This is a placeholder text
Group text
by TessJ10 on 06 July 2010 - 23:07
The Guardian thing was presented as feel-good type of legislation. Because we love and protect our companion animals, we are truly the guardians of their welfare.....that sort of thing. It was the type of thing where you knew that most legislators woud've passed it because it seemed totally harmless and would please an active constituency, so why not? It was pretty much the horse people who alerted to the fact that it meant that if you had a horse that wasn't suited for jumping but would be great at dressage, you would actually be forbidden by law to sell that horse to a dressage home and buy a show jumper.
They alerted that AR groups were planning on enforcing the concept of "Guardian" the same way for pets as it applies for people. There have also been attempts to legally remove the word "pet" in favor of "companion animal." Again, seemingly harmless, but "pets" are covered in legal cases, and it's a whole new field for "companion animals." Tricksy, these AR folks.
Good posts on here. Thanks, everybody!
They alerted that AR groups were planning on enforcing the concept of "Guardian" the same way for pets as it applies for people. There have also been attempts to legally remove the word "pet" in favor of "companion animal." Again, seemingly harmless, but "pets" are covered in legal cases, and it's a whole new field for "companion animals." Tricksy, these AR folks.
Good posts on here. Thanks, everybody!
by sueincc on 07 July 2010 - 00:07
Interesting, isn't it? We have not heard word one about this issue from a member of this message board who goes by the name PETApal. In for a penny, in for a pound, I say!
by Mystere on 07 July 2010 - 02:07
Yes, Sue, that is very interesting. :-)
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top