|
The
Conservators' Center (336) 421-0065
December 17, 2006 Dear Study Group Members, My partner, Douglas Evans, and I plan on speaking at the December 18th meeting during the public comment session. The main points we will address are as follows: 1. This study group was formed to assess public safety and animal welfare as regards the keeping of inherently dangerous animals. It immediately turned into an animal rights ban campaign. We will ensure the public and the legislature see it fails to meet the law’s directive, and knows who is involved in causing its derailment. 2. The ban bill under discussion by this group would cost the state more then $522 million in loss of business as it closes the legal businesses dependent on the keeping of at least one of these animals to solicit business from the public or to breed these animals for legal sale. 3. This ban bill would create an AZA government-granted coercive monopoly in the keeping, breeding, and in the near future, exhibiting of large cats, in collusion with the one remaining "wildlife sanctuary" as defined in the exemptions, and on whose Board of Directors one AZA Zoo staff member serves. The AZA government-granted coercive monopoly would also apply to the keeping, breeding and, in the near future, exhibiting of all other animals defined in this proposed legislation. 4. Viewed on a larger scale, this interstate monopoly occurs across the 35 states with a ban or "partial ban" on private ownership of large cats, affecting commerce. This applies to all other affected species, across other affected states, as well. 5. Conservation and conservation breeding work would be significantly adversely affected by this ban bill. Attached is a letter from the AZA’s Felid TAG co-chairs and the FCF Directors to that effect. Limited AZA cage space makes conservation breeding without private owner support unviable for more than a select few species, as documented in the AZA’s own TAG reports, SSP’s, PMPs and so on. 6. The Barbary Lion Project, the bettong breeding program with Australia, the binturong studbook being formed by the EAZA, the New Guinea Singing Dog studbook, research into wild felid reproduction, viverrid genetic work being completed in Europe, and even several in situ conservation organizations in South America, SE Asia, and Africa would all be negatively affected by this ban, either by directly preventing the breeding and sale or exchange of these animals and samples from them, or by closing the facilities participating in these programs. 7. Parts of the AZA’s own husbandry guidelines, proposed as new standards, were written by or contain significant contributions from the private sector, which has far more experience breeding many species than all the AZA Zoos combined. The AZA’s Husbandry Manual for Small Felids, for example, has entire sections written by private owners (ex. Penny Andrews wrote a section on hand-rearing), and the Viverrid and Mustellid Husbandry Manuals have an enormous amount of information solicited from the private sector (Mindy Stinner, Kim Schilling, Kindra Mammone, et al.). To assume this same private sector less able to care for these animals than the zoos benefiting from their shared experience is absurd. These handbooks are recent publications. Previous versions only a few pages long simply specified caging slightly larger than the USDA standard, recommended dietary plans, and noted special needs of some species. 8. No one reasonable wants to allow the inexperienced public to make an impulse buy of a dangerous animal, or an unscrupulous seller to make such a sale. Ending all commerce in such animals is an extreme and reactionary response to this statistically small problem. Interstate commerce is already limited by NC DENR (native species), the NC State Vet’s Office (potential disease carriers including skunk, fox, raccoon, ringtail, coyote, marten, brushtail possum, bobcat, lynx, and all N and S American felines, cervidae, bovidae, camellids, and other hoofstock), USDI and the ESA. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act already prohibits large cats from being brought in from another state for this purpose. The federal government saw the fiscal effect this restriction would have and elected to allow a USDA licensee exemption to protect business interests. NC should do the same. 9. We are appalled at the callousness expressed by members of this committee in regards to the planned disposal of animals made homeless by this ban bill. The claim made in the last meeting that a permit would be granted for the destruction of just the affected 150-200 tigers, leopards and lions is unacceptable, even if the remaining zoos view them as unworthy of continued life as non-subspecies specific endangered species. This is not acting in the interests of animal welfare. A grandfathering clause with reasonable permitting requirements including a cage safety inspection and veterinarian agreement to provide care should be more than adequate to protect the vast majority of these animals. Please take the time to scan the attached documents. There are many reasonable people on this study group roster allowing the group to be manipulated into an extremist position by a few enthusiastic and determined individuals. It is in everyone’s best interest that this study group provide a reasonable recommendation to the legislature. Unlike the previous dozen states in which this same animal rights legislation was proposed, NC exotics owners are taking notice. Sincerely, Mindy Stinner Member North Carolina Exotic Animal Keepers Association, Zoological Association of America, Feline Conservation Federation, NC State Animal Response Team, American Association of Zookeepers, UAPPEAL NC Licensed Wildlife Rehabilitator and Non-Releasable Wildlife Permit holder Instructor of Wild Feline Husbandry Course through FCF Membership Committee Member, Small Carnivore Breeding and Conservation Programme, Cuc Phong Wildlife Park, Vietnam New Guinea Singing Dog Studbook facility manager NC Community College Internship provider Author of the Binturong Information Sheet, Ocelot Care Sheet and Caracal Info Sheet Over 8000 community volunteer hours logged since 2002 Recipient of donations, grants, matching funds, and in-kind donations from more than 30 states and 4 countries annually Providing husbandry information to in-situ conservation and wildlife rescue groups in 9 countries |
| Home Page |