Are we “pet parents” or “pet guardians”?

[AgileGSD]

Originally Posted by AbbyK9

I love my dogs and I love my cats. Hubby and I refer to each other jokingly as "mom" and "dad". But I would never consider myself a "pet parent" or a "pet guardian". I OWN my dogs. I am an owner. Yes, they are loved members of the family, but they are dogs and not people and should be treated accordingly, not anthropomorphized or serving as child substitutes.

This is pretty much how I feel too.

Originally Posted by LaRen616

Sin and the cats are my furbabies,

What's wrong with Sin and cats being your much loved pets? Why "furbabies"?

[Caledon]

I am a pet owner.

I made the decion to bring my pets into my home to live with me and my family. They share a part of my heart and my home. They are a part of my family, but they are not family members. Family members, to me means a cetain status, which I'm not giving to my pets.

They are not my fur babies, I am not mom to them. I am mom to my two adult children.

I own my pets and I have made a committment to give them exercise, love, food, medical care, training for the rest of their lives.

[Chicagocanine]

I prefer owner. The legal implications of "parent" or "guardian" disturb me.

[mysablegsd]

Pet owner.

[Catori]

I'm an owner first, but kinda of a parent in the aspect that Lucky is just like one of the family. But I absolutely cannot stand it when people humanize their pets and take the family thing a bit too far... Dogs in general like to just be dogs, they don't want to be/are not people. It's also when people humanize their pets that most problems arise.

[LaRen616]

Originally Posted by AgileGSD

This is pretty much how I feel too.



What's wrong with Sin and cats being your much loved pets? Why "furbabies"?

They are my much loved pets but they are also my furbabies, I dont want human kids, ever, I have zero interest in them. They are my "babies" they are the closest thing to kids that I will ever have. Yes, I am a responsible pet owner, my dog is very well trained, he is a great dog that is not rude and jumps up on people, he has manners that I taught him, he can funtion in public without causing a disturbance. I work very hard with him and he is very well socialized. But I am not just their owner, I care and love them as if they were my own. I'm not one of those looney tunes that dresses their animals up or has them eat at the table. But I do call them "my children" and I see nothing wrong with that as long as you are aware that they are animals and that they need to be trained.

[Namara]

Dogs are not humans, and dogs are not inanimate objects. Dogs are dogs.

I'm also going to go with "pet owner," although we do use the terms "mom" and "dad" occasionally only because they're convenient. (Our names are longer than one syllable :-P)

There are several similarities between having pets and parenting, but as a few have pointed out, with human children you're raising them with the goal of teaching them to be able to function and take responsibility for themselves someday. Not with dogs. I don't like dog outfits and anything that humanizes dogs too much. Anyone who treats their animals as if they truly were human is fulfilling their own wants, not the dogs', and are most likely ignoring what the dog really needs in the process.

The term "guardian" seems too passive to me... like you're just there to keep an eye on the dog while they do their own natural, doggie thing, and that we as humans should let nature be nature or something. The whole "they are free spirits that cannot be owned" attitude. I don't like this, personally. However, I do like the connotation that we have responsibility for our pets - not to abuse or neglect them, etc.

Dogs are not wild animals anymore, but they are still animals and have primal instincts that have to be fulfilled. And as such, we as humans have to take responsibility for that from both ends of the spectrum. We need to train them and raise them so that they can function in the human world, and we also need to make sure that they have exercise, things to chew on, and other things that take care of their animal needs. Dogs have been bred to live between the two worlds - that is their specific roll and our responsibility to make sure they fill it.

I love my dog and consider our dog a member of the family, but his roll in the family is that of the dog. The pet, companion (meaning they keep me company, don't read too much into that term!), and even a hobby (as in, dogs and training them, etc. is a hobby), but never a child or anything remotely human. I think it's unfair to the dog to think of them as anything different.

[VChurch]

Originally Posted by LaRen616

They are my much loved pets but they are also my furbabies, I dont want human kids, ever, I have zero interest in them. They are my "babies" they are the closest thing to kids that I will ever have. Yes, I am a responsible pet owner, my dog is very well trained, he is a great dog that is not rude and jumps up on people, he has manners that I taught him, he can funtion in public without causing a disturbance. I work very hard with him and he is very well socialized. But I am not just their owner, I care and love them as if they were my own. I'm not one of those looney tunes that dresses their animals up or has them eat at the table. But I do call them "my children" and I see nothing wrong with that as long as you are aware that they are animals and that they need to be trained.

That's how I feel.
I call them 'my children'; but they are fully aware that they are dogs and they have the rules of dogs (no getting on furniture, eat when I give you food, don't jump up on people, stay out of my kitchen, etc etc). So I don't see a problem referring to myself as their mom, given they know their place.

[chocolat]

Originally Posted by BlackPuppy

In Europe, at least with the Dutch Shepherds (conformation lines), we are the "Boss".

If they have a rescue, they will put up, "Dog needs new boss..."

".

I love this..will need to use this phrase

[chocolat]

Originally Posted by Chicagocanine

I prefer owner. The legal implications of "parent" or "guardian" disturb me.

yes this is my concern.
what started out years ago as cute and sweet..being able to call yourself "mom" to the dog has been turned into a sinister political thing now and I refuse to cater to it in public
I was reading a thread on here not long ago and the person kept referring to themselves as the pet parent, and perhaps, they meant it in a pet ownership way, I dont know. I do know that as much as they were using it(and the hordes of other people that do) is encouraging and changing legislation all over America. There are now places that have already changed the phrases from "pet owner" to "pet guardian" in their laws.
this is the slippery slope that AR extremist want.
I am proud to be a pet owner, and while they are part of my family I try and avoid using phrases that encourage and help AR extremists take my right away to have a pet