Stop "Guardianship" or Lose your pets!

[BWSmith]

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/magazine/currentissue/nov_dec00/feature_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.

[Derrick]

Wow thats a great post. Glad I live in Canada.

[daver676]

Originally posted by Derrick
Wow thats a great post. Glad I live in Canada.

What a STUPID thing to say! How long do you think it would be before Canada did the same thing! Not too long, I don't think.

Great post BW. People need to realize what this means. You have a voice in me bro.

Dave

[Derrick]

Well I live in red neck Alberta and there is no chance in hell it would happen here cause you know what would be next the farm industry and we love our Beef. So Sorry maybe i should have said Im glad i live in Alberta. Cause we're not stupid enought to buy into crap like that here!

[daver676]

Well the last time I checked, Alberta was part of Canada. Also, Alberta isn't the only province with livestock.

[BWSmith]

hmmmm. Livestock. Now there is an idea. Start changing the word "Pet" to "Livestock". Livestock is bred for profit :D But that would also mean alot paperwork and/or permits for any animal. Shame to pay a $200 permit for a $5 Cornsnake.

[Shane Tesser]

Ive stuck this thread up for all to see as i find it a very interesting read...and a very serious threat to the pet trade. I think all should read it, thanks for sharing this brian.

[BWSmith]

For Canada

http://www.pijaccanada.com/

[ohh_kristina]

definately an interesting read. I certainly hope this is not what the pet hobby gets reduced to.

[Invictus]

This is absolutely horrifying. I'm going to contact PIJAC and see what I can do to prevent this from happening ANYWHERE, not just Canada. I wish there were a way to silence fascist jacka$$es like those morons at PETA forever, but that would go completely against my moral fiber in a sense that I may not agree with what they say, but I do believe they should have the right to say it.

[MouseKilla]

I wouldn't get too excited about this myself. Practically speaking it will probably do nothing. I'd be interested to see what has happened in jurisdictions, like Rhode Island, that have this type of legislation. I seriously doubt anyone's been charged with manslaughter after their goldfish died and they neglected to pay the $10,000 for gill transplant surgery. Just because the term "guardian" is being used does not necessarily mean that animals, from goldfish to cattle, will instantly go from being the property of their keepers to gaining equal status with human children. If that were the truth of it I cannot see it being passed into legislation unopposed. There is way too much money at steak for it to sneak in the back door. Not just the pet industry but the farming and meat production industries generate so much money that they have significant political pull, much more than PETA or any of those other packs of morons. If that weren't so we'd all be eating tofu instead of steaks. Some of the panic in a couple of the posts here makes it sound as though cats, dogs, whales and cattle will all be voting in the next election. That whole elephant/donkey thing in American politics will take on new meaning when the parties actually run a donkey and an elephant in the next presidential election (might as well I figure, the guy there now is a real jackass!lol!). Relax folks, don't let Alec Baldwin and Charlize Theron scare you, they just don't have anything better to do with their time than whine about animals in a country that, even though it's the richest in the world, cannot even provide health care to all of it's human citizens, let alone it's animals. Which reminds me that I'm happy to live in Canada too, where things are just slightly less silly.

[BWSmith]

MouseKilla,
I think that you have blinders on. Just because the term "guardian" is being used does not necessarily mean that animals, from goldfish to cattle, will instantly go from being the property of their keepers to gaining equal status with human children.
That is EXACTLY what the IDA states as their goal! To make pets no longer legal property, but a member of the family. I will promise that none of the terrrible outcomes and lawsuits will come into effect in areas such as Rhode Island until the "Gaudian Movement" has a strong foothold in most states. They do not want to tip thier hand too soon. And it IS going in undetected under the illusion of "We just want to stop animal abuse".

Relax folks, don't let Alec Baldwin and Charlize Theron scare you,
If pet owners are not afraid, then they are not paying attention. This is no joke. This is the first REAL threat to the community I have seen. There have been propsed and so forth, but most were so far out of left field that did not survive. This movement has proven that it has a grassroots movement and backing to push it through in a variety of jurisdictions. This one is real people.

If you think living in Canada will save you from this movement, so be it. Believe what you wish.

Without involvement by keepers, this will spread and we will be left vunerable to new laws stripping our rights.

[ohh_kristina]

I agree, but how to we prevent this from happening? Write letters? That doesn't seem like it would do anything. I will write letters, though, if you think they would be effective. What other options do we have?

[reverendsterlin]

one thing my degrees in sociology, psychology, and soon education have taught me is that most legistlation in all governments is about what the populations are NOT allowed, the rest are about what capitalist enterprise is allowed to do to oppress and exploit the laborers. The main difference between my religion and christianity is wording; where christianity, judaism, islam give negative commandments mostly of the "you will not do this" mine says do what you wish as long as no one is hurt. Most of these groups have a belief that we mostly support, the best benifit for the animals, we disagree on how these goals may best be accomplished and the area of responsible ownership by the public. Responsible logging/ no logging, responsible hunting/ no hunting, pro-choice/pro-life, every group has its beliefs, mine are the least restriction upon the responsible person the better.

[BWSmith]

When you join PIJAC, you get acccess to the Members Area. In there is a wealth of information. You can track all local, state and Federal legislation, run searches on active legislation and regulations. You can even contact local, state and federal officials directly through the site. To a representative, each letter or email represents a certain percentage of the population. So each letter or email, carries more than one voice.

[MouseKilla]

BW,

You are consistently using the terms "member of the family" so I have to assume you got them from somewhere. "Member of the family" has no legal force in itself. If they were to change "pet" to "person" then we'd have a problem. We all have legal duties toward other people, these don't exist for animals as long as you call them anything else. This shift in language is not something that gives human rights to non-humans automatically. If that were the goal then the terms wouldn't be so ambiguous, "member of the family" doesn't mean "person" and in fact it doesn't mean much of anything at all, as I said, in or of itself. Animals don't have the same rights as people, not even in Rhode Island. I would be opposed to any law that gives animals the same rights as people but I don't think that is the effect of these changes in terminology. Remember we're talking about a country that doesn't protect it's own people from exploitation effectively through legislation, it will be a hell of a long time before anyone can do that for animals. It's a scary thought but it's a long way off.

[BWSmith]

If they were to change "pet" to "person" then we'd have a problem
But they are changing the term "Owner" to "Guardian". Which means you would have the same legal obligations that you would if you were the guadian to a child.

Let's reverse it. Let's change all the words "Gaurdian" to "owner". When you are a child's "Owner", you culd legaly buy sell and trade children. The term "Owner" has the explicit meaning of owning property.

The law is all about terminology. It may not be in the immediate future, but if we don't stop it now, then it WILL be in the future. Remember, they have clearly stated their agenda. This is a means to an end. They have learned that in order to be sucessful, it is many small victories, not trying to win a war at once.

And if you could make a reply without the America bashing, it would be nice. I keep up with Canadian legislation as well. If you think you are safe, do some research on what is pending there.

[snakehunter]

what a bunch of losers, did you read their site, people like that are crazy, they are probably rallying for GOD to be taken out of the pledge of allegence. nice bw i appreciate the th
read

[MouseKilla]

So you're sure that what is happening is that animals are legally being placed in the same catagory as children and infirm or disabled adults and are afforded ALL of the same rights? I'm not sure that is the goal but if it is I would like to know what jurisdictions have in fact done this. As far as "America bashing" goes, I was simply pointing out that we're talking about the place with the best resources on earth and, frankly, some of the most noble goals of any country on earth but hasn't been able to accomplish them. This is a fairly objective statement I think unless you believe that the USA has been successful in doing all the things it has set out to do in law. That would mean that they have been successful in providing for and protecting each and every person in the country while at the same time protecting their freedoms. When the day comes that American politicians are so good at writing legislation that all of these goals are achieved for humans then we can start worrying about laws that give animals the same rights. The law does function using language and terminology so if I'm wrong then please quote some of this legislation that grants animals the same rights as human dependants. I just don't think it's really there and if it is it's completely unenforceable.

[Tim and Julie B]

I am already seeing a turn around in BC thanks to the Reptile REFUSE. It seems like legislation is going backwards. As more people are getting reptiles as pets and they are becoming more popular. Legislation isn't keeping up. Instead they listen to any wacko that says they are doing some good. A quick knee jerk reaction on the flavour of the month and reptiles are banned. Lets not forget that just any bum that looks half respectable can become part of the city council which votes on what you can and can not do within that city. At our by law meeting where they eventually banned some reptiles I got to see the BS :toilet: first hand. Where no one took the time to look anything up they are voting to ban. They listened to so called experts that knew nothing but refused to look at books and papers I brought. Trust me nothing surprises me. We are not safe in Canada. How many reptile bylaws have you heard of being removed? Can you name one? How many new ones have you heard being legislated? We are going backwards and no one seems to be doing anything about it. TB

[BWSmith]

please quote some of this legislation that grants animals the same rights as human dependants.
As I said. It is in the making. They will not push too hard untill they have a leg to stand on and point at the law and say "See? Right here! You are the Guardian of 2 children and 3 dogs. So you are legally responsible for all 5" If you are the gaurdian, would they all be dependants? Time will tell. But by changing that one word, it opens us up to a flurry of attacks and legislation. Oversimplifying the situation will not make it better.

But if you want to believe that it can never happen and that we are overeacting, sit back and have a chuckle. Meanwhile responsible and proactive keepers will continue to fight for our rights (and yours).

[Tim and Julie B]

OMG could you imagine what would happen if your dog bit someone and you are the legal "guardian"? You would get railroaded.

[MouseKilla]

I'm all for fighting for the rights of any group of people that deserve it, I've inhaled enough teargas to back that up too. I just don't perceive a true threat here. I have no doubt that there are people and organizations that wish to grant animals all the same rights as humans have under the law, I just don't think they're getting anywhere. There are groups of perverts that want to make child molestation legal too but they aren't getting anywhere either. These are ideas that are sick and scary and pursued with sincerity but aren't politically viable and therefore aren't anything to worry about. Municipal exotic pet bans are not the same as giving animals equal rights to their owners or even the children of their owners. These laws are for real (though most of us just play catch-me-if-you-can with them) and are worth standing up against. Worrying that someone is going to come along and tell you that you have the same responsibility to your cat as you do your child is like worrying that the Communist Party will win the next federal election and Fidel Castro will become the 44th President. Maybe Alec Baldwin can be vice-pres...?

[BWSmith]

worrying that someone is going to come along and tell you that you have the same responsibility to your cat as you do your child is like worrying that the Communist Party will win the next federal election and Fidel Castro will become the 44th President.
The difference is that this is a real threat and those are far fetched examples. If you do not percieve a threat, then that is your right. If you wish to oversimplify it, that is also your right. Believe what you wish. It has been put in front of us. It is up to us to SEE it for what it is. And I knew there would be those that would not. So be it. Many have seen beyond the propaganda to the true agenda and decided path of these groups. If this continues unopposed, then it will be clear to everyone. Only it will be too late. I am not recruiting or trying to change your mind. Simply raising awareness of a dangerous situation.

[MouseKilla]

Don't get me wrong here, I'm opposed to this group of whackos as much as I'm opposed to the pedophile groups (well maybe not THAT much) but in the same way I don't see them as a political threat. No one is listening to them. There is a weird minority of people that want to make these huge changes to the law but it ain't gonna happen. I chose to use extreme comparisons because there are all kinds of groups that, no matter how hard they try, aren't politically relevant and these "animals are people too" morons are in that catagory. They make a lot of noise but have no power. Fight the bogey man all you want but it's a waste of time. I don't think I'm oversimplifying at all, I've asked for specific examples of how our freedom to posess animals has been threatened and you don't have any. I'm against the idea in principle and for now that's all it is, a silly idea some small crowd of flakey people support. When it comes to a real law that gives equal rights to animals and people then I'll take to the streets with you, you won't have to recruit me or convince me. I'm just taking this fruity idea for what it is: nonsense.

[BWSmith]

I think the bottom line is that they are paving the way, gaining support, and achieving thier immidiate goals. This will give them grounds in the future to pursue the stronger issues and also help gain them credibility with the public and with legislators as they already have victories under their belt. Fruity or not, it IS working and without opposition it will continue to work. Of course this has not impeded rights yet. It is still in its infancy. Better to strike early when we can achieve victory than to wait until the problem is too large. We can't wait until it is too late.

[MouseKilla]

As I said, we're on the same side on this issue it's just a question of whether or not this movement is actually having any impact. You talk of their small victories but will not provide any examples, this makes me think that the victories are so small that they can't be seen. Just as soon as there is even proposed legislation like you're talking about I'm there, fighting it because it is a stupid idea. But if there isn't even a tabled law to resist then you're fighting a ghost.

[jay76]

This is not good! I hope we can stop this trend. I'm sure some Canadian members of the groups BW named are already contemplating bringing it forth here too. Maybe some recon in their web sites would be in order.

While I feel that everyone has the right to say what they want, trying to force EVERYONE ELSE to do what some special interest group wants is just wrong. If they feel they have the right to force us to use the term "guardian" then we surely have the right to oppose them and that's what we should do.

So, is there any way we in Canada can help?

[BWSmith]

Who has alredy adopted the change?

The state of Rhode Island
Boulder, Colorado
Berkeley, CA
West Hollywood, CA
San Francisco, CA
Sherwood Arkansas, Menomonee, Wisconsin
Amherst, Massachusetts

These I found quickly. I am sure there are more. How long does the list have to get before it becomes a concern?

[Lisa]

I heard about this a while ago, didn't think they had been that successful. to my horror they have. I don't know if legeslation is enough to stop these kooks that wish to impose on your rights and freedoms. and i can see the movement happening in canada, starting in bc then following else where in canada.

[MouseKilla]

So those places all consider animals to be equal to people? To what extent? Do you have to pay for expensive animal organ transplants? Can animals run for mayor in those places?

[Brock]

Wow I hate people.

Give me a day or two to even comprehend the fact that people want animals to have equal rights with children.

-Brock

[BWSmith]

So those places all consider animals to be equal to people? To what extent? Do you have to pay for expensive animal organ transplants? Can animals run for mayor in those places?
Those are where the term has been adopted into the laws. Now the door is open. As I said before, they will try anything to drastic until they have implimented the cahnge in many more places. Then they can test the waters and keep building on it. This is not an immediate devestation for pet owners, it is the beginning. Which is the best place to stop it.

[chas*e]

Great post..!!!! Take a look and listen Canadians ...Just because this outrage is in the States(US) doesn't mean that it will not happen here in the near future...Our political lobbyists will jump on the band wagon real quick if this issue passes in most US states...remember liberal issues like this pass very quick here because Canadian governing systems don't have the safe guards/red tape that the US systems have....the hardest thing to remove in the Canadian system is a policy already passed....BWSmith is RIGHT it could "ring disaster" for the Reptile community in both our countries if this proposal goes through

[CraigC]

Cool More Dependents! Can I claim them on my tax return? j/k.
I wonder how many of those locations have a "Purina (whatever chow) Plant" that employs 3,500 locals? Economics will dictate the weight that the term "Guardian" will carry. Take a look at how many folks are employed in the pet industry(all of it). I believe that if any of the major players preceived this as a threat, you would see lobbyist coming outta the woodwork left and right. Remember, changes at the "user" end effect profits at the supplier end and a multi-million dollar industry is not going to sit idly by and watch money being taken away from them. A perfect example is the Florida Citrus Canker Erradication Program with the state blatantly violating idividual's rights for a profit making/tax paying industry.

I am a hobbyist who occasionally sells offspring to support my addiction. I do not depend on reptile sales to earn a living. I have to step back once in a while to remind myself that some folks do depend on reptile sales as the sole source of income. Let's take a look at why the "enemy" is trying so hard to oppose what we see as a given right. I, as a hobbyist have certain preconsieved ideas about breeding and husbantry. I give my females a year off after birth prior to breeding again. You will never see a dirty cage and the limits to what I will spend on vet care have never been tested. For those of you who bring up the price of the animal, that is a non-issue in my book. If you are not willing to take proper care of an animal-THEN DON"T OWN ANY!! Although, I don't have first hand knowledge of folks that breed reptiles for a living, I have a pretty good suspicion that quite a few of them consider the animals as "disposable", will breed them as often as possible, will do the minimal amount of "maintainence" and will spend very little on health care. This type of breeder is just like those "Puppy Mills" that we all dispise and I think this is the reason the "enemy" feel the way they do. We may not want to admit it, but I think a lot of us can sympathise with the "enemy" in this aspect of their concern.

Just my $.02
CraigC

[Geck-co]

I have not read the full thread, so excuse me if this has allready been brought up (I dont like wasting time reading back and forth bickering) anyway, what about feeders? Are they considered pets? and therefore our pets would be charged with murder when eating thier meals? :p

[BWSmith]

Feeders. I forgot to mention that. THis is from another proposed bill in Rhode Island. Luckily this one has been held over until 2004. But it is not dead yet.

extends the definition of animal abuse to include such things as using feeder animals (i.e. feeder fish, crickets, mice, etc.).Persons in violation of the law would lose ownership of all
animals, and be prohibited from owning animals in the future for at least five years.

Scary. Glad I dont live in RI. Of course this one is abit too blatent and I dont think it will pass. But helping to make sure it doesn't can't hurt.

[MouseKilla]

You're right about that one, it'll never fly. The implications to industry are too huge for this to catch on. You'll notice though that these laws and proposed laws are at the municipal level (in other words they are "city" laws). I don't know about in the States but up here in the Great White the cities can only pass by-laws that wield little force. Most of us that live in cities and have boids are in fact ignoring by-laws, not always but usually. If you get caught, which only happens if you are stupid, you could get fined and told you have to get rid of the animals. The number of ways to get around these weak by-laws are too many to count. I say catch me if you can, I'll pretend to comply and be back at it again in no time. The police don't care and nobody else will either if they don't know what's in your house. I don't like that we're collectively being attacked legally and we should take these self-proclaimed animal advocates on as they come but let's not exaggerate their influence. There is, after all, no money in animal rights and buckets of it in the pet/livestock/farming/meat/feed industries. This is the one time when the fact that money talks will be a benefit. That's a fact of life that usually hurts the average guy (how about those HMOs and private electricity down there?) but in this case it's going to work for us, that's why I'm not worried.

[Nic]

I think some of you folks are getting a little too worked up over this. Has anyone had any negative first hand experience with having dependants instead of pets? Not that I've heard. The truth of the matter is, no one cares. The law makers agree to change terms as a matter of being politically correct. The do not do it so you can be charged with murder for flushing a gold fish. they do it cuzz it sounds like a good idea. They don't really think about how it could be interpretted.

A dog mauls a person , now since the owner is 'a caretaker' or 'gaurdian' of the dog, does that mean the dog is his dependant like a child would be? Does that mean a dog gets treated like a person and goes to trial? No. The dog, despite being a dependant, is still an ANIMAL. It will be put down. Killed, not put on death row for five years for appeal after appeal. It would be killeed on the spot. People are on the top of nature' hierarchy. Dogs cats snakes frogs and tortoises will never be treated like people. It does not matter what you call them. Sorry folks, I don't buy it. Just my opinion, you can have yours.

Nic

[foman]

Great to know whats goin on, but it won't happen.

[Zoe]

So in San Francisco, if I kill a rat, I get charged with premditated murder 1 and spend the next 20 years in prison, or maybe get parole after 15?

WhileI see how this *could* be a realistic threat, I also think that everyone is getting a little worked up over it. I don't think that it will ever be considered child abuse if I lock a cat in a room overnight so it learns to use the litter box. That's just silly. I also don't think that it'll ever be murder 1 if I put down a dog that is on its death bed and suffering, instead of paying 1000s to keep it alive day after day.

Yes, some resistance is necessary to stop these people from gaining any ground... but I don't think its a realistic threat.

Zoe

[BWSmith]

MouseKilla,
I won't even get into skirting the laws like that.

Nic,
Has anyone had any negative first hand experience with having dependants instead of pets?
This has already been addressed here:
Those are where the term has been adopted into the laws. Now the door is open. As I said before, they will try anything to drastic until they have implimented the cahnge in many more places. Then they can test the waters and keep building on it. This is not an immediate devestation for pet owners, it is the beginning.

The do not do it so you can be charged with murder for flushing a gold fish. they do it cuzz it sounds like a good idea. They don't really think about how it could be interpretted.
Thank you. That is exactly why it is so dangerous. Ignorance to the possible future implications.

People are on the top of nature' hierarchy. Dogs cats snakes frogs and tortoises will never be treated like people.
The question was never will they be treated as people. It is an issue of a change in the responibilities and liabilities of the owner. At this point we can only imagine and speculate. But the evidence is there of intent and this gives them means. Should we wait until the first lawsuit goes through? Wait until they have legal precedence? Or strike now at each head of the leviathon. Remember, it is easier to break the egg than slay the dragon.

[Steeve B]

This most important thread is turning into a silly argument! Pleas stop! all you’re doing is giving them ammunitions to assist there fight. Remember we are being watched! Perhaps some of you shod get there heads out of the sand, and have a look around.
Rgds

[RyanF]

HMMMMMM

[MouseKilla]

I'm glad to see that one or two others have taken a more realistic view of the significance that some language changes in some flimsy municipal by-laws might have. The answer is ZERO. If there was any realistic chance or even a hope in hell that this could catch on let alone escalate then I might worry, a little, but this is strictly a hypothetical conversation. For a change big business is on the same side of a debate as I am so I'll let them worry about this, them and any of you that want to waste your time fighting a ghost. Instead I'll be looking out for space aliens, flocks of poison birds and communists, all of which are bigger, more imminent threats to my lifestyle. The city can pass all the bylaws they like and I'll still do what I do, come and get me. Same goes for any of the Hollywood animal advocate losers, I paid thousands of dollars for animals, I have receipts, I own them, I'll keep them or skin them and eat them if I like.

[BWSmith]

As I said before, If you see no threat, then sit back and have a chuckle. Eventually you will see clearly, and you will be gald that the rest of us were "Chasing Ghosts".

Also thank you for illustrating another reason why they gain success. Complacency by those bound to be affected.

But if you don't care about the law anyway and will do what you wish regardless, then it does ot effect you either way.

[Infectrix]

BW, good post. Very good.

First off, this whole big fat slop cake irks me.

Get this, from the 12 things you can do to help animals,

To get started, find some vegan (no meat, dairy, or eggs) recipes on the Internet or pick up a vegan cookbook, and try out some new foods at a local health foods store. With so many delicious vegan foods available, you’ll be surprised how easy changing your diet is. Remember that each time you eat a plant-based meal, you are making a difference for animals, the environment, and your own health.

IDA, are you serious? Readers, take from that what you wish.

Has anyone read the Human-animal bond statistics? It reeks of anthromorphism. Read it and take from it what you wish.

Readers, take some time to go to the IDA website and read the President's Message and the IDA Mission Statement. You can probably find some contradictions somewhere in there.

What this pretty much has come down to IMO is the percentage of those in this world who fu*ked it up for everyone else. All those people are under attack, as they should be, but why not stop there. Since the ball's rolling let's extend our "gratitude" to everyone who keeps animals. And that, friends, sucks bad.

As for all the Guardians with celebrity, good way to get cool points. Yeah.

BWSmith quoted this from the IDA website and I'll do it again,

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. The majority is clearly moving toward compassionate, responsible animal guardianship.

That's where I see the threat, for us herpers, lying. Readers, take a look at yourselves. Some of you might be breeders, buyers, sellers, traders, or just collectors. We as herp enthusiasts are the perfect target for those who support Guardianship. Why do I think that?

- We keep animals who could care less what we feel about them. (The IDA believes all animals should have a personal relationship with humans)
- Our animals carry a$$ loads of monetary value. (The IDA believes that animals are worth more than their price tags)
- Our animals pass through the hands of different owners day in and day out. (The whole point of buying, selling, trading herps (as this does happen by the a$$ load ie. shows/expos, internet, yada yada) adds fuel to the IDA's belief that animals aren't "things" or "objects".
- Even as a super small minority (herp keepers), there are still those who f*ck things up. Royally. Take those jacked up pet stores for example, and no one can't forget our favorite one. Also take for example those who import ball pythons by the a$$ load hoping to find that one abberant one and sell it off as a morph and selling the rest of the "sh*tty" ones for cents
on the dollar. And those are just examples.
- Herps, of all animals kept in captivity, IMO are seen as the worst animals to keep.
- The "snake haters" (those who believe a good snake is a dead snake) grossly outnumber us herp keepers.
- And there are more reasons I can't think of right now.

Herp keepers, IMO, will never be majority. Even if every single herp keeper, including the thousands who are getting into the hobby or business, lobbied against Guardianship, we'd still only have a slim chance.

The only way I see us herp keepers "winning this war" is if we we're to tightly knit ourselves into a community like the NRA (National Rifle Association for those who don't know, the headquarters building is in Fairfax, Virginia. Minutes from my apt. woo hoo!! Ok unrelated, back to the subject.)

But even then stuff would still be jacked up. The jacked up stuff I speak of happened before I got into the hobby and will still happen when I get out. It'll happen regardless of my existence in this hobby pretty much. Most should know what I'm talking about.

Another side of me sees this as a huge bandwagon with plenty of seatbelts just welcoming people to have a seat (as there's plenty to go around) and tricking them into thinking they're doing something good. Who knows, I wish I did.

Will all this "stuff" really happen? I don't know. I would hate it, hate it with a passion, if I had to lose my snakes in that way. When will all this "stuff" happen? Again, I don't know. Among all the herp keepers in this world who am I? Just a keeper with an opinion. The smallest unit of organization in a much larger organization which itself is small. All I can advise is for everyone to stay vigilant. Keep an eye out for what's happening in your communities and what not, and be pro-active. Most of all, be smart and responsible keepers of your herps!!!!!!

I'm not going to let this get me down and out on snake keeping. Nor will it stop me from going to the Virginia Captive-Bred Reptile Expo next Sunday. I'm still going to keep snakes just as I did 6 hours ago. Who knows, this stuff might be a scare. But then again it might be a prelude to a disaster. It's definitely something to keep an eye out for and follow. HERP ON!

And I've only been to the IDA website.

[Thorn07]

I dont think that would ever be passed because it would eventually have to be voted on by the general public. Even the non-herpist an non-animal luvers ranchers would never go for it. the three biggest states run off the animal trades cali alaska and TX so that would never work even if it got passed congress. Okay lets think of where are hillbilly rebublican pres is from. THe same place I'm from, TX and he would veto that faster then a crackhead runs from the cops!!!

[TheRedDragon]

That is UNREAL!! Great post BWSmith. I am really starting to get sick of people's fascist bandwagon-jumping beliefs, ESPECIALLY when it comes to animals. Is there a petition going against this?

[BWSmith]

I am working on getting the wording right on it. I want it to be broad to include all pet owners. Give me a couple more days for fine tuning.

[Thorn07]

You can sign all the petitions you want, in fact send me a copy and I will get evryone I know to sign it. But I still don't think it would ever get passed anywayz. Not that I agree with the bill or anything, I am totally against it.

[BWSmith]

There is no bill. It is many different pieces of legislature that change terminology.

[JonD]

I wouldn't worry, something like this is just stupid. Hehehe, it wouldn't be so bad here in Ontario, our pets would be covered under our health care system and work benifits.. Yeah!!!!!! Free vets!!!! I'd take my snake for massages bi-annually and get him contacts that look like human eyes..:D