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

[Vinnie]

This week’s topic suggestion comes from our member chocolat.

Many members refer to ourselves as “pet parents” or “pet guardians”. What do you think is the history of these terms and do you think there is any harm in using them or thinking in these terms? Pros? Cons? Please elaborate.

[Relayer]

Originally Posted by Vinnie

This week’s topic suggestion comes from our member chocolat.

Many members refer to ourselves as “pet parents” or “pet guardians”. What do you think is the history of these terms and do you think there is any harm in using them or thinking in these terms? Pros? Cons? Please elaborate.

People have so many different reasons for why a certain phrase rings true to them specifically. I consider my dog a true family member, just as I do my own children. I am comfortable with the term "dog owner", although I don't feel like I "own" Max. He's a beloved family member. How you feel about your role with the dog and perhaps what part of you is best served by the relationship may evoke "pet parent" or "pet guardian". There's always, "Rover's mommy" and "Tucker's daddy" I feel like I'm Max's daddy.

[Samba]

I think I prefer to remain a dog owner.


Are you a dog "owner"?or a dog "guardian"? - By Jon Katz - Slate Magazine

[Jessiewessie99]

I like pet parent or pet guardian. I feel like a mom most of the time when it comes to my dogs. People even comment saying "You act like a mom"lol.

[atravis]

If I may,

I don't have a problem with people looking at their dogs a children, or calling themselves pet parents PROVIDED said dogs are otherwise properly trained and not a menace.

However, what I do not much care for, is this "furbaby" attitude that implies ALL dogs should be snuggly house pets to be sheltered and coddled at all times.

What I especially don't understand is when people get into protection breeds (like the GSDs) and try to implement this mentality. Many dogs within this breed were BRED with protection in mind, and are more than capable of backing up a threat in defense of their owners.

Yet every time someone says they want a protective dog, or like a dog that will physically back up a threat, they get a parade of mockery and scorn. That "if you REALLY feel threatened, get a gun" or "anyone who can handle a protective dog doesn't need one" BS schlock that seems to get passed around so readily.

To some people, these dogs are a lifestyle choice. They get these dogs not ONLY because they make said person feel safer, but because they simply LIKE that kind of dog. For me, the GSD IS a protective breed, and one that is more than capable (provided correct breeding and training) to take down a threat. I would own nothing less in this breed.

Am I going to do everything in my power as a good owner and someone who truly LOVES their dog to avoid situations where he might be put in danger? OF COURSE I am. Am I going to STOP him from fighting back someone who is attacking me, or prevent him from defending me if the situation calls for it? No. That's what he was bred to do, and what I would argue any correct shepherd SHOULD do.

Dogs who will not or cannot defend their owners are not bad dogs.
But they are not what I consider to be true-to-form GSDs.

[Vinnie]

Originally Posted by Samba

I think I prefer to remain a dog owner.


Are you a dog "owner"?or a dog "guardian"? - By Jon Katz - Slate Magazine

Excellent article and perfect example of this question. I think this is exactly what chocolat was getting at when suggesting this topic. Everyone should read this. Thank you.

From that article;

Dogs are not "people" of another species. They are another species. To train and care for them properly, to show them how to live in our complex world, requires first and foremost that we understand that. I owe my dogs much—more than I can say—but they are not my "companions"—as if we voluntarily chose to hang out together but none of us has authority over the others. I bought and/or acquired them. I own them. I am profoundly responsible for their care and well being.

This quote here probably best explains how I feel about this matter. I know I often refer to my Dalton as my best bud and my boss but I am his owner. I am responsible for him.

I agree with this too;

Guardianship suggests dogs have a right to live their own lives as they wish. This is impossible in our dog-unfriendly world. Ownership implies a human duty to help the dog adjust to this difficult, inhospitable place.

"Dog owner" is a proud title. It suits me fine.

I'm going to stick with the proud title of "dog owner" too.

[sagelfn]

I'm Sage's mom. I feed him, clean up after him, teach him, etc.. but most importanly I do know he's a dog not a human. He is my furkid, thats how I refer to him. I call my brother a butthead, he's not really a butthead. Labels mean different things to different people at different times. BYB for example.

A con of thinking that way is to humanize dogs. I don't think thats an issue for owners that are actively training their dogs and learning about their dog.

A pro is for the dog owner that grew up with dogs chained to trees, now they see the dog as a member of the family. You wouldn't keep your furkid chained to a tree its whole life.

[Asche-zu-Staub]

As someone who can't have my own children, i consider myself a pet parent. I treat my dogs like most would treat their kids. However, at the same time, i know that they are dogs and not people, and need proper discipline and respect (not talking Cesar milain, i dont like his methods, hopefully you can catch my drift). I'm not even entirely sure how it explain what I mean here...but the best way to put it is that I love them as if I am their parent, but will raise them like a guardian/dog owner. I try my best to show them how to properly act when out and about, and at home i give them as much love as i possibly can. As for pros and cons, a con is that i sometimes think that they dont take me seriously when i shower them with this attention, and a pro is that they return all the love to me that they can possibly give. I'm trying to find an even balance, since they are both young and both completely different from one and another. We are still all learning about each other. Yes, they are a different speicies, and yes, they need a job that helps their natural drives to fit into what we believe is the right way for them to act...but at the same time i have a job (or obligation) to give them this job that they need to feel like dogs. In my eyes, this is just like parenting...but a little fluffier .

[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.)

[Melly]

Originally Posted by sagelfn

I'm Sage's mom. I feed him, clean up after him, teach him,

Haha when I read this part I thought Hey I do that to my husband lol.