THE KILLER DO-GOODERS

What Can Be Done About “Animal Rights” Outfits?

By Zug. G. Standing Bear, November 2007

You know who they are. You may even belong to some of them. The large national and international “animal welfare” charity organizations that seek to help, protect, and look after our feathered, finned, and four legged brethren. They try to close down puppy mills, stop animal experimentation, preclude the use of fur, feather and leather, urge people to become vegetarians (much to the chagrin of the vegetable rights folks), and embark upon many other crusade-like operations in the name of animal welfare and animal rights. I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of the work carried on by these organizations, and even belong to a couple of them as a member. On the web site of the National Charities Information Bureau, I counted fourteen such animal welfare/animal rights organizations large enough to be listed on NCIB’s compilation of the 400 largest non-religious charities. Over half of these 14 charities do not qualify as a recommended charity because they cannot meet the standards of the NCIB.

Of course, a couple of these outfits are the ones consisting of zealots who break into research facilities and set the laboratory animals “free” or spray paint women wearing fur coats (I wonder why they do not do that to bikers wearing leathers?). I am not going to talk further about these people in this article for two reasons. First, there is simply no reasoning with them and dealing with them is a waste of time, and second, they do not have much credibility with the public anyway. Rather, here I wish to discuss the more mainstream “animal protection” organizations that DO come across as credible to officials faced with making animal laws. These are the organizations that employ professionals, such as veterinarians and attorneys, to deliver their message.

Many of these organizations support and sponsor legislation to make exotic animals illegal to possess, and employ “scientists” to deliver this evangel to legislative committees and commissions, county commissions, and city councils. The rhetoric is fairly standard: “These are ‘wild’ animals and belong in the wilds of their homeland and not in somebody’s living room.” Of course, for the 140,000 hedgehogs now in North America, that is an automatic death sentence. In the African savannas hedgehogs had ways to protect themselves, but Shirley, a three-generation removed hedgehog accustomed to living in the family room of Harry Schwartz in Sandusky, Ohio, would stand little chance of survival if suddenly returned to the homeland of her ancestors, or even if let loose in Sandusky, for that matter.

Unfortunately, I have found that there is no reasoning with these people. I tried to get a dialogue going with staffers from one of these organizations at the Pet Expo in Denver. They were simply strident, smug, and condescending in proclaiming that they, and only they, “knew” and I did not. I tried writing to them several times, but got no response. Then, one of them showed up on an Internet list server I am on. I raised the issues again and the staffer told me (this time in writing) that exotic animals belong in the wild and do not make appropriate pets, pasted a couple of anecdotal examples of some problems someone was having with sugar gliders, alluded to the fact that I ran a hedgehog rescue (as if that was a sufficient reason to make them illegal), implied that the animals are at risk because of the lack of knowledge on how to care for them, and other equally unscientific nonsense. And so making them illegal is going to remedy this? Indeed, it will do just the opposite - drive the market underground and increase the lack of knowledge. I raised as examples the plight of ferrets in California and, of course, Prohibition. And, naturally, I had to point out that there are a ubiquitous number dog and cat rescues around. Dr. Smug was unmoved and simply said that we’d just have to “agree to disagree.” She also informed me that the matter was “not open to debate.” Now THAT really got my attention. It is attitudes such as this that make these people and their organizations not only unethical, but dangerous. The Internet presently allows, with just a few keystrokes, the ability to locate virtually all pending legislation in the U.S.A. (not sure about Canada). You can bet these “animal protection” outfits are watching and will lend their very harmful views to legislators and other officials conducting hearings. I tried to tell these people that their efforts are directed to the wrong places. Rather than trying to make life difficult for the animals that are already here, they should be looking at proposals for new imports on a national basis.

There are two points I want to make with IHA readers. First, whenever someone says that an issue is “not open to debate,” I think they should be reminded that an individual who makes those sorts of statements falls into one or more of three categories, as follows: First, the exclaimant may be a fool. Fools come in various stripes, such as bigots, ignoramuses, and, in general people who are undisciplined, stupid, and/or fall victim to the numerous philosophical fallacies. Second, there are the dictators and, of course, the dictator’s lackeys (I call them cowards). Dictators simply call the shots because they have the power to do so (money, military force, etc.). Dictator cowards simply roll over and say “there is nothing I can do because the dictator tells me what to think and say.” Third, we raise the possibility that the person making the pronouncement is a deity (a God)! Was I too hard on Dr. Smug? The staffer quit the email list in a huff and never answered except to say that her superiors dictated policy. Sounded cowardly to me.

The second point is to plead with readers to stay up with their own local (municipal), county, and state legislation attempts. A couple of years back, I participated in a Colorado legislative commission to determine whether or not the state would declare the owning of wolfdogs illegal in the wake of a woman having been killed by two wolfdogs (she had been starving them). These animal “protection” outfits also seek to make wolfdogs illegal. A very compelling testimony was made by a molecular biologist confirming that there is no way to tell, genetically or otherwise, a wolfdog from a domestic dog. The legislature opted to support education rather than illegality. To do otherwise would have been to condone capricious enforcement of an ill defined law. So, you see, your input can influence lawmaking. But, in order to do that, one must be prepared. One of the best pages for preparation in fighting bad laws for exotic pets may be found on the Alternative Pet web site (www.altpet.net/badlaw.html). They have nine very solid reasons why enacting laws prohibiting exotic animals do not work It is well worth your time to review them.

Here is a summary of some very compelling reasons why making hedgehogs illegal is bad law:

1. People are not stopped by prohibition laws. These laws only create a black market, drive up prices for the buyer, and line the pockets of the law-breaking profiteer.

2. Illegal pets have no rights. They are often ordered killed by authorities (as is presently the case for hedgehogs in New York City and several states) and the caretakers face fines and possibly jail. Operating rescues for illegal animals is difficult and often impossible.

3. Illegal pets often get bad or no veterinary care. Pet caretakers often fear taking them to a veterinarian where they feel the veterinarian may turn them in or seize the animal to turn over to authorities. Veterinarians may fear the loss of their license for treating illegal pets. Illegality also inhibits research and the dissemination of veterinary knowledge, so a greater number of veterinarians are ill equipped to care for these animals.

4. Illegality gives rise to misconceptions about the species (salmonella scares, etc.) and may even lead to not only the slaughter of pet animals, but also their cousins in the wild.

5. Laws against exotic animals are used by groups that try to convince people that these are wild animals and that they should be released “into the wild.” Certainly a death sentence for our Central African and Algerian hedgehogs which lost their ability to hibernate over 20 million years ago.

6. Exotic animal caretakers are easily blackmailed by others that have an axe to grind. In one case, a former spouse was continually threatening to “turn in” the former partner who has a hedgehog.

7. If the animal is stolen or abused by others, the caretaker is unable to report the theft and/or abuse for fear of the law.

8. Over regulation of exotic species hampers research and knowledge about the animal and their requirements in captivity. As the list on the Alternative Pet site states: “Much of the knowledge gained about successful breeding, diet and husbandry on pygmy (sic) hedgehogs was gained by breeders, not by zoos.”

9. As the Alternative Pet list also points out, as the world human population increase and natural animal habitats decrease, more species become endangered. Accordingly, there is an ever increasing rationale for captive breeding.

10. Criminals who might keep and/or breed illegal exotics do not care about the law. Banning exotics has no more effect on criminals than banning guns, alcohol and other drugs, explosives, etc. and, indeed, invites the criminal element in to participate in the high profit black market distribution.

11. While illegality promotes criminal activity, it also discourages legitimate “professional” breeding operations. This is especially important for the health and welfare of African hedgehogs. In 1994, when USDA stopped the importing of African hedgehogs due to a tick they discovered that some of them carried, prices skyrocketed for these “fad” pets. This brought in profiteers who engaged in a breeding frenzy to make big money. The shortage of breeding pairs led to a lot of inbreeding. Today, the descendants of those inbred hedgehogs are coming down with high levels of hereditary diseases, including cancer and a hedgehog version of multiple sclerosis (called “wobbly hedgehog syndrome”), a degenerative myelopathy which is always fatal and kills about age two. Conscientious breeders today only breed hedgehogs from known blood lines (assisted by the International Hedgehog Registry, established in 1997) to avoid these hereditary illnesses. I know of no such conscientious breeders in states where hedgehogs are illegal.

I fully support strong regulation of all animal care functions, such as breeding, commerce, and ownership. I think the current USDA provisions under the Animal Welfare Act are prudent and reasonable, and our own Colorado Pet Animal Care Facilities Act is an excellent set of regulations. I would support legislation that required individuals purchasing exotic animals to become educated in their care and take a test, much as one presently takes a driver’s license examination.

I would urge readers to be diligent and pay attention to legislative proposals to make exotic pets illegal and to work to reverse such laws that are now on the books in several states, counties, and municipalities.

Originally published in the IHA News (International Hedgehog Association News) in July, 2000.

Dr. Z. G. Standing Bear is a criminologist and forensic scientist and is a faculty member at the University of Colorado. He serves on the Board of Directors of the International Hedgehog Association and operates a small animal rescue in Colorado.

Article and Photo Copyright © Z. G. Standing Bear

www.REXANO.org