CFA Perspective and Views
It is critical to stop the "guardian campaign" from gaining momentum in
California and elsewhere. This week PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO FAX OR EMAIL A
SHORT LETTER TO EACH SUPERVISOR AND THE MAYOR. We need action from everyone
around the country. (Forward copies to the CFA Legislative Coordinator - JMillerArt@aol.com)
The San Francisco "pet guardian" Ordinance passed the Health and Human
Services Committee on November 21 with a 2 to 0 vote. Now it goes to the
full Board of Supervisors on MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2002. There will be no
further public hearing or opportunity for public comment except your letters.
There will also be a Supervisors meeting on December 16th.
SF Charter requires an ordinance to have two readings and it must receive 6
votes to pass at each! If passed by the Supervisors it then goes to the Mayor
who may approve it or veto. Two Supervisor positions are currently vacant (Leno
and Yee were elected to the California State Assembly) and runoff elections will
be held on December 10th with the winners sworn in on January 8, 2003.
Therefore, our list of Supervisors has changed and we must now add the MAYOR and
inform him.
Refer to FILE NUMBER 021645 - PET GUARDIAN ORDINANCE
Sponsored by Supervisor Matt Gonzales (Green Party), this proposal defines an
animal "guardian" as having "the same rights and responsibilities of an owner,
and both terms shall be used interchangeably".
Since the word "guardian" is added and "owner" remains in the code, the
ordinance does not have immediate legal implications. It is merely a
redundant language manipulation to advance the "They Are Not Our Property, We
Are Not Their Owners" campaign of Elliot Katz and In Defense of Animals (Mill
Valley, California). Proponents claim the friendly sounding word addition will
lead to more humane treatment of animals since they will not be thought of as
"things".
Why make changes and word additions to 20 pages of animal codes when they are
merely redundant? The Ordinance, which has passed in 6 other small jurisdictions
in California, Colorado, Arkansas, Massachusetts and Wisconsin and in the State
of Rhode Island, is part of an eventual plan to transform the legal status of
animals and extend their "rights" through the courts.
LANGUAGE CHANGE IS THE FIRST STEP IN THIS RADICAL ANIMAL RIGHTS AGENDA to
remove property rights of pet owners. The ultimate goal is not moral concern
for animal welfare but a legal one - 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 pets.
The IDA web site makes these goals clear through a sampling of quotes:
"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
"We are beginning with companion animals, as people have close relationships
with them, usually as adopters rather than "owners."
"To transform their social and moral status from property to living beings with
their own needs and interests initially requires language changes from "owner"
to guardian"
"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
Note that word "REPLACE". IDA plans to ADD "guardian" in the San Francisco
Ordinance, but it is apparent that their eventual goal is to remove the word
owner and associated property rights in laws and to give legal "personhood" to
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.
Note that IDA links the "guardianship" campaign to their goal of ending the
buying and selling of animals. Pedigreed cats/purebred dogs, home-raised with
dedication and good care, are rightfully sold to selected and loving homes.
These healthy, well-socialized pets are the optimum choice for many families who
seek predictable traits. Studies show cats purchased from breeders have the
least risk of relinquishment to shelters.
*** The push for the "guardian" language is one increment in a radical goal to
achieve legal rights of animals equal to those of humans. Do not advance this
animal rights agenda.
*** What assurance can the Board of Supervisors give us that the word "owner"
will not be later removed?
*** Caring pet owners value their animals as family members and appreciate the
mutual enrichment that comes from our association with pets. The IDA "guardian"
campaign is disrespectful to pet owners. It also insinuates that animals should
be considered more like incompetent "wards" of the court and makes the
relationship between owner and pet unclear.
*** Adding "guardian" in the San Francisco animal code sections will do
nothing to help cats, dogs, birds, reptiles or other animals covered by this
Health code. If a person is a bad owner he will be a bad "guardian". San
Francisco is an animal-friendly City with laws in place to address animal
cruelty or abuse and a long-standing attitude of cooperation among animal
groups. Do not let this history be disrupted.
*** The "guardian" word introduction in law is linked with the IDA "They Are Not
Our Property" campaign. Urge the Supervisors and Mayor to avoid San Francisco's
step into this ideological battlefield, which if unchecked will lead to a legal
and legislative one.
*** It is the existing property rights in our laws that hold owners
responsible for the acts of their animals and prevent others from taking
their animals without permission. Do not start to erode these important
rights.
*** "Guardian" as a legal term only applies to humans. Eventual use of this term
related to animals would lead to unforeseen legal consequences that would impact
veterinarians, animal rescuers, breeders and sellers of animals as well as pet
owners.
Urge San Francisco to reject this Ordinance and the underlying concepts
because it does nothing to help animals and will have serious ramifications.
See the CFA perspective and views.
s/Joan Miller
CFA Legislative Coordinator
JmillerArt@aol.com
To correspond with the CFA Legislative Committee, please send email to legislation@cfa.org
