Law Library Articles

Certain animal rights groups would also like to change the terminology from “pet owners” to pet “guardians”. These groups believe that if you care for an animal you are the guardian of the animal, and that you do not own the animal as property; but have limited temporary possession for the benefit of the ward, i.e. the pet. This change, although initially appearing to be a harmless use of semantics, is one actually another step in the effort toward changing the legal status of animals and may have the effect of imposing additional legal obligations on animal owners.

• Guardianship Is A Legal Concept-The law of guardianship, at least with regard to human guardians, has specific legal obligations to act for the benefit of the ward. Although the groups that are supporting this language change are not suggesting changing legal obligations of a guardian, the legally defined responsibilities of a guardian may not work in the context of caring for animals. For example, if an animal guardian chooses not to continue veterinary treatments, a third party, such as an animal rights group could petition a court to require continuation of treatment, claiming that it was in the best interest of the animal. This would limit a pet owner’s choice in determining the care provided for their pet. Third parties could also petition a court to prevent animals from being spayed, neutered, given away or even bred. Similarly, a guardian might need some kind of approval before seeking to put a terminally ill pet to sleep.
• Animal guardianship is a very unsettled area of the law and numerous issues may developif pet owners are casually transformed into pet guardians. For example, can a veterinarian make the decisions for an animal’s care? What if a guardian and veterinarian disagree about a pet's care? Will pets have legal standing to sue their guardians for failure to provide care as humans can under present guardianship law? Can guardians be divested of their property rights? Who would pay for the care of divested pets? Who would pay for veterinary treatment, if the veterinary care was not approved or requested by the guardian?
• Initiated by Animal Rights Groups- Spearheading the efforts to change owners to guardians are animal rights activists. A typical mission statement of one of these groups states that it is “an international animal protection organization dedicated to ending the exploitation and abuse of animals by raising the status of animals beyond that of mere property, and by defending their rights, welfare and habitat.” By changing the language that we use to define our relationships with animals, these groups hope to shift the perspective away from thinking about animals as mere property, and endowing pets with human-like legal rights, that recognize animals as individuals with feelings, needs and interests of their own.  The proponents of animal guardianship laws see this effort as the first step on the road to ending the concept of pet ownership.
• Punishment Exists For Animal Cruelty- One of the arguments that the animal rights groups make in support of guardianship laws is that by treating animals as property they have no more rights than inanimate objects. However, virtually every state, as well as the federal government, has animal cruelty laws that protect animals against cruelty and abuse. Most states deem it an act of cruelty, for instance, to "overdrive, overwork, or work an animal when it is unfit for labor." Abandonment, poisoning, and failure to supply animals with adequate food, water, and shelter are also identified as crimes in many state anti-cruelty laws.
• The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has taken a position against changing the term 'owner' to 'guardian' stating that there is no evidence 'guardianship' enhances the relationship between owner and pet. In their policy statement the AVMA states that “The American Veterinary Medical Association promotes the optimal health and well-being of animals. Further, the AVMA recognizes the role of responsible owners in providing for their animals' care. Any change in terminology describing the relationship between animals and owners does not strengthen this relationship and may, in fact, diminish it. Such changes in terminology may decrease the ability of veterinarians to provide services and, ultimately, result in animal suffering”.
• The Council of State Governments recently adopted a policy opposing animal guardianship, as well as tort law reforms entitling owners to compensation for emotional distress and loss of companionship. Copies of the policy were distributed to federal and state agriculture committee members and all state agriculture commissioners. The expectation is that legislators will use the policy to pass laws against both legal theories. The CSG, a national organization that advises the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of state government on matters of public policy, approved the statement as a means of preparing states for what is seen as the latest front in the animal rights campaign. The CSG policy states in part: “guardianship statues would undermine the protective care that owners can provide for their animals and the freedom of choice owners now are free to exercise, and could permit third parties to petition courts for custody of a pet, livestock or animal for which they do not approve of the husbandry practices; and would permit challenging in a court of law the course of treatment an animal’s owner and veterinarian decide on, or permit animal owners and veterinarians to be sued for providing what another individual may regard as inadequate care”
• Community Acceptance- In July 2000, Boulder County, Colorado, was the first jurisdiction in the nation to amend their county ordinance by adopting the change in terminology from "animal owner" to "animal guardian." Other counties and municipalities have followed Boulder County's lead, including San Francisco, Berkeley, Albany, West Hollywood and Marin County California; Sherwood, Arkansas; Amherst, Massachusetts; Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin; Woodstock, New York; St Louis Missouri; Bloomington, Indiana; Wanaque, New Jersey, and the State of Rhode Island.