Elliott Katz, Founding President of In Defense of Animals (IDA), has declared now is the time to get rid of the concept of pet ownership. "Not on our watch," declares Responsible Pet Owners Alliance of Texas! SAN ANTONIO, Jan. 1, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- IDA claims 21 communities have formally accepted the term pet "guardian" instead of "owner" into their animal codes. Katz considers pet ownership to be an offensive term and likens his cause to black slavery and the suffrage movement that gave American women the right to vote. Language is a powerful tool. Usage of certain words can eventually lull everyone into acceptance of an ideology. At least that's what Animal Rights Extremists hope will happen with their campaign to change the term "Pet Owner" to "Pet Guardian." Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (RPOA) wholeheartedly defends pet "ownership" and property rights as freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. This may seem like a harmless distinction, but it has a potentially dangerous legal impact. Marshall Tanick, former counsel for American Dog Owners Association, warned of substantial restrictions on pet ownership; such as: 1) Buying and selling pets; 2) Adopting pets from shelters; 3) Pet Limits per household; 4) Law enforcement searches to private homes without warrants; 5) Curtailing participation in dog shows; 6) Prohibition on breeding; 7) Challenges to veterinary procedures, including spaying and neutering; 8) Preventing appropriate euthanasia or other dispositions; 9) Lawsuits by animals against their owners or keepers, including veterinarians; and 10) Taking away animals from their owners. Martha Armstrong, Humane Society of the US, has said: "We frequently refer, if not always refer to the person that has an animal in his home as the guardian, caretaker or caregiver of that animal rather than owner." US News & World Report wrote: "A dozen law schools now feature courses on animal law, and in some cases, the teaching seems to be a simple extension of radical activism. The advantage of the litigation strategy is that there's no need to sell radical ideas to the American people. There are almost no takers for the concept of 'nonhuman personhood,' the view of pets as slaves, or the notion that meat eating is part of a 'specter of oppression' that equally affects minorities, women, and animals in America. The rhetoric is highminded, but the strategy is to force change without gaining the consent of the public."