Guardians?

[Bev]

Just got this heads up from Showbeagle-L mailing list:

In a message dated 1/14/2003 7:01:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, AWisnieski
writes:
List

This was asked to be cross posted

> Subj:Bad news: Guardian Issue passes in SFO. Is your city next?
> Date:1/14/2003 6:51:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:marjetta@optonline.net">marjetta@optonline.net</A>
> To:
> Sent from the Internet
>
By a vote of 8-3, the Guardian issue passed in SFO, Calif. led by the Green Party chair of the Board of Supervisors. The vote is sufficient to override a veto by the mayor. People, I can't emphasize that once these things get enacted, it is very difficult to get them off the books.

The Guardian issue is the brain child of Elliott Katz and In Defense of Animals. The point is to put animals on par with humans - to get legal rights for animals, and to weaken and then remove ownership rights. Katz will continue to push this in every area of the country.

For those who are confused about this issue, here in part, is what is on the NAIA website (reprinted with permission):
Advocates of rights for animals have seized on this closeness between people and their pets to initiate a campaign to undermine pet ownership.
They claim that making owners into guardians will result in better treatment for animals. However, their campaign rhetoric tells a different story: here they admit that they intend to use their effort as a wedge to end the ownership of pets.
>
In their own words:
"Our goal: to convince people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the language and concept of animal ownership." - Eliot Katz, In Defense of Animals
>
> " ... If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. ..." -Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.
>
US law is based on ownership of property, including animals. Property rights protect owners and their pets from unwarranted seizure by authorities and allow owners to make decisions about pet care, training, breeding, housing, and other matters. NAIA strongly supports laws that preserve our right to own pets, recognize acceptable animal care practices based on sound veterinary science, clearly define animal cruelty and neglect, and hold animal owners fully accountable for animal welfare violations.

NAIA's position is that pets are best protected and cared for by those who own them and therefore strongly opposes concepts and policies that allow others to make those decisions. NAIA also believes that replacing 'pet owner' with 'pet guardian' will clog the courts with frivolous cases brought by animal rights extremists on behalf of dogs, cats and other pets. harm animals by creating confusion about who is responsible for their care. make veterinary care so expensive that many animals will not receive it or will be prematurely euthanized. lead to increasingly restrictive animal care laws and regulations. limit the right of individuals to buy and sell pets as they choose.

> Suggested reading:
>
> http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?artic ... ">Guardian surfaces in San Francisco
http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/Guardian0702.cfm Los Angeles considers guardian proposal
http://naiaonline.org/body/pdfs/guardianship_final.pdf NAIA brochure: The 'pet guardian movement': an innocent attempt to improve
animal care or the end of pet ownership?
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles ... forces.htm Dog fanciers can join forces to turn the tables on anti-breed,
anti-breeder, and anti-pet groups Charlotte McGowan, Legislative Liaison, ASSA, PCA, NAIA Education
>