-
- Pet ``ownership'' is an offensive term that causes people
to think of their animals as disposable property, an animal rights advocate
told a San Francisco commission last night.
-
- That's why San Francisco should adopt ``pet guardian''
as the term of choice, veterinarian Elliot Katz told the city's Commission
of Animal Control and Welfare.
-
- Katz wasn't joking.
-
- As president of the organization In Defense of Animals,
Katz wants the Board of Supervisors to change San Francisco's laws, so
that every one that mentions ``pet owners'' also says ``and/or pet guardians.''
-
- The linguistic shift, Katz told the commission, is an
important part of a ``revolution'' that will change the way people see
their cats, dogs and other pets.
-
- He said his cause is akin to the abolition movement that
eliminated slavery in the United States and the suffrage movement that
gave American women the right to vote and own property.
-
- His supporters agree.
-
- ``Language is an important part of it,'' Katz stressed
last night. ``It's a whole consciousness . . . that changes the way people
think.
-
- ``The idea of women `ownership' and black `ownership'
and pet `ownership.' There's continuity here. Now is the time to get rid
of this concept of `pet ownership.' ''
-
- The commission, which met last night at City Hall, said
it wants to ponder Katz's suggestion before deciding whether to send a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The city attorney's office
is also studying Katz's proposal.
-
- If it is adopted into law, San Francisco would be the
first city in the country to change the legal definition of someone who,
ah, owns a pet.
-
-
- In Defense of Animals, which is based in Mill Valley,
has also lobbied Marin County to change its laws, but San Francisco is
clearly a bigger target because it sets so many national trends.
-
- No one spoke out against Katz's proposal last night.
All nine commissioners seemed interested in supporting it, with commission
Chairman Richard Schulke saying, ``I've always thought of my pets as my
family and friends.''
-
- Katz's proposal has the support of many members of the
SPCA and animal rights organizations, who believe that people who think
of themselves as ``owners'' are more likely to abuse their pets.
-
- One speaker said she knew of a man who wanted to put
his cat up for adoption because it had fleas.
-
- Katz and another speaker cited an example of a man whose
will directed that his horses be destroyed when he died. In Defense of
Animals successfully contested the will, challenging it in court by saying
that animals are individual beings that are separate from their owners.
-
- This separation and individuality, Katz argued, gives
them special rights -- rights that more people would see if they did not
think of them as ``property'' that could be disposed of.
-
- Katz said he hopes the Board of Supervisors adopts his
proposal by the end of the year. Under his proposal, pet ``guardians''
would have the same legal responsibility as pet ``owners.''
-
- But ``pet `ownership,' '' he said, ``is an archaic term.''
|
