Guardian?

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Dillydoodle

I also thought the word Guardian has been around a lot longer than these crazy animal activist groups..."Parent or guardian" was a common term used when i was growing up, and i look at myself as Dillon's parent or guardian - as far as the crazy animal activists , there are groups like this in every facet of our society now, the religious zelots, Radical political groups but i do believe they make up a small segment of our society, and truthfully i ignore them... but that is me..
Emilie

Dogs are animals = they are NOT little humans in fur suits! Parent and guardian are terminology used and that should stay reserved for humans - children, handicapped adults and the elderly.

Here are a couple of examples of why being your dog's guardian in legal terms is so dangerous (and these are real - can't make this stuff up, really I can't). A recent legislative attempt had nutritious food included into its requirements. The powers that be decide that Science Diet is the nutritious food you should be required to feed; you don't feed it, then you are an unfit guardian for Dillon. Heaven forbid this happen, but say Dillon comes up with an aggressive cancer. Chemotherapy is not something he will be able to be able to handle. However, some do gooder AR vet tech believes you should go to immeasurable lengths and do every option and treatment under the sun. She can take you to court, sue for guardianship and then you are forced to submit him to the treatments. Your right to have him euthanized and let him go with dignity and peace is taken away. Let's think about Barbara and Monty. Law says dog have to walked 3 times a day, yet Monty isn't able to manage but one outing a day, Barbara's declared an unfit "guardian."

I think the response to this thread illustrates how well the AR agenda has successfully brainwashed the general public and it is NOT limited to anyone country - it is international in scope. No one here who has responded positively about the term guardian would I categorize as an AR zealot, yet you're buying their spill. One thing the animal rightist are so good at doing is taking words and changing the meaning. I don't think anyone would object to the term tethering or disagree that there are times, circumstances, and individual dogs where this is a beneficial means to contain one's dog. Today tethering is becoming synonymous with chaining, as in chaining the dog to a tree 24/7 - 365.

My advice is IF you want to continue to own the pets of your choice, then it might be time to start giving a little thought to words - they do have meaning and it may not be the one you think it is.

Debbie

[Dillydoodle]

I have a problem with tethering... I think it is dangerous...
I am not brainwashed, I just don't care to let them ( or anyone else for that matter) have the power to change the meaning of a word...The word Guardian still means the same thing as it always did to me, so they didnt win this round with me.

I am a lover not a fighter, so i am going to go love Dillon a bit and not fight about this..
Emilie

[Jespah]

guardian

• noun 1 a defender, protector, or keeper. 2 a person legally responsible for someone unable to manage their own affairs, especially a child whose parents have died.

This is the swill of the Oxford English Dictionary.

I could be a guardian of a secret, a castle or any other inanimate object for that matter. I don't give a hoot what words the AR people have chosen to hijack and use to suit their purposes. I don't buy into their agenda by any means and by using a word that to me means that I defend, protect and keep my animals does not mean I have been brainwashed by them. In fact, I never even knew that this controversy existed until this thread - does that make me naive? I don't think so; this is something the average person who has pets in their life would not come up against.

If I bought my dogs, I keep them in my home, and I feed and care for them - what am I to them? I am an owner who will defend, protect and keep them.

I understand Peggy's initial concern that the term was being used on this website - a site for people who care for Corgis – could be construed by someone who knows that it is a term with a distinct meaning in animal rights. I also think it would be a good idea if the person who used the term – I assume Stephen, would explain the intent in which he used it.

Has anyone directly asked Stephen why this term is being used????

Deb

[pat_m]

Given that this is an International Community - Guardian could mean something else to someone in another part of the world.

An example - A Homely woman in India is not a bad term. It means that she perfers to say home and be a homemaker. Picked that up on NPR today.

Just something to think about.

Not a big deal from my perspective.

[Chip's Mom]

I just googled PETA and read through some of their articles and the word they often use associating a "companion" animal to people is guardian. They are advocating to keep fish out of fish tanks in one article. It kind of reminds me of the ACLU who started out meaning well and ended up taking prayer out of schools, getting rid of the Ten Commandments mainly because people were to complacent and didn't pay any attention to what was going on around them. Now I am not saying that directly to anyone, I am just stating my opinion generally speaking.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Chip's Mom

I just googled PETA and read through some of their articles and the word they often use associating a "companion" animal to people is guardian. They are advocating to keep fish out of fish tanks in one article. It kind of reminds me of the ACLU who started out meaning well and ended up taking prayer out of schools, getting rid of the Ten Commandments mainly because people were to complacent and didn't pay any attention to what was going on around them. Now I am not saying that directly to anyone, I am just stating my opinion generally speaking.

Exactly Bonnie! You get it. It starts with a word here and there and a law that sounds good and then, well, we're up a creek with out a paddle.

And thanks to Debbie for explaining so much. I didn't get to Go Corgi yesterday, I had some personal things to deal with.

As for teathering, I don't agree with it for long term care of a dog or for that being the only place the dog ever is. However, there are times when you might need to teather a dog. Suppose you move into a new house, you might need to teather your dog until you get your fence up. IMO, any law that says "never" is too broad.

And no I haven't ask Stephen. I've emailed him before with a question and never got an answer. So thought I'd just ask here. Michael seems to be "in charge" here, and is the "super moderator" so I thought he might know. He seems to be ignoring the thread though...

Peggy

[Chip's Mom]

An added thought - They also use "tether" as a description for tying a horse and the word should be well known in the horsey world. If I went camping, I would ty my dogs to keep them safe. Now I don't agree with tying a dog in the backyard and leaving them there permanently but sometimes there is a need to ty your dog. When we go boating, I ty Chip with a 20 ft length of leash when we are on shore. I am with him but I feel he is safer tied. You never know what is lying around on the banks of the lake and we have seen beartracks, etc.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Chip's Mom

An added thought - They also use "tether" as a description for tying a horse and the word should be well known in the horsey world. If I went camping, I would ty my dogs to keep them safe. Now I don't agree with tying a dog in the backyard and leaving them there permanently but sometimes there is a need to ty your dog. When we go boating, I ty Chip with a 20 ft length of leash when we are on shore. I am with him but I feel he is safer tied. You never know what is lying around on the banks of the lake and we have seen beartracks, etc.

Right, that's my thoughts too, there might be a time or two when you need to "teather" your dog. And if they can outlaw it for dogs, won't be long before they try in horses too.

Peggy

[Artos]

Originally Posted by glencorgi

Dogs are animals = they are NOT little humans in fur suits! Parent and guardian are terminology used and that should stay reserved for humans - children, handicapped adults and the elderly.

Debbie

1 Some on this forum might prefer OWNER and prefer to see dogs as 'posession' and as animals.
Some of us DO NOT.

2 Some prefer title of OWNER.
Some wont use it. Will only use the title of 'guardian' and parent.
Nothing to do with AR or PETA or whatever you might be familiar with. We dont have any dealings with these.
We might have our own good reasons for our choices too.

3. It is a contextual issue - for some (not all) in one part of the world eg North America.
It is not for us on other parts of the world.
Is this forum just for those in eg North America?
Or is it for all?

4. Suggest that we have both
OWNER/ GUARDIAN :_________
if that helps to solve the problem. Those who prefer one or the other can strike off the offending title.

Win-win situation.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Artos

2 Some prefer title of OWNER.
Some wont use it. Will only use the title of 'guardian' and parent.
Nothing to do with AR or PETA or whatever you might be familiar with. We dont have any dealings with these.
We might have our own good reasons for our choices too.

Could you explain your reasons?

3. It is a contextual issue - for some (not all) in one part of the world eg North America.
It is not for us on other parts of the world.
Is this forum just for those in eg North America?
Or is it for all?

I agree it's for everywhere, but Animal Rights issues are everywhere too. Did you know that in Italy corgis are on the danerous dog list? Scandanivan countries forbid docking? In Germany the government has a big hand in who breeds and has a limit on how many puppies can be in a litter. If there are more than they say there should be you have to cull (meaning euthanize) the "excess".

All of those are Animal Rights backed issues. The terms they use are just a way to get a foot in the door. Convince people that guardian is a better term than owner and then when they introduce a law for that term, then they are on the way to having control of our animals.

I just want people to be aware of what's going on. And not just buy into the "feel good" stuff without knowing how it can affect all of us down the road.

4. Suggest that we have both
OWNER/ GUARDIAN :_________
if that helps to solve the problem. Those who prefer one or the other can strike off the offending title.

I could live with that compromise. At least give me the choice.

Peggy

Win-win situation.[/quote]

[Artos]

Thanks Peggy.
Hope the forum will provide a win-win compromise.

There arent animal rights activists active here in my part of the world. We are on the other end of the spectrum-where animals are not given much respect nor rights in labs etc. New rules are being put in but its very little compared to what you have when it comes to protecting them from abuse etc.

My reason for calling myself my furkids' GUARDIAN is because I do not have absolute right over their lives. I might have paid quite a bit for the privilege of adopting ('buying') them. But I am a steward i.e. I take care of them as a trust from God. I am accountable to God for how I treat them and He is very concerned about them and their well being because He loves them.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Artos

There arent animal rights activists active here in my part of the world.

Where are you?

My reason for calling myself my furkids' GUARDIAN is because I do not have absolute right over their lives. I might have paid quite a bit for the privilege of adopting ('buying') them. But I am a steward i.e. I take care of them as a trust from God. I am accountable to God for how I treat them and He is very concerned about them and their well being because He loves them.

While I agree with you in part, in the US the terms we use make a lot of difference. Ownership allows us more rights than guardianship.

I'm not sure what you mean by not having absolute right over their lives. Could you explain a bit more?

You should have the right to choose the treatment for a medical condition or decide when enough is enough and when it's time to end any suffering and let them go. You should have the right to decide how many times a day they eat or go for walks. Not some law. (Some laws are saying you should have food and water in front of animals 24 hours a day. Well, I've got dogs here that would bloat if I left food with them all day.)

Peggy

[Artos]

Am in Asia.

There arent enough laws to protect animals here.
While you might be concerned about the right to decide re your pet's medical care and frequency of meals...on this side of the world - it might be good if there's some laws to provide for/protect pets or strays in those two areas.

Laws, if any- are designed to protect the humans in such a way that sometimes, there's no place for animals welfare at all.
Its a different world.

Animals are sometimes (not always) seen as no better than THINGS- to be utilised, discarded, mistreated for entertainment/food.
I dont mind having some of your crazy activists here- only if they learn how to work 'within the system' (not confrontational and loud) for change in the attitude towards and care for animals.


What I mean by "Absolute right"? I mean eg the right to end their lives anytime/abandon them- for the most trivial reasons ('no time to care for them/ lost interest/ too much trouble trying to find another home/ neighbours complain about noise/ skin problems/ barks a lot/ too big for apartment etc). Or feeding them only if I feel like it....providing shelter for them only if it isnt too much of a problem for me.....

"Absolute right" means that I am accountable to no one for my treatment of my pet and I can do with the pet anyway as I please.

I don't believe I have that right.
Even if the law (or the lack of laws)allows me to do it, I dont have that right.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Artos

Am in Asia.

Ok, I understand and I agree you do need some "abuse" type laws.

Animals are sometimes (not always) seen as no better than THINGS- to be utilised, discarded, mistreated for entertainment/food.
I dont mind having some of your crazy activists here- only if they learn how to work 'within the system' (not confrontational and loud) for change in the attitude towards and care for animals.

What you want is Animal Welfare not Animal Rights. Animal Welfare people would work towards making things better for animals. Animal Rights people would work towards banning owning animals or using them for food. They want to see and end to domestic animals. You want animal welfare laws.

What I mean by "Absolute right"? I mean eg the right to end their lives anytime/abandon them- for the most trivial reasons ('no time to care for them/ lost interest/ too much trouble trying to find another home/ neighbours complain about noise/ skin problems/ barks a lot/ too big for apartment etc). Or feeding them only if I feel like it....providing shelter for them only if it isnt too much of a problem for me.....

"Absolute right" means that I am accountable to no one for my treatment of my pet and I can do with the pet anyway as I please.

I don't believe I have that right.

We don't have those kind of rights either. There are laws for abandoment and abuse.[/quote]

It's still Animal Welfare you want to work with not Animal Rights.

Peggy

[Artos]

Hmmm...Maybe "Animal RIGHTS' title has been tainted as the word "Guardian" is tainted with association with some groups at your place.

I would see Animal Rights are a kind of parallel to 'human RIGHTS'...not 'welfare'.

Welfare would be associated with Singapore SPCA here- they kill dogs and cats (92 per cent of those surrendered to them because they dont have a way of caring for these. They are not willing to focus on options like working with the other animal concern groups which have been established since SPCA started this policy. Those groups actually find housing for the animals at great cost to themselves and are run primarily by volunteers- unlike SPCA)

SPCA focuses on education and prevention but they are lousy at proactively fighting the laws of the land which prevent people from adopting more than l dog (of a specific size) per apartment (80 per cent of all Singaporeans live in apartments because land is very expensive) and 3 per landed property (eg houses). With so many strays and abandoned dogs, the laws allow more and more pet shops to import pups from abroad without microchipping them. So abandonment of dogs when the grow 'too big' is a problem. Those who love dogs cant save strays if they have to keep to the quota of l dog/3 dogs max per household. So dogs are regularly culled.

We need some ACTIVISTS here....to fight for just laws for animals.