Pet Peeve: What’s in an Owner’s Name
Sandy Banks treats her dog very well (“No Way to Treat a Loyal Pet Owner,” July 14), so she thinks there ought not to be a name change that might move us closer to being able to protect pets from less loving owners? The issue appears not to be the name change, but what that change would imply. People worry that if animals are not conceptualized as property, humans may become restricted in how they treat them. My understanding is that this proposed change in terminology is an attempt to raise consciousness about the human/animal relationship. Any day one can find stories of extreme abuse: dogs being dragged on ropes behind pickup trucks as punishment, cats set on fire for someone’s amusement, or a pet dying because of negligence.
As it stands now, if someone loses a pet [at the hands of another], they can only recover damages equal to the cost of the pet as property. The fact that the pet was loved and considered a member of someone’s family is not a factor.
While it is true that animal cruelty is already illegal, the penalties are generally not very stiff.
JUDITH GRANT
Los Angeles
*
I cannot begin to express how disappointed I am with people like Sandy Banks and Al Martinez, not to mention many of your letter writers. Their negative attitudes about changing legal language from animal “owners” to animal “guardians” show how sadly uninformed they all are.
First, I wish they had explored the many studies that indicate that language does, in many cases, determine behavior. Second, before anyone disparages this idea, they should spend a week or two at a shelter, and listen to the disgusting reasons people give for turning in their animals. And then they should listen to the dog crying as the family drives off. Then watch the depression set in as they realize that the owner they loved is not coming back to get them. If changing the language from “owner” to “guardian” helps just one of these voiceless creatures to be treated more kindly, then so be it.
ELLEN ODELL
Rossmoor
