Pet ownership vs. guardianship

Less well-known in Singapore is the concept of "responsible pet guardianship".

As opposed to "ownership" as advocated and known by most local animal-related groups.

Just to point out that if we were to contextualize "guardianship" in Singapore, that would mean legal/welfare authorities have more power and right to claim an animal out of the guardianship of the family, in the case where family is deemed or suspected to be unsuitable to be taking care of the animal. Yet, guardianship connotes transience, as in the case where a guardian takes care of his ward, as a surrogate parent -- the commitment level is shaky.

On the other hand, "ownership" bestows upon families/adoptive parents with a greater sense of responsibility. When you own a "property", you are, by law and ethically, expected to be RESPONSIBLE for it and its well-being. Yet, the very idea of "ownership" renders it difficult for relevant authorities to claim a suffering animal out of the hands of its owner.

We can expend the greatest pride and effort on debating "guardianship" vs. "ownership" but ultimately, there IS no real label. If you TRULY love and understand your animal, it doesn't matter whether it's "guardianship", "ownership" or what not. It matters no more what terms you use or prefer.

Where an animal life is concerned, we cannot be compelled to abide by terms that otherwise legitimize our stand on animals. It's a LIFE, not a toy, not a property, not your money.

It's a LIFE.

http://www.guardiancampaign.com/ResponsiblePetGuardianship.pdf