Animal linguistics: In Racine, pets are still 'owned'
By Rob Golub
RACINE - A city committee on animals belongs in the dog house today, for refusing to support new Fido-friendly language in city ordinances.
At least, that's how some local pet-lovers see it.
"I deem their conduct today to be brutally insensitive and in and of itself an act of animal cruelty," said Alan Eisenberg, board member of Racine's HOPE Safehouse.
Racine's Ad Hoc Animal Ordinance Committee voted unanimously Monday to recommend to the City Council that it not adopt a new ordinance that would refer to the owners of pets as "guardians."
Several HOPE Safehouse activists pushed for the idea, showing up at the meeting and taking turns speaking to call for the change.
But the committee rejected the change. Its reasons, according to the statement it did approve: * "It is not clear that the word guardian carries a greater connotation of responsibility than does the word owner, nor, even if it does, that this connotation would affect people's actions."
* The American Kennel Club opposes pet guardian language because it may reduce the legal status of pets as property.
* "Changes in the status of animals may have effects on property rights, legal liability, environmental protection, and many other aspects of the law."
Committee members also commented that they have worked to strengthen laws that protect
animals.
Local supporters of a pet guardian ordinance said they are not trying to create rights for animals and there is no history of legal problems due to a pet guardian ordinance.
The City Council is expected to follow the committee's
recommendations.
Special Offer: Get 5 Weeks of the Journal Times for $7!
|
|
|
| A snapshot: Three local memorial efforts | NASA sets aside day to remember all lost astronauts |



