I want to state right off that my intent is NOT to stir up a fight, I would like POLITE, thoughtful opinions on this, regardless of which side you're on.

Yesterday I found out Eugene, Oregon is trying to add wording to their city code that would take away your right to "own" an animal, and you would instead be made their "guardian". My understanding is this would apply to everything, right down to rats and hamsters, and require registering of all your animals along with appropriate fees of course. (I'm still wondering why you have to pay to register "your" animal when it's no longer yours?)

This is hitting a little too close to home for me. I have a lot of animals, I take good care of my animals, but I am not ready to be appointed their "guardian" and have someone else making decisions for me regarding their keep. I hate it when people neglect or abuse their animals but we do have laws which cover that already. Some laws are perhaps too lax and some aren't enforced, but it seems to me that animal welfare would be better improved by having tougher consequences for abusers instead of giving animals personhood status.

Even leaving out the right or wrong of the issue, I can't see how this is going to improve the life of any animals. (Although I do see this improving the pocketbooks of certain people or agencies.) I am wondering how many people would feel even less responsibility for providing care since they no longer "own" the animal. How would they deal with the issue of the guardian making money off animals they no longer own? In a good number of cases, if people can longer have a say over what they do with their animal, or use the animal to make a profit, there would be no reason to keep it and a large number of animals are going to be abandoned. Who is going to care for these animals and who is going to pay for it? The shelters are already overflowing with unwanted pets.

-- Lenette (kigervixen@nospam.com), May 09, 2002

Answers

Our government in action!!

-- Melissa in SE Ohio (me@home.net), May 09, 2002.

One of the things I do to make money on our farm is to raise mice and rats for snake feeders. So, if I'm my mice and rats GUARDIAN, I don't guess I'd be allowed to sell them to those nasty snake owners. But then, if I was a snake's GUARDIAN, how would I be able to properly feed it? Maybe the Eugene Oregon city government will set up a food stamp program for snakes..... or give them vouchers for USDA approved rat meat.

That's just SOOOOOO ridiculous!

-- Cheryl in KS (klingonbunny@planetkc.com), May 09, 2002.

Lenette, this sounds totally nuts, When you are Guardian over a old family member, It is because he or she can not take care of themselves or there money, Does this mean your pets are incapable of takeing care of themselves. And if you don't do a good job taken care of there needs, they could haul you into court or jail, Plus take the pets away from you. There is something really stinking going on here. We the people are being caught in a web, And the big wig spider is about to devour us.

-- Irene texas (tkorsborn@cs.com), May 09, 2002.

I agree /our people in office could use their time more wisely as far as I am consirned!!!

-- Sonda in Ks. (sgbruce@birch.net), May 09, 2002.

Unreal. All I can say is try to get whoever came up with this idea voted out of office before they come up with something crazier.

You might want to stir up a fight at the next town council meeting or wherever these decisions are taking place.

-- Dave (multiplierx9@hotmail.com), May 09, 2002.

I don't live in Eugene, thankfully, so I can't do much about what happens in that city (known in this half of Oregon as "little Moscow on the Willamette"). I do worry about this animal rights mentality gaining a legal foothold, and creeping it's way over here. You guys have brought up some of the things that the powers-that-be over there apparently haven't thought of, things that seem SO obvious to anyone with a lick of common sense.

This animal rights thing always goes back to "whose rights?" Even if they made vegetarians of us all, most animals lives depend on eating another animal. Does the rat's right to live take precedence over the snake's right to eat or the other way around? Who decides? If they (animal rights people) make the decision, what gives them the right? Who says they are more important or wiser than the snake or the rat? That just opens up a whole new can of rats, pardon my pun.

And yes, there was mention of taking animals away, if you didn't take care of them. Animals should be cared for properly, but some of these animal rights people think riding a horse, taking an egg from a chicken, or milk from a cow or goat is abusive.

I first heard about this on a local radio talk show. One of the callers said he thought it was a great idea. The host, who was rather taken by surprise, asked him to explain his thinking. The caller replied, "Easy, if my animals are now citizens, I'm going to start charging them rent!"

Let's see, 60 horses at $100 a month plus our labor...

I may want to bring this "guardianship" thing up at the next city hall meeting.

-- Lenette (kigervixen@nospam.com), May 09, 2002.

Tom thinks government officials have too much time on their hands. Our cat just had kittens tonight. I'd hate to have some government tell us what to do with them if we can't keep them. My dad was a bit irked when they took a stray cat to the pound and had to PAY to leave it there.

-- Cathy N. (eastern Ontario) (homekeeper86@sympatico.ca), May 09, 2002.

It's another example of goverment trying to get to much power.We have to stand up for are rights and what this country was founded on. These laws are made by people who probally own no animals .

-- Patty {NY State} (fodfarms@hotmail.com), May 09, 2002.

When I hear about laws/regs like this being passed-I mean off- sounding ones not just animal rights stuff, I wonder-who is lobbing for this? Who stands to make a profit? I think thats what it all comes down to. Somebody, somewhere is going to make a profit on this. And that someone had enough power to get a law/regulation passed. Same deal with garden seeds-I know Monsanto is behind a lot of the controversail ideals being tossed around-like taxing private gardens and paying income tax on homeraised produce- they want to "regulate" seed-what they want is to control the seed bank! I know that sounds wildly paranoid, but I believe it. of course our government has thier hands out too. I don't for a minent believethe animal rights thing is an act of compassion on the part of a local government- somebody is going to profit from it.

Having said all that, I never truly felt that I have "owned" a cat, at best, I let them in and out, and throw them some Friskies from time to time-I think they own us! :^)

-- Kelly (homearts2002@yahoo.com), May 10, 2002.