|
| Advocacy > Federal > Legislative activities > AVMA legislative agenda > Issue brief |
|
| |
| Issue brief |
| |
| Legal Status of Animals |
| |
| Summary: |
- The use of "guardian" to describe the relationship between animals and their owners is inappropriate.
- Guardianship is a fiduciary relationship (the highest legal civil duty owed by one person to another), and the ward's interests are always to prevail over those of the guardian.
- Many conflicts arise from the application of human guardianship law to animals.
|
| |
| AVMA Position: |
| The AVMA is actively pursuing passage of federal legislation that would preserve the existing legal definition of animals. AVMA White Paper Ownership vs. Guardianship |
| |
| Key Legal Conflicts Resulting From Guardianship |
- Animal owners will have less authority and fewer treatment options: required treatment may exceed the financial capacity of the owner to pay, yet guardianship will require that owners accept such financial burdens. Financial inability to provide treatment could easily result in increased animal abandonment or failure to seek veterinary care in a timely fashion.
- Use of guardian gives rise to its counterpart "ward". Wards have legal rights, which may subject owners to civil lawsuits filed by third parties on behalf of the animal.
- Inability to select procedures such as euthanasia or spay/neuter.
- Loss of owner control of medical records.
- A complete shift to guardianship could result in claims of a state having unconstitutionally taken private property (animals) without just compensation.Loss of owner control of medical records.
- Guardianship may preclude the responsible use of animals for agricultural production, research, exhibition and entertainment, and companionship. The use of animals and animal products for such purposes may no longer be legal.
- Guardianship may affect the ability of governmental agencies to control and quarantine animals and require vaccination. Quarantine, vaccination, and sometimes depopulation, are necessary components of effective disease control and eradication.
- Financial burdens and inability to control burgeoning populations may both contribute to the problem of unwanted animals.
- The concepts of assistance and working animals (e.g., guide dogs, hearing dogs, search and rescue animals) may be objectionable under guardianship.
|
| |
| Bottom Line |
| The AVMA recognizes that American society has evolved from an agrarian one in which the animals most of us owned primarily had economic utility, to an urban one in which most of us derive some emotional value from our animals. Use of guardian, however, does not clarify the responsibilities of owners to their animals that are important for forming good human-animal bonds. Instead, use of guardian may create legal questions and consequences that have the potential to adversely affect both the animals and humans involved in these relationships. |
| |
| Known Opposition to the AVMA Position: |
| Animal rights groups support changing the legal relationship between owner/property to guardian/ward. |
| |
| Current Status: |
| No federal legislation has been introduced that would change animals from property to wards. However, this issue is active in many state and local legislatures. |
| |
| For More Information: |
| Please contact Dr. Mark Lutschaunig of the AVMA-Governmental Relations Division at (800) 321-1473, ext. 3205 or mlutschaunig@avma.org.. |
| |
Go to the Government Action Center |
| |
|
| | | |
| | | |
American Veterinary Medical Association
|
= AVMA/SAVMA Members Only