SR-701-002 (5)
F:\ATTY\MUNI\STRPTS\MJM\animals.doc
City Council Meeting 3-9-04 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Options for Responding to Request Made by Proponents of Animal
Guardianship
Introduction
Last September, representatives of the group In Defense of Animals asked the Council
to adopt an ordinance amending the Municipal Code by substituting the term ?guardian?
for pet ?owner.? In response, Council directed staff to return with advice on options for
an ordinance. This report fulfills that request.
Background
California law empowers property owners to take, hold and dispose of their property as
they see fit, and it classifies animals as personal property. State law assigns different
rights and responsibilities to guardians than to owners, including the responsibility to act
in their ?wards?? best interests.
In Defense of Animals has advocated, throughout the state, for changes in local laws,
which would replace the concept of pet ownership with pet guardianship. The group
asserts that this change would promote the recognition of animals as individuals (not
things), enhance respect and compassion for animals, reduce breeding at ?puppy mills,?
and decrease abuse and abandonment of animals. Opponents of ?animal guardianship?
1
disagree. They claim, among other things, that substituting the word ?guardian? for
?owner? will not reduce animal abuse and will, instead, make it more difficult for
veterinarians and shelters to care for them because the change in terminology will
create legal ambiguities.
Cities have responded in various ways to the animal guardianship proposal. For
instance, West Hollywood amended its code to substitute the word ?guardian? for
?owner? in provisions relating to the control of dogs and other animals. San Francisco
took a different approach, adding the word ?guardian? but maintaining the word ?owner?
in municipal code provisions relating to animals, excluding fish.
In contrast, the Los Angeles City Council declined to amend its code to introduce the
concept of pet guardianship. This decision came after the City Attorney?s office
produced a written opinion warning that the proposed change would create confusion
among animal owners, veterinarians, regulatory personnel and others about rights and
responsibilities. The written opinion also acknowledges that ?current law does not
prohibit the proposed change.? Moreover, the opinion states that state law would
preempt any attempt to impose a new legal relationship between pets and owners; so,
the proposed change would be symbolic rather than legal and would be akin to an
?advisory policy.? A copy of the Los Angeles City Attorney?s opinion is attached to this
report.
In every city where the issue has been raised, significant controversy ensued. This City
has been no exception.
2
Discussion
After the Council gave direction, printed material poured into the City Attorney?s office
from various groups, most of which appear to have opposed the proposal wherever it
surfaced. Groups supplying materials and viewpoints include the California Veterinary
Medical Association, the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association, Actors and
Others for Animals, the Civil Justice Association of California, the American Kennel Club
and the Animal Issues Movement. All of these groups, except Actors and Others for
Animals, either oppose pet guardian laws or argue that more study is needed. Copies
of material supplied by proponents and opponents are attached so that the Council may
evaluate the controversy.
If the Council wishes to take action, it has various options. It could substitute the word
?guardian? for ?owner,? add the word ?guardian,? make a different policy statement in
support of respect for animals, or take no action and await developments.
The Santa Monica Police Department, which operates the City?s Animal Shelter,
recommends against use of the term ?guardian? because that change could cause
confusion and legal disputes, including whether Animal Control workers had the rights
and responsibilities of owners or guardians. If the word ?guardian? is, nonetheless, to
be used, legal staff suggests that it be used in conjunction with language specifying that
its use does not alter rights and responsibilities imposed by state and local law. Such
language would make clear that the change is symbolic and would guard against the
change adversely affecting the care of animals. Also, if the Council wishes to add the
concept of animal guardianship to the Municipal Code, consideration should be given to
3
the scope of the term?s application. That is, would the term ?guardian? apply to all
animals, ?pets,? or only companion animals?
Financial/Budget Impact
Policy direction for an ordinance will have no impact. Substituting the word ?guardian?
for ?owner? could have an indirect impact on the City?s costs of animal control if the
change fosters legal disputes.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council consider the information provided with this report
and in conjunction with the public hearing decide whether to give staff further direction.
PREPARED BY: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
4