Term of endearment: City calls pet owners 'guardians'
New language in animal code won't have any legal effect on animal ownership

by Sarah Morin
331-4363 | smorin@heraldt.com
January 5, 2006
Chalk one up for dogs, cats, gerbils, rabbits - and the people who love
them.

Bloomington has joined 13 American cities that recognize "guardian" as a
term to describe the relationship between the four-legged and two-legged.

A change to the city's revamped animal code, which was approved last month,
now includes "owner/guardian."

The goal of this new language is to better reflect how many people view
their pets - as living creatures such as friends and family members, not
objects such as cars and toys, said Karen Smith, who led the effort.

"We've changed the ways we talk about racial references; (this is) another
linguistic change along those lines," she said.

As a next step, Smith would like to see other groups start using guardian in
their publications and presentations so it catches on. Smith is a "rodent
person" and the proud guardian of Josh, a gerbil.

The addition of "guardian" to the city code is more of a semantic statement,
not one that will pose legal challenges or responsibilities.

Using "guardian" is about changing that ownership mindset, according to its
supporters.

But that mindset is still in place in the courts.

"You can call it a guardian, but that doesn't mean the person isn't legally
an owner," said local attorney Guy Loftman.

For example, if two dog "guardians" got a divorce, Fido would be considered
property under state divorce law. He wouldn't get the child custody
treatment.

The same would go for dog bites. Call it owner or guardian - the person with
or (without) the leash would still be responsible.

When told of the new animal code wording, Loftman said it reminded him of a
scene from "Return of Pink Panther."

In the Peter Sellers film, a blind man with a monkey is collecting money and
the cop approaches him. The blind man says he's not my monkey; we share the
apartment and he (the monkey) uses the money to pay rent, Loftman recalled
of the scene in one of his favorite movies.

"I personally think dogs are property - pets are property, not people.
There's no reason to give them person status," Loftman said. "But hey, I got
bigger things to worry about."

Not Elliot Katz.

A retired veterinarian, he started pushing the guardian campaign years ago.
He is founder and president of the California-based group In Defense of
Animals.

He said the term "guardian" falls much closer to other words people use with
pets: Most people adopt pets, not buy them; and they call them by name, not
"it."

"To me, the term 'guardian' is a term of endearment and responsibility,"
Katz said. "If our language changes, usually action follows."