Semantics and Rhetoric essay

anne · Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Semantics and Rhetoric essay

This is an excellent article and helps explain why it is so important to recognize and call our dogs what they are....our property. This does not have any negative connotation nor dismiss how much we love them, but taking on AR-speak and calling them other things than what they are erodes our rights.

Linda Hartheimer
Legislative Liaison
Weimaraner Club of America
http://grayhartweimaraners.googlepages.com/

Permission to Cross Post

Semantics and Rhetoric
by Anka Andrews

Increasingly, in my various reading of dog related articles, I find myself
referred to as 'pet parent' or 'pet guardian'. I don't care for that.

I'm a woman. I am not my dogs' mother, I'm not their parent. I'm not some
freak of Nature, haven't given birth to dogs or cats or any other pets. While
they do have parents, I am not one of them. Their fathers know nothing of
their existence, having been no more than sperm donors. Their mothers would not
only not recognize them if they saw them but would quite possibly offer to
mate with them, or fight them for food. While all of this may be de rigeur in
some strata of human society it does not fit into commonly accepted human
norms. To be designated 'pet
parent' diminishes the concept of parenthood.

I am not a pet guardian. Guardianship implies oversight by someone else, a
third party who sets rules of conduct and care with which I have to comply. I
make my own decisions about my dealings with my dogs according to my
conscience and the values I hold which govern my interactions with living things. I
guard my dogs' welfare to the very high standards I've set but I am not their
guardian.

I am their owner. They are my property. I can sell them at will. I can store
them in crates. I can sterilize them, or not. I can show them off. I can
treat them and feed them any way I chose to.

Parenthood and guardianship bestow rights to that which is being parented or
guarded. The guardian of an estate, for instance, has to make sure that the
contractual provisions of the estate, its rights, are being met. Parents
speak for their children in defense and support of those children's rights.

Dogs don't have rights; neither do trees or rocks or crocodiles. Rights are
a human concept. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness: Those are the
basic human rights. Dog ownership requires of moral people that we do all we
can to protect our animals' lives, offer them as much liberty as is safe for
them, and do what we can to help them be happy.

By allowing ourselves to be called pet parents and pet guardians we are
giving consent to abide by a standard of conduct set for us by others. Animal
Rights groups and politicians are queuing up everywhere to limit our rights as
property owners. They tell us that we must neuter our pets. That we may not
keep them confined in kennels and crates. They limit where and how we can
travel with our property. They make demands on and regulate our ownership and
thusly whittle away at our rights.

Primary cultural change is often insidious. It seeps into our consciousness
gently, slowly and with great subtlety until we've bought into it without
ever having noticed. Like high fructose corn syrup, it pervades. We do it, here,
on our e-mail list. We talk about our fur kids, mommy and daddy doing this
or that with them, we proclaim that they're our children. They are not.
They're our dogs. We are their owners.

It's time for a reality check.

Trene · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject:

Wow, I just found this and for some reason it just doesn't sit well with me. This may be Anka Andrews beliefs, however, I bet you would find a lot of people who disagree. I’ve included the definitions of Guardian and Parent. I am my dogs “Guardian” without a doubt, I watch over and protect her. Parent, maybe not in the LITERAL sense, however, I nurture her, therefore I “act as a parent”.
Quote: “To be designated 'pet parent' diminishes the concept of parenthood.”
Is that the same for being a step-parent, which is something I take GREAT PRIDE IN.
Quote: “I can treat them and feed them any way I chose to.
You can also be arrested for neglecting and abusing them, so…????? They don’t have “rights”?

Guardian:
One that guards, watches over, or protects.
Law One who is legally responsible for the care and management of the person or property of an incompetent or a minor.

Parent:
One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother.
An ancestor; a progenitor.
An organism that produces or generates offspring.
A guardian; a protector.
intr.
To act as a parent.

IF anyone wanted more information on the author:
http://www.ellerbach.com/eclectic/cv.html

Anka Andrews, owner of Eclectic Translations, is a translator and interpreter by profession but dogs are her avocation. A native of Germany and a freelance writer of anything related to dogs, she has lived in various places in the U.S. since 1967. Most of her time was spent in southeastern Idaho where she learned to love fishing, hiking, and camping, always with any number of dogs in tow. Dogs have been constant companions in Anka's life. She and her husband currently share their home in rural Pennsylvania with three GSDs, Hasso, Arko, and Marcus and a GSD/Northern mix, Jake. Anka and her husband manage the e-mail list TGSD-L for owners of working GSDs. She is the creative force behind In Memoriam, a poignant memorial to German Shepherd Dogs who have crossed the Bridge. Anka spends her free time visiting geriatric facilities with her dogs Jake and Arko, sharing with the old people the joys of loving dogs.

weimdawgs · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject:

I didn't sit well with me either and I didn't quite know why...until I got to Trene's post.

WrigleysMom · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject:

If the author's whole point is not to be deemed "parents" or "guardians" so that they can't restrict our rights to do what we want with our dogs (regarding neutering/travel/crating etc) - then I feel that's a pretty weak argument. We need laws regarding the care of pets - some might go too far for some people's liking, but I don't think that calling their owners by a different name will affect what laws are passed.

Plus, I don't care what the definitions are - Wrigley is my baby!

Trene · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject:

Yup and he sure does look like a BIG baby in your avatar. Trust me, I had to read and reread it, and I just didn't agree with her beliefs... but to each his/her own right?????

anne · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject:

You might not be considering the legal implications. A guardian can have a court take certain rights away from you. The court can be someone's guardian. With property, you have the right to do what you think is best for your dog.

For example, we have had discussion here about vaccinations and feeding. What if my neighbor turned me in because I was abusing my dogs by forcing them to eat raw bones? If I were my dogs guardian, what kind of right do I have to do what *I* think is best for my dog as an owner? What if I were turned in by a vet because I disagreed about annual vaccinations and therefore I was abusing my dog?

What if I wanted to relieve my dogs suffering and humanely euthanize due to some illness, but guardianship strips my rights to end my pets suffering?

I don't mind the term "mom" and "dad" but the fact is that there are cities that are adopting the term guardianship instead of ownership. This is another slippery slope issue of taking rights away without people even realizing that it's happening. Afterall, we all do feel like our pets are our children and treat them as such. But how we communicate casually and legal terminology are 2 different things.

anne · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject:

Also let's not be so quick to give up our 14th amendment rights!

-----

From the American Veterinary Medical Association
http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/ownership.asp

Advocacy > State legislative resources > Issues > Ownership versus guardianship

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues

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

Trene · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject:

A guardian can have a court take certain rights away from you. The court can be someone's guardian.

I was thinking physical abuse and neglect: and if that were the case I would hope the law did intervene.

Feeding raw bones, as abuse... that is just ridiculous. Vaccines, to each his own on that as well. I choose to follow my state and vet's recommendation.

anne · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject:

anne · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject:

youhavenoidea · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject:

nicwithcandy · Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject:

Trene · Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject:

Did you EVER read the backing of EVERY toy and bone you buy???? They all say to supervise your dog, they are all choking hazards.

Trene · Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject:

BTW: this really wasn't very nice:
"Nosy hippies piss me off."

You should say nosy "people"... and be more accepting and people who aren't "like" you.

youhavenoidea · Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject:

The "expression" was more fitting of the point I intended to get across.

And you don't know anything about me, nor what may or may not be "like" me.

You haven't exactly proven yourself to be the most open-minded person on other threads here, for that matter. *Hello pot?*

I live in a province affected by BSL; I have lived through the process of seeing my rights unfairly taken away. I own my second dog targeted by the close-minded laws my government has implemented due to uneducated and bigoted peoples' whinings, and live every day with the inability to have my dog even leave my house, for fear that someone will maliciously accuse him of something, and force him to be taken away. I have earned my right to speak out.