Now that I have your attention. There is a movement across the United States to eliminate the term pet "Owner" in legislation and replace it with pet "Guardian". This basically means that a pet would no longer become property and become a part of the family. Sounds good right? More rights for the animals? Let's look at it deeper.
Now this does not just apply to herps, but dogs, cats, exotics, birds, and rodents and every animal you would keep in your home. Now we all want better care for animals, but what does this really mean? The IDA (In Defense of Animals) has proposed this change in terminology. It has already been adopted in Rhode Island and by the FAA and is sweeping the nation unopposed. This will END the pet industry and eliminate pet owners if it reaches the rest of the country!
But won't this make life better for pets? NO, because noone will be allowed to own pets! Guardian. A pet's guardian. Let's look a that. That basically means that it is treated the same as a child, right? Now we are talking about the law here, so if you are a child's guardian and a lizard's guardian, they both are treated the same under law. It is all about terminology. If you are a guardian of anything, the same rules apply if the same terminology is used. Again it sounds nice, pets would have rights against neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.
But what does it really mean?
1. You could no longer BUY PETS.
2. You could no longer SELL PETS.
3. You could not breed them for profit.
4. You could not intentionally breed them.
5. No inbreeding (sorry Clark and Ronne)
6. You could not trade them
7. You could not spay or neuter dogs and cats.
8. They could not be on display (sorry zoos)
9. Someone could petition for custody of your pet.
10. You could go to JAIL for not keeping them up to Govt. standards (whoever would decide that)
11. What happens if a pet dies? Is it neglect, Involuntary Manslaughter? What if it has to be put down? Murder one?
12. Vets would be out of business. Same liability as a doctor. No more humane euthinization. Insurance rates would go through the roof (how about $150 for just a checkup?).
These are just examples that I have off the top of my head. Replace "pet" with "child" and I am sure you can find more, perhaps scarier.
Changing one word in the law may not seem like a big deal. But the law is all about terminology. And this is the first step toward destroying the pet industry as a whole.
Who are our allies?
Pet Owners (But our voices must be heard!)
AMVA (American Veterinary Medical Association)
PIJAC (Pet Advisory Joint Advisory Council)
Who are the Enemies?
1. IDA (In Defense of Animals)
Sounds noble right? NOPE! They have listed as one of their goals to get a "reduction in the number of animals bred and sold for profit".
2. API (Animal Protection Institute) as always
3. HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) not affiliated with Humane Society shelters. They chose the name Humane Society so that people would THINK they were affiliated.
4. PETA (people for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) again, as always.
I love the quotes form their site.
Purchasing an animal not only contributes to animal overpopulation by taking a potential home from a homeless animal and encouraging breeding, it contributes to the problem of treating and viewing animals as commodities. By saying we own animals, we encourage others to view them monetarily, while calling ourselves guardians communicates the emotional value of animals.
OK, no more buying pets. Bye pet shops, shows, breeders and hobbyists!
using the guardian language in their adoption contracts and literature, they are reinforcing the concept that people are adopting a new member into their families,
Sounds like the same legal responsibilities as a child to me. Which is of course regulated by the govt.
though updated legal language does not affect one’s legal rights, responsibilities and liabilities, the psychological and sociological impact of this change in language is advancing positive attitudes about animal care.
That is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is like saying that the right to bear arms only includes owning parts of a large mammal! The law is based on terminology. If you change the word, the connotations change with it. They are trying to pull blinders over the US by making it sound like they are just doing it make pets safer and happier, when in fact, it would destroy the joy of owning pets. How about if your goldfish getting sick required $10,000 worth of medical care (can't use the word Vet anymore, because they are now doctors with the same obligation as MDs)
From the HSUS:
"If you compare 'owner' to 'guardian' and examine the context of each term, then what are you saying? Why are you considering that shift? The dialogue gets people thinking."
Yeah, it gets us thinking that our rights are being stripped. Thanks for the support you have always given us ........... NOT!!!!!!!
Michael Shrewsbury, Director, Sherwood Animal Services:
"Why did we change our ordinance? Because it is important to us that people understand the depth of the bond occurs between their animals and themselves. To us - it is also imperative that people understand the responsibility of being guardians.
Yeah. It means we could go to JAIL for not giving the care the GOVERNMENT decides is standard. Do we have to send them to school now too?
On the HSUS site, you could not find a better quote about the implications of changing a single word:
Consider a hammer: Without a hand to swing it, it is both useless and neutral. It has no intent. Put it into the hand of a carpenter, and she might build you a house. Put it into the hand of a psychopath, and the results could be horrifying.
I think that speaks for itself. Let's hope that the IDA, HSUS, API, and PETA don't get the hammer.
Here, again form IDA's site, they foretell the future of the term;
It is not so long in human history that women, children and others were seen, in legal terms, as merely property. It appears that society is ready to acknowledge that animals, too, are worth something more than their price tag.
Starting to understand the ramifications?
Again form IDA:
There will be those who oppose the term animal guardian due to economic interests or fear of losing past ways of thinking. However, it is the majority who decides where the world is going.
It is time for pet owners to be the majority. Or at least be heard. We have to let them know that we will not be fooled by their false pretenses and half-truths. We will now allow our rights to be mandated and tripped from us. We need to say in one voice "Our animals are our family, we care for them, but we will not be dictated or repressed by those wishing to steal our rights!"
We have few allies. PIJAC is the primary. If you care about your rights. Join!!!!!!!!! It is a small price to pay and well worth every penny.
For Details go to http://www.idausa.org/campaigns.html
and click "Gueardian Campaign.
For the HSUS Article clisck here http://www.hsus2.org/sheltering/maga..._article1.html
To JOIN PIJAC go to www.pijac.org
If i had known the information and services they provide, I would have paid 5 times the membership price!
It is up to us to preserve our rights. Be active.