Robert Goldman and Bonnie Lutz
Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - AT first glance, the words -'owner' and -'guardian' may appear to be synonymous. At least that's what a group of animal rights activists want the Pasadena City Council to assume.

Representatives from a Northern California-based group known as InDefense of Animals have asked the Pasadena City Council to adopt an ordinance changing the word -'owner' to -'owner/guardian' when it comes to pet animals. The activists claim the change is just a -warm and fuzzy' terminology that serves only to enlighten people to the significance and sanctity of domestic animals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Besides the frivolous nature of elected officials spending time on these kinds of issues, such a change to owner/guardian could lead to confusion and a quagmire of legal problems for pet owners, veterinarians, animal rescuers, animal shelters and especially the city of Pasadena.

The terms owner and guardian are two entirely different legal designations and cannot be used interchangeably. Once the word guardian is implanted in the city code's legal fabric, it could easily be used backed by centuries of legal meaning to place upon the pet's guardian far different obligations than are currently expected of an owner of pet animals.

In fact, changing the legal term may reduce the legal status and value of pets as property and thereby restrict the rights of owners, veterinarians and government agencies to protect and care for companion animals.

It may also subject them to frivolous and expensive lawsuits. And it would beg the question - who exactly is the legal owner of pets in Pasadena? Legally can someone be both an owner and a guardian? The legal answer could very well be that the city of Pasadena would become the owner of all animals within the city limits since everyone else would become owner/guardians of their pets.

Who will bear the legal responsibility for pets, including actions of dangerous animals, nuisance barking and medical treatment? Currently, pets are considered personal property owned by individuals. Such ownership confers certain protections from having their property taken away without judicial review, as well as some specific obligations in caring for their property.

Guardians, on the other hand, do not own their property and, according to extensive statutory and case law, have only a limited or temporary possession of the property. They can be removed from their position of guardianship for a variety of far less restrictive reasons than for an owner of property.

Because the case law regarding guardians is so voluminous, changing the terminology in an already litigious climate also raises the possibility of a virtual tsunami of legal questions sure to bog down the courts.

There are many other questions that arise from the change from owner to owner/guardian. Under such a change, according to the laws of guardianship, local government would have a greater responsibility to assure that guardians are acting in the highest and best interests of the pet, which will place a much greater legal burden on city agencies and animal shelters.

What about the rights of pet owners to legally sell or give away their animals? Can a guardian legally sell or give away an animal?

It is also highly unlikely that such a change from pet owner to owner/guardian would have much substantive impact on perceptions of animals, as claimed by the proponents of this measure. People who currently abuse, neglect or mistreat companion animals will not likely change their behavior due to a revision in the legal definition of ownership. If a person is a bad owner, he/she will undoubtedly be a bad guardian.

Changing the term owner to guardian or to owner/guardian is opposed by the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association, the California Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the Cat Fanciers Association, the Animal Issues Movement and many nonprofit and consumer groups.

The Pasadena City Council surely has more important matters with which to contend. Hopefully, they won't be fooled into approving this -feel-good' measure that's no more than the proverbial Trojan horse.

Robert Goldman is president of the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association. E-mail him at AnimalIGH@aol.com . Bonnie Lutz specializes in veterinary medical malpractice. E-mail her at atbll@kfmlaw.com .