« Pizza update | Main | homeland security watchdogs »

pet semantics

Your tax money at work:

In an effort to give man's best friend a little more bite, the city Board of Supervisors is considering changing the health code to make pet owners also guardians.

..."Owner implies the same relationship as the owner of a bicycle or the owner of a toaster," said Rob Eshelman, legislative aid to Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, who introduced the legislation in September. "We're really trying to get to the heart of trying to treat animals more humanely and promote guardianship."

I have news for you, Mr. Gonzales. Little Fido doesn't care what the hell you call him as long as his food bowl is full and you let him hump your leg once in a while.

If the proposal becomes law in San Francisco, it will be a symbolic change with no legal ramifications, since state law considers animals property, Eshelman said.

I'm at a total loss as to why this is necessary. Oh. It's San Francisco. Enough said.

Posted by on November 24, 2002 07:51 AM |

Comments

Someone used the word "nuthatch" before to describe some part of California (Berkeley?) it fits here, too.

Posted by: Chuck | November 24, 2002 07:55 AM

Yes, please keep adding "symbolic changes", the law isn't complicated and confusing enough as it is.

"... The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
-- Wm. Shakespeare [Henry VI, Part 2].

Posted by: lactose incompetent | November 24, 2002 09:12 AM

I agree that this is merely symbolic. It is a symbol of a cultural war issue, an attempt to establish a religion. Ultimate questions of the relationship between human beings and the rest of creation are, after all religious questions, and no part of the province of the state. This is an attack on "Have dominion over every living creature," to go along with the attack on "Male and female created He them."

Posted by: Lou Gots | November 24, 2002 09:18 AM

I think Lou is on to something with these wadsworths.I find even a "symbolic" attempt to equate my dog with my child offensive.But then,I respect my dog more than these whackjobs,so maybe they're hoping to raise THEIR self-image and standing in the community.DOWN bad assclown.

Posted by: mbruce | November 24, 2002 09:28 AM

I'm of two opinons here.

Legally, I own the cutest dog in the world, which implies that I hold her life in my hand. Realistically, I think of her as my kid, since I most likely will have no biological children.

Ultimately, it's a stupid waste of time. I just relish the moment when, in San Franscisco, a dog's rights trump a child's rights.

You know it will happen..

Posted by: mike | November 24, 2002 10:42 AM

San Francisco is fucking nuts.

....that's why I live here.

Posted by: hoopty | November 24, 2002 11:04 AM

And yet, at the same time, the City is trying to close off more than 50% of all park spaces to dogs--on OR off-leash--and to force all off-leash activities into chain link pens that will comprise 0.7% of park area.
This in a city with over 50,000 dogs in it.
Yes, SF is completely nucking futz.

Posted by: Toren | November 24, 2002 03:33 PM