Message from TX RPOA

Before I post this message I have to say I am so sorry for people living in those places where pet status has changed from ownership to guardianship. Fewer animals will be pets, fewer animals will go to good homes, and fewer animals, if any, will be bred…It is an Animal Rights Extremist Agenda and has little to no concern about Animal Welfare and the protection animals receive when considered property. -Step right up to the insanity that PETA offers…

Today at 6:17 PM

From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance Texas Outreach
Crossposting is encouraged.
October 24, 2013

RPOA and NAIA (National Animal Interest Alliance) are quoted in this well
written article below regarding the “Owner” vs “Guardian” issue with our
animals. It doesn’t mince words and defines the difference between Animal
Welfare and Animal “Rights.” Names groups. Writer mistakenly says RPOA is
an affiliated NAIA organization which is incorrect. We’re not affiliated
with any other group, but we are on the same side!
Our quotes are the result of an interview following one of our “PR Newswire”
Press Releases last year and clearly demonstrates how important it is to get
our message to the public and media persons. Unfortunately donations have
been down and we’ve had no funds for PR Newswire this year. An RPOA
fundraising letter is in the mail to all Texas pet clubs, so watch for yours
at your next club meeting. If your club doesn’t receive one, let us know!
We hope you will support our efforts as the coming year is the most
important year of our existence. More on those goals later![T]&

Cities in California, Arkansas, Colorado and the state of Rhode Island have
changed the status of pet owners to “owner/guardians” or just “guardians.”
Saying no one has the inherent right to “own” an animal.

Are We Pet “Owners” or  “Guardians”?

A 100-pound pig, orphaned when his owner passed away recently, currently resides in a shelter located in southern Maine. The staff is fervently trying to find a home for this domesticated pig – not an easy task because this animal lived a pampered life. He was, for instance, used to sleeping in a bed with his beloved caretaker.

But if he is adopted out to a family, should his new family be considered his “owners” or his “guardians”? In Maine, for now, the pig is legally considered property, as animals are throughout most of the United States.

However, a growing number of communities – and one state – are changing the status of pet owners to “owner/guardians” or just guardians. The latest municipality to do so was the city of Sherwood, Arkansas, joining the California cities of Berkeley and West Hollywood, as well as Boulder, Colo., and the state of Rhode Island.

These cities and Rhode Island take the stance that no one has an inherent right to “own” an animal. Rather, people are guardians of their companion animals, who are unable to take care of themselves adequately because their environment has been altered to fit the lifestyle of people.

The argument may seem to be one of semantics at first glance, especially in today’s world where pets are increasingly considered full-fledged family members. However, there is a tug-of-war under way between groups that feel animals possess certain inalienable rights (should not be considered property) and those who believe such campaigns are signs of extremists trying to impose their values on people.

Though they may not realize it, pets have come a long way in the last hundred years or so. They are still considered property in 95 percent of the country, but laws have been enacted to provide protection against abuse and neglect. Mistreating or neglecting an animal is becoming a serious offense – even a felony in cases with aggravating circumstances. But should they be accorded a status other than pets? And what does it mean, legally, for a person to be considered a guardian rather than an owner? This article provides an overview of the welfare/rights debate.

It is dangerous to slap all-inclusive labels on any one organization because, like so many movements, there are different shades and sides to the same argument. But the debate over terminology is at its heart the fundamental difference between animal rights and animal welfare activists.

The Animal Rights Argument
The animal rights argument, at its core, holds that animals are not and should not be considered property. Groups such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and In Defense of Animals oppose any human claims on animals. Animals are not ours to buy or sell, use in experiments or as entertainment (as in circuses or zoos), or to be used as food or clothing. They should not be raised or kept on farms or enclosed in cages, zoos, etc. Eating meat is considered immoral and a crime against an animal’s right to live out his or her natural life.

In the home, domesticated animals should not be considered pets. According to In Defense of Animals, one of the leading animal rights groups in the country, changing the language would encourage people to treat “companion animals as living feeling beings as opposed to mere objects or possessions.”

Andrew Butler, campaign coordinator for PETA, explains that improving the conditions of animals – which PETA works toward – is a laudable effort, but only addresses the symptom of the disease, which is the exploitation of animals for human gain.
“In the legal sense, animals have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” he says.

Animal rights groups are wholly opposed to any selling or buying of animals, and stress that pets should only be adopted through shelters rather than purchased from breeders. Animal rights organizations oppose any form of deliberate breeding, and organizations such as PETA and the IDF are strong proponents of mandatory spay/neuter programs.

Butler explains that the domestication of dogs and cats makes their case a little different. In an ideal world, they would be free in the wild to live their lives according to the dictates of their natural behavior. But humans have altered their evolution through selective breeding, and domesticated pets have become dependent on people.

These animals still retain basic rights, Butler says, and should be afforded the status of companion animal rather than property. In 1995, a Summit for the Animals was held in San Francisco in which a resolution was passed to change the designation of pets to “companion animals,” and more significantly, owner to guardian.

The animal rights movement argues that the primary benefit to changing the language is to change the perception of animals, and to strengthen anti-cruelty laws. They say that while animals are considered property, crimes against them are punished only in relation to their monetary value, not as individuals possessing their own rights.

The Animal Welfare Argument
The other side of the debate is characterized as “animal welfare.” These groups also work toward improving the lives of animals, but do not oppose raising and using animals for food, fiber, labor and medical research to save human lives. They do not oppose the featuring of animals in movies, circuses and in many sporting events.

According to the National Animal Interest Alliance, one of the largest animal welfare organizations in the United States, “animal welfare requires humane treatment of animals on farms and ranches, in circuses and rodeos, and in homes, kennels, catteries, laboratories and wherever else animals are kept.”
Animal welfare advocates contend that animal rights groups are working to end pet ownership altogether, as well as the involvement of animals in all human endeavors, including service animals for the blind, deaf and disabled.

(In his interview, Butler noted that technology can provide a better solution, other than service dogs, for the disabled. Animal rights proponents do not believe that dogs should be used in human-related occupations.)

Mary Beth Duerler is president of an affiliated organization called Responsible Pet Owner’s Alliance. In an interview, Duerler argues that the ultimate wish of animal rights groups “is not clean cages, but empty cages.”
“Animal rights is not about humane treatment,” Duerler says. “It’s about no treatment whatsoever. No pets, no zoos, no meat for food. A human and an animal are the same thing.”

Duerler believes that changing language from “pet owner” to “guardian” is the most important step in the animal rights agenda because it will provide legal opportunities to achieve their goals through the courts. In its policy statements, the National Animal Interest Alliance contends that animal rights activists want to pass laws that “deprive citizens of the right to make ethical determinations about their relationships with animals” by transferring all rights and powers to courts and governments.

On the Front Lines of Overpopulation
The debate will continue, passionately in some parts of the country and more as an academic exercise in others. To the pig living in the shelter in southern Maine, the question is indeed academic. He is used to a loving home and living a life most pigs could not imagine.
The question is also something of an abstraction for the shelter’s executive director, Steven Jacobsen, who runs the largest animal shelter in Maine.

He said, frankly and honestly, that while his staff holds differing opinions on the subject, they are all trying to take care of and place the thousands of homeless animals that wind up in the shelter every year. Including, Jacobsen said, that 100-pound pig that once slept in his favorite human’s bed.


Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned  -B


~ by topcatsroar on October 24, 2013.

2 Responses to “Message from TX RPOA”

  1. The way I see it, if you adopt a child, or are legal guardian to a person, then YOU are the legal representative of that person or child, with full Power of Attorney, not some welfare non-profit or meddler. If we all become “guardians” to our animals, then there is no buying, as such. You don’t buy a child. And the animal adoption agency better have all the paperwork, including a birth certificate, and records of nationality and ancestry, up-to-date flu shots and measles vaccinations, etc. for that animal. The groups like Animal Legal Defense Fund, or whatever they call themselves, would have no say about the animal because THEY are not the legal guardian; YOU are. And they could not force you to rip out your carpets in order to have a hard concrete floor for the animals. As guardian, you have a duty and a right to provide those animals with all the comforts you enjoy yourself. Of course, farmers would have to be re-named as guardians/grooms/stewards and keep all their chickens and cows in the house… probably no more than 2 to a bedroom, with bath and shower privileges and a place at the dinner table… With rights come responsibilities, and those animals would have to be responsible for cleaning up after themselves, flushing the toilet, and helping wash dishes. The animals we are not allowed to have in our homes and have to set free would have all the freedoms to run loose, and run they’d definitely have to, until caught by another animal that refuses to recognize their rights and eats them. That animal would then be hunted down and arrested by law enforcement. Since that animal has no guardian, it would be tried in a court of its peers, and sentenced to life in prison on murder or assault charges. Perhaps a human prisoner would have to be euthanized to make room for the new prisoner? -Sounds silly, but that’s pretty much what we can envision once the animal rights people get their way.

  2. I honestly wonder if people that want all animals free really think about the consequences of that? I mean there are MILLIONS of chickens that go to slaughter every week. and millions more in the line to be processed. Just think if one day it was said no chickens will die and all those million of chickens were freed. Imagine the chaos of millions of chickens running around, the stench from millions of chickens pooping freely, the dead chickens rotting (the ones that tried to find out WHY chickens cross the road and all the ones that the freed carnivores kill) the chickens dying from starvation and I could just go on. AND THAT is only CHICKENS. Consider the millions of other animals that are raised for slaughter, cows, pigs, sheep, goats. Think of all that POOP! People would soon be dying by the thousands from disease and starvation because there would not be any clean water or veggies for us to eat most of those animals are vegetarians by design. Then of course there are the big animals and exotics that would also be freed. It would be a blood bath and it would not be just other animals killing eachother but the animals would be killing us. Yes i have sat there and THOUGHT about this I wonder if any of those naked PETA people thought about how it would feel to walk barefoot thru POOP and rotting dead animals?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: