Debatable -- Should pet owners be made pet guardians?

By Rob Golub

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:05 AM CST

RACINE - You might say you own your pet doggie. Or you might say you are merely her friend and guardian.

If you prefer the latter, the entire city of Racine might soon join you, by passing a new ordinance that would label pet lovers as "guardians," not owners. The city Ad Hoc Animal Committee has already rejected the idea, but the Board of Health voted Tuesday to ask it to give a guardian law a second look.

What do you think? Should pet owners be called guardians instead of owners on city legal books? Former Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Alan Eisenberg, representing the Hope Safehouse animal rescue group, breathed new life into this issue when he spoke to the Board of Health Tuesday. He asked for the chance to make the case for a local guardian

ordinance.

"It, in essence, says dogs are not our property," Eisenberg said. "We do not own them. We are their guardians."

Eisenberg said passing a guardian law doesn't change the application of current law. Rather, it's a symbolic gesture, designed to get people to treat their pets better.

One study, funded by California-based In Defense of Animals, found that people who consider themselves guardians tend to take better care of their pets.

Eisenberg said there are already laws that treat the theft of a pet more seriously than the theft of other property. He said there are many laws on the books that elevate the status of dogs.

"This law simply tries to change the way that people think about these animals," he said.

Eisenberg said St. Louis; Sherwood, Ark.; and Menomonee Falls and the state of Rhode Island have passed guardian laws. He said 42 cities have passed guardian laws.

The Racine Ad Hoc Animal Committee, which is revising city animal ordinances, recommended against a guardian ordinance about a year ago, said Marcia Fernholz of the city Health Department. Fernholz said there was concern about legal issues and because state law refers to animals as owned.

But Eisenberg noted the committee may not have been aware that other areas have adopted a guardian ordinance and he noted Menomonee Falls seems to have gotten past the problem of contrary language in state law.

With that, the Board of Health voted to ask the Ad Hoc Animal Committee and the city attorney's office to take second look at the idea. The vote was unanimous, though Board of Health member John Berge did express

reluctance.

"I would support it very half-heartedly," he said, adding that he was uncomfortable with trying to change the way people think. "I usually don't like that kind of law."

But Eisenberg, who said he thinks of pets as people, is convinced a guardian law would be good for the city. He said, "I can't see how this would be anything but the strongest, most positive thing we can do around here."

Special Offer: Get 5 Weeks of the Journal Times for $7!