I vote for "sick". (Let your imagination be your html)

Sorry i am an HTML reeeeetard

News: Dog sues Guardian over removal of balls
"I thought he said tutored" says distraught pooch.

They have been calling people "guardians" in San Francisco for years.

It seemed stupid at first, but it makes sense, because they are not objects. Even though you own them, the standard of care is different than that which you give an inanimate and insensate object.

That said, I often refer to myself as the cats' victim. They sucker me out of kibble and toys and bits of my supper all the time, the mooches.

I miss my dog more than my husband.

I'm with grahams

The hippies here in Boulder, CO did this a while back. All it means is that I have to restrain myself from seeing how far I can punt all the little football-dogs when they latch on to my pant cuffs.

Now if we could just solve the CU-Student-stupidity problem we'd be all set.

/get off my lawn

I have no problems with pets being taken away from people deemed "unfit guardians". If they aren't being properly responsible (and this includes uncontrolled, unplanned breeding), they shouldn't be allowed the *privilege* of having an animal.

And I'm all for suing the owners if they're unfit and abusive -- and we should give the proceeds of the court case to the local Humane Societies and anti-cruelty leagues. Cool, indeed! :)

This is probably bad news for the average pet owner.

Jafiwam is on the right track. Didnt RTFA, but if pet ownership (and it is ownership) now has a higher standard of care, then the penalties (fines, prison, etc) are going to be higher. And the responsibilities are going to be greater.

As far as scumbags mistreating animals, that is my real concern. There are (likely) existing animal cruelty laws in that county which would do the trick. I would bet the problem is meaningful enforcement of the existing laws.

/california should secede

Theonceovertwice: I miss my dog more than my husband.

well...the dog is a considerably smaller target.

ropegun
california should secede

We'd be happy to, but the rest of the country can't afford it.

"The American Veterinary Medical Association promotes the optimal health and welfare of animals. Further, the AVMA recognizes the role of responsible owners in providing for their animals' care. Any change in terminology describing the relationship between animals and owners, including "guardian," does not strengthen this relationship and may, in fact, harm it. Such changes in terminology may adversely affect the ability of society to obtain and deliver animal services and, ultimately, result in animal suffering."

Source: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/ownership.asp

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jul03/030701i.asp (pops)

Ok, doesn't pop.

Bobthefascist:

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

Becoming? Dude, it's been a real toss-up for the past 30 - 40 years. Sure, So-Cal has it's alternatice types. But, we've actually been runned by hippies (and wanna-be hippies) for years.

We're through the looking glass here, people.

I have no problems with pets being taken away from people deemed "unfit guardians". If they aren't being properly responsible (and this includes uncontrolled, unplanned breeding), they shouldn't be allowed the *privilege* of having an animal.

That's the whole point. One's ownership of property is a right, not a "privilege". This includes a person's pets, despite the rhetoric of the animal rights groups.

It is amazing how those groups will try to get around this fact. One of my friends went to Humane Society animal shelter to picked up his dog, which had been released from his yard by an unknown person, and was handed a form and told "we need you to sign this before we return the dog to you"; the form basically signed away all of his rights as the dog's owner, gave the Humane Society the right to come on to his property without notice and to inspect all of the dog's "living areas", including the inside of his house, and to confiscate the dog if in the Humane Society's opinion relocating the dog to a new homewould be in its best interest.

Naturally, they had no legal power to demand he sign any such document, and he told them "no", but they certainly tried to give the impression that they did.

RALEX

It's gotta hurt knowing LA is "normal" by comparrison.

recently a friend's crazy wife brought her 11 year old, obese hound to the vet school here. the vets in her home town 2.5 hours
away told her there was nothing they could do, but she had to have the best medical care for her dog.
another 2000
bucks later they sent her home and the dog died 2 days later.
waste of time and money. give the dog some drugs to make it comfortable and let the dang thing die.

SwiftFox: "That's the whole point. One's ownership of property is a right, not a "privilege". This includes a person's pets, despite the rhetoric of the animal rights groups."

I respectfully disagree. Owning a pet means being responsible for the life of the pet, and being HELD responsible for providing reasonably humane treatment and living conditions for it. It's a live thing, not an inanimate piece of "property".

Maybe people who think of and treat their animals as 'property' are the problem.

BobtheFascist: Love SF, but yeah it hurts. Heck, LA is practically conservative when it comes to some issues.

Meheheh, while horses are considered "livestock".

"Yes, Virginia, Daddy IS going to shoot your (32 y.o. blind, insane, arthritic) pony. Go ahead, look up Pony Protective Services. Have fun."

Reclassify pets as "Emergency Meals", what? I know that



does not approve. He was however, last seen running from this woman.

amaranthe:
Owning a pet means being responsible for the life of the pet, and being HELD responsible for providing reasonably humane treatment and living conditions for it. It's a live thing, not an inanimate piece of "property".

No, it is a live piece of property, which animal cruelty laws already exist in order to assure the humane treatment and living conditions of; and which the owners of are likely better prepared to take care of, and for that matter more interested in the welfare of, than any bureaucracy that would attempt to take over the responsibility.

Perhaps you feel that those below a certain income should be forbidden to own a pet, or that anyone who can show that they could provide a better environment for someone's pet should be able to sue, and have the court rule that said pet's guardianship should be transferred to the more-privileged plaintiff? That's the direction you are going.

RALEX: BobtheFascist: Love SF, but yeah it hurts.

NEWSFLASH: this ISN'T SF. It's San Jose.

I realize a ton of the other comments must say the same thing, but just in case anybody missed it, this should be "STUPID" not "COOL".

When I was growing up you took your animal to the vet when it got hit by a car. That's about it.

Nowdays, my vet wants me to: 1. Give my cats heartworm medication. 2. Give my cats flea meds. 3. Clean all three cat's teeth once a year. 4. Bring them in yearly for their vaccinations. 5. Run lab tests on them yearly.

My cats stay inside. I also can't afford $300 x 3 a pop to clean teeth every year, $200 for labwork and vaccinations yearly, $50 a month for heartworm meds and flea meds.

My cats have a wonderful home with me, are healthy and happy. They do get vet care every three years or so, just not yearly.

No! No! Bad Koreans. No eating the kitty.

Farkmeblind: I know that! The article also said SF and Berkeley did that whole "pet guardian"....meh, forget it.

While you're at it, you dumbfarkers in CA, why don't you reclassify the ferret as a farking house pet and not an exotic animal along the lines of anything that Michael Jackson would keep in his zoo. Idiots.

Yeah, "fecal disposal attendants" doesn't have the same ring to it.

SwiftFox: "Perhaps you feel that those below a certain income should be forbidden to own a pet, or that anyone who can show that they could provide a better environment for someone's pet should be able to sue, and have the court rule that said pet's guardianship should be transferred to the more-privileged plaintiff? That's the direction you are going."

Not at all. But I do feel that if a person cannot afford to provide proper care and basic medical treatment for a pet, they should not GET one. That's not asking much. Just because they're not human doesn't mean we have the right to provide substandard care or abuse them. I'm not talking about weekly trips to the super-fancy grooming salon or feeding only 100% organic expensive crap, I'm talking shelter, nutritious food, fresh water, and respectful treatment. Parents who don't provide those things to their children are forced to relinquish their kids (at least in optimal circumstances); it should be the same for any living creature.

If you are unable or unwilling to be responsible for the life you take custody of, relinquish it to a qualified rescue organization or to someone who can. To do otherwise is both arrogant and selfish. "I'm entitled to have a pet and treat it like shiat, because I can, 'cause animals can't call 911 on me..." Those are the same people you see leaving their animals in the car in a parking lot in 80 degree heat with the windows rolled up while they stop in the bar for "just a minute", or the ones who raise dogs to fight so they can make a buck. To hell with what happens to the dogs -- it's THEIR investment, by golly.

/swills a beer
//applies more red to neck
///slaps bandage on chest to sop up bleeding heart
////actually dislikes beer, but loves slashies!! ;)

Don't worry, the universities in the county will still be able to torture dogs and cats with unnecessary medical procedures.
See, "pet guardians" go to jail if they abuse their animals, but "scientists" can do anything they want.

Let your small children play with small domesticated pets, guaranteed animal torture.

RALEX: Farkmeblind: I know that! The article also said SF and Berkeley did that whole "pet guardian"....meh, forget it.

Oh, whoa, now. I didn't say Berk and SF weren't whackass, just that this particular story isn't about them.

draelyn: While you're at it, you dumbfarkers in CA, why don't you reclassify the ferret as a farking house pet and not an exotic animal along the lines of anything that Michael Jackson would keep in his zoo. Idiots.

People have been working for sometime to reclassify ferrets in Ca and nearly got a law passed a year or two ago which might have paved the way, but the Governator didn't sign the legislation.