Guardians or owners?
LA City Council considers vote to end pet ownership
Animal rights advocates in California are lobbying the Los Angeles City Council
to change ‘pet owner’ to ‘pet guardian’ in the city’s
animal control laws, but a vote on the proposal has been postponed until later
in the year.
Those who favor the change claim that ‘owners’ treat pets as disposable
commodities but that those who consider themselves ‘guardians’ will
stop and think before neglecting their pets. The city’s Animal Control
Commission now refers to ‘guardians’ instead of ‘owners’
in its communications with the public and has recommended the change to Council.
The guardianship movement is the brainchild of Eliot Katz DVM, president of
In Defense of Animals. It is supported by other animal rights groups and opposed
by NAIA, the American Kennel Club, the Cat Fanciers Association, The Animal
Council, the California Veterinary Medical Association, the California Federation
of Dog Clubs and many other organizations whose members already practice and
promote responsible pet care.
Innocuous on its surface, the guardianship movement is another step in the
long-fought battle waged by animal rights activists to end human use and enjoyment
of animals. The current strategy attempts to convert the love people have for
their pets into legal standing for animals.
“It is an incremental strategy that would first remove the rights of
ownership, then allow only certain people to own animals, and finally would
outlaw human-animal interaction altogether, so we could only ‘enjoy them
at a distance,’ as PeTA’s Ingrid Newkirk has admonished,” said
NAIA president Patti Strand,
Although activists soft pedal these goals when approaching lawmakers and sugarcoat
their efforts by appealing to the very emotions that bind humans to their pets,
the leaders are frank about their ultimate goals when promoting their agenda
in other venues.
“Ultimately we want to elevate the status of animals from that of property
to that of individuals with needs and rights of their own. Legal language is
a first step. In the short term we hope to extend existing laws to recognize
a respectful relationship between two individuals of differing species, rather
than maintaining the present relationship of ‘owner’ and ‘property.’
– Eliot Katz DVM, president, In Defense of Animals, Christian Science
Monitor, September 27, 1999.
“We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals.” –
Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President of Humane Society of the US, formerly of
Friends of Animals
“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation. – Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder, PETA
“We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status
of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly
promote the abolitionist agenda.” – Gary Francione in an interview
in Actionlines, an animal rights newsletter
“Liberating our language by eliminating the word ‘pet’ is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has
been eliminated, it will be NJARA’s policy to oppose the keeping of animals
as ‘pets.’” New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, “Should Dogs
Be Kept As Pets? NO!” Good Dog! February 1991, p. 20.
“Dog and cat fanciers, breeders, and exhibitors; obedience trainers;
dog and cat groomers; boarding kennel owners, and veterinarians already have
a well-developed network in place with programs geared to helping people make
responsible choices about pet purchase, care, and training and channeling millions
of dollars into pet health care and research,” said Strand. “Those
who would further improve treatment for pets should support these efforts instead
of playing into the hands of those who want to end pet ownership.”
For more information
|
