miakoda
04-29-2007, 10:57 AM
In reference to the poll on property owner vs. guardian vs. equal, here are some thought provoking quotes & articles:
In legal terms, the rights and obligations of a "Guardian," and the Guardian's abilities to resist intrusion from outsiders, are limited when compared to the rights and abilities of an "Owner." A person who owns property has rights under the U. S. Constitution not to be deprived of that property without Due Process of Law. In contrast, a "Guardian" does not enjoy the same level of Constitutional protections afforded to an "Owner."
Due Process can require a much higher standard of proof and more structured and stringent legal procedures to remove an animal from an "Owner" than from a "Guardian." A "Guardian" can be easily and quickly appointed, and just as easily and quickly removed, by a judge, often without a hearing or a trial.
an "Owner" does not have the absolute right to neglect or abuse his animals, and in most jurisdictions in this country there are laws against animal abuse and neglect
if we are "Guardians" rather than "Owners" of our animals, it is the State (i.e. the government), and not the individual, who owns the animal.
If we are "Guardians" rather than owners, then ultimately it will be the State, and not the individual, who has the power to say who will care for the animal, how it will be cared for, where it will reside, what medical treatments it will or will not undergo, and who will make all the other decisions regarding the health, welfare, life and death, or destruction, of that animal.Here is the link to the entire article:
http://www.nfss.org/Legis/AR-alerts/Companion/Comp-Wall-1.html
and another article:
http://www.vet.upenn.edu/bellwether/v62/article2.shtml
On the other hand, Dr. John Hamil, former president of the California VMA and once vice-chairman of the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee, worries about the unintended legal implications of pet owners being identified as guardians.
Lawyers may not share the public's view about what pet guardianship entails. "We could find ourselves as a profession, or as animal owners, caught in obligations that we had no understanding of, and certainly no intention of," he said.
Dr. James M. Harris, vice chairman of the AVMA Committee on the Human-Animal Bond, sees the issue as potentially exposing practitioners to a flurry of malpractice suits for allegedly failing to deliver the appropriate medical care necessitated by an animal's social value. In this scenario, practitioners would have to raise their rates to compensate for skyrocketing liability coverage; some clients would then be unable to afford even basic veterinary care for their pets.
"Words have power, words have meaning, and they are not to be taken lightly," Dr. Hamil warned, adding that it will be the courts that have the final say. "Be assured, somebody's going to try this on for size before long."
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class=quote>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
In legal terms, the rights and obligations of a "Guardian," and the Guardian's abilities to resist intrusion from outsiders, are limited when compared to the rights and abilities of an "Owner." A person who owns property has rights under the U. S. Constitution not to be deprived of that property without Due Process of Law. In contrast, a "Guardian" does not enjoy the same level of Constitutional protections afforded to an "Owner."
Due Process can require a much higher standard of proof and more structured and stringent legal procedures to remove an animal from an "Owner" than from a "Guardian." A "Guardian" can be easily and quickly appointed, and just as easily and quickly removed, by a judge, often without a hearing or a trial.
an "Owner" does not have the absolute right to neglect or abuse his animals, and in most jurisdictions in this country there are laws against animal abuse and neglect
if we are "Guardians" rather than "Owners" of our animals, it is the State (i.e. the government), and not the individual, who owns the animal.
If we are "Guardians" rather than owners, then ultimately it will be the State, and not the individual, who has the power to say who will care for the animal, how it will be cared for, where it will reside, what medical treatments it will or will not undergo, and who will make all the other decisions regarding the health, welfare, life and death, or destruction, of that animal.Here is the link to the entire article:
http://www.nfss.org/Legis/AR-alerts/Companion/Comp-Wall-1.html
and another article:
http://www.vet.upenn.edu/bellwether/v62/article2.shtml
On the other hand, Dr. John Hamil, former president of the California VMA and once vice-chairman of the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee, worries about the unintended legal implications of pet owners being identified as guardians.
Lawyers may not share the public's view about what pet guardianship entails. "We could find ourselves as a profession, or as animal owners, caught in obligations that we had no understanding of, and certainly no intention of," he said.
Dr. James M. Harris, vice chairman of the AVMA Committee on the Human-Animal Bond, sees the issue as potentially exposing practitioners to a flurry of malpractice suits for allegedly failing to deliver the appropriate medical care necessitated by an animal's social value. In this scenario, practitioners would have to raise their rates to compensate for skyrocketing liability coverage; some clients would then be unable to afford even basic veterinary care for their pets.
"Words have power, words have meaning, and they are not to be taken lightly," Dr. Hamil warned, adding that it will be the courts that have the final say. "Be assured, somebody's going to try this on for size before long."
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class=quote>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>