [emphasis mine: HARM]:
http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/ownership.asp
AVMA policy
Ownership vs Guardianship
Terminology Describing the Relationship Between Animals and
Their Owners (Current as of June 2005)
The American Veterinary Medical Association promotes the
optimal health and welfare of animals. Further, the AVMA
recognizes the role of responsible owners in providing for
their animals’ care. Any change in terminology describing the
relationship between animals and owners, including
“guardian,” does not strengthen this relationship and may, in
fact, ****HARM IT****. Such changes in terminology may
adversely affect the ability of society to obtain and deliver
animal services and, ultimately, result in animal suffering.
—————-
For reasons why it can HARM our animals, see this from AVMA (very
long):
http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/ownership.asp
Ownership versus Guardianship
(Approved by the Executive Board, June 2005)
Some animal owners may like to refer to themselves as “pet
guardians,” however “guardian” is a legal term that has
significant legal implications and repercussions. Its use to
describe the relationship between animals and their owners is
inappropriate. Under well-developed principles of
guardianship law, guardianship is a fiduciary relationship
(the highest legal civil duty owed by one person to another).
The ward’s interests are always to prevail over those of the
guardian. Some conflicts that arise from application of human
guardianship law to animals are described in the text that
follows. On the basis of these conflicts, the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) recommends that
“guardian” not be adopted, even to semantically describe the
relationship between humans and their animals.
The AVMA recognizes that American society has evolved from an
agrarian one in which the animals most of us owned primarily
had economic utility, to an urban one in which most of us
derive some emotional value from our animals. Use of
guardian, however, does not clarify the responsibilities of
owners to their animals that are important for forming good
human-animal bonds. Instead, use of guardian may create legal
questions and consequences that have the potential to
adversely affect both the animals and humans involved in
these relationships. Such legal questions and consequences
apply to animal owners, service providers, society and
animals, and include, but are not limited to:
Animal Owners
* Reductions in the rights of owners and imposition of
additional legal obligations.With respect to veterinary care,
animal owners will have less authority and fewer treatment
options. Required treatment may exceed the financial capacity
of the owner to pay, yet guardianship will require that
owners accept such financial burdens. Financial inability to
provide treatment could easily result in increased animal
abandonment.
* Entailment of wards.Use of guardian gives rise to its
counterpart “ward.” The ward is defined as the person for
whose benefit the guardianship has been established. Wards
have legal rights. Applying human guardianship law to animals
would mean that animals have legal rights that can be
recognized in court (i.e., animals would have legal
standing). This may subject owners to civil lawsuits filed by
third parties on behalf of the animal.
* Inability to select procedures such as euthanasia or
spay/neuter.Owners wishing to relieve animal suffering by
euthanasia may no longer have that option. Non-health
justifications for euthanasia, including population control,
may no longer be acceptable under guardianship. Spaying and
neutering may also not be possible, if such procedures were
not deemed to be in the best interest of the animal.
* Confidentiality of veterinary information and control
of medical records.Where confidentiality of veterinary
medical records is governed by state statutes or regulations,
conditions are defined under which and to whom medical
records may or must be released. Generally owners have
authority over release of their animals’ medical records.
Under guardianship, a veterinarian, contrary to the owner’s
wishes, may be able to release information to third parties
because he/she believes it is in the best interest of the
animal. Conversely, the veterinarian may choose not to
release medical records to the owner or others because he/she
believes it is not in the animal’s best interest to do so.
* Ability to transfer an animal to another
party.Background checks may be required to ensure that
transfer of an animal from one guardian to another is in the
best interest of the animal. Transfer of guardianship from
one guardian to another, for profit, may not be legal. Third
parties may have the opportunity to impede transfer
proceedings if they deem such action to be in the best
interest of the animal.
* Coverage of animal-related claims by homeowners’
insurance.Homeowners’ property loss insurance may no longer
cover animal-related claims should animals be no longer
defined as property under the law. Under guardianship,
animals would no longer be considered property.
* Required registration as guardian.In states having
guardian registries, animal guardians may be required to
register and to comply with all laws and regulations
pertaining to that registration. Requirements for
registration could include background checks, bonding, and
conflict-of-interest evaluations. Registration processes are
time-consuming and potentially costly.
* Annual guardianship reports.Animal guardians may be
required to file annual guardianship reports, including
associated financial reports.
Service Providers
* Loss of protection under animal abandonment laws.Animal
abandonment laws are predicated on the basis that animals are
property. Guardianship removes the status of animals as
property.
* Veterinarians’ responsibilities unclear.The
veterinarian’s responsibilities become unclear when a
guardian’s direction is contrary to the best interests of the
animal. Veterinarians may be required to go to court to
obtain a judicial determination as to whether or not theirs
or the guardian’s direction is the appropriate course of
action. Inability to provide timely treatment to an ill or
injured animal during the course of court proceedings creates
the potential for unnecessary animal suffering. For example,
debate as to whether to treat a compound fracture versus
selecting euthanasia for the animal could create the
potential for continued pain, infection and other
complications while awaiting a judicial decision. Cases
involving animal issues are likely to have lower priority
than those involving human issues.
* Prohibitions on prescribing and dispensing controlled
substances.Veterinarians may not be able to lawfully
prescribe or dispense controlled substances or legend drugs
to a guardian who no longer has legal status as the owner of
an animal (i.e., current law assumes animals are owned and
that owners receive drugs and administer them, as prescribed,
to the animal).
* Payment for services.Guardianship may create questions
as to whom (guardian) or what (guardianship) is responsible
for payment of associated animal services. Personal payment
guarantees may need to be obtained.
* Interstate transport.Service providers may have an
obligation to prevent the physical transfer of an animal from
a guardianship state to an ownership state.
Society
* Unconstitutional taking of private property.A complete
shift to guardianship could result in claims of a state
having unconstitutionally taken private property (animals)
without just compensation.
* Impacts on existing statutes and regulations.Numerous
statutes, regulations and policies would have to be reviewed
and language altered to replace owner with guardian. These
include, but not limited to, pharmacy laws, controlled
substance laws, tax laws, veterinary practice laws, and other
laws, regulations and policies related to animal use and
services.
* Impacts on ability to responsibly use
animals.Guardianship may preclude the responsible use of
animals for agricultural production (food and fiber),
research, exhibition and entertainment (e.g., racing,
circuses, rodeo), and companionship. Use of animals and
animal products for such purposes may no longer be legal.
* Ability to control, quarantine and vaccinate
animals.Guardianship may affect the ability of governmental
agencies to control and quarantine animals and require
vaccination. Ensuring animal and public health requires the
ability to effectively control and eradicate disease.
Quarantine, vaccination, and sometimes depopulation, are
necessary components of effective disease control and
eradication.
* Conflicts between federal and state statutes,
regulations and policies.Potential conflicts may arise
between states’ laws, regulations and policies that are
predicated on the basis of guardianship and federal laws,
regulations and policies that are predicated on the basis of
animals as property.
* Homeless/unwanted animals.Financial burdens and
inability to control burgeoning populations (e.g., problems
associated with euthanasia and spay/neuter choices) may both
contribute to the problem of unwanted animals.
* Use of assistance animals.The concept of assistance
animals (e.g., guide dogs, hearing dogs) may be objectionable
under guardianship; therefore, there may be fewer animals
available to provide such services. The use of animals for
search and rescue may also not be acceptable.
* Burdens of ownership.Owning or keeping animals may
become burdensome with consequent negative impacts on
animal-related industries, including loss of jobs.
Animals
* Bidirectional benefits of human-animal bonds lost.Under
guardianship, people may be less willing to possess animals
because of concerns about increased liability. Some
responsible individuals and animals would thereby be deprived
of the benefits of the human-animal bond.
* Reduction in animals’ receipt of needed
services.Guardianship may reduce a person’s willingness to
seek appropriate services for animals in a timely fashion.
* Animals left in limbo.Guardianship may leave the
welfare of animals in limbo during associated legal
proceedings. A delay in the veterinarian’s ability to provide
medical care is one example.
* Adverse effects on health and welfare.Guardianship may
adversely affect the health and welfare of individual animals
and animal populations.
Source: AVMA Task Force on Legal Status of Animals
Contact: Dr. Gail Golab, Asst. Dir., Prof. and Public
Affairs, AVMA, 847-285-6618
—————-
The brief from AVMA in case the link is useful:
http://www.avma.org/advocacy/federal/legislative/110th/issue_briefs/lsa.asp
Legal Status of Animals
Summary:
* The use of “guardian” to describe the relationship
between animals and their owners is inappropriate.
* Guardianship is a fiduciary relationship (the highest
legal civil duty owed by one person to another), and the
ward’s interests are always to prevail over those of the
guardian.
* Many conflicts arise from the application of human
guardianship law to animals.
AVMA Position:
The AVMA is actively pursuing passage of federal legislation
that would preserve the existing legal definition of animals.
AVMA White Paper Ownership vs. Guardianship
Key Legal Conflicts Resulting From Guardianship
* Animal owners will have less authority and fewer
treatment options:
<see link for the rest>