Lately, I have been hearing many organizations using the term "guardianship" instead of "ownership" when referring to the human-dog relationship. While I love to be treated like a member of the family and respected as thus, this term has me worried.
Many people may say why? And here it is. . .
I, being a dog, like to feel secure in my living situation. Ownership tells me that my person "owns" me and by law, under the constitution, has rights to me. This means that no government has legal right to take me away, upsetting my living arrangement without proof that my owner has broken a law.
That being said, many times BSL does take us dogs from our owners. But, this is illegal and violates our human's rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution. In particular, the 14th Amendment states that the government shall not deprive citizens of property without due process. So, when BSL is enacted, it is in violation of these amendments and can be challenged in court. Often times it is challenged, and although cities and states have more money and time to fight in court, occasionally humans win. When they do win it is by proving that Breed Specific Legislation has violated "due process" by resulting in "grievous harm to property and liberty."
This is why the term guardianship has been concocted. Animals, including dogs, are currently considered PROPERTY by law in the United States. However, Under the Constitution of the United States a guardian does not hold property rights over it's "ward." In fact, making dog owners into dog "guardians" would not only erase the legal premise by which BSL can be fought and won, it may also place undue strain on the dog-human relationship. For example, a guardian of a child is bound by law to put the interest of the child before themselves. This means if the child needs a million dollar operation the guardian must undergo the financial hardship of doing such operation and if the guardian refuses the state can actually file suit against said guardian on behalf of the ward. In such cases with dogs, a veterinarian or other official could decide that the food or medical treatment a guardian has chosen for it's ward is insufficient and they could file suit on the ward's behalf.
This would make dog guardianship much more complicated and expensive than is dog ownership, perhaps even reducing the number of available good homes in America for dogs like myself.
Additionally, human guardians are tracked by the state in the case of having human wards. Human-dog guardians would probably be the same way, adding another undue strain on the individuals involved and the regulatory system created around this ideal.
You may be thinking, who is suggesting "dog guardianship" anyway?
Many of the Animal Rights organizations you may have thought were warm and fuzzy actually support the elimination of pet owner rights and even BSL.
ASPCA Position On Ownership vs. Guardianship“By viewing animals as more than mere property, the focus shifts from the ownership interest in the animal to what is in the best interest of that individual animal. This altered view of animals necessarily requires that we treat them with greater respect and compassion and a higher level of care. In turn, our relationship with the animal becomes one of a “caretaker,” whose sole responsibility is to protect and nurture the animal, rather than an “owner,” who has title to and dominion over the animal for the owner’s enjoyment and benefit as he/she sees fit.”
“To fully recognize this new relationship between humans and animals, laws must change accordingly. Converting “owner” to “guardian,” however, is more than semantics. It raises many important questions regarding society’s duty of care toward and use of animals.
For example, can we continue to use animals in medical research and for human consumption and still consider ourselves their guardians? These practices certainly are not in the animals’ best interests, nor do they respect them as separate and unique entities capable of experiencing pain, fear and suffering. What, then, is our duty of care toward animals whom we exploit for human interests?”
Read the bold above, as a dog, the idea that the ASPCA wants to make cows illegal to eat makes me afraid for my life. Although humans can live as healthy vegans, we dogs are carnivores.
ASPCA Position
While the legal status of animals remains to be resolved, the ASPCA recognizes that the cultural and social relationship that humans have with animals clearly transcends that of property, and is better reflected by the term “guardian” than by the term “owner.” The ASPCA therefore advocates the use of the term “guardian.”
The ASPCA is an organization which most people think of as a very mainstream animal protection agency. But, with is current adoption of guardianship language we dogs are seeing that it is really just a PETA or HSUS in friendlier clothes.
I for one, feel much safer knowing that if BSL passes where I live, my humans will have a constitutional basis to fight for my life!
Labels: allie renar, aspca, ban pitbulls, bsl, constitutional rights, dangerous dog laws, dog guardianship, hsus, peta, responsible dog owner
