PatA
Democracy has left the building
1119 Fans
15 hours ago (6:26 PM)
"Thompson was the exception: "What Thompson did was selfish and insane; we cannot regulate insanity," says Zuzana Kukol at USA Today. But many other Americans care well for their exotic pets. "If we have the freedom to choose what car to buy, where to live, or what domestic animal to have, why shouldn't we have the same freedom to choose what species of wild or exotic animal to own and to love?" Cutting down on exotic animals because of "a few deranged individual¬s" would be like trying to "ban kids" in hopes of curbing child abuse."
Ignorance can be fixed but stupid is forever.
PatA: "Thompson was the exception: "What Thompson did was selfish and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/PatA/ohio-animal-escape_b_1027093_114568923.html
History
Permalink
Share it
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dh Barr
Bringing Clues to the Clueless
49 Fans
19 hours ago (2:24 PM)
Before we place an outright ban on exotic animal ownership, somebody better have a plan on what to do with those 5,000 tigers in the US. Further, I'd want to know what exemptions are possible - what about animal rescue organizati¬ons? Will they be prevented from treating "wild" animals because of the ban?
I'd be a lot more in favor of having to register ownership and submit to inspection¬s than an outright ban. The last thing I want to see is some misguided ban forcing 5,000 tigers to get sold to some country that turns them into skins.
Dh_Barr: Before we place an outright ban on exotic animal ownership,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Dh_Barr/ohio-animal-escape_b_1027093_114538487.html
History
Permalink
Share it
PatA
Democracy has left the building
1119 Fans
15 hours ago (6:25 PM)
"I''d be a lot more in favor of having to register ownership and submit to inspection¬¬s than an outright ban. The last thing I want to see is some misguided ban forcing 5,000 tigers to get sold to some country that turns them into skins."
Inspection¬s are the place to start. Put the state veterinary associatio¬ns in charge and give them 6 months to put in place a program and then get it done. If a 'collector¬' fails to meet the criteria for keeping an exotic animal safe and avoids letting it be a danger to others, seize it. Have a 'refuge' for the animals and have a plan in place to find a more suitable home. Ban the 'collector¬' from housing any more exotics. If the government can ban child pornograph¬ers from using computers; then states should be able to ban exotic animal ownership.
Eventually (sooner than later, I hope) this would put a halt to owning animals that one couldn't/s¬houldn't care for.
In the long run, NO one needs to own exotics in a private setting. No roadside 'parks'...-..nada!
I included these comments made by PatA to show how ignorant people can be when it comes to this topic.
Let’s go over why I believe this to be true:
1. Inspections fail because people fail. USDA/APHIS inspected the WAO, for instance, for years and not once did the “inspector” cite the numerous problems at its facilities. And yet over 1,000 animals died (that I know of) during a 10-year period!
2. State veterinary boards are much like an accreditation agency—the type of inspections performed are veterinarian malpractice cases, etc. They have no such animal “inspection” programs available to the public and without significant funding from the government, it will never happen in the future. And just where would this funding come from? Increased taxes from hard working Americans, of course. I say we tax people like PatA for the money.
3. To compare child porno to owning exotic wild animals is like comparing cars to oranges. A reasonable person cannot win an argument with this type of comparison. It's just plain stupid.
4. As to starting a “refuge” for confiscated exotics; okay, where will the money come from to start this refuge? Will there be a refuge in every state? Who will run it? The veterinary boards? How will the seizures take place? Will they go through our legal system…etc., etc., etc.
The laws didn’t fail the 49+ animals. The officer in charge of upholding the laws did. To think government laws will save exotic animals from this type of horrific disaster from happening in the future is foolish. I just pray that next time animals are left suffering, someone, anyone, will stand up and go toe-to-toe against the government, whether it be local, state, or federal, to make sure the animals are safe and secure. Citizens need to be vigalent -- they need to get involved!
I went toe-to-toe with the federal and state government and I have never regretted my actions. I would have regretted not doing everything possible to save the WAO animals from further harm administered by the WAO’s Board of Directors and its employees. This same type of Ohio disaster could easily have happened at the WAO. Thank God the animals were spared this kind of misery.
Later:
http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2011/12/01/Plan-would-force-owners-to-give-up-exotic-animals.html
What do you bet HSUS decides to open up an HSUS-sponsored sanctuary for confiscated animals in 2014? What a great way to bring in more money to HSUS coffers! Imagine all the "rescue" stories that would come out of this partnership with the State! That way, the decision to destroy the confiscated animals would be out of Ohio's hands, and given to HSUS. HSUS seems to have no problem announcing the killing of these animals, so the destruction act could be quietly instituted behind closed doors. What a nightmare.
What may also happen is that several private owners will be forced to turn their land and animals into "non-profit" sanctuaries, just so they can keep their animals in Ohio; else be forced to relocate their animals to another state.
What happened in Ohio was absolutely terrible. The animals were the ones that suffered--but not because there weren't laws on the books, but because law enforcement supposedly refused to relocate the animals at the start of this year. So now Ohio State will create more animal victims--this time with the blessings of HSUS.
The more I learn about this animal controversy, the more I wonder who is actually out there defending the animals--like their God-given right to live.
Later:
http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2011/12/01/Plan-would-force-owners-to-give-up-exotic-animals.html
Published: 12/1/2011 - Updated: 19 minutes agoIf you have been reading this blog from the beginning, then you know that HSUS' input and response to the Ohio incident is not surprising. So what if big cats and other exotics are "euthanized" (really, don't you mean killed?) because they cannot find homes in overcrowded zoos or sanctuaries? Afterall, zealots believe that animals living in captivity are better off dead, even if they are very well cared for -- better dead than fed or bred in captivity, right?.
Plan would force owners to give up exotic animals
BY JIM PROVANCE
FacebookTwitterRedditDiggE-mailPrintRss
COLUMBUS -- "Casual owners'' of tigers, apes, bears, venomous snakes, and other "dangerous wild animals'' would have to register them with the state, knowing they'll eventually have to surrender them under proposed rules submitted to Gov. John Kasich Wednesday.
A working group submitted its final report amid national criticism after a Zanesville man in October unleashed unregulated lions, Bengal tigers, monkeys, leopards, and other wild animals from his farm before killing himself.
Most of the creatures were killed by law enforcement. The few survivors -- a grizzly bear, three leopards, and two monkeys -- remain in quarantine at the Columbus Zoo despite an attempt by the farmer's widow to reclaim them.
The final report does not include a "grandfather clause'' that would have allowed current owners of such animals to keep them. Instead, anyone who isn't a zoo, wildlife sanctuary, research facility, circus, or a licensed "propagator'' would have to register the animals within 60 days of the law's effective date and meet fencing, animal care, and temporary public safety standards within six months.
If they haven't found an approved owner to take possession of the animals by Jan. 1, 2014, the state would confiscate them.
"We're working with zoos and sanctuaries to increase their capacity for surrendered and confiscated species,'' said Jim Zehringer, director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
The state has no good estimate on how many of these animals are out there. Neither Mr. Zehringer nor Dr. Tony Forshey, interim director and former state veterinarian at the state Department of Agriculture, would say what would happen to confiscated or surrendered animals if approved homes aren't found.
Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said it would be impossible for existing zoos and sanctuaries to absorb the expected large inventory of these animals.
"New capacity would have to be created,'' he said. "I would imagine that some euthanasia will occur. It's not a good outcome for the animal, but it may be an inevitable circumstance given that this problem spiraled out of control in Ohio for so many years. Our greatest hope is we find a place for these animals to live out the remainder of their natural lives.''
It was the Humane Society's threatened constitutional amendment dealing with the care of agricultural livestock in Ohio that led to a broader agreement with former Gov. Ted Strickland that included a temporary ban on the ownership of such animals.
Governor Kasich allowed Mr. Strickland's order to expire last spring while he set up the task force to establish rules to replace it. The Kasich panel stepped up its discussions after the Zanesville incident.
In the meantime, there isn't agreement among lawmakers as to whether a total ban on ownership of such animals is the right way to go.
Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said the working group's final report is in line with the governor's thinking. "We're studying the details and reserve the right to seek minor changes, but the governor is looking forward to working with the General Assembly to see enforceable laws enacted quickly," he said.
Most animals covered under the proposed rules are non-native species, but ODNR stressed the ban does not apply to all nonnative species. While the definitions of some restricted animals exempt native species in some cases, including the black bear and timber rattlesnake, a separate portion of the report recommends that state law be changed to also restrict them.
The long list of "dangerous wild animals'' or "restricted species'' for which casual ownership would be denied includes but is not limited to big cats such as lions, tigers, panthers, and leopards; apes; elephants; gray wolves, and African buffalo. It bans venomous snakes, prohibits certain constrictors such as anacondas and pythons but not boa constrictors, and bans alligators and crocodiles but not dwarf caiman.
"Most of these species were selected by working with the working group,'' Mr. Zehringer said. "We took a lot of faith in their advice on this.''
Among those in the working group were representatives from zoos, the Humane Society of the United States, prosecutors, animal owners, inspectors, farmers, veterinarians, and sportsmen.
The report does not specify the criminal penalties that would be associated with violations of the new ownership, registration, or safety rules.
"That will be up to the legislature, but they will be severe,'' Dr. Forshey said. "They will probably be a felony.''
Mr. Pacelle said he believes the working group came up with the right list of animals that should be banned, but he questioned the allowance of two years for people to sell or transfer their animals elsewhere, including out of state.
"Governor Kasich had created a task force and he was going to do something,'' Mr. Pacelle said. "But the [Zanesville] incident made it plain to everyone, including the governor, that we needed to take immediate action, and we needed something that was meaningful. Simply regulating trade and possession wasn't going to work. These animals don't belong in people's basements and backyards.''
For more information or to read the final report, visit dangerouswildanimals.ohio.gov.
Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.
What do you bet HSUS decides to open up an HSUS-sponsored sanctuary for confiscated animals in 2014? What a great way to bring in more money to HSUS coffers! Imagine all the "rescue" stories that would come out of this partnership with the State! That way, the decision to destroy the confiscated animals would be out of Ohio's hands, and given to HSUS. HSUS seems to have no problem announcing the killing of these animals, so the destruction act could be quietly instituted behind closed doors. What a nightmare.
What may also happen is that several private owners will be forced to turn their land and animals into "non-profit" sanctuaries, just so they can keep their animals in Ohio; else be forced to relocate their animals to another state.
What happened in Ohio was absolutely terrible. The animals were the ones that suffered--but not because there weren't laws on the books, but because law enforcement supposedly refused to relocate the animals at the start of this year. So now Ohio State will create more animal victims--this time with the blessings of HSUS.
The more I learn about this animal controversy, the more I wonder who is actually out there defending the animals--like their God-given right to live.
No comments:
Post a Comment