Guardian Home for puppies?

[mum24dog]

No objection if someone wants to call himself a guardian of his dogs.

I do think it is nonsense personally, just like the use of the term "adoption" in relation to animals. In my book you adopt children, not cats or dogs.

I own my dogs (and horses, sheep, cat...), and that has nothing to do with a lack of respect/responsibility.

 

If you buy an animal you do not "adopt" it. To call it so is to mask the nature of the commercial transaction. I might tell people I adopted my rescue dogs but that I bought the one I got from a breeder.

 

However, just as in the case of a child needing a new home, I think it is a perfectly valid term in relation to homing an unwanted animal.

 

What else would you call it? I have had 6 rescue dogs but I didn't personally rescue them. The rescues I got them from did that.

 

I don't have a problem with calling myself my dogs' owner. If someone asks if that is my dog I say yes (if it is) - my dog in that I am the owner. Noone ever asks if I am my dogs' guardian

and they clearly aren't my children.

[Sue R]

Perhaps my outlook was soured by people who sell pups and encourage or provide a conduit for continued breeding of those bitches and sale of their pups, for a fee, of course.

 

In that sort of instance, it smacks of a number of red flags - maybe moving dogs and bitches around, giving the impression that one person does not have very many; breeding every heat cycle or year; selling bitch pups and providing stud service with your own dogs; using your website to advertise your "associate's" pups; selling pups on from your facility (which may appear to have very good credentials) rather than having those pups sold from the place where they were actually produced (which may be much less than desirable conditions).

 

I've seen this sort of thing so it's not just hearsay.

 

Of course, the concept that some people don't refer to "ownership" but rather "guardianship" is also big in the animal rights arena.

[simba]

Wasn't there a discussion on here ages ago about a breeder who reckoned they 'adopted' out their pups because each pup was going to go to a home permanently, or their dogs were special like children, or something?

[Sue R]

If you buy an animal you do not "adopt" it. To call it so is to mask the nature of the commercial transaction. I might tell people I adopted my rescue dogs but that I bought the one I got from a breeder.

 

However, just as in the case of a child needing a new home, I think it is a perfectly valid term in relation to homing an unwanted animal.

 

What else would you call it? I have had 6 rescue dogs but I didn't personally rescue them. The rescues I got them from did that.

 

I don't have a problem with calling myself my dogs' owner. If someone asks if that is my dog I say yes (if it is) - my dog in that I am the owner. Noone ever asks if I am my dogs' guardian

and they clearly aren't my children.

Precisely!

[Gideon's girl]

Guardianship is a PETA trap. I don't care if people want to call themselves their dogs' guardians, but I want to legally own my dogs. I don't want to lose the rights to make decisions for my dogs. I know them best and I know what is best for them. I don't believe anyone else would have gone through all the trouble I went through to figure out my dogs food reactions. They would have just put him on drugs for life and be done with it. That's what the vet wanted to do, after all. If I was just his guardian, I wouldn't have the right to go against the vets advice and possibly let him "suffer" for months while I experimented on him. I could have also been forced to buy expensive prescription diets that are highly processed garbage, but effective, instead of being allowed to find the wholesome foods that work for him. And since it's PETA that wants to make us guardians of our dogs, eventually we would all be forced to make them vegan, because PETA is trying for that too.

[Maralynn]

I own my dogs. I get called "mom" on occassion and I'm okay with that. Personally I refer to myself as my dog's person. They're my buddies and working partners. In my mind "guardian" invokes a parent/child relationship and it just doesn't seem applicable to me and my dogs. I would have to have a really good relationship with someone to take on a dog where I didn't retain the rights to make decisions and I'd be leary of adopting from a rescue that requires much more than that the dog is returned to them if I am no longer able to care for it. I ended up taking the rescue contact info off of Kenzi's microchip after I heard some disturbing information about one of the main people in charge (the rescue was disolved a short time after that)

[alligande]

I own my dogs, all have been rescues but the only limitations in the contracts are that they have to be returned to the rescue if I can't care for them. I have no issue using the term adoption for rescue dogs, for all the same reasons Mum24dog stated but I beleive you are buying a dog when you get one from a breeder.

I personally don't like the use of terms like fur babies, mom and dad etc, I gave up denying a long time ago that my dogs are child substitutes and as much as I adore them and spend absurd amount of time in their company and I refer to them as family, they are owned by me.

 

Regarding the OP post, I really don't like the way it's been packaged with a cute name etc, but I really can't see the problem with the concept if it enables a responsible breeder to devolp their breeding program by allowing the dogs to grow up and enjoy living in a family a far better option than living in a kennel. I do understand Sues concerns as it could be easily used in that way to.

[Smalahundur]

Guardianship is a PETA trap. I don't care if people want to call themselves their dogs' guardians, but I want to legally own my dogs. I don't want to lose the rights to make decisions for my dogs. I know them best and I know what is best for them. I don't believe anyone else would have gone through all the trouble I went through to figure out my dogs food reactions. They would have just put him on drugs for life and be done with it. That's what the vet wanted to do, after all. If I was just his guardian, I wouldn't have the right to go against the vets advice and possibly let him "suffer" for months while I experimented on him. I could have also been forced to buy expensive prescription diets that are highly processed garbage, but effective, instead of being allowed to find the wholesome foods that work for him. And since it's PETA that wants to make us guardians of our dogs, eventually we would all be forced to make them vegan, because PETA is trying for that too.

As far as I understand it, is PETA against keeping any animal, regardless of how the owner calls himself.

But I consider them and their extreme views irrelevant (though they seem to have a weird big leverage in the US, with stupid consequences, I am thinking of the slaughter-ban for horses for instance).

[Gideon's girl]

PETA's long term goals are to not allow domestication of any specie, yes. And they do have a weird relationship with the media here and are gaining strength due to the stupid actors and actresses that support them without any understanding of their radical views. They are romanticized really.

[D'Elle]

Rushdoggie and LizP, thank you for pointing out the essential legal ramifications involved with the distinction between ownership and being a "guardian. With that in mind, I am comfortable saying that I own my dogs. I really had not given those issues any thought when I made my last post, and am glad to be reminded of them. I definitely insist on being the one, and the only one, who will make the decisions about my dogs' care. Giving it more thought, I also realize that if someone stole my dog or mistreated my dog, I would want to have legal recourse against that person, which would only be possible if the dog is considered my property. So legally I am happy with the ownership status.

 

Privately, like Maralynn, I call myself the dogs' person rather than owner. Like alligande, I also eschew terms like "fur babies". I don't have human children, and the dogs are my family, but I do not think of them as my children. They are dogs, which is exactly why I love them so much.

[Gideon's girl]

"They are dogs, which is exactly why I love them so much."

 

No truer words...

[rushdoggie]

They are dogs, which is exactly why I love them so much.

 

 

Me too.

[alligande]

^^^^^^^ me too^^^^^^^

[Sue R]

PETA's long term goals are to not allow domestication of any specie, yes. And they do have a weird relationship with the media here and are gaining strength due to the stupid actors and actresses that support them without any understanding of their radical views. They are romanticized really.

Yes, and all those "pet-loving" people who support them don't seem to realize that if PETA had its way, they would not have pets at all. There would be no animals that work (like our dogs), or provide products (like meat, fiber, and other items), no service animals, no guard animals, etc. We'd only be free to observe animals, including domestic ones, at a distance.

[highway61]

Am I not politically correct with this?

[Mom of Mya]

I could see where a number of things could go wrong with this. I would not want the financial responsibility without having ownership of the animal. What if they decide to breed and you can see that the dog has fear phobias or is just not matuer enough to breed but the breeder says to anyways. Does the breeder take the dog during this time and keep the puppies or does the guardian have to be responsible? What if the dog were to bite someone, who is liable? Many ifs about this. Would kind of be like living your life in limbo not knowing when the dog may be yours or when the breeder may take it and want it for something such as breeding or showing...it would not be for me.

 

I love Mya and she is our companion but if I am going to take care of her and love her then i want to be able to make the decisions for her as I see fit not as a breeder sees fit. So in essence I do own her in the laws of the land so to speak and the responsibilities that go along with her and with that I am just fine with.

 

I guess i own her as much as you can own an animal in this country. I sure have read a lot of bad stories of people losing their dogs, then to find them, but having to fight to get their own dogs back because they have been found by a shelter who adopted them out to others.

[Maralynn]

The saga of Piper the sheltie comes to mind with this discussion.

[Mom of Mya]

The saga of Piper the sheltie comes to mind with this discussion.

Yes i remember that one, but we also had one here in Indiana where the present owner did not want to give the dog up to the original owner as their child had become attached, but the original owner had gotten divorced and moved and had this dog for quite some time like 10 years or such and the dog was the reason the person could go on. It was very heart wrenching and I don't think after owning a dog for 10 years you should have to fight to get it back, as long as it has been well cared for which that one definitely had been.

 

I think here in Indiana they only have to hold a dog in the shelter for maybe even a week and then are allowed to adopt them out. But in the instance above that lady had even contacted the shelters around her and given them pictures and information so the dog should not have been adopted out in the first place.

[D'Elle]

Those stories are horrifying. How could someone calling herself a "rescue" refuse to return a dog to her rightful owner? The thought of one of my dogs being taken and not returned to me is one of my worst nightmares.

I would want jail time and a fine for anyone who did that to my dog.

[Sue R]

Yes i remember that one, but we also had one here in Indiana where the present owner did not want to give the dog up to the original owner as their child had become attached, but the original owner had gotten divorced and moved and had this dog for quite some time like 10 years or such and the dog was the reason the person could go on. It was very heart wrenching and I don't think after owning a dog for 10 years you should have to fight to get it back, as long as it has been well cared for which that one definitely had been.

 

I think here in Indiana they only have to hold a dog in the shelter for maybe even a week and then are allowed to adopt them out. But in the instance above that lady had even contacted the shelters around her and given them pictures and information so the dog should not have been adopted out in the first place.

 

I have not followed this story but I think the people who adopted this dog have perhaps inadvertently taught their child a lesson of "finders, keepers" instead of how they could make someone happy instead of grieving by restoring a dog to her long-time owner. And then they could have pursued opening their hearts and homes to another deserving animal, which would be another good lesson to teach a child.

[teresaserrano]

People who think they are entitled to keep a dog who is not theirs have no idea of how strong a bond can be between a dog and his person. They may love the dog a lot, but they still have no idea.

[D'Elle]

People who think they are entitled to keep a dog who is not theirs have no idea of how strong a bond can be between a dog and his person. They may love the dog a lot, but they still have no idea.

 

So very true.