Post by RealPitBull on Feb 5, 2009 10:13:00 GMT -5
Guardian/owner' may be pet law of future
By ROB BURGESS The Daily Journal
Updated: 02/05/2009 12:02:16 AM PST
Guardian? Owner?
How about guardian/owner?
During its regular meeting Wednesday evening, the Ukiah City Council decided
to split the difference on the hotly-debated pet ordinance wording change by
ordering City Attorney David Rapport to draft a revised ordinance that would
state the council's intent and replace "owner" with "guardian/owner."
Rapport said the change would not have any bearing on how the ordinance was
administered.
"The focus of the ordinance is on control of your pets, not on the wording,"
he said.
Rapport said a firestorm of communication from the public had been received
by the council on the change.
"I'm not sure that anything the council's considered recently has generated
as much correspondence as this item," he said. "I've attempted to address
that larger concern by providing a definition of that term in the ordinance.
I think that the definition addresses the problem, at least from the point
of the animal control officer, and there won't be any question about what
the term guardian' means in this ordinance."
Vice Mayor Benj Thomas said he hoped further discourse on the topic would
answer questions and not be repetitive.
"I would be very surprised if I hear anything tonight that I haven't already
heard," he said.
Councilmember Mari Rodin said she wanted to know Rapport's opinion on the
idea of the switch being the opening shot in a war on pet-owner rights.
"One of the arguments against this proposal is the idea
that this would open the floodgates to increasing animal rights - that this
is just one step closer to changing our relationship with animals."
Rapport said he didn't see how this particular case would fit into that
scheme.
"Whether it would open the floodgates to something in the animal control
ordinance I don't think it would," he said. "As far as a long-range
strategyŠI couldn't comment on thatŠGuardian' does have meanings in the
dictionary and in state statutes. Those terms have very different meanings
than what would be used in this ordinance. The ordinance is concerned with
making sure pets aren't a health and safety riskŠIt's not focused on what
the obligations are to the pet."
John Graff, of the Employers Council of Mendocino County, said the
discussion was frivolous in such a tight budget time.
"I feel like it's a violation of a lot of things," he said. "It doesn't make
any sense why we're hereŠIf a husband beats his wife, it's still bad to beat
your wifeŠI don't see how anything is going to get corrected by changing a
name."
Jan Allegretti said that because the change had already occurred in several
other areas with no perceivable problems Ukiah shouldn't balk at joining the
list.
"I think it's really important to recognize that we're not venturing into
uncharted territory here," she said. "There has been no legal problemsŠThere
is no obligation for anyone to use the term guardianŠLet's move forward and
be one of the progressive cities."
Thomas said the target of the change was children with pets, not adults. "I
think that this is not about animal control," he said. "I think it is about
language more broadly, and I think that language does matterŠIt's an
emotional issue to begin withŠWe are emotional about our pets. We invest in
them all kinds of emotions and attitudes. It starts out as a loaded topic."
Thomas said he would prefer an addition of the term guardian' and not the
deletion of owner.' "I think that that would preserve some measure of
continuity," he said.
Mayor Phil Baldwin said the council had the ability to modify the wording if
it turned out to be a misstep.
"Words are declining from the image-based technological culture we're in, so
I think it's important that anyone under 40 considers the meanings of
words," he said. "My students have been wondering if we're wasting our time,
but just by doing this it is valuableŠThis is not the same as ordering a
bomb to be dropped or troops to be sentŠI don't think our decision is so
dangerous that it's so potentially harmful to society. If we were to make a
mistake we could change it."
Rodin introduced a motion to direct staff to draft a new ordinance that
changed the wording from "owner" to "owner/guardian" and add a section
outlining the intent of the change.
The motion passed by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Mary Anne Landis and
Doug Crane dissenting.
"I think we had people talking across each other rather than to each other,"
Thomas said.
"I don't know that we ever had a kind of attempt to get proponents and
opponents to explain to each other so there might be some understanding and
less divisiveness on this issueŠThis has been a lot
of time for the council, a lot of time for the staff and there are very
pressing matters for the council that need to be dealt with, and I think we
need to be mindful where our priorities should go."
Rob Burgess can be reached at udjrb@pacific.net.
www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_11633272
By ROB BURGESS The Daily Journal
Updated: 02/05/2009 12:02:16 AM PST
Guardian? Owner?
How about guardian/owner?
During its regular meeting Wednesday evening, the Ukiah City Council decided
to split the difference on the hotly-debated pet ordinance wording change by
ordering City Attorney David Rapport to draft a revised ordinance that would
state the council's intent and replace "owner" with "guardian/owner."
Rapport said the change would not have any bearing on how the ordinance was
administered.
"The focus of the ordinance is on control of your pets, not on the wording,"
he said.
Rapport said a firestorm of communication from the public had been received
by the council on the change.
"I'm not sure that anything the council's considered recently has generated
as much correspondence as this item," he said. "I've attempted to address
that larger concern by providing a definition of that term in the ordinance.
I think that the definition addresses the problem, at least from the point
of the animal control officer, and there won't be any question about what
the term guardian' means in this ordinance."
Vice Mayor Benj Thomas said he hoped further discourse on the topic would
answer questions and not be repetitive.
"I would be very surprised if I hear anything tonight that I haven't already
heard," he said.
Councilmember Mari Rodin said she wanted to know Rapport's opinion on the
idea of the switch being the opening shot in a war on pet-owner rights.
"One of the arguments against this proposal is the idea
that this would open the floodgates to increasing animal rights - that this
is just one step closer to changing our relationship with animals."
Rapport said he didn't see how this particular case would fit into that
scheme.
"Whether it would open the floodgates to something in the animal control
ordinance I don't think it would," he said. "As far as a long-range
strategyŠI couldn't comment on thatŠGuardian' does have meanings in the
dictionary and in state statutes. Those terms have very different meanings
than what would be used in this ordinance. The ordinance is concerned with
making sure pets aren't a health and safety riskŠIt's not focused on what
the obligations are to the pet."
John Graff, of the Employers Council of Mendocino County, said the
discussion was frivolous in such a tight budget time.
"I feel like it's a violation of a lot of things," he said. "It doesn't make
any sense why we're hereŠIf a husband beats his wife, it's still bad to beat
your wifeŠI don't see how anything is going to get corrected by changing a
name."
Jan Allegretti said that because the change had already occurred in several
other areas with no perceivable problems Ukiah shouldn't balk at joining the
list.
"I think it's really important to recognize that we're not venturing into
uncharted territory here," she said. "There has been no legal problemsŠThere
is no obligation for anyone to use the term guardianŠLet's move forward and
be one of the progressive cities."
Thomas said the target of the change was children with pets, not adults. "I
think that this is not about animal control," he said. "I think it is about
language more broadly, and I think that language does matterŠIt's an
emotional issue to begin withŠWe are emotional about our pets. We invest in
them all kinds of emotions and attitudes. It starts out as a loaded topic."
Thomas said he would prefer an addition of the term guardian' and not the
deletion of owner.' "I think that that would preserve some measure of
continuity," he said.
Mayor Phil Baldwin said the council had the ability to modify the wording if
it turned out to be a misstep.
"Words are declining from the image-based technological culture we're in, so
I think it's important that anyone under 40 considers the meanings of
words," he said. "My students have been wondering if we're wasting our time,
but just by doing this it is valuableŠThis is not the same as ordering a
bomb to be dropped or troops to be sentŠI don't think our decision is so
dangerous that it's so potentially harmful to society. If we were to make a
mistake we could change it."
Rodin introduced a motion to direct staff to draft a new ordinance that
changed the wording from "owner" to "owner/guardian" and add a section
outlining the intent of the change.
The motion passed by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Mary Anne Landis and
Doug Crane dissenting.
"I think we had people talking across each other rather than to each other,"
Thomas said.
"I don't know that we ever had a kind of attempt to get proponents and
opponents to explain to each other so there might be some understanding and
less divisiveness on this issueŠThis has been a lot
of time for the council, a lot of time for the staff and there are very
pressing matters for the council that need to be dealt with, and I think we
need to be mindful where our priorities should go."
Rob Burgess can be reached at udjrb@pacific.net.
www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_11633272
I look forward to learning much here