"Owners or Guardian?"
by Erik Marcus
Posted: March 11, 2004

Animal rights activists have lately been working hard to advance the term "guardian" to describe the people who care for dogs and cats. This week, Slate.com ran an article titled Guarding the Guard Dogs, which argued that "owner" is the more sensible term. 

The article rubbed me the wrong way, so I wrote the following letter to its author, Jon Katz. The next day, I received a response. While we remain in disagreement, I think these letters deserve a wider audience, so with his permission I'm posting them here. 

Note that I use the term "pets" rather than "companion animals," in my letter. Although I object to the use of "pets," it's the term used by Katz, and to me the much more significant issue relates to guardianship vs. ownership. I think that arguing about the "pets" term before resolving the "ownership" issue is likely to cause unnecessary resistance. 

My letter to Jon Katz, and his response, follows. 

Dear Jon, 

I was disappointed by your latest Slate.com article, "Guarding the Guard Dogs?" 

I agree with you that it's stupid and offensive to assert that both animals and former slaves are entitled to the same rights. Clearly, pets are animals and slaves are people. They have different mental capacities, and therefore different levels of ability to appreciate and enjoy various rights. 

However, the concept of animal ownership is as morally backward as the concept of slave ownership. Ownership carries with it a, "this is my property and I can do whatever I want," mentality. Guardianship, by contrast, connotes a measure of responsibility. And I think we'd both agree that, for the most part, there are far too many pet "owners" who treat their animals wretchedly. The guardian concept would help to shift attitudes in a way that might inspire people to take more responsibility. And what would be the harm? 

You closed your article saying that you are a proud "dog owner," and I'm sure you treat your dog better than most. But I'm also sure that, 150 years ago, there were better-than-average slave owners, who no doubt took a measure of pride over how they treated the people they "owned." 

I submit that the concept of ownership of sentient beings -- both people and animals -- creates an attitude that is incredibly harmful. Basically, the more responsibility that people take for the animals they currently "own," the better it will be all the way around. And one of the best ways to foster this sense of responsibility is to promote the concept of guardianship rather than ownership. 

I believe that your opposition to guardianship stems from faulty reasoning, specifically your assertion that guardianship means "turning animals into a kind of human." That's just plain silly. The whole point of guardianship is to give people the motivation to take more responsibility for the animals they currently care for--in no way does it put dogs and cats on the same playing field as apes and humans. 

Just as you can imagine the abuses that would occur if people "owned" their children, you can see all around you the abuses that occur as a result of people "owning" their dogs and cats. The concept of guardianship would certainly not halt all abuses, but it would be an important first step. 

Sure, there are any number of animal rights people making the case for guardianship in a ham-fisted, confrontational, and counterproductive manner. But I can't see why anyone who truly loves animals, and cares for their interests, would prefer the ownership concept to the guardian concept. 

All the best,
Erik Marcus 

Dear Erik, 

Thanks for writing. Since my dogs can't choose to be with me or leave me the relationship is hardly equal. It diminishes the very idea of equality to suggest creatures that are totally dependent on us for all of their needs are equal. I think it's important to start framing laws that will do something about puppy mills and abuse and not to waste our collective civic time with semantic wars. Legislators would much rather pass guardian laws than real legislation. The guardian campaign has enormous legal and other implications and I do not believe is ultimately helpful to animals. I'd much rather see all of us who loves animals pass real laws to ease their suffering, not metaphoric laws that make us feel morally superior. When dogs can use credit cards and pick their owners and come and go freely then they will be equal. Until then, they need us to take care of them. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to replay and I appreciate the intelligence and thoughtfulness in your letter. 

Jon Katz
"Dogs of Bedlam Farm: An adventure with three dogs, 15 ewes, two donkeys and me." Villard, October, 2004