ctivist Group Urges Civil Rights for Pets
By Michael Betsch
CNSNews.com Editorial Assistant
July 31, 2001
(CNSNews.com) - A California group is working to elevate the social status of pets by granting them legal rights of their own. The group "In Defense of Animals" (IDA), also wants to change the language of local laws so pet "owners" are referred to as pet "guardians" instead.
"This simple wording change is an effort to elevate the status of animals beyond that of mere property to that of living, breathing sentient individuals with needs and rights of their own," IDA's website explains. Boulder, Colo., was the first city to include the term "guardian" in its local laws last July.
Elevating the status of pets, both socially and legally, stems from the IDA's belief that pet abusers are treated too leniently by the courts. When pets are perceived by courts as being the property of owners, "quite often he/she is let go with a mere 'slap on the wrist', to go back into the community to continue his/her abusive ways," according to an IDA action alert. The IDA would prefer that the courts view the abusers as "guardians of living beings rather than owners of property."
Martha Armstrong of the Humane Society of the United States said her organization is "very sympathetic to many parts of what the IDA is trying to do in their program. We frequently refer, if not always refer, to the person that has an animal in his or her home as the guardian, or caretaker or caregiver of that animal rather than owner." Armstrong is a vice-president for companion animals and equine protection at the Humane Society.
However, David Almasi does not believe in elevating the status of pets in society. "If they [pets] want to be on equal level with society, when are they going to go out and get jobs?" Almasi, the Executive Director for the National Center for Public Policy Research explained. "Rights and responsibilities go together. It's great to give an animal rights, but in return, there are responsibilities that they cannot give us."
Armstrong admits that simply changing the terminology from pet owner to pet guardian is insufficient. "From a legal aspect, we do have some concerns about changing the terminology from owner to guardian without other safeguards being in place.
"Right now," Armstrong said, "the only type of protection that some animals, dogs and cats usually have under the law is as property. Establishing ownership, if you will, is key to protecting that animal from being abused or mistreated or killed by someone else."
But according to Armstrong, ownership also has its disadvantages. "The only rights that companion animals enjoy at this time, under law, for the most part are property rights and those that are bestowed on the owner of that animal rather than the guardian or caregiver of that animal."
While the IDA points to the success that Boulder citizens have had in legally incorporating "guardian-companion" language into the city's local laws, both Armstrong and Almasi view this as a difficult legal issue.
Armstrong said there "has been a major push in the United States within the past few years to recognize cruelty to animals as a far more egregious offense than the misdemeanor penalty that has been levied against those types of offenses in the [past]."
The recent verdict in a San Jose, Calif. animal cruelty case is proof that the animal rights movement is being taken seriously. Defendant Andrew Burnett was sentenced by Judge Kevin J. Murphy to the maximum penalty of three years in prison for the death of "Leo," the bichon frise that Burnett grabbed from a car and threw into oncoming traffic during a road rage incident last year.
"The penalty against the person that threw the little dog 'Leo' out of the car," Armstrong said, "is a substantiated case for the fact that many of the laws that have already been changed and changed because of the recognition of cruelty to animals being a far more egregious offense than just a misdemeanor. Those are things that we are seeing across the country, that they are levying much greater fines."
Almasi disagreed with Judge Murphy's decision, stating it "was dealt with very harshly."
"When that woman's pet, and we still use the term 'pet', was killed and thrown out of the car into traffic, the guy got 3 years in jail," Almasi said. Questioning the extent to which the courts will punish future pet abusers, he asked, "How much harsher, besides giving the guy a life sentence or putting him in the electric chair?"
Prosecuting and preventing animal cruelty, Armstrong believes, is a positive step forward. "There are now, I think, about 38 states out of the 50 states that do recognize some types of abuse to animals, cruelty to animals, as being a felony.
"I think that a lot of that push has been a recognition of the fact that not only do we consider companion animal pets to be more a part of our family than we do other types of animals, but there's also been a lot of substantiated proof that people who abuse pets are also very abusive to humans as well," Armstrong added.
Almasi disagrees with Armstrong and the IDA's approach of legitimizing animal rights on the basis of the "Leo" case. "What these people are doing," Almasi said, "is that they're trying to make it that you need to treat animals on the same level as you treat human beings. That's where it's wrong."
Boulder residents, according to the IDA, are noticing the changes since revising terminology in their local laws. "The Boulder newspaper is routinely using the word guardian (not "owner") in articles and editorials; the Humane Society of Boulder Valley is using guardian in their daily language and in all printed material; and signs erected by City Staff in dog parks now use the new terminology."
Two California cities, West Hollywood and Berkeley, have followed Boulder's lead and made similar changes to their ordinances to "reflect the fact that their citizens are indeed guardians of their dogs, cats and other companions," the IDA website states.
"Regardless of whether we call them owner or guardian or whether they're just homeless animals in the shelter," Armstrong said, "there's still a greater recognition that animal abuse is a very serious issue." Armstrong concluded, however, that, "simply changing the terminology from owner to guardian is [not] necessarily going to change the way courts perceive cruelty to animals."
cnsnews.com\Culture\archive\200107\CUL20010731a.html |
