TexasCHLforum.com

February 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — In the wake of an attack on a Connecticut woman by a chimpanzee, U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and David Vitter (R-La.) plan to re-introduce the Captive Primate Safety Act. The bill seeks to protect public safety and promote animal welfare by prohibiting interstate commerce of primates for the pet trade. U.S. Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives (H.R. 80) in January.

I think keeping exotics for pets is in general a bad idea (my earlier comment: "dogs make good pets, cats make good pets, wild animals make good...wild animals"), but I can't help but think that having the federal government regulate yet another area is a worse idea. See "mortgages, subprime."

The federal government probably does regulate interstate commerce in wild animals now (I don't know for sure, but what don't they regulate?)

In this case, they are talking about a ban on primates to be used as pets.

Why just primates? Why not all dangerous wild animals such as big cats, alligators, etc.?

I can't read the congresspersons' minds, but HSUS, PeTA, and others have been working for years to stop all human use of primates, and even to grant the great apes some civil rights. This is, as they like to say, a "good first step" in that direction.

Most, probably all states require permits for wild animals and require them to be kept in secure enclosures. I wonder if the owner of the chimp in this case was violating state law.

- Jim

What happened to "personal resposibility"? Why not punish the person responsible instead of outlawing it and then having to spend time and money regulating it?

The simple answer is that punishment does not restore victims. Even if the perpetrator has assets worse suing for, they are not adequate compensation for permanent, disabling injuries.

It is illegal in every country that has a legal system to launch rockets over a certain small size without a license -- which is difficult to get. The reason is that rockets can do tremendous damage if they misfire or are aimed at human or material targets.

Even smart, educated people with great funding have a poor record of successfully launching rockets. One of the reasons that Kennedy Space Center is on the east coast of Florida is that the failures fall into the ocean and only bother the fish (who don't vote).

I can think of other extreme examples. Should people be able to walk lions and tigers in public places, knowing that that the owners could be prosecuted and sued if the animals attacked someone?

Are chimps that dangerous? Would the benefits of banning trade of primates as pets have benefits that made additional government intrusion worthwhile? I don't know.

We have a representative government to examine these issues and make decisions.

I don't much care one way or the other. I only hope that the decision is made on a rational basis rather than some warm, fuzzy feelings about animals.

- Jim

The lady whose face was torn off in 2009 got a face transplant in Boston last month:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/ ... 1620110610" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Surgeons also tried to replace her hands, but the surgery failed.

No word on who is paying for this. Face transplant surgery is still experimental.

- Jim

Lazerus get up! Sorry I couldn't resist.