|
|
RMR's
Horsepeople's Forum
Should
Horses have "Guardians" instead of "Owners"?
Please
read this commentary that ran in a recent issue of Rocky Mountain Rider
Magazine, and then let us know how you feel about "Owners" or
"Guardians."
12
Comments
Write
a comment
We will update each page as
soon as possible with
your comments!
Click
on the link to go to the site where you can add your own comments to be posted on
this page!
Commentary
—
Animal Guardianship
By
Gregory
M. Dennis, JD
Originally printed in the Equine Disease Quarterly,
University of Kentucky
Animal Guardianship: Imagine that overnight a new state law goes into
effect declaring that from now on you do not own your animals but, rather, you
are their “guardian.” Does this sound farfetched? Some local communities
have already made this change. The first legal step on this road has been the
addition of “owner-guardian” language to local ordinances, then changing the
wording to “guardian” only. One state now has “owner-guardian” as a part
of its law, and various federal agencies are using the word “guardian” in
conjunction with “owner” whenever the latter appears in their regulations.
Animal
guardianship advocates suggest that referring to the human-animal relationship
as one of guardianship rather than ownership will lead to better animal care.
There is little basis for this assertion; an abusive animal owner would likely
be an abusive animal “guardian.”
While
local ordinances to date have generally applied only to dogs, cats, and other
companion animals, a next step would be to expand such laws to include all
domestic animals. With the groundwork in place, guardianship advocates could
then move to the state level.
“Ownership”
and “guardianship” are two distinct legal terms. The first is an expression
and protection of the property owner’s legal rights, while the second imposes
numerous legal duties and obligations on the guardian. Today as an animal owner,
you can decide the animals’ care and future as long as you are not abusive,
cruel, or neglectful: what to feed or where to house them; which animals to
breed them with; what veterinary care to provide; whether to sell them, put them
down, or include them in your Will.
If
the law changes and you no longer own your horses but instead become their
“guardian,” you will always have to act in the horses’ best interest. As
you can well imagine, there will be many times when your horses’ best
interests are not yours: euthanizing a horse to avoid a substantial veterinary
bill could be prohibited, as could using horses in endeavors like racing and
showing. A guardian would be unable to sell horses, as they are no longer
property.
If
you no longer own your horses, property insurance policies might not cover the
loss of your horses or injury to them. Expenses, write-offs, and other
deductions under federal and state tax laws, which are predicated upon horses
being property and assets belonging to their owners, might no longer be
available.
A
successor-guardian could be appointed to sue you on behalf of your horses for
not having taken care of them properly, for their injuries, and even for their
deaths. The list of legal repercussions that could befall horse owners should
the law be changed from ownership to “guardianship” is extensive, and it
behooves the horse industry to remain vigilant about pending legislation.
This Commentary was reprinted with permission of the
Department of Veterinary Science, Maxwell H. Gluck Equine Research Center,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, HY 40546; 859-257-4757. www.ca.uky.edu/gluck/index.htm.
13
Comments
Write
a comment
We will update each page as
soon as possible with
your comments!
Click
on the link to go to the site where you can add your own comments to be posted on
this page!
|
Wednesday,
July 27, 2011 11:10:58 AM
|
Idaho
I own 1-5 horses
|
I am really tired of these bleeding heart liberals telling me how
I need to live and what I need to do. Why can't they let people live how they
want to live. If I don't like something, I don't do it or get it or watch it or
listen to it. If they don't like something, they make sure no one else can
experience it either. Come on people, we are all individuals and we are all
different. Let us live our own lives without having you but in and make us live
our lifes how you want us to. I love my horses- they are family. I care for
them, provide food, water, attention and regular vet care. I buy a horse - I own
the horse. PERIOD!!!!!
|
|
Friday, June 10, 2011
8:31:10 PM
|
Montana
I
own 1-5 horses
|
I
OWN horses and mules . Leave the guardianship crap to the
California
bleeding heart liberals. I will NEVER be a guardian and I do not care what law
says that I have to be a guardian. I will draw the line here. I take care of my
animals and they are treated very well. This is just ridiculous.
|
|
Wednesday,
June 8, 2011 10:50:48 AM
|
North Dakota
I own more than 15 horses
|
I
am a quarter horse breeder. I own these animals. My neighbor raises sheep and
cattle. He owns those animals. I don't know where 'guardianship' is coming from
but you all need to get a life. You are guardian over your elderly when they can
no longer care for themselves and need a 'guardian'. You are a guardian over
your children until they're old enough to go out on their own. You OWN animals.
Your responsibility as an OWNER is to be responsible for their care and well
being. You feed them properly, you train them, you give them shelter and
exercise, you make sure their health needs are met, etc. But you still own them.
You have the right to buy an animal, to sell an animal, to give it away, to
lease it, to put it down if it's quality of life is such that it is suffering or
in danger or a danger. Everyone in this world is not able to care for a crippled
animal which requires lots of special attention or feed - the absolute best
option is to put that animal to rest - for EVERYONE. It is pitiful to see an
animal struggling around trying to be normal when it can't and some bleeding
heart thinking that they're being a good guy by making it possible for that
animal to live in that condition. You will not find anyone who loves horses (or
animals in general) more than I do, but I love them enough to know that they are
my property and as such my responsibility to make the best decisions for -
whether or not that is easy or comfortable for me!
|
|
Saturday,
Mar 12, 2011 9:18 AM
|
Idaho
|
This is some bleeding heart liberal idea. What would change
from owning to guardianship??? The lady a few miles north of us abuses her
animals, gets put in jail, pays bail and still has the horses to abuse. She
does'nt feed them and lets them be in pasture without feed. 'Paws" is
looking after her and Paws need to be put out of business, they only, after much
starvation, jail her and give her the horses back to her. She is mentaly ill and
hoards horses,[or what ever else]. So as I say, what would change for the horse
??
|
|
Sun,
Oct 10, 2010 1:03 PM
|
Missouri
|
It
is very difficult for me to comment on this without using some four-letter
words, but I will try. Horses are property. If I don't own the animal, I don't
want it, as it could be taken from me at any time. This is one of the most
ridiculous ideas I have ever read. It is like rescues that tell you that when
you buy a rescue animal from them, you can't sell it or find it a new home if
your circumstances change.
|
|
Fri,
Oct 8, 2010 2:01 PM
|
Montana
|
I
own my horses, I own my dogs. Even if they pass some stupid law that says we are
"guardians" I will not honor it. I will not be a' guardian' to
something I bought and paid for. I love and respect my pets more than I do most
people, but they are still pets. I will take care of them however, I will not be
told to be a guardian of any animal. Being a pet is far more important
|
|
Fri,
Sep 3, 2010 10:44 PM
|
California
|
We
need to give local agencys more muscle and authority to clamp down on abusive or
neglectful OWNERSHIP. Being a guardian will not solve any these problems. Horse
ownership involves certain responsibilties to a helpless animal that is under
human control and has to rely on them for their entire exsistance. Let's put
more emphasis on responsible, educated ownership with laws to enforce that when
needed.
|
|
Mon,
Aug 9, 2010 7:46 PM
|
Montana
|
I
OWN my registered Haflinger gelding and my registered Appaloosa mare. They are
livestock. They are also family members, have regular checkups, shots, de
worming, ferrier and dentist/chiropractic appointments. Hell they are better
cared for than I am OR my husband!
But they are still property. If they are just under our guardianship who is to
decide if we should no longer be guardians? What does that mean? We make
decisions, pay the bills but can't sell them? Can't put them down if injured or
extremely ill? If a horse goes crazy or becomes dangerous, I might put it down
or send it to the slaughterhouse. As an owner that is my decision.
The states really do need to come up to speed and increase the fines/jail time
for animal neglect or abuse. But guardianship? NO way.
Liz Ross-McKee
Pasture slave and herd boss to a growing number of equines that are her property
as well as her BBFs
|
|
Wed,
Jun 9, 2010 8:12 PM
|
Nevada
|
This
country's government has gone NUTS trying to control every aspect of our lives!
These are the same people that think milk comes from a carton and chicken and
hamburges come from the store "where they don't have to be killed"!!!
We already have very serious problems because the "Wild Horse Annies"
want to save every wild horse and put them on preserves at taxpayers expense.
Normally responsible horse owners are turning their horses out or shooting them
because they can no longer afford to feed them. The horse market is in "the
pit" because there are more horses out there now than the market will
support. The processing plants have been eliminated so their is no longer any
options for humane disposal of unmarketable and unwanted horses. Do you know
that a bullet to the head is more humane for a horse than euthanasia by drugs?
Ask any vet. I will OWN my horses (as well as my home and my guns) as long as I
live and dare anyone to say otherwise. We DO have to keep our eyes open and quit
being so complacent. Become proactive and for Pete's sake VOTE to get those
legislators out that promote these idiotic ideas.
|
|
Wed,
Jun 9, 2010 5:01 PM
|
Idaho
|
The
proponets of this legislation are not concerned so much about animal care as
they more concerned about taking away individual rights from whom ever they can,
they sound like PETA. The states in todays world cannot protect neglected
children, let alone neglected animals.
|
|
Wed,
Jun 9, 2010 11:36 AM
|
Nevada
|
This
kind of careless government oversight is ridiculous, as it does not take the
horse's interests into account, only the government's. Crawl back into your cage
where you belong government.
|
|
Sat,
Jun 5, 2010 12:49 PM
|
Wyoming
|
-I
think the feds should take care of the borders and national security and stay
out of it—
|
|
Fri,
Jun 4, 2010 4:01 PM
|
Montana
|
Guardianship
sounds ridiculous! Horses are too expensive of an investment to no longer
"own" them. I would fight this law tooth and nail. It's not going to
improve the treatment of animals by changing the status...all it does is take
away the personal rights of the human. We are the ones who have to buy the feed,
pay for the farrier and vet care. When a horse can do these things for himself,
then he can be emancipated.
|
We will update each page as
soon as possible with more comments!
Write
a comment
Please
NOTE: RMR reserves the right to edit any Comments submitted for the Forum.
Comments will be screened before being put on the comment pages. This forum is
for opinions and experiences
on
each topic, not promotion of a business, horses for sale or a service.
Back
to Top
|
|
