The new term instituted by the Boulder City Council to replace pet owner. Along with Animal Companion, Non-Human friend and other new terms that some groups are pushing to replace words that "give the wrong idea about animals". Personally I see little, if any, point to moves like this. I honestly think that it is not wrong to treat animals differently than humans. My view comes from my understanding of nature. The wolf or bear has no sad feelings for its prey. While they don’t hate each other I have no doubt that the buffalo cares not one whit if the deer dies.

While I am not advocating needless violence against animals I have no problem with calling pets property. To my mind property does not imply an unlimited right to do what the owner will with this property. So why the big push for the name change? Moves like this just encourage people to make fun of people concerned about protecting animals.

I think the term "pet guardian" is dishonest to boot. If a person has paided money for an animal it is not a guardianship. To my mind guardian implies taking care of a person until he can take care of himself. I hope that this term ends up in the dust bin alonge with terms like "put to sleep". So I'm still going to go on calling them pets and pet owners and I see absolutely no logical reason to change this.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.