Guest Column
The Cat Fanciers' Association
Report - Imperial Beach, CA, "Guardian" hearing
5 July 2006
Dear
Fanciers;
Last evening's Imperial Beach, CA, hearing was crowded, emotional and
discouraging to those of us who oppose the term "guardian" used in animal
laws.
After
hearing over 2 hours of testimony the Mayor and 4 City Council members voted
unanimously to accept the proposed change from owner to "owner/guardian" in
the animal code. This was the first reading and it clearly will pass the
second reading on July 19th.
George Eigenhauser and I both spoke on behalf of CFA. George emphasized the
need for plain language in the law; stressed that the use of "guardian" has
no relationship to better care of animals. The concept of animal ownership
is clearly understood by everyone regarding both responsibilities and
rights. I expressed concern that the use of "owner/guardian" in law
was not simply an innocuous change but the first step in the national
campaign called "They are not our property - we are not their owners", a
movement intended to transform the status of animals so they will eventually
be granted legal rights.
Many dog fanciers and veterinarians, representatives from the California
Federation of Dog Clubs, Del Sur Kennel Club, the CVMA and the San Diego
County Veterinary Medical Association strongly opposed the proposed
terminology reiterating that this would create confusion among animal
owners, regulatory agencies and veterinarians and could lead to litigation
against the city. The Council said they received many letters opposing the
change.
Support came from numerous local pet owners. All of the supporters used
emotional rationale saying they believed "guardian" would mean better care
of pets and would raise awareness. Dr. Mike McCoy, the veterinarian who
initiated the proposal sees the "owner/guardian" term as an opportunity for
social change that would elevate the status of animals and believes the only
reason for opposition is fear of the unknown. The City Attorney stated there
was no legal impact and "owner/guardian" would mean the same as "owner".
Council members all seemed to know Dr. McCoy very well since he is the
husband of one of the Council members and has been the Mayor's veterinarian
for 34 years.
It was apparent that legal reasoning, discussion of animal rights agenda or
potential unintended consequences would not influence this council. Three
California Counties and now 4 cities in California have incorporated
"guardian" into their animal laws.
Joan Miller
CFA Legislative Coordinator
JMillerArt@aol.com
http://www.cfa.org/
www.cfa.org/ezine
Use of the term animal "guardian" instead of owner
The "guardian" issue has become prominent over the last few years and legislation to add this word to animal laws has now passed in several cities and the state of Rhode Island. The Cat Fanciers' Association, along with many other organizations, is concerned about the potential implications of this term in both animal related laws and in common usage. The "guardian" word as a replacement for owner is part of a campaign, led by In Defense of Animals, called "They Are Not Our Property - We Are Not Their Owners". IDA disavows the concept and language of animal ownership and seeks to "reconstruct the social and legal relationship between humans and animals".
At its October 3, 2003 meeting the CFA Board of Directors unanimously approved an official CFA position statement as follows:
I OWN my cat!! - CFA's statement concerning the "guardian" term:
"The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc. strongly supports caring and responsible pet ownership. CFA upholds the traditional property rights of animal owners that provide the basis for their ability to make decisions about their animals' well-being, including health, reproduction and transfer to a new owner. Owned cats are valued family members. As legal property, they cannot be taken away from us except by constitutional due process. The term "guardian", whether inserted into animal laws or in common usage, contradicts this critical protective and personal relationship. CFA rejects the concept of animal "guardianship", which can be challenged or revoked, because of the potential legal and social ramifications that would negatively impact veterinarians, animal rescuers, breeders and sellers of animals as well as pet owners."
Others that have written letters or published statements in opposition to the use of "guardian" include the American Veterinary Medical Association, The American Kennel Club, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, National Animal Interest Alliance, the American Dog Owners Association, Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, TX, The Civil Justice Association of California, The California Veterinary Medical Association and the office of the Los Angeles City Attorney.
Ownership, Not Guardianship: Keeping Our Rights to Protect Cats and Dogs
The foremost defense against detrimental legislation or legal actions against cat or dog owners is the property status of animals. Animals may be possessed, bred, sold, leased and subjects of contracts in market commerce where their valuation is a function of supply and demand where prices include producers' costs and buyers' desire for scarce or value-added qualities. Claims by or against owners are settled by laws governing personal property including contracts, liability for damages to or by property, liens and wrongful taking or otherwise depriving an owner of property by damage or wrongful taking. The legal system reflects the economic reality that animals are produced to supply a demand by buyers who are willing to purchase them whether for personal enjoyment, to produce more animals or for utilitarian purposes.
Property rights restricted
Status of property does not mean that owners are not restricted as to how property is used. The law restricts use of animals in many ways just as it restricts the use of other types of property when a legally protected public interest is at stake. For example, the public has an interest in preventing immoral human behavior in causing unwarranted animal suffering just as it does in regulating historic buildings for social benefit. Such regulations recognize the inherent economic value of the property yet balance protection of property interests against the public interest.
Within the animal rights community are proponents of changing the status of animals from property to, for lack of a better term, persons. While extending various "rights" to animals can seem very reasonable in terms of conditions of animals' welfare or even enjoyment, changing their status as property would consequently eliminate the very owners' rights that ultimately protect animals and provide remedies that hold people legally accountable for a broad spectrum of acts involving animals.
While law school professors and students have written books and law review articles proposing schemes to eliminate property status for animals, these are largely incomprehensible to the average reader. However, In Defense of Animals of Mill Valley, California led by president, Dr. Elliot Katz has been conducting the "They Are Not Our Property" Campaign targeted to the public.
IDA writes, "companion animals" as an effort 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, "pet" to friend, "it" to he/she "that" to a given name and other like substitutions".
The final goal is not social and moral but legal. Advertising the campaign, Dr. Katz writes, "You can start by always adopting or rescuing animals, never buying or breeding them." Moving from rhetoric to legislation in 1999, Dr. Katz led the well publicized effort in San Francisco to use the term "guardian" as the equivalent of "owner" in the San Francisco Municipal Code. The proposal was passed by the San Francisco Commission on Animal Control and Welfare but has not found a sponsor among the Board of Supervisors.
San Francisco a joke?
Worldwide media attention focused on the "guardianship" proposal in San Francisco, not because it was recognized as an incremental step to eliminating cats and dogs by eliminating breeding but because it sounded like a joke. Commentators snickered and speculated about pets suing people without realizing that in a legal context a guardian is not merely a person who "guards" but a person to whom the state (through the court) has merely given authority and responsibility to care for the person and assets of someone who cannot care for himself. The guardian has no personal interests to be protected and can protect the "ward" only through the authority of the state.
As applied to cats and dogs, gone would be the rights to breed, transfer, show or even possess along with all property interests in animals. If we are our animals' guardians, then the joke is on us.
By Sharon A. Coleman
CFA Legislative Legal Analyst
Summer, 2000.