[selzer]

I am my dogs' owner, not their pet parent, not their pet guardian.

To my dogs alone, I have been guilty of referring to myself as momma. Usually, I refer to myself as their Susie. "Don't hurt the Susie." And, if I say, that's your momma's toy, it is because it IS their momma's toy. And that does not make me their grandma either.

I particularly dislike it when a groomer or a vet tech refers to me as Mom. I get this vision of plaid jacket and striped pants trying to sell me an automobile.

What I particularly dislike about the terms?

Pet parent -- I agree that dogs are family members, but they are not children. I am not their parent. I do not expet them to grow up and move out and make their own way in the world some day. I am totally responsible for them until they die. I am totally responsible for any damage they cause, for their behavior, for their health and nutrician. They do not get choices.

Pet Guardian sounds even worse than pet parent. In law, it may take a little something for a judge to remove a pet from its pet parent, but assigning a new guardian for a pet sounds like no big deal. Guardians are provided for children until they reach the age when they take responsibility for themselves. This does not happen with dogs. There is a movement where people want to be able to have pets sue their owners or guardians. I think this terminology is actually dangerous.

I mean, someone could actually walk into a court house and tell a judge that I have eight dogs, and this dog would be better off with a single owner and live primarily as a house pet, and the judge coudl sign the order???

I know we haven't gotten to that point yet, but as we adopt language that moves dogs from the current status of pets, dogs, property, to adopted children, babies, parents, guardians, etc. it changes our overall outlook on dogs. I think that people have gotten in trouble with this kind of thinking.

Some people think they should not restrain a dog at all, fences and kennels and crates and leashes are all symbols of bondage and how would we feel if we had to sit in them or be tied to someone.

People already cringe at the thought of purchasing a dog. I have had puppy buyers actually say this to me. They prefer the term "adopt." When in fact there is NOTHING inherently evil about purchasing a dog.

But the campaign to change wording from "buy" and "purchase" to "adopt" and and "rescue", "sell" is now "rehome", "dog pound" is now "dog shelter", has changed how we look at our dogs. It certainly has not stopped people from dumping their dogs into these "shelters."

I think that originally, people want pet owners to treat their pets better. Perhaps they are. Too many have gone way overboard, dressing them like little dolls, giving them a bedroom, with custom made wardrobes and such, and talking baby talk to them in little coversations that make you hope the little thing takes a chunk out of the lady's nose.

Ownership, with a bill of sale and a contract, is something that the law does know how to deal with. Ownership has privledges and responsibilities. I prefer to be my dog's owner. This does not give me a free pass to be cruel to the dog.

I know that I cannot have it both ways, but I think that property that is living should be treated differently than inanimate things. If someone vandalized your car or boat or coffee table, ok, pay restitution and be charged with a misdemeaner or whatever. Someone hurts your dog or horse or cow or whatever, that should be a whole different story. And in domestic violence, violence to pets should be treated the same as violence against the pet's owner, or person most devoted to the pet. (Homes with children, may have the abuser actually own the dog, but the dog may be specially loved by the wife or child who the abuser is abusing by hurting the dog.)