I am a primatologist who spends twelve hours most days in the company of a thirteen year old chimpanzee named Bow. I am also an editor with Inverted-A Press.
My daughter is about to turn sixteen. She has never had a cat, because I am severely allergic to cats. But she's always wanted to have one. I recently told her that we had a kitten living on our property, and she fell in love with at once and wants to keep it.
This is going to be her cat, though it will be a barn cat and not a house cat. The kitten is very tame, and though I have refrained from touching it all this time, my daughter picked it up and petted it, and the kitten was delighted by the attention.
Letting her keep the kitten is part of my daughter's birthday gift this year. But we have determined that the kitten is a female, and because I cannot allow too many cats to overrun my property, I have made a very painful decision: when the time is right, I will have the kitten spayed.
This is not for humane reasons. This is purely out of my own self interest. I have no wish to become a cat breeder. Cats are not indigenous to this area; they are exotic. They represent a threat to the local wildlife. So because I don't care about the feline species, I am going to see to it that this particular cat on my property does not reproduce.
What are the alternatives? I could give it to someone else who does want to breed cats. But really, most people who adopt a cat immediately turn around and have it spayed. They pretend they are doing it for the sake of the cat. That is utter nonsense. There just happens to be a conflict of interest between cats and humans, and we try to keep their population down, because it would be bad for us to be overrun by cats.
I feel sad for the cat, because infertility is no picnic. Having reproductive capacity removed also alters personality. We're talking about invasive surgery, and not everyone survives it.
But just as I eventually had to exterminate the mice that were overrunning my house -- with Bow's blessing, despite his earlier objections -- I have to be a good steward of the land for the sake of my rabbits and turtles and deer and birds. So this will not be a cat sanctuary. Sorry. One cat only.
The difference between me and HSUS is that I acknowledge how cruel and disempowering spaying is. It is not an act of kindness toward cats. It is something that we do because we don't care about them that much.
Don't let the animal rights rhetoric blind you to the facts. Any species whose propagation matters to you should be allowed to breed. If a sanctuary prevents chimpanzees from breeding, then its attitude toward chimpanzees is like my attitude toward cats.
Nothing unusual has been happening here. The weather has gotten very hot, and Bow enjoys sunning himself outside, between rainstorms.
I like how the sunlight catches his eyebrows and eyelashes in strange glints of light, like tinsel.
On my walks, I notice that as last week's flowers fade, new ones have bloomed.
I don't know what these flowers are called, what they are good for, what their properties are. Given another forty years on this land, though, I might acquire the kind of lore that chimpanzees and human hunter-gatherers have about their environment. I think that there is the same storage space in our brains, no matter what kind of lore we put in there, and that a modern education is not necessarily better than a lifetime spent in nature, learning how things work.
For instance, I am not sure that the green fruit that I characterized as "service berries as big as cherries" is actually the same as the tiny service berries that are now ripe and red. The leaves on that tree are so much bigger than the leaves on the service berry bush, and the green fruit reminds me a little of the mystery fruit on our mystery tree.
So yesterday, thinking about this, I went to take a look at the mystery tree, and its fruit seems to be turning purple!
It's definitely looking very plum-like now. My friend Martyn's suggestion that this tree is related to the sloe or the blackthorn seems to be bearing out. But the service berries as big as cherries are still green as green can be, and the leaves on their tree are much bigger than those on the mystery tree. If Bow and I had been living in the wild all our lives, we would not be so mystified by the local vegetation. We would know the name of every fruit in the garden on Eden.
But instead, we know how to read and write. We have eaten of the tree of knowledge, and this makes us less knowledgeable in matters involving common sense and life and death. Can Bow ever be allowed to live with a mate in our wild savanna of a pasture? Can they be allowed unlimited and unfettered access to the trees and shrubs and wildlife, as long as they are contained therein? What would limit their reproductive activity so that they would not overpopulate their five acre island?
Two days ago, the big news for chimpanzees in America was that "captive" chimpanzees have been added to the endangered species list.
I heard about this at first through HSUS, an organization that under the guise of protecting animal welfare gets laws passed to ban private ownership, like the one that got that lion killed by the state in Ohio recently. So I was very concerned when I first heard the news, and I wanted to know what this listing means for domestic chimpanzees. As far as I can tell, though, it merely limits invasive procedures on chimpanzees without getting a permit, and all in the name of conserving the species. So I guess that means no more neutering of male chimps, no vasectomies or hysterectomies in order to limit population growth? Sanctuaries are now going to have to let chimps breed freely, even if it means running out of resources to feed them?
I'm betting it does not mean that, even though logically that's what you'd expect. Federal laws are usually labeled one thing, but they mean something else entirely. Take the Patriot Act or the Freedom USA Act or whatever they are calling it today. Listing domestic chimpanzees as an endangered species has probably got nothing to do with making sure that chimpanzees continue to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth on our side of the ocean. It probably is an excuse to cut funding and curtail research and make sure that in another century there will be no American chimpanzees at all. It may even be used as an excuse to confiscate private chimpanzees and send them to sanctuaries where they will live out their natural existence without bringing forth another new soul to feed.
When a species is endangered, it means that it is close to extinction. Two factors play a major role in that: too much dying or not enough procreating. If there is a good supply of new babies who grow to adulthood in every generation, then it does not much matter, for the purpose of species survival, what happens to the adults after they reproduce. For instance, this is why the cow species in the US is not endangered. Out of its own self interest, the beef industry makes sure it never runs out of cows.
But Animal Rights activists are rejoicing at this new change in chimpanzee legislation, and Animal Rights activists are in favor of extinction for American chimpanzees for reasons of "animal welfare."
No chimpanzees in the US, they reason, is better than any chimpanzees here who are not absolutely free. Meanwhile, in Africa they will be extinct very soon. All of this is very tricky, and the general public has no idea what really is going on. I have friends who support HSUS, because they think that organization saves dogs and cats from abusive owners. They still have no idea what fraud is being perpetrated on them.
The situation with chimpanzees and animal rights activists is not that different from the situation with social workers, child welfare laws and child protective services. That is what the musical, The Debt Collector, is about.
It sounds like a good idea to protect children from abusive parents, but the machinery that gets put into place often takes children away from fallible but essentially good parents and places them in dangerous situations with people who are not their parents at all.
Hopefully, whatever is going on with the Endangered Species Act and domestic chimpanzees will not affect Bow and me. I don't plan on doing anything invasive to him. and he's pretty happy where he is.
Someday, though, I would like to be able to get Bow into a more natural environment, where he will have a chance to be fruitful and multiply. It will be good for him -- and by extension for all chimp kind.
At the time, the article had said that two chimpanzees had been granted legal personhood. By the end of the day, it turned out that they hadn't. Some people thought I would be happy for Bow to be granted legal personhood. Those people do not know me very well. Keep in mind, a corporation is a legal person, too. It's not what it sounds like.
Bow is intelligent, creative and has feelings. But in what way would legal personhood benefit him? Would it allow him to control his life better? To make choices for himself? No.
No chimpanzee has ever been asked in court what he would like to do with his life, and if legal personhood for chimpanzees were to become the law of the land in any state, chimpanzees would still have no say in what happens to them. Personhood is a legal fiction that some people use to manipulate the resources that belong to other people. Legal personhood would allow animal rights activists to appoint a guardian ad litem to purport to speak for a chimpanzee against the person who owns the chimpanzee. This is not too different from what currently happens with children who are taken from parents by the State and given to other people. It even happens in custody fights between the natural parents of a child, if the fight becomes too hateful.
I used to be a believer in children's liberation, when I was a child. Wouldn't it be great if children could make all the important decisions about themselves right from the start? I thought. When I studied law I learned that minors could in fact petition for their own emancipation, once they could prove that they were able to support themselves. I liked that idea, and as a lawyer, I always hoped that some fourteen year old would come to my office, ready to pay my full fee, so that I could help him win his freedom. But no child ever showed up asking for freedom. Instead, I had to deal with divorce cases.
Most of the time, nobody asked the children what they wanted. Social workers were sent out to evaluate the parents. "What is in the best interest of the child?" was the phrase they bandied about. But nobody asked the child.
One of my clients did want her child to speak to the judge and tell him which parent he preferred. I spoke to child first, to determine if this would be a good idea. The child asked me not to tell the mother, but he really did not want to make that decision himself. He loved both his parents, and he did not want to choose. I told my client it would not be helpful to put the child on the spot.
As adults with full legal rights, we are inundated with choices, sometimes too many choices. Not every adult human being is able to handle that much freedom. Some adults actually want others to decide for them, but we no longer have the legal institution of slavery to help such people. Instead, they vote to give more and more of everybody else's rights to government overseers who will protect us from ourselves.
Most children do not want or need to be liberated too early. Most parents are better guardians for a child than complete strangers. The person who pays the bills and wipes away the tears and sets the limits is the person who cares. Unfortunately, in modern custody fights there is also the child support issue -- and that sometimes skews the results and encourages litigation. Sometimes a non-custodial parent sues for custody just to avoid paying child support or in order to get the other parent to pay support to him.
In custody fights over chimpanzees -- make no mistake about it -- the "child support" is a big part of the battle. Whoever gets custody of the chimpanzees in the Federal system also gets the funding to pay for their support. Funding to pay for support includes jobs for the people who take care of chimpanzees on a day-to-day basis. Do you think that lobbying for the jobs of such people does not influence the outcome?
A real mother raises her child without pay. A person who really cares about his chimpanzee is the person who also pays the bills. But when Federal funding comes into it, everything gets skewed.
Think about what happened to Sally Boysen's chimpanzees. Think about what Kanzi and the other bonobos are facing. It is all about money -- public money. Even medical research on chimpanzees is funded by public money. If you want to cut down on that, de-fund the Feds. Take away their research money. Take away their right to own chimpanzees at public expense. But leave private owners alone.
In Ohio, the State government recently confiscated a lion from a home where he was well cared for. When the lion got sick under their care, the state officials "euthanized" him. When the owner asked to have the body back, the state dissolved the lion in acid, so that no evidence of what they had done to him could remain. The law that allowed this to happen was lobbied for by animal rights activists.
Animal rights activists do not care about the rights of animals. They don't care... period. They have an agenda that has much more to do with ending property rights than in helping animals. My property rights are the only thing that stands between them and Bow.
The orchard is looking good after the grass was mowed. The first cherry tree is done flowering and is working on producing fruit.
The pear trees are starting to grow pears.
The peach trees are miraculously trying to turn yesterday's blossoms into peaches we can eat.
Bow continues to use my little finger to hold onto as he points at letters. He has a mind of his own, but he also changes his mind a lot. "I want to go outside" can be followed immediately by "I want my blanket" -- meaning that he wants to stay in. Sometimes he asks for a banana, but he does not really want the banana. Can you imagine asking him in a court of law where he wants to live? And forcing him to live with that decision for the rest of his life?
Bow relies on me to protect him from stormy weather, and at the end of the day, when the sun goes down, he feels safe.
The legal fiction of personhood could never help someone like Bow. It would only be a tool in the hands of activists with an agenda.
If you would like to help support Project Bow, please consider buying some of my nature photocards
So far, Bow and I have been lucky. Year after year they have tried to pass legislation that would make it impossible for us to stay together in this state, and year after year that legislation has been defeated. The people in the state of Ohio have not been so lucky. On January 1, 2014, a law goes into effect that will allow the state to confiscate exotic animals, seal them up in a high security prison, and if they find no sanctuary or zoo that wants them, these animals will be executed by the state.
The sanctuaries and zoos don't want them. They have already said that they are full to capacity.
There are many animals and their owners who are about to suffer this fate. Here is a video appeal that some of them have made to try to sway the public to spare them.
I have shared this video on Facebook and explained that these animals have been condemned to death because they are exotic and in Ohio. Many people said it was sad or even tragic. But nobody said: "I won't let this happen. I will stop it!" And as long as this is our attitude, nothing will stop it.
Somebody did say, before this legislation was passed: "These people have exotic animals. That is terrible! I'm going to stop it!" And that someone got his way. Who was it? Why did they do it? Why are they so powerful? Why is everyone else so helpless?
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is behind the legislation in Ohio, as well as in every other state in which such a law is being pushed through. They think it is better for exotic animals to die than to be owned by the people who love them.
Do you support the HSUS? What would you be willing to do to help these animals and the people who love them?
In the world of bad legislation, no news is good news. We are unlikely to see headlines that say "Bad Bill Defeated Once and For All." Instead, bills that don't get passed die quiet deaths. They don't make it out of committee. They don't get placed on any calendar. Nobody ever votes on them.
Bow and I were on pins and needles for a while there, but all our friends in the field have confirmed it: nothing happened with Missouri HB284. And in the world of bad legislation, nothing is golden.
"Hearing not scheduled" and "Bill currently not on a House calendar" is the best that we can hope for. We are content.
But think of all the energy and hard work that had to go into making this "nothing" happen! I would like to thank the people who testified before the committee, and all those who wrote and sent emails and faxes and who called to help defeat HB284. And I want to thank those who remain ever vigilant, lest this same legislation get tacked onto some other bill.
There is something broken with our system when people have to work so hard to keep a bad law from being enacted. It should be easier to repeal a law than it is to enact one. But in the current political world, we are always on the defensive. Ordinary citizens minding their own business don't have time to fight back. We can barely hold our ground.
But anyway, today we celebrate. And what are we celebrating? That thankfully, so far, nothing bad has happened! Let the celebrations begin! And thanks everybody!
Today, I could be doing any number of productive things. But instead, I have a list of twenty-one phone numbers that I am supposed to call. Last year SB666 was defeated. This year, it has been resurrected as HB284. Today, around 1:00 pm, the Committee on local government will meet to vote on the bill. They will listen to the testimony of people who have something to say on this subject. But I can't go. I don't have a chimp sitter. Instead, Bow gets to listen to me make twenty-one phone calls pleading for our lives.
It sounds exciting, but it really isn't. Most of the time I talk to machines, and I repeat the same things, and for Bow, having to witness this is very boring.
If you would like to read the bill and decide for yourself, you can find it here:
If you don't have the patience to read through all that, here is a summary as it pertains to non-human primates: they would be subject to licensing, owners would have to pay a licensing fee to an agency that would oversee their housing and care, and a host of other requirements, including newly promulgated regulations not subject to a legislative vote that would be foisted on us whenever the powers that be saw fit.
It would be similar to having to get a license to keep your child, pay a fee each year to continue to keep your child, open your home to inspections, have to remodel every time they tell you to, all under severe penalties -- the worst of which would be losing your child.
So who is behind this legislation? Is it the people of Missouri? No. It's an outside sponsor -- HSUS -- that has been funneling foreign funds into many states in order to bring about an agenda that would make it very difficult for any human to have a meaningful relationship with another animal.
We have to be polite and articulate when we talk to the representatives in charge of our destiny. We have to sound reasonable. But there are some things that should not even be open to vote on. What private people do in their own homes is one of them.
So when I call the representatives, I don't just ask them to put a stop to this particular bill. I ask them to make sure that no one ever brings up another bill like this ever again. The specifics of the bill are not the issue. It's the principle that matters.
Here are the numbers to call if you would like to help:
Committee: Local Government Chair: Gatschenberger, Chuck - (Rep-108) Vice Chair: Schieber, Ronald-(Rep-14) Date: Monday, March 04, 2013 Time: 1:00 PM Location: House Hearing Room 5
Posts
