PDF Version
Preserve Your Rights as a Dog Owner Most dog owners consider their animals much more than property; they're members of the family. Unlike a car or some other piece of property, most pets are loved by their owners, and their owners become emotionally attached to them. For centuries, owners have been able to protect the dogs they love so much because lawmakers and the courts have treated animals - both livestock and companion animals - as property. Now some extreme animal rights groups want to change that classification - to gradually end owners' legal right to keep and enjoy their treasured pets.
The Animal "Guardian" Movement
The concept of replacing the term animal "owner" with "guardian" in city codes was first introduced in San Francisco several years ago by an extreme animal rights group. Since then, several cities and the state of Rhode Island have passed laws recognizing animal "guardians." Proponents state that referring to people as "guardians" will promote kinder treatment to animals and argue that the change does not carry any legal ramifications. We know that's not the case.
What's Wrong With The Word "Guardian?" The AKC supports using the term "owner" rather than "guardian" in reference to the keeping of dogs. To remove the classification of dogs as property could open the door to a host of legal challenges. For example, if people do not own their dogs, then what legal responsibility do they have to properly protect and care for them? How can "guardians" be held accountable for their dogs' actions? And how will city officials enforce animal control laws against non-owners?
More importantly, use of the term "guardian" represents a first step toward eliminating an individual's right to own, breed, sell, and participate in events with dogs. Owners have a legal right and obligation to care for their animals. But they also have a right to protect their dogs - their property - from undue restrictions and seizure. Will the government be able to take your dogs away more easily if you do not own them? As a "guardian," are you allowed to make decisions about veterinary care, spaying and neutering, or breeding? Can a breeder sell an animal he does not technically "own?" All of these questions raise potential concerns for dog owners.
Declassifying dogs as property also raises their status in the eyes of the law. Dog lovers may appreciate the increasing stature of their animals, but it is important to look beyond this rhetoric to what the change in terminology may mean in the long run. Many extreme animal rights groups want to raise the status of animals to that of human beings, to convince the courts that animals have rights. The AKC on the other hand supports the best premises of animal welfare but does not believe that animals have legal rights. Pets may be special members of our families, but they are unable to take responsibility for their actions. Bestowing legal rights on them is the first step in a larger campaign to end pet ownership and breeding altogether. Owners who want to continue to enjoy the right to keep pets must be aware of this slippery slope.
Finally, the cost and availability of veterinary care could also be impacted by this change in terminology. Veterinarians could be named in lawsuits by "guardians" who feel their pet has received inadequate care. Is a veterinarian's primary obligation to the "guardian" or to his animal patient? Is a veterinarian allowed by law to treat a stray brought in by a shelter without the guardian's consent? These scenarios may sound farfetched, but the mere possibility opens veterinarians up to a world of new liability. The cost of malpractice insurance would be passed on to their clients, making it more and more expensive to own dogs. Can someone other than the "guardian" file a malpractice suit on behalf of the animal? Do "guardians" have the right to makes decisions with regard to a pet's care and euthanasia?
Won't The "Guardian" Movement Help End Animal Cruelty?
Clearly, relacing the term "owner" with "guardian" could have many legal and personal implications for dog owners. But what of supporters' arguments that the change will make people more caring, responsible owners? The AKC believes that the "guardian" campaign will do little to improve animal welfare in the United States. Labeling a bad owner a "guardian" will not make him treat his animals any better; only education can do that. Strengthening and enforcing existing animal cruelty laws will also address those who treat their pets inhumanely. AKC supports efforts in both these areas through its many public education and government relations initiatives. The organization has a wealth of programs and materials designed to teach people about responsible dog ownership and reasonable, enforceable animal care and control laws. For more information, contact AKC's Public Education department (publiced@akc.org) or Government Relations department (doglaw@akc.org).
"Guardian" may feel good, but it diminishes the respect for and rights of owners. Be wary of this agenda to chip away at your right to keep and enjoy your dogs.
Government Relations Position Statement
"Guardian" v. Owner
The American Kennel Club supports the use of the term "owner" rather than "guardian" when referring to the keeping of dogs. The AKC believes that the term guardian may in fact reduce the legal status and value of dogs as property and thereby restrict the rights of owners, veterinarians, and government agencies to protect and care for dogs. It may also subject them to frivolous and expensive litigation.
The term guardian does nothing to promote more responsible treatment of dogs. We strongly support efforts to educate the public about responsible dog ownership to ensure that all dogs receive the care, love, and attention they deserve.
