Nebraska Statute 37-477 needs to be changed
This is not just about pets. It's about preventing the extinction of small wild cats. And it's about the way we're going to allow ourselves to be governed, and how much we're going to let the government get into our personal lives.
Enacting State Statute 37-477 was a mistake in the first place:
- Hybrid cats were never even mentioned during Legislative debates or hearings.
- The proposed bill wasn't intended to ban anything but the big cats (cats like tigers and mountain lions).
- It is being applied more broadly than it was intended with the Game and Parks Commission (GPC) hybrid interpretation.
- The hybrid interpretation is counter to the USDA's definition of hybrid animals being domestic. [1].
- It was intended to clarify GPC's authority over non-domestic species, but after 20+ years on the books, there is widespread confusion across the state as to the exact status of hybrids.
- There was never any compelling case made for public safety during its Legislative debate or hearings--they only discussed animal-control issues and a few individual's opinions as to whether exotic cats should be allowed as pets.
- During the legislative hearings and debate it was stated that regulation of large snakes was more appropriately left to local (e.g., city) governments, but there was never any reason given why the regulation of cats--any cats--warranted State action.
GPC's interpretation of 37-477 is a very abstruse application of law that is misleading and confusing: a law should be clear and concise. How many other laws are interpreted and then applied in ways as unobvious as this when you look at the original law? This is not to say that GPC's interpretation is arguably wrong. In fact (given the wording of the law) it is hard to argue against their interpretation. The problem is the law itself, and the way it is written. When most people read the statute, they do no realize that it prohibits hybrid cats.
This law is an unwarranted intrusion into citizens' private lives. Do you really want the government telling you what kind of pet you have to have? What is the government going to try to tell you next? ...who to marry? ...what color of clothes to wear? ...how to get your hair cut? ...whether you can ride a motorcycle or bicycle? ...whether you may skydive or rollerblade? These are all very personal decisions, and while there are governmental regulations for some of them, none of them are banned, even though some of the activities DO entail real danger--both to oneself and (in some cases) to others in the general public. Even if you don't think people should keep small exotic cats as pets (that do not pose any danger to anyone but their owners and their visitors), do you really want the Government mandating that kind of thing by law?? Banning this kind of personal interest/activity by the Government is an extremely slippery slope that we need to keep the Government away from if we don't want many more of our freedoms taken away from us, as well.
The law is unnecessarily restricting commerce by prohibiting Nebraska residents from breeding small exotic cats and their hybrids--businesses where animals are well-treated. But it allows the breeding of bobcats and Canadian lynx for their fur--not exactly an animal-friendly industry. It also unjustifiably prohibits Nebraska residents from buying such cats--regardless of where they come from.
The law keeps Nebraska residents from contributing to conservation of the small cats by keeping their captive breeding and rescues out of the state. There needs to be more captive breeding of the small cats, both for potential release back into the wild and for continued life in captivity. There appears to be a nationwide shortage of spaces in sanctuaries that can accept displaced cats: relegalizing their private ownership in Nebraska would allow Nebraska citizens to step up and do their part to help.
Zoos are incapable of saving cat species from extinction by themselves. By a recent estimate, there are only 650 cage spaces available for small cats (and 1750 for large cats) in AZA facilities [2]. Nowhere near enough to maintain genetically viable captive populations of all species of small wild cats. Zoo space is a precious commodity, and the decision of what species to put into available displays is often not driven by species' needs for conservation, but by other factors (whether or not the zoos in the animals' natural range are breeding them, the amount of regulation of a species in their home ranges, a species' visitor appeal, etc.).
Keeping exotic cats as pets does help in conservation: every single kitten born into a captive breeding conservation program will not (generally, but with some exceptions) be suitable or even desireable to use as breeding stock. Similar to purebred cat breeders who don't keep every kitten they produce for breeding, a captive breeding program may produce an excess of kittens, and properly-regulated pet ownership provides good homes to the kittens not selected to be future conservation breeders.
Exotic cats as pets also help in conservation of their relatives still out in the wild by being ambassadors for their species. When people see an animal up close and personal like they do with animals that are peoples' pets, it helps motivate them to do something to help save that pet's wild cousins--completely unlike reading or just being told about them. Because now they have a personal reason to care about the wild cats still trying to live in their natural habitat. Seeing a cat in-person is much more effective in getting people to care about and do something to help that cat's wild cousins than all the written articles and videos in the world about the same species--an effect that is conveniently ignored by people who want these wonderful animals banned from living among us. "Pet" is NOT a dirty word! And for an animal to be a caring and responsible person's pet is actually the best thing that could possibly happen to it--just look at the amount of money spent every year by people in this country as they take care of their pets.
"In the end, we only conserve what we love,
We will only love what we understand,
We will only understand what we are taught"
... Baba Dioum, Poet
[1] http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/9cfr1.1.txt
[2] "Small Cat Futures--They Still Need Your Help" (Alan Shoemaker)
And some thoughts about people who will oppose our efforts...
It's a given that there will be opposition to our proposal. And it's better than even odds that much of that opposition will come from various animal control, animal welfare, and animal rights groups: historically those are the people who are most fervent about opposing private ownership of exotic animals of any kind. One can (to some extent) understand animal control agencies having qualms about the prospects of dealing with 40-pound cats--or can we? Is handling a 40-pound cat really that much different than a 50-pound (or larger), vicious dog? Would it require vastly different equipment to capture a 40-pound cat versus a really big dog? Probably not. Getting close enough to catch it might be harder... But handling the cat after it's caught? It would seem that the primary difference at that point would be that the cat's claws are sharper than a dog's.
But when animal welfare and animal rights groups oppose us, one needs to carefully question, challenge, and scrutinize their motives. To oppose our position is to support the current situation, which does not allow these cats to be kept as pets, but does allow bobcats and Canadian lynx to be kept only if they're raised solely for their fur. Every single bobcat born into a fur farm is going to die in order to be skinned: it might be bred numerous times first, but being killed and skinned will be its ultimate fate. Is that in the best interests of the animals involved?? If pets are allowed, there will be some of them who will end up in the hands of idiots (sadly, but unavoidably), and some of those will be abused. But the operative word here is "SOME." Most of the cats sold to people as pets will live happy (perhaps even luxurious) lives--not a lot different than typical dogs and domestic cats. How can someone with the true best interest--the "rights" of the animals, if you will--oppose that if they care as much about the quality of the animals' lives as they claim to?? So then what is the real reason they object to our proposal? What is their real agenda??
