By Blair Clarkson
Staff Writer

March 11 -- Sorry Fido, but your fight for species-equality here in Santa Monica is a lost cause.

In a narrow decision that is sure to raise the dander of certain animal activists, while appeasing those grown weary of the City's need to champion every social cause, the City Council voted Tuesday night not to change the Municipal Code by substituting the word "guardian" for pet "owner."

"We live in a very strange society where corporations are given the constitutional rights afforded to individuals," said Mayor Pro Tem Kevin McKeown, who voted for the name change, "and meanwhile, living companion creatures are considered mere objects."

Tuesday’s action came six months after the animal rights organization, In Defense of Animals, asked the City to adopt an ordinance requiring an official name change.

Changing “pet owner” to “guardian,” they argued, would promote the recognition of pets as individuals and not things, enhance respect and compassion, reduce breeding at "puppy mills" and decrease abuse and abandonment.

The request, however, unleashed a flood of letters to the City Attorney's office from various individuals and groups opposing the change.

Opponents -- who included the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association (SCVMA) -- feared the name change would result in legal ambiguity that would hurt, rather than help, animals.

Opponents worried that “guardians” could have their pets taken away without judicial review and lose the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their pets, as well as the right to legally sell or give them away. They were also concerned that medical care could be delayed or denied because “guardians” wouldn't have legal responsibility.

"We are opposed to changing it," said Richard Holden, of the SCVMA. "There is considerable concern that changing the terminology from a legal point of view could lead to confusion down the road," specifically in the identification of property and animal control.

"Changing the name and saying you're a guardian, not a pet owner, really doesn't change people's attitudes," said Holden of the problem of animal abuse. "That's what needs to be changed."

Local veterinarian Robert Goldman cited fears that shelters and animal hospitals could be forced to withhold treatment for seriously ill or terminally suffering animals because of liability issues.

"The trial lawyers association has listed veterinarians as an untapped profit center, which means that we would have actual dog and cat ambulance chasers," he said.

As a result, insurance rates would skyrocket and "the average cost for vets to stay in business to treat your cat would make it such that you couldn't afford to come in for an office call."

City Attorney Marsha Moutrie viewed the change as largely symbolic, but said it was too early to tell if similar laws in West Hollywood, Berkeley and San Francisco would create a legal liability.

"From a legal perspective, my own viewpoint is that the change is largely symbolic,” Moutrie said. “It is possible that it could make it more confusing, but it's not clear to me that actual rights and responsibilities would change.

"Nonetheless,” she added, “it's difficult to tell, because the changes in law made in other places were made so recently that there isn't a particularly long history" to show whether the fears about making such a change have been realized.

In addition to veterinarians, the Santa Monica Police Department, Animal Issues Movement and the American Kennel Club also opposed the name change.

"When dogs are considered property, owners have a responsibility to provide humane care and treatment," wrote Kennel Club representative Kortni Campbell in a letter to the council. "Referring to owners as 'guardians' will not make them more humane."

Heated public debate over the proposed ordinance has centered on whether animals should be elevated to the status of humans.

"Our cats are like children," said resident Jerry Rubin. "We're like their parents. Having a cat or a dog is not the same as owning a television set."

"I have a receipt for the purchase of my dogs," Nick Santora wrote in an email to the City. "This makes the dogs my possession and thus me the owner."

While opponents acknowledge there is no denying that many beloved pets have become family "members," they argue that they are still animals, and to impose human values and rights upon them is obscene and cruel.

The proposed ordinance, which was narrowly defeated by a 3 to 2 vote on Tuesday, also split the Council, with Mayor Richard Bloom and Council members Ken Genser and Herb Katz voting against it, while Michael Feinstein and McKeown supported it. Council members Pam O'Connor and Robert Holbrook were not present.

"The use of the word 'guardian' as an education tool is really important," said McKeown. "I think guardian is the right word, and we should be using it."

Feinstein compared the current debate to the gender-neutrality discussions that led to the changing of the term "grandfathered" to "grandparented." The proposal, he said, "is an attempt to remind us that animals are living beings and we share the planet with them.

"Our City has taken those sorts of tacts in the past to change language," Feinstein said. "We are well accustomed in this community to the importance of symbolism in language."

"I don't recall us ever changing the law regarding the word 'grandfathered' or 'grandparented,'" responded Genser. "It was simply consciousness in one's conversation. Nothing will prevent anyone from using the word 'guardian' in
conversation if they so choose."

Regardless of the Council's decision, that the issue was debated at all has irked some residents who felt the City could be spending its time and money more usefully.

"The economy is still a wreck, budget cuts are coming and homelessness is out of control," complained one woman who asked to remain anonymous. "And they're wasting taxpayer money on this?

"Did anybody ask the dogs and cats if they care?"

In a separate naming issue, the council voted to call the connector road between Pacific Coast Highway and Ocean Avenue, formally known by the snappy name State Route 187, "Moomat Ahiko Way."

The formal renaming of the road is dependant on confirmation of the Chumash phrase's translation to "Breath of the Ocean." The Chumash were one of the Native groups to inhabit the area.

Among other suggested names on the list were: Bum Blvd., Socialist Agenda Drive, Hasta La Vista Blvd., Homeless Haven Hill, Runoff Road and What Street.

"The public clearly had more fun with this than we expected," said McKeown, who wondered whether the short incline even needed a name.