Opponents assail Ukiah's pet 'guardian' language
Published: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 11:20 p.m.
A seemingly harmless proposal to change the term “pet owner” to “pet owner/guardian” in Ukiah’s Animal Control ordinance has raised howls of opposition and divided animal advocates.
A chastened Ukiah City Council tonight will consider the proposed owner/guardian ordinance language, but also a watered-down alternative in the form of a nonbinding resolution simply encouraging the use of the term animal guardian.
Both proposals are intended to encourage compassionate pet ownership.
“If we can begin to change the mindset, maybe we can reduce the number of homeless and abandoned animals,” said Jan Allegretti, co-author of a book on holistic animal care and the lead proponent of the language change.
The proposed language change would have no legal impact, said Ukiah City Attorney Dave Rapport, who offered the resolution alternative. “It would mean nothing from a legal standpoint,” he said, noting that the ordinance defines an animal guardian as an owner.
But opponents remain unconvinced, even after the City Council amended an earlier version to replace guardian with the term owner/guardian.
“I am afraid that what looks like a simple and benign change in language is really the tip of the iceberg of legal problems to come,” said Sallie Palmer, a local dog trainer who has been active with the local Humane Society.
Veterinarians and animal organizations also are split on such language changes, which have been adopted by dozens of local governments, including Sebastopol, San Francisco and Marin County, Allegretti noted.
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, students at the City of 10,000 Buddhas and seven area veterinarians have voiced support for the language change.
Ukiah Councilman Doug Crane, the American Kennel Club, Mendocino County Farm Bureau, Employers Council of Mendocino County and the California Veterinary Medical Association as well as those in other states are among opponents of the use of guardian in place of owner.
Ukiah veterinarian Edward Haynes also is opposed. In a letter to the council, he said the ordinance pits animal rights advocates against animal welfare advocates.
Animal rights advocates “believe that all animals have rights that are at least equal to those of humans. The logical endpoint of this view is the total abolition of animals as property, that is the elimination or liberation of all domesticated animals,” he wrote.
He said the ordinance won’t protect animals and could even be harmful.
“Changing the legal terms reduces the legal status and value of pets as property and thereby restricts the rights of owners, veterinarians and government agencies to protect and care for them,” Haynes said.
Other Ukiah area veterinarians support the change.
“I believe city codes that recognize citizens in this way will impact our community as a whole in thinking about their relationship and responsibilities to the animals in their lives,” wrote Katy Sommers.
The furor raised by the proposal surprised the four council members who had voted to pursue the issue.
“It seemed like an innocuous thing,” said Ukiah City Councilwoman Mari Rodin.
She’s hoping the resolution will satisfy both sides.
“The City Council doesn’t need to spend more time on this,” Rodin said.
You can reach Staff Writer Glenda Anderson at 462-6473 or glenda.anderson@pressdemocrat.com.
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article