CFA: Legislative Alert - San Francisco: Municipal Health Code Ordinance File Number 021645

I am writing to express, on behalf of The Cat Fanciers' Association (CFA), our concerns with the above Ordinance that would add the word, "guardian" to the San Francisco Municipal Code (Health Code) pertaining to animals.

CFA is a nonprofit organization with member clubs throughout the United States and other countries. Our mission is to preserve and promote the pedigreed breeds of cats and to enhance the well-being of ALL cats. CFA is a positive force supporting feline health studies and helping to educate the general public about proper cat care, spay/neuter and all aspects of responsible pet ownership. We respect the long-term efforts of the San Francisco SPCA and the City's Department of Animal Care and Control to achieve collaboration and mutual cooperation among many animal interest groups. San Francisco's caring approach has benefited all animals and is a model for the Country.

The "Pet Guardian Ordinance", which will be considered on Monday, December 9, 2002 by the Board of Supervisors, threatens to cause serious divisiveness among animal lovers and organizations in San Francisco. This seemingly innocuous word addition reflects an ideology with future legal ramifications that are deeply disturbing to CFA and to many aware cat lovers and animal groups.

Led by In Defense of Animals (IDA), the "guardian" word campaign is part of a long-range plan to remove property rights of pet owners. The ultimate goal is not a moral advancement of the human-animal bond but a much broader legal objective to abolish the raising of farm animals, animals in medical research, in zoos or aquariums and to end the breeding and selling of pedigreed cats, purebred dogs and other companion animals. LANGUAGE CHANGE IS THE FIRST STEP IN THIS AGENDA.

We believe statements in IDA literature, quotes in articles and on the IDA web site make these goals clear. A few examples:

"IDA's Guardian Campaign representatives are working diligently in communities across the country to replace the term "owner" with the term "guardian" in ordinances, in media print, and in educational materials. "
http://www.idausa.org/alert/currentalerts/gletters.html
(Note the word "replace".)

"We are beginning with companion animals, as people have close relationships with them, usually as adopters rather than "owners."

"The benefits of choosing guardianship over ownership - of convincing millions of people never to buy, but always adopt and rescue animals - are far reaching. "

"To promote the new language and the ethic underlying it, our campaign is committed to a nationwide effort to reach the hearts and minds of the public,. When momentum is achieved, a legal test case will be sought."
http://www.idausa.org/campaigns.html

The word "guardian" in the San Francisco Ordinance is defined as having "the same rights and responsibilities of an owner, and both terms shall be used interchangeably". This language change does not have immediate legal implications - it is merely redundant. However, the intent is to advance the "They Are Not Our Property, We Are Not Their Owners" campaign of Elliot Katz and In Defense of Animals. It is the existing property rights in our laws that give pet owners their ability to safely possess, sell or transfer, provide care and plan reproduction for their animals - all in a humane manner. Property rights in our laws hold owners responsible for the acts of their animals and prevent others from taking their animals without permission.

"Guardian" as a legal term only applies to humans. Should this concept be applied to animals it would lead to unforeseen legal consequences that would impact veterinarians, animal rescuers, breeders and sellers of animals as well as all pet owners. The IDA "guardian" campaign is disrespectful to pet owners. It insinuates that animals should be considered more like incompetent "wards" of the court and makes the relationship between owner and pet unclear.

This Ordinance will do nothing to help cats, dogs, birds, reptiles or other animals covered by the San Francisco Health Code. If a person is a bad owner he will be a bad "guardian". We urge you to reject the "Pet Guardian Ordinance".

Respectfully yours,
Joan Miller
The Cat Fanciers' Association
CFA Legislative Coordinator

To correspond with the CFA Legislative Committee, please send email to legislation@cfa.org

Contact CFA | Privacy Policy | Credits | Search | FAQ

Copyright Š1995-2010 The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc., with the exception of the photographic images which are Copyright Š by the individual photographers.