March 13, 2003

By Jim Beers

jimbeers7@earthlink.net

As a wildlife biologist I have fought to show others the absurdities rampant in today's society. Examples are the lies that wolves, cougars, and bears do not endanger humans, depress other wildlife populations, and cause significant economic damage. The disturbing fact that so much of the public can be hoodwinked by lies about hunting, fishing, and trapping is another common foolishness of the day. Federal laws, state and local ballot initiatives, and bureaucratic regulations have both an open agenda of banishing common sense management regarding plants and animals, and a hidden agenda of eliminating all commercial and recreational uses by citizens of any natural resource. While private environmental and animal rights groups feed this Federalization and proscription of everything from logging to trapping and pets, the Federal government grows daily at the expense of the Constitutional responsibilities of the state governments. Given all this, I am shocked at the emergence of two "companion" campaigns to deny Constitutional freedoms to the owners of any and all animals. I speak of local, state, and Federal campaigns to limit the number of animals any person may own (i.e., "hoarding" laws) and the absurd denial of animal ownership (i.e., "guardian" laws).

Animals are, always have been (with the exception of pagan worshippers), and should always remain PROPERTY. Wild plants and animals were owned by kings, nobles, and landowners throughout history. The Founding Fathers vested the ownership of wild plants and animals in the state governments on behalf of the people of that state. It is this unique facet of our Constitution that accounts for the human population and development present today in the midst of deer, turkey, geese, ducks, salmon, trout, turtles, and many other wildlife populations that we enjoy. The centralized and disjointed wildlife management (still favoring the rich) of Europe, stands in stark contrast. Europe has less than a quarter of the biodiversity and huntable, fishable, and trappable wildlife populations of the United States. While they restrict guns and only permit private conservation for hunting by the rich; they dictate no management schemes to the rest of the world through their control of UN "conservation" bureaucracies. The common European citizen has nothing like the outdoor recreation opportunities of the common US citizen.

Domestic plants and animals are the PROPERTY of individual owners under our Constitution. They are no less and no more property than cars or guns or homes. The current campaigns to limit the number of animals anyone may own are certainly illegal and must be stopped for many even bigger reasons than their effect on pet owners. Government may regulate the noise or smell or pollution effect of animals. Government can require certain standards for interstate movement of animals. While further attempts at stating and enforcing "humane" standards sound worthwhile, they are fraught with abuse of owners and amorphous interpretations of what "humane" means. Frustrated by a failure to eliminate pets in other illegitimate ways, animal rights groups are finding limited success convincing voters and politicians to limit the number of animals owned.

If government can dictate the number of animals you own (instead of the noise or other disturbance they make) why not the number of cars you own? If government can regulate the breed of dog you own (instead of the danger it creates) why not the kind of gun you can own? This applies to ownership of SUVs, the size of your home, and anything else you can think of that "bugs" you about others. These "hoarding" laws are based mainly on instances of old people having and keeping many dogs and/or cats in their home. These cases can be handled by state and local governments with care and understanding under current statutes. Instead these people (our mothers and fathers in some cases) are being cynically used to pass laws that deny owners their right to property, expand both bureaucrat and "humane" groups authority over our lives, and allow pandering politicians to troll for votes. They should not only be defeated, the Constitutionality of such laws should be challenged and the whole pernicious concept trashed.

This brings us to the campaigns to pass laws declaring domestic animal owners as "guardians." Anyone who can't see what this one is about, needs to see an optometrist. Does anyone not believe that this is merely a thinly veiled attempt to transfer ownership of property (in this case animals) to government bureaucrats and the animal rights groups they "partner" with? Waving a wand and saying you no longer own what you and your ancestors have owned in this country for 225+ years is outrageous along with being patently illegal. Why not make you a "guardian" for your cars or your home or your guns? Like the Endangered Species Act this taking of private property is done without reimbursement, for a specious cause, and illegally. I don't particularly like landowners who fence streams that I believe I have a right to canoe. Does this mean I should work to get a law passed to make them "guardians" of streams through their property and then dictate to them? Because I don't like the smell of turkey houses or pastures that have been grazed heavily, does that mean I should get a law passed making the owners "guardians" and then run them out of business and off the land? Not only is the answer no because of these examples, look at the galloping abuses of the Endangered Species Act and ask yourself where "hoarding" and "guardian" laws will lead us in 10 years.

Inherent in these "guardian" laws is the stated and sometimes unstated concept that animals, while no longer property, are now "companions." You can view this as elevating the legal status of animals (i.e., "animal rights"). You can also view this as denigrating the status of humans (i.e., "companions" to animals). Both of these aspects are true and we must keep them in mind. Can you accept the pagan notion of man and animal being equal? Can you accept that human life is no more valuable than whatever animal a "law" defines as a "companion?" We must all give considerable thought to what is going on here and act accordingly.

Following European models of government was abandoned 225 years ago. The worship of animals was abandoned with the advent of civilization and the understanding of human worth many centuries ago. If each of us does not beat these things down at the polls, on the street, and in the court we will have only ourselves to blame when the world we give to our children is an oppressive tyranny instead of a land of the free and home of the brave.