Owner vs. Guardian
A campaign to legally change the term pet “owner” to pet “guardian” in municipal codes and possibly statutory guidelines in states was launched in 1999 by In Defense of Animals (IDA), a nationwide animal rights group based in the San Francisco Bay Area. The platform for the campaign, according to the IDA Web site, is “to reflect growing public support for a redefined public standard relating to animals.”
Since the implementation of the Guardian Campaign, a number of U.S. cities (approximately 20), plus the State of Rhode Island and a Canadian province have adopted the change in terminology.
The issue of owner vs. guardian has been most prominently raised in California. In response to IDA’s campaign, the California Veterinary Medical Association has conveyed its concerns before various city councils when the topic has been placed on the agenda for discussion. The New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association has also tracked the issue in that state, as the topic has been introduced in several locales.
To our knowledge, the issue of owner vs. guardian has surfaced twice in Oregon. The first occurrence was about two to three years ago, when the City of Eugene briefly considered and declined a change in terminology. (We learned of this secondhand and after the discussion). The issue more recently came to our attention about a year-and-a-half ago, when Lane County commissioners were studying a litany of changes relative to animals (i.e., general animal control and shelter considerations, a pet food tax, dog licensing, and a requirement for veterinarians to provide the county with a list of clients whose animals were inoculated with a rabies vaccine). The term guardian was inserted in a couple of sections of a task force study, but a terminology change was not included in final documents.
More recently, and on behalf of the OVMA, Sen. Kurt Schrader, the Association’s recent past president, asked legislative counsel at the State Capitol to weigh in on the issue. This report indicated that the term “guardian” appears in 423 statutes, but that the word usually appears as “guardian of the person” or “guardian of the minor” or a variation on that theme. According to legislative counsel, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a court of law to interpret current “guardian” laws in Oregon to apply to animals.
The OVMA Board of Directors are concerned that if a statutory change on “owner” vs. “guardian” were to occur, it could very possibly have adverse consequences for the veterinary profession and animals in Oregon. With this in mind, the board appointed an ad hoc committee to study the issue and report back to the board, with a possible position statement. The committee did draft a position statement that the OVMA board approved on February 13 (see below). Committee members included: Drs. Dave Barno, Matt Dahlquist, Julie Grossen, Sheri Morris and Jacqui Neilson. Glenn Kolb, executive director with the OVMA, and Marcia Keith, the Association’s legislative advocate, provided staff support.
Position Statement
The Oregon Veterinary Medical Association supports maintaining the current terminology of “ownership” as it pertains to the relationship of humans to animals in the state of Oregon.
Background
While the OVMA appreciates the term “guardian” may reflect current emotional and social trends of the human relationship with animals in our society, the legal ramifications of making such a change in terminology from “owner” to “guardian” have far reaching consequences that may not always be in the best interest of animals or society. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that changing the definition from “owner” to “guardian” would lead to better treatment of animals. People who mistreat animals are going to do so regardless of their legal status: a “bad owner” would undoubtedly be a “bad guardian.”
Some unintended consequences of changing the status of ownership of animals to guardianship of animals may include the following:
- An owner, by law, bears full legal responsibility for his or her animal. In the legal sense, an animal is
considered personal property, owned and protected by the individual. Such ownership protects a pet from being taken away without due cause, but also places responsibility on the owner to care for his or her animal in a safe and humane manner. An owner is legally responsible for his or her animal’s welfare, protection and actions during its lifetime. A guardian, on the other hand, would have limited or temporary possession of the ward (animal). This may result in the following scenarios:
- The guardian not being able to make medical decisions regarding that animal
- Third party intervention on how the animal is treated/managed, directed at the guardian and veterinarian.
- It may become illegal to buy or sell animals, thus decimating the breeding industry for any animals.
- Public safety could be jeopardized since guardians do not have the same legal responsibilities regarding managing the actions of aggressive or dangerous animals.
- There could be significant impact on the livestock industry.
- Inability to sell/trade animals for breeding or slaughter
- Raising animals as an agricultural commodity may be jeopardized
- Third party intervention on how the animal is treated/managed may cause lawsuits or liabilities that could impact the economics of the industry
- Governmental agencies could possibly face significant costs.
- Replacement of all paperwork and posted signs to reflect the change in terminology
- Establishment of a system to protect these wards (animals) if a guardian were to fail in his or her duties
- Establishment of a system to oversee guardians
- Court time and costs associated with a third party lawsuit over the removal of guardianship, where perceived care does not meet the third party’s standards
- A change in the status would cause difficulty and lawsuits when local government tries to enforce its animal control and public health regulations, since all city, county and state laws are predicated on the fact that animals are property, albeit a special class of property
Oregon already has some of the strongest animal protection laws in the United States that provide for the welfare and safety of animals in the state. Instead of changing terminology that in some ways may be detrimental to our state’s animals, the OVMA supports continued enforcement of current animal welfare laws.
Adopted 2/13/05