Animal Advocates Unbowed by Defeat : Election: They blame well-financed, high-profile opposition for loss and vow to carry on fight against use of pound animals for research.

The practice of selling pound animals for research will continue, but opponents haven’t given up the fight.

Despite losing the Nov. 6 advisory vote by 68% to 32% on the San Diego County ballot, Proposition C, opponents vow to stop the county’s practice of selling pound animals to the University of California, San Diego for scientific research.

In fact, the vote has done little to cool passions on either side.

“Vivisection is worse than anything you would ever see in Vietnam,” said Los Angeles animal activist Stephanie Bach who was involved in the coalition opposing Proposition C. “These people are extraordinarily psychotic. In fact, they have the same mentality as the man who cuts the arms off a little girl and rapes her.”

“That statement speaks for itself as to where these people are coming from,” responded Richard Attieh, dean of graduate studies at UCSD and a member of an ad hoc organization called Citizens for the Understanding of Research and Education, which was formed to fight for the proposition.

Despite the university’s hopes that pound-seizure opponents would simply accept defeat in the fight over Proposition C, activists involved refuse to go away. Instead, the loosely knit coalition is pausing while it formulates a new strategy--a strategy some coalition members say must include a politicization of their effort.

“We are still catching our breath,” said Bob Melvin, a founder of Stop Taking Our Pets, a San Diego-based group that was the main component in the coalition. “We are formulating a new strategy. We know it’s an entirely different ballgame now.”

The new ballgame is politics, and the coalition has come away from the election with a lesson: Protest marches and impassioned pleas don’t cut it in the world of hardball electioneering.

STOP and its allies in San Diego and Los Angeles guessed they would be whipped at the polls long before the election was held. On July 31, County Supervisor John McDonald insisted on placing Proposition C on the November ballot without a series of public hearings; his move was supported by the majority of the Board of Supervisors.

STOP and the other groups had demanded the hearings as a way of educating the public about pound seizure, and saw the fact that they didn’t take place as their first defeat. “We didn’t want this on the ballot, and we came close to boycotting the election altogether,” Melvin said. “It was a sham and a fraud.”

Melvin claims the proposition’s wording made it very difficult to oppose.

The proposition read, in part: “Should the County of San Diego continue to provide pound animals for medical research to seek cures for diseases such as heart disease, lung disease and diabetes . . . ?”

“How objective is that?” asked Melvin. “How could a voter vote against that?”

But the proposition’s wording wasn’t its opponents’ only disadvantage.

The coalition also found itself pitted against potent local forces, both private and public. The Yes on Proposition C campaign was run through CURE by the politically connected local marketing and promotions firm Stoorza, Ziegus & Metzger. CURE’s campaign manager was Dan Greenblat of Stoorza, and its letterhead boasted such luminaries as scientists Roger Revell and Jonas Salk, bankers Gordon Luce and Malin Burnham and a host of other celebrities and doctors.

Faced with such formidable opponents, the No on C campaign said it felt lucky to win 32% of the vote. Still, animal activists said, the experience has taught them the need for political sophistication.

“Nothing will work unless we have a law, and for that we need a lot more clout,” said Joyce Piper of National Stop Pound Seizure, a Los Angeles-based member of the coalition.

Bach, a coalition fund-raiser, agreed.

“I am not surprised at the vote because the anti-vivisection movement is not a political movement. It must rely on information from charities, and the charities don’t give election information. We need to focus on the nuts and bolts of political organization.”

It’s a task that may be tougher than it sounds. The San Diego Humane Society will not become politically involved, despite its opposition to Proposition C. According to spokesman Larry Boersma, the society will restrict itself to speaking only on issues directly related to animals and will not oppose or support individual candidates.

Even with better organization, and a differently worded proposition, it is doubtful the animal activists could have fared much better. In three recent California elections, proposals to stop the sale of pound animals to research institutions failed. In June, 1989, Sacramento County voters rejected a charter amendment to stop such sales by a vote of 138,166 to 73,264. The city of San Bernardino and Mendocino County have also voted to permit the sale of pound animals by wide margins.

Facts like that do not deter pound seizure opponents, who feel passionately about their cause.

UCSD medical school spokeswoman Leslie Franz thinks researchers are just as committed.

“It’s important to us that we take a stand. Even if these people had won, they wouldn’t have gone away . . . they are opposed to all animal research. They say that’s not their agenda, but experience says otherwise.”

For now, both sides are taking stock, preparing for what all parties admit is just a break between rounds. Animal advocates will return to their earlier tactic of pressuring individual cities to end their contracts with the county department of animal control as long as pound seizure is permitted. In the meantime they will sharpen their political edges.

That does not surprise the scientists.

“They are not going to relax until they have accomplished their goal,” said Franz.

“We will be in the picture,” said Melvin. “We will be active to end something we see as cruel and inhumane. There’s a lot of work to be done.”