let the flaming begin.

Is it time for another post-a-pic-of-your-pet thread already>

WHAT?

The day it's illegal for me to kill my dog is the day that America loses Jesus.

I guess it's better than calling them "pet gourmets," unless they have tasty cows as animal companions.

Cool? Are you joking? They're going to change ONE WORD. Net legal effect: zero.

Retarded, more like.

Good. God. I'm against animal cruelty, but domesticated or caged animals are property. Sorry if that sounds un-PC to some, but it's true.

This is California, in reality they did it cause it was insensitive to the pet.......then they had abortions, and let some pedophiles out of jail

this link needs a USELESS tag...

What does that mean, "being more responsible?" The article really doesn't say. If it means cleaning up after them, that makes sense.

Didn't RTFA, but anything that encourages more responsible pet ownership is probably a good thing.

/owns a GSD
//she's a sweetie

There goes Thursday's dinner.

Guardian? Ohoes noes, the FF/Wow/MMO fans will storm in!

Cool?...how about Asinine. Wording change and nothing else. Tax dollars well spent!

Your dog wants new terminology?

krelborne: Your dog wants new terminology?

Your dog wants a thesarus

Is it me, or is northern CA becoming the looney half of the state?

Nightsweat
There goes Thursday's dinner.


Not if we reclassify pets as "emergency meals."

The measure would change all references in county legal documents, but would not change any of the owners' responsibilities.

That is, until the local animal rights organization decides that an animal has the right to sue its owner ("guardian") when in their opinion that owner is not a fit guardian for the animal involved.

Feels like an Arby's night.

BobtheFascist: Is it me, or is northern CA becoming the looney half of the state?

I think it's more that northern CA is catching up to southern CA in the loony dept.

I have a nice little pet portrait and candids business in the Chicago burbs and have had the time of my life with the guardians/pet owners. These people really know how to take care of their pets. Since 95 percent of my portrait sessions are in the clients' homes, I see how well these dogs are treated.

Now what am I supposed to eat?

If they started to call childrens parents - Guardians - would they do a better job of raising their children?

Jaycatt

Makes sense.

Net effect = "couldn't hurt" to "marginal"
Net cost = FREE!

I'm cool with this change. Besides, refering to someone as a pet guardian isn't any more complicated a nomenclature and it really more acturately reflects the laws and morality surrounding pets.

How the bloody hell is this cool?!? You realise, of course, that they're trying to ultimately classify pets at the same level of children, legally. The goal of that is to, as expressed in PeTA's own words "Eliminate the breeding of all companion animals."

/farkedup
//seriously farkedup
///email a­pr­o­p­o­sv­rs­in­unet for the REAL "animal rights" agenda

obligitory:

Sounds like they're setting people up to be legally responsible for the actions of their pets. I don't know why this isn't the case NOW, but hey... whatever...

/people who are mean to animals aren't just mean to animals

Asinine tag wonders why it wasn't selected.

/animals are pets, not people
//soylent green is people
///vive la difference!!

CA county to reclassify pet owners as pet guardians, thereby forcing owners to be more responsible

So if they are not classified as owners, then noone is forced to be more responsible? I don't get it.

Was that the joke? YAR! I be angry.

SwiftFox
That is, until the local animal rights organization decides that an animal has the right to sue its owner ("guardian") when in their opinion that owner is not a fit guardian for the animal involved

"Please describe in your own words how your pet guardian treated you."
"Ruff."
"I see. Just as an example, what would a typical meal consist of?"
"Bark."
"No further questions, your Honor."

I like the idea of being able to take animals away from people who are deemed "unfit guardians."

/you can eat your meat, but don't torture an animal to death, leave it to starve, or keep it alive without medical treatment when it is sufering...

LoonieCobber

At the end of the day they're just trying to make the language more accurately reflect the reality of keeping pets.

I OWN a car. If I get mad at my car and hit it with a sledge hammer until it stops working, the law has nothing to say about that. This goes for any possessions I outright own as well.

Now, if I get pissed at my dog and hit it with a sledge till it stops moving, I can go to jail for years and years. And rightfully so, that's sadistic.

Now it goes that if I have the innate right to mistreat anything I own, then I must not own my pets because I get punished for mistreating them.

Guardian is more accurate. Even if the name change has no net effect in the real world, being more accurate in how we as human beings communicate should be everyones goal.

Boulder, CO beat them to this by about 6 years....

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/nov_dec_200 0/boulder_pet_guardian.html

Just wait until they figure out running over a dog (accidentally) or dying at the vet due to bad reaction to anesthesia is loss of property under the old law.

Now it's lost of companionship and "pain and suffering" lawsuit bait.

When all the vets are out of business and auto insurance goes up because of yet another category of ambulance chasers is born....

/People that abuse animals aren't going to stop because if this, they were stupid worthless shiatbags to begin with and now they are stupid worthless shiatbag guardians.
//BFD

I guess Petophile was already taken.

//one of these days I will proofread one of my posts

Officials saying being called a pet guardian should get people to be more responsible with their furry friends. The measure would change all references in county legal documents, but would not change any of the owners' responsibilities.

no effect other than calling pet owners guardians. none. This does absolutely dick.

Good analysis, Loonie.

I'm all for the humane treatment of animals but if the local laws say you are a pet's guardian rather than owner, is the average animal abuser going to behave any differently?

People who hurt animals aren't going to give a shiat if they are called owners or guardians or cumquats. They're going to keep on doing what they are doing.

IMHO gubmint should be small and cover essential areas only, and should spend a significant portion of it's time looking for ways to make itself even smaller.

I'm surprised people get so bent out of shape over a simple little change in nomenclature.

own-er
guar-di-an. add one syllable big friggin woop.

Even if it does nothing to curb pet abuse it doesn't hurt, and frankly it's a more appropriate term. Why the fuss?

It's things like this that fuel the argument that if gay marrige is legalized then next people will marry pets.

Can I claim them as a dependent on my taxes now? If not STFU.

Nuuu: Why the fuss?

The fuss is over the fact that this change doesn't do anything. It doesn't increase responsibilities for pet owners/guardians and won't "force" any bad owners into all of a sudden becoming good owners. It's nothing but lipservice.

Grow up, people. Try walking around for a month calling parents "child owners" and see if that feels synonymous with "guardian." All it's doing is recognizing the fact that caring for an animal isn't quite the same thing as caring for a piece of furniture.

more feel good BS.
the humane society here is going broke from all the sleepy needles they go through. pets are literally a dime a dozen. if these people really wanted to help, they'd work on getting animals adopted from shelters instead of a bunch of PC "guardian" crap.

BobtheFascist
Is it me, or is northern CA becoming the looney half of the state?

YES

/Already happened
//Led by Berkeley and SF
///The only good thing comming out of Northern CA these days is the herb.
////and the Sharks