Legislative alert: LB747
Help save Nebraska's cougar (mountain lion) population from being wiped-out again by farmers and ranchers.
Read what Nebraska LB747 will do if it passes!
Turn your back on Cat Fancy magazine!
Cat Fancy magazine's editorial policy is anti-private ownership of exotic cats regardless of the individual's resources and ability to properly care for the cat, regardless of the species of exotic cat, and regardless of the fact that many cat species are facing terrific pressures from natural habitat destruction and encroachment by Man. Captive populations will likely be the only way to preserve many of our wild cats, and zoos do not have enough cage space available to provide long-term population viability for more than a few cat species.
Recent examples of Cat Fancy’s editorial policy against private individuals keeping exotic cats are:
- “Wild at Heart” (Cimeron Morrissey) Cat Fancy April 2009; pp 34-35
- “Hear Her Roar” (Lindsay Hanks) Cat Fancy November 2007; pp 16-18
- “Where the Wild Cats Are” (Sandra McGinty) Cat Fancy November 2005; pp 46-49
Cat Fancy sometimes does run a “letter to the editor” response to some of their articles, but those writers are not being paid for their contributions, are given but a small fraction of the page space for their rebuttals, and generally don’t have any photos printed nor website links included like the Cat Fancy endorsed articles always do.
Use of hybrid cats to promote Cat Fancy magazine’s circulation
Cat Fancy magazine uses the hybrid cat breeds (like bengals, savannahs, and chausies) to get people to buy their magazine, while (at the same time) promoting attitudes which will result in regulating out of existence the very populations (in captivity) of the Asian leopard cats, servals, and jungle cats that are necessary to maintain those breeds. They frequently feature hybrid breeds (profusely illustrated—sometimes with foldouts) in their issues.
These articles about hybrid cat breeds typically don’t even mention the fact that about 41 per cent of the states regulate hybrid cats in some manner [1]. This results in some people acquiring a bengal, savannah, or chausie--only to find out later that their beloved new pet is subject to confiscation, because it’s illegal where they live.
This is devastating to the families who have their pets confiscated, and it’s nerve-wracking while they try to keep their pets protected from being found-out by animal control—if they even do find out before authorities come knocking on their door.
And confiscation is absolutely catastrophic for the cats.
It is irresponsible and cynical for a publication to use hybrid cat breeds for their financial gain like this—especially when they make no effort to caution the reader of the potential legal minefield owners of these cats can face in many parts of the country. Does the Cat Fancy editorial staff really care about all cats’ welfare?
Just a few of the most recent examples of this kind of article are:
- "Wild at Heart: The Savannah features the wild looks of the African Serval with the tame personality of a domestic cat" (Stacy N. Hackett) Cat Fancy August 2009; pp 22-24
- “Leopards in the Living Room: Owners go wild for their enchanting Bengals” (Erika Sorocco) Cat Fancy January 2009; pp 26-27
- “That’s Entertainment: the exotic-looking Chausie brings fun and lighthearted mischief to the home” (Elisa Jordan) Cat Fancy December 2008; pp 26-27
[1] This number is from www.hybridlaw.com
It's derived from examining the pages they have for every state and the District of Columbia. Some states ban all hybrid cat breeds regardless of the breed or generation of the cat (like Nebraska). Some states require permits to own some of the breeds or specific generations of the hybrids. Some states ban specific generations of hybrid cats.
