By a 4-1 vote at its regular board meeting Dec. 17, the Ukiah City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance to be brought back for final approval at a later date mandating the change of the word “owner” to “guardian” in city code regarding canines.

Councilmember Doug Crane said he could not stand behind the intentions of the actions because it would lead to more problems down the road. 

“I went online and asked the difference between ownership and guardianship,” he said, making himself the lone voice of dissent to the idea on the board. “I found several links to PETA. If you’ll remember, PETA has stated several goals: no pets, no zoos, no eating of animals, no use of leather. A complete paradigm shift in this society and strategically if communities across the country change this language in decades it will be enough communities that it’s critical mass, then the (law)suits will begin. "

[snip]

Councillor Crane sounds like a smart guy.  I wish we had more politicians of his calibre out there.  There's more info at the link.

Guardianship is a strange concept indeed.  While obviously, most of us think of our dogs as important members of the family who need of our care and protection, changing their status from property is a very dangerous idea.

But it isn't really guardianship in the true sense that the animal liberationists want.  It's really just the removal of property rights around dogs, which would ultimately make it much easier to seize pets from responsible homes and kill them.  It's the same idea as a breed ban in that it feeds the ultimate goal of an end to animal ownership and eventually, domestic animals.

If I am legally, rather than philosophically, the guardian of my dog then there are certainly questions that would need to be answered.

Would I need their consent to perform euthanasia in times of extreme, irremediable suffering, or does my 'guardian' status grant me power of attorney as well?

The same question arises with respect to performing invasive, life-altering surgery on a healthy animal.  Would I have the right to neuter my dog without his or her consent?

Would a breeder have the authority to place puppies in suitable homes or would there have to be some kind of agency that would hold hearings on puppy placements?

Would it become illegal to buy and sell dogs?

Would I be obligated to hire a caregiver if I had to be at work or go on vacation?  Could I still board my pets at their regular kennel?

How about using a crate?  Walking with a leash and collar?  Obedience training?

If I died intestate and had no human family would my estate automatically transfer to my dependents, in this case my pets?  Do I need to appoint a trustee to look after my dogs when writing a will?  At what age do dogs become 'adults' or are they considered dependent for life?

Would I be exposed to impromptu visits by animal welfare agents who would decide whether or not my 'guardianship' was up to snuff?

Would that change the status of my dog licence?  I presume that there would be no more licensing or microchipping, since that is an affirmation of ownership. 

There are many other questions that arise, I'm sure you have considered them.

The whole guardian idea is a very bad one, in my opinion, and is just one more example of government busybodies being manipulated by fanatics into buying a pig in a poke - in this case, the animal liberationist ideology.

I suspect that Mr Crane might appreciate some support.  Contact info for the Ukiah City Council is available at No Pit Bull Bans.

Assaults

Uttering threats

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or

(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Idem

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16.