55 Comments on “Disowning the Term “Pet Owner””

1. To Miriam Yarden, B.Sc.,MS,APDT who has no idea where the idea comes from that Peta thinks that companion animals are better off dead, here is some information.
   I had to euthanize Cinnamon my beloved canine family member recently as he could no longer maintain spirit in his ephemeral canine body. I owe it to him to speak out on behalf of all the nonhuman animal slaves that peta has murdered. He was homeless and if he had been brought to peta, he would have been dead many years ago instead of living a full life where he loved and was loved.
   I am a vegan and have been a nonhuman animal rights activist for many years and used to believe in peta.
   Then I started hearing disturbing things about peta from other activists, such as that they were rounding up managed feral cat communities and murdering them. What really convinced me of their agenda was the 2007 trial when HEALTHY dogs and cats, kittens, and puppies were murdered after peta employees promised they would find good homes for them. http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2007/01/24/testimony-underway-in-peta-trial/ .They then put the their victims bodies in trashbags and threw their bodies into a dumpster .. How is treating them like garbage respectful? During the trial that ensued, peta claimed that the animals they had absconded were their property (yes they did that) and therefore they could do whatever peta wanted to do to them. Apparently for peta “animals are not ours to eat, wear experiment on, or use for entertainment.” But animals are theirs to kill.http://www.examiner.com/article/still-killing-after-all-these-years-five-years-after-peta-s-piggly-wiggly-dumpster-incident. peta makes millions per year and they kill 97% of the nonhuman animals who are unlucky enough to find their way to peta headquarters. What they could be doing with this budget to help animal slaves- Shelters, sanctuaries and educating others.
   http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2006/05/30/nurse-questions-trial-delay/
   Peta was for killing Michael Vick’s victims as well and we know how well that turned out. http://www.newser.com/story/6317/vicks-pit-bulls-could-face-euthanasia.html
   Maybe no kill is not perfect-yet- but for peta to send gift baskets to a no kill shelter who wanted to become a kill shelter is inexcusable. http://vimeo.com/48651351
   It is indefensible peta advocates for the”rights” of chickens, chimps and rats, etc. while killing 96% of all cats, dogs,rabbits chickens etc. that come through their doors. The public simply does not believe that the more than 29,000 animals killed over the past 10 years, were all sick, old, unadoptable! This is akin to allowing humans to be murdered because they are homeless. It is dichotomous.
   No matter by whom the photos are circulated by, they are sadly authentic and were used in the trial. I contacted Cal Bryant myself and here is what he wrote back:
   As a 30-plus-year newspaper veteran, I can verify the photos I snapped regarding the gruesome discovery and eventual burial of these discarded dead animals are indeed real. I was contacted by the Ahoskie Police Department on the day of the discovery (the same day the two PETA workers were arrested) and given full access to the dump site, the van used by PETA and the burial site.
   Cal Bryant cal.bryant@roanoke-chowannewsherald.com
   Editor
   Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald
   Besides Newkirk never denied it. Would any of us be still supporting an organization that claims to protect people and then kills them.
   The definition ofEuthansia(good death) is a term reserved for someone who is moribund, when there is no hope and is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Do these nonhuman animals look ill or dying to you? Also remember that peta murders nonhuman animals of all species, even when they are campaigning to save them.I will never forget peta’s victims. And I thank the universe that my beloved Cinnamon did not end up in a trash bag in the dumpster by an organization sworn to protect him.
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.org/peta-kills/

2. It is really pleasing to see the number of people defending the term “owner” in this day and age of Animal Rights. I came back expecting to be flamed for liking the term, and instead, saw a ton of validation.

   It’s great that people love their dogs enough to give them special names. But I hope those of you who think of your dog as a “furkid” or “baby” remember that your dog is an animal with an animal’s brain. Dogs do not think the way humans do. When people forget that, people get bit and the dog usually dies. Do your dog a favor and remember that he/she is always a dog.

3. I have always thought of my dogs as my best friends, my buds. I don’t think I have ever thought that I owned them. After all they look after me and I them, just lke a best friend would do.

4. I can certainly see where the term “owner” is somewhat clinical and cold-sounding. I use “companions” when describing our “pets”. And our two dogs and 3 cats ARE our babies too ! We do have two adult children. BUT sometimes we humans take better care of that which we do “own”……ownership requires a certain amount of responsiblity so I am not against the term owner for that reason.

5. I guess legally we are considered the “owner” because we are responsible for their care and well being. But I refer to them as my children or babies because that is what they are to me. We love them dearly and they are devoted to us. They give us unconditional love, attention and fill our lives with joy and laughter. I am the mommy and my husband the daddy. To our friends and family these are our babies regardless of what the legal term or any other term is.I would rather think that we are their adoptive parents.

6. I also like the legal decision made by Boulder Colorado in which the owner is the ‘guardian’ of the human’s “companion” animal. To many of us, the dog IS a companion in our home, he/she willingly guards the home and family members with his warning barks, plays with the family’s human children, happily entertains us with his antics, acts as foot warmer at our feet or the foot of our bed, and loves us unconditionally, all for the price offoodwater andshelter. It is a bargain! Ok, so there are the other things we buy for them; treats, toys, silly dog tee shirts and coats that they wear to amuse and please us, but I chalk that up to part of the fun. A local shelter tells us owning a pet is the only real love that money can buy, but even a penniless homeless person can have a devoted and protective companion dog or cat at his side. Animals simply love those who carefortheir needs, and don’t have the capacity to judge us. How cool a friend is that?
   My 6 pound yorkie is my companion, my friend, my house security system, lap warmer, or foot warmer, whichever is needed.He greets guests, entertains us all, loves unconditionally, and makes sure that I meet all the other dog owners in the area, so my social life has expanded better than anny townhall meeting site. How does one putall that inonesimpleword? Of course, what the pooch calls me is a short single bark, but it works for me.

7. I also do not like the word owner. I have used guardian in the past but like caregiver, although I think guardian implies more that I am responsible for them than caregiver does.

   I refer to my animals usually as my animal companions because pet seems a little demeaning as well, at least to me–although other might disagree,

8. For legal reasons, I prefer the term “owner.” Owners have the right to choose the form of care they feel is best; however, guardians are legally more constrained (see limits on how a guardian may care for a child). Sometimes legislation is not right. I would rather, for example, be able to choose whether and when to remove my dogs’ gonads instead of having the timing legislated. Ditto vaccinations. In casual use I am sometimes a dog-mom, sometimes a trainer, a handler and many other things.

9. I agree with you. Feel silly calling them my kids…its hard enough not to be viewed as a nut for feeling as though my Shepherds are true members of our family. I feel as though owner makes them a possession and therefore less valuable or as if having them is just for our pleasure…….not at all how we feel. We just call them our companions for lack of a better word as of yet.

10. Owner works for me. I don’t love my pets any less, but fur baby and guardian elicit an involuntary gag reflex for me.

11. I usually refer to myself as my dogs’ owner or person, but am comfortable with others referring to me as their mom or caregiver. I’m not a fan of guardian. I’m pretty sure the Border Collie sees me as his Cruise Director.

12. I like the term “to keep” which has several definitions which include “Care; charge: The child is in my keep for the day.” and “To be faithful to; fulfill: keep one’s word.” (The FreeDictionary.com) This word seems to be less formal that guardian or caregiver and yes still implies our responsibility to take care of. I think my penchant for this word harkens back to my childhood prayers in which “I prayed the Lord my soul to keep.”) It suggests compassion and love. I’ve had this discussion with our VP of Animal Control Association and he says the word “owner” will remain until the laws of “ownership” change as this is the legal definition and carries the legal requirements of “ownership” under the law. Thanks for the discussion.

13. I do not like the term “owner”. I do, however, like the term “guardian”. My three pups are my babies… my children… my best friends. To them I am their mom. I take care of them just as I took care of my three grown children when they were younger. There is a special bond and love that I hold dear between me and my fur-babies.

    How many people can you truly count on, who will ALWAYS be there for you and who will love you unconditionally??? My pups have helped me through many very difficult times, with their love, their beautiful eyes and funny ways. They give me a purpose in life. They bring me so much joy and happiness.

    With the crazy world that we live in…and with all of the hate, killings, destruction, etc… “the more I see of people…the more I love my pups!”

14. For the person who thinks well of PETA and HSUS, please learn the facts:
    http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=12599 and
    http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=9895

    I am responsible for my companion animals, but never feel that I can own a living being. They are my friends, my companions, my family, my pack.
    And as for Dr. Kate Fulkerson, all I can say is: Brava!

15. I feel strongly about being the owner of my dogs, that gives me the right to make decisons in their behalf to the best of my knowledge and ability. Legally they are my property and that provides protection for them as nobody can take such property away from me without a good reason. Now when I sweet talk to my dogs I don’t say “buddy, your owner loves you” of course I say “your mommy loves you” but I don’t want the laws refer to me as their mommy or guardian or caregiver. I would suggest that anybody who is willing to give up ownership of their dogs to think about how they would feel if they can no longer make decisons about their animals’ care. The AVMA has a lot of good info on their website about this:
    https://www.avma.org/Advocacy/StateAndLocal/Pages/ownership-vs-guardianship.aspx
    and
    https://www.avma.org/Advocacy/StateAndLocal/Pages/owner-guardian-ahi.aspx
    and there is more on their website. Let’s be caring and loving owners of our dogs and don’t allow those animal rights extremists to play on our emotions. I don’t care if you celebrate Mother’s or Father’s day with your pets, throw them birthday parties and call them your babies, but we need to stand united on the issue of remaining the legal owners of our animals.

16. Usually to vet I am ‘person’, to cat I am can-opener, to dogs I am facilitator i.e.leashes, treats, brushing, baths.

    Owner implies that I can do any fool tning to them I feel like. And some people do, may they rot. I am the responsible person, and try to act like it.

17. Note that on July 11, 2000, Boulder, Colorado became the first city in the nation where pet owners are legally referred to as “guardians” of their “companion animals.” According to HSBV Executive Director Jan McHugh-Smith, “The word guardian is a more accurate reflection of the [appropriate] human-animal relationship and conveys the true level of responsibility we have toward the animals who share our lives.”

    Although “guardian” might be a technically more accurate reflection of responsibility, I prefer the term companion as a warmer handle without reducing my responsibility.

18. I have an 11 year old Jack Russell Terrier and I think I treat him better than I would treat a real offspring. I don’t ask for anything in return and get so much joy when he is happy. He is not a warm and friendly guy and I consider myself his sugar daddy and personal chef. He is on a full-boat scholarship, meal plan, HMO and demands several hours of entertainment each day. Pets are truly family members; you don’t own your kids and you are a caregiver implies end of life. Soul mate might work for some people but non-pet people would think you are wierd. Pets rock

19. I am the owner of my dogs. It’s a fact. They are also my friends, partners and companions. I shy away from the “guardian” language as I think it carries legal implications that are not necessarily beneficial to humans or animals.

20. I am glad you wrote this piece.

    I too cannot stand the term “owner” used about dogs and cats and other companion animals.

    I also dislike the word “pet” and prefer companion animal.

    I do think guardian is the proper term because while we are not their parents we do bear a moral and legal obligation to care for them as they are our dependents. Caregiver sounds more optional and there is nothing optional about the care we owe the animals we adopt.

21. How about companion or training partner?

22. I refer to my dogs as my “kids”, I am mommy and my husband is daddy. Out in the public with strangers, I refer to them as my six dachshunds or my fur-kids. Anyone who knows me at all, knows how I feel about my babies. I don’t care if they approve or not, or think they are substitute children or whatever they want to derive from what I call them. That would be their problem not mine.

23. I refer to a dog’s owner as their ‘person.’ So, I am my dog’s person. I also like ‘peeps’ so I use that when appropriate and when people will understand. I have not had any problems with ‘person.’

    I, too, dislike ‘owner’ and ‘mom’ while ‘guardian’ is too long, as is ‘caretaker.’ For me, that is.

24. I refer to myself as Zoe’s Mommy. She is my little girl now that my children are grown. My heart aches for her when she is ill and I care for all her needs as if she were my child. My reward…her smiling face and wagging tail, her loyalty and love.

25. The dogs and cats I live with (and in the past with rabbits, tiny tortoises, birds and white rats) and always have, were and are my “companions and “partners”. I refer to them by these descriptions – if the truth were known (as it is to many of us) actually they own me.

    While “owner” must remain for legal reasons (retrieving a lost or stolen companion animal or assuming the responsibility for their medical care and licensing), to me they are indeed partners and companions.

    As for the person who stated that the stand of the HSUS is “dogs are better dead than with us” is totally and completely wrong. I have no idea where this kind of information originated but if she will get the information re what the HSUS is doing, the massive rescues, the powerful drive for adoption and the elimination of any and all kinds of abuse and torture of animals, she will realize that what she said is NOT SO! As for PETA, merely because their president is known for making unfortunate and ridiculous remarks does not follow that the whole organization is bad. I have noticed that lately she has not been quite so vocal……please, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater!

26. “…As long as there is love, caring, and mutual goodness between humans and their pets, I’m okay with however the relationship is described…”

    Me too. I don’t like “guardian” or “caregiver” or “parent.” Just don’t hit the mark for me. “Partner,” “buddy,” “best friend,” or “owner” all work for me, depending on the situation and people involved in the conversation. Yes, I’ll tailor the term more toward the sensibilities of the person with whom I’m having the discussion if it makes for better rapport or communication.

    As for my dog, she doesn’t care. So long as we’re there for each other, she doesn’t care one bit what we call it.

27. I am my dogs’ owner. And yes, usually they own me too. But I find nothing demeaning in the term.
    But I do find that people sometimes try to make it so.

28. Nancy, thanks for addressing this issue. I, too, struggled with what to call people and their animals. I consider us all equal beings on the planet. We just happen to have the keys to the car and be able to drive to the grocery store. I have decided to go with, “person” as a word to describe who we are. We describe loved ones as” my dog”, “my cat”, or “my husband”, “my sister”. I don’t think that implies ownership, instead it implies connection. as an animal communicator I encounter some animals who think of their person as “mom” but many of them feel that they are equal partners in a relationship and “person” seems to be a more appropriate way to refer to the one who drives the car.

29. I like the term guardian for my canine family members. I do not own them they are not “things.” Much of the abuse seen on other than human species stems from the fact that they are considered property. I am very involved with In Defense of Animal’s Guardian Campaignhttp://www.guardiancampaign.com/
    In the cities where this has been implemented, there has been positive change.
    Anyone involved in the rights of others- whether human or nonhuman can tell you that language is very important. After all it was not so long ago that my ancestors were considered livestock and property under the law.

30. Our dog’s best interests are better served if we not only ALLOW ‘owner’ to continue, but strongly defend its use. What I call myself and them in the confines of our own relationship is personal and meaning less to those outside. Adopting the AR and PRTA views, at least insofar as soft language is concerned, simply plays into their agenda.

    I BUY a dog, I occasionally sell a dog. One ‘adopts’ a person…

    Keeping and protecting the property aspect pro
    tects our rights to be responsible stewards for our dogs, and not have them controlled by those with NO knowledge of animals, but a far more dangerous agenda.

31. While I don’t have a huge issue with using the word Owner, because that is what is legally recognized (although in my state we are “guardians”), I usually refer to my dogs as my roommates. Because, well, they are.

32. My dog is my “furchild” or “furdaughter” to me–to differentiate her from my human children! We feel much more like parents toward her than anything else. I suppose I would prefer the term “pet guardian” as a more formal description because that connotes a parent-child relationship with all the attendant responsibilities. “Caregiver” to me connotes someone paid to take care of an elderly or disabled person who is unable to care for themselves so I don’t prefer that term.

33. There are real life legal issues surrounding the terms we use and I highly recommend anyone that considers supporting actual legislation to change the terms (and it has been brought up in laws before) to read this blog post first http://chakorescue.blogspot.com/2012/10/one-lawyers-perspective-dog-owner-vs.html written by a lawyer and director of one of the oldest Pit Bull rescues in the country.

    Personally, I like and use both owner and parent.

34. I call myself Mom when I’m talking to my crew but I strongly agree with Sarah Dean. We need to be careful and not take PC too far. Once we are no longer an “owner” and and animal is no longer our “property” they can be emancipated and PETA & HSUS will have won a victory. My guys don’t care how I define our relationship to others as long as dinner is served on time!

35. I own responsibility for my pets and will be held accountable for their actions. Ownership offers rights and responsibility. Until the right to euthanize my pets as a way of releasing them from disease and pain is taken away should the term caregiver be used. Caregivers are those who care for people and they may not choose euthanasia. The six years I was the caregiver for my grandmother were extremely difficult and soul changing but at no point could I take an active role in releasing her from her pain and life. I chose to be a caretaker as I chose to be a pet owner and find no problem with either term but want it to be recognized that there is a very serious difference in each from each other. Few people pick out a pet thinking about the end of life care that will happen. Everyone who chooses to be a caretaker is knowingly accepting that is the goal, sticking it out offering comfort until the death.

36. I simply refer to my two Shepherds, a Amazon parrot and a cat as my life.
    It’s not as if they haven’t truly taken over.

37. Your article and all the responses broadened my understanding of different points of view. As long as we humans survive, we will be fine-tuning our language to evolve with our understanding of the world, and that’s a good thing!

    Greg, lighten up!!!

    As for me, I guess it depends on what context I’m in. No one perfect word has emerged. Dealing with park rangers, and other regulators, I’m okay with “owner”; with my vet, I usually say “guardian”; with friends, I refer to my pets as my “posse” (I’m the wannabe sheriff). “Mom” just sounds too much to me like I’m substituting them as children.

    Thanks for the article. ~Sharon

38. As a breeder and exhibitor of purebred dogs, I do still prefer the term “owner”, and for one specific reason. In this day and age of animal rights activists, any other term might infer the possibility of possibly someone else asserting control and coming in to take your pets away. Legal ownership means you have legal control over your pet (and yes, I do refer to my dogs as my babies) and that makes it more difficult for someone else to exert claim over your pets. The term “guardian” infers that you only have temporary possession of your pets, and guardianship can be arbitrarily terminated. Legal ownership makes that possibility a lot tougher…

39. I prefer the term partner. Caregiver sounds to me like the lady hired to give an invalid his or her medication and spoon feed them. Partner recognizes that some of the time, my partner knows things I don’t or can do things I cannot.

    Legally, I prefer owner. My dogs have no responsibilities under the law and thus, no rights. They are still property and until they can carry out legal responsibilities, someone legally has to be responsible on their behalf.

    I abhor the term adoption. yes, my pets are family members, but they are not adopted. It is particularly painful to talk about adoption when shortly after a pet joins the home he must be euthanized for behavioural or medical reasons and I think it is very confusing for adopted children.

40. As a breeder, I struggle with the appropriate terms to use not only with the puppies I breed but also with the people who “adopt” them into their homes. I call them all (people and dogs) my HighGarth family with the puppy as the glue or genetic material that binds us together as a family.

    Because I bred the puppy, I have a sense of relationship and responsibility to the puppy that is far more than ownership, guardianship, or caregiver. I took action to bring that canine life into the world, and my relationship most resembles “mother.”

    But I am not the canine/biological mother, and I must defer to her sense of responsibility toward her young as well. I feel that I partner with the canine mother in our joint raising of the puppies and that we are both “mothers” to the offspring. I also have a generational sense of relationship to the offspring through the generations.

    All these relationships grow even more complicated when someone adopts one of my puppies–especially when these new people make decisions that I would not do and may not even like for my puppies. I make no bones about it, I have a lifetime commitment to those puppies, and I care what happens to them. This caring and commitment is not without some potential for family conflict.

    “Caregiver” is a kind and compassionate word but doesn’t convey to me the legal and ethical responsibilities that are inherent in adding a dog to your family. I use the term “guardian” on my contracts with puppy families because I want them to think of their role as more substantial than ownership of a piece of property, but legally the term is restricted to a specific relationship established by a court, and the puppy families are not guardians in that legal sense.

    In truth “ownership” is the only term recognized by law, and the only one that conveys any protection and power for the puppy family. It is a flawed term reflecting our flawed sense of our relationship to all of nature–not just dogs. For example, even by law I may own 35 acres of land and a house, but the reality is that I am only a temporary guardian of this land. Thinking of myself as an “owner” gives me a false and flawed sense of power and immortality and not enough sense of responsibility to what happens after I no longer am around to “own” anything.

41. I just tried to discuss this earth-shaking issue with my dog but guess what? She’s not human!!!! I asked her if she would rather be referred to as the “recipient of the care I give” (I mean, if I’m the caregiver then what’s her title? Can’t be “my dog” anymore, right?) but she didn’t answer because her belly is full of the food *I* buy and she’s asleep on the bed *I* bought in my house that *I* paid for. And you know what, that dang dog still hasn’t paid me back for the money I spent to buy her. Hey, I love her and give her the best care in the world but she’s a DOG. She’s not human. I OWN her. She really doesn’t mind at all. Get over it. Get on with your life. This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. You went to 8 years of college for this??? You need to quit wasting time on stupid politically correct cr@p and give us some real practical information that we can use.

42. Owner has never worked for me either. I introduce my pets as my buddies. We are truly best friends and am every so grateful for this unconditional love that we offer each other. As a trainer who has pets I see this ever evolving relationship between myself and all my pets, (dogs, cats and horses) as a symbiotic relationship where we are in each others lives to bring joy, laughter, solace, companionship and the uncanny lessons we can learn from them if we listen.

    Thanks for this sweet blog, Dr. Nancy

    ~jill
    aka: Shewhisperer

43. I am my dogs owner. I came to really like this term as I fought for them for two years during my divorce. In the courts, there was little difference between my living room furniture and my dogs. However distasteful that may seem, the last thing I wanted during the divorce was to worry about custody agreements and dealing with the ex-husband on issues of their care after the divorce. Once the divorce was final, they were mine and my ex-husband no longer had any right on how they are cared for (I had to wait to neuter my two males until after the divorce was over). As a sidebar, I will never co-own a dog with anybody I’m in a relationship again….once was more than enough! And for that reason, I’m glad I own my dogs. They are mine for me to care for as I see in their best interests.

44. I adore my dogs, and have a tremendous emotional attachment to them. Seeing them realistically doesn’t diminish my love or commitment for them

    Legally, I own my dogs. I consider myself an owner, because that puts me in a position to drive when it comes to their welfare and use. I will advocate and, if needed, fight for them, and I have a solid legal basis to do so because I “own” them.

    In my personal interaction with them, I consider myself their leader.

    They aren’t little people despite any terms of endearment I use to describe them. They are animals, and they have animal needs. My emotional needs don’t change that. So I don’t consider them my “babies”. IMO, anthopomorphizing them hinders the ability to deliver what dogs really need: the right environment for both their enrichment and safety. If anything, my old dog thinks I am HER “puppy”. lol

    I don’t consider them “pets” because they are a lot more to me than that word describes. They are my performance partners and serve a meaningful role here.

45. I agree with Gus (above). I breed Standard Poodles and they are much more than a “hobby”– they are my passion. Dogs have been a part of my life as long as I can remember–collies, my 4-H leaders German Shepherds, a corgi, a mixed breed, and my Norwich Terrier, in addition to the poodles. I rarely go anywhere (including work) without a canine companion and I can’t imagine life without them!

    However, I have no problem with the term “owner.” I’m not their parent, and caregiver and guardian are just too politically correct for me. Animals, inluding dogs, are property under the law and I am their owner. It doesn’t change my love for them, or theirs for me. I’m with them from puppyhood, or even from birth. I’m with them when the tough end-of-life decisions need to be made. The fact that I’m their owner doesn’t diminish any of that. Please don’t call me their parent or guardian! I love my dogs because they are dogs– let’s not anthropomorphise them!

46. It is so timely that I just read your latest e-mail newsletter-I had just written to a friend about my dog who is going through some difficulties recovering from elbow replacement surgery. When I got to a point in the e-mail where I was referring to the relationship between me and the animals that share my home with me-I stopped and tried to find the correct word to describe our relationship-because just like you I don’t like the term pet owner. I have nursed family members at the end of their lives and many animals and I’m not comfortable with caregiver-that brings me to the nursing and caring given at the end of life-a holdover from the human world of hospice for me. So I used the term “companion” in my e-mail to describe my dog and cat. I’m not really happy with that either-they are much more to me than companions-they are family members who happen to be another species. So I’m still struggling to find the correct word-maybe it is just canine family member and feline family member-now that I am a widow I spend more time with them than anyone else in my life. They are my family.

47. My dog is as loved as my children. The problem is when we back away from being owners it plays into the hands of those who believe dogs are better off dead than with us, folks like Peta and HSUS.

48. I haven’t found a better term. My dogs aren’t my partners, I set all the rules. They aren’t my children although most of my dog friends refer to me as their momma. If I view pet owner as taking responsibility, then it still works for me. I take ownership of the dog’s welfare as my responsibility and priviledge as I take ownership of my actions and emotions. In some states dogs are owned as personal property while cats are not, affording them some protection under the law. While they may contribute to my life on another level, ownership being only one component, it still works for me as a non-negative. I appreciate your position as well.

49. Well, with Jasmine, I did feel like a mom to her and I think she considered me to be something pretty close to that. I also cherished the moments when I could just be her buddy; we both enjoyed that too.

    I never considered myself her owner; we both knew who owned whom. Caregiver to me feels somewhat too impersonal to truly describe the dynamics of the relationship.

    From all the terminology out there, the parent is most in line with the way I felt about it.

    One doesn’t have to be a biological parent to be a parent.

    b : a person who brings up and cares for another
    Merriam-Webster dictionary

50. Inside the house my dogs think of me as the Center of the Universe. Outdoors I am The Wet Blanket That Won’t Let Me Eat Goose Poop. I think of myself as their Mummy, because that’s kind of how children view their mummies indoors and outdoors.

    My zebra finch thinks of me as The Big Scary Hand That Invades My House Sometimes. I think of myself as his caretaker.