Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good grief. It's a dog. Call yourself the dog's Grand Poobah if you want, the dog won't care and neither will anyone else. Why the need to come up with some weird euphemism for owning a dog?
Stop trying to turn dogs into children. If you want a child, get one.
. . .
Stop trying to turn dogs into children. If you want a child, get one.
Usually a lot easier to find a compatible dog than a child. And getting a child . . . well, that presents difficulties of an entirely different sort, eh?
Personally, I often refer to the owners as a dog's human or humans. Yeah, in OUR corner of the world, they are our property - but that ain't true everywhere - not by a long shot. And, they are intelligent enough I'm comfortable with using terms other than owner. However, I also am not keen on the furbaby thing.
Call them what you want to call them, but do not allow the law to redefine their status.
If your dog is your property and he is dying in pain from bone cancer, when the vet says "it's hopeless" you are legally allowed to put him painlessly to sleep to end his suffering. You are also legally allowed to put him to sleep before that point if the cost of treatment is more than the family budget will stretch to cover. If the law redefines your relationship to your dogs, it is very possible that you would not be allowed to make that decision.
If someone runs over a cat by accident, right now, he might be legally obligated for the market value of the cat. Define the relationship as something else, and possibly the driver could be sued for multimillions of dollars, the same as if he had accidently killed a human child.
Would humane societies be allowed to put to sleep the ill and the infirm that no one wants to adopt? Would they be required to provide all medical care no matter if a home awaits the animal or not? Rescues would be quickly bankrupted and probably cease to exist.
Think very carefully about what you think a pet should be called and be careful that you are not participating in changing their legal status.
Call them what you want to call them, but do not allow the law to redefine their status.
If your dog is your property and he is dying in pain from bone cancer, when the vet says "it's hopeless" you are legally allowed to put him painlessly to sleep to end his suffering. You are also legally allowed to put him to sleep before that point if the cost of treatment is more than the family budget will stretch to cover. If the law redefines your relationship to your dogs, it is very possible that you would not be allowed to make that decision.
If someone runs over a cat by accident, right now, he might be legally obligated for the market value of the cat. Define the relationship as something else, and possibly the driver could be sued for multimillions of dollars, the same as if he had accidently killed a human child.
Would humane societies be allowed to put to sleep the ill and the infirm that no one wants to adopt? Would they be required to provide all medical care no matter if a home awaits the animal or not? Rescues would be quickly bankrupted and probably cease to exist.
Think very carefully about what you think a pet should be called and be careful that you are not participating in changing their legal status.
Good points. Why do we need to change legal status with respect to our pets? Why do we need to stop calling ourselves "dog owners?" I'm a dog owner. End of story. I also call my dogs silly names. Big deal.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,103,317 times
Reputation: 57750
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathrunner
Good points. Why do we need to change legal status with respect to our pets? Why do we need to stop calling ourselves "dog owners?" I'm a dog owner. End of story. I also call my dogs silly names. Big deal.
Yes, I agree. Dogs are property very much like cars, you have to get it licensed, as the owner, and you are liable for any damage that it causes to any person or property. Insurance isn't required but for some breeds it's probably a good idea, and some homeowner/renter insurers won't insure with some breeds. Until recently we have always had 1-3 dogs since 1974, but they are our dogs, the 3 kids are our children.
Usually a lot easier to find a compatible dog than a child. And getting a child . . . well, that presents difficulties of an entirely different sort, eh?
Personally, I often refer to the owners as a dog's human or humans. Yeah, in OUR corner of the world, they are our property - but that ain't true everywhere - not by a long shot. And, they are intelligent enough I'm comfortable with using terms other than owner. However, I also am not keen on the furbaby thing.
Whatever their intelligence, use of the term "dog owner" is a far more accurate description of the legal requirements and the human-canine relationship than "dog dad" or, even more weirdly, "primary caregiver."
Dog human mom
Dog human dad
Dog human brother/sister
or Dog parent. Just Parent means mother or father of a human child. But Dog Parent means well the obvious the Parent of a dog
Last edited by staystill; 12-07-2022 at 04:02 PM..
Reason: I forgot there is also my dog rescue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
