The Problems in Our Own Backyard:: Lions and Elephants and Children

I believe that we are each responsible for what goes on in our own backyards and that we should stay out of other people's business. This includes taking care of our own animals, our own children and our own lawn chores, and staying on our own side of the fence, even if we disagree with how someone else is gardening, pruning, raising his own children or training his dog. It also means that we should come to the defense of our neighbors when they are under attack by outsiders -- even  the government  -- but we should not intervene in domestic disputes on the other side of the fence. This is the essence of being a good neighbor.

Somebody killed a lion in Zimbabwe -- and people who pretend to be animal lovers are up in arms and asking for his head. But when the government of the State of Ohio confiscated, killed and then dissolved the corpse of an American lion, there was no such outrage. Nobody is calling for the death of the head of the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

http://www.examiner.com/article/ohio-department-of-agriculture-kills-leo-the-tiger-ridge-lion


What is the difference? In the one case, it was a lion far away killed by a hunter. In the other case, it was a lion owned by an American and killed by the government. Why is it that the case of Leo the Lion has provoked no outrage? Is somebody orchestrating the public's feelings?

I remember a similar situation back in 1993, only it did not involve lions. It was about men, women and children. The government of the United States laid siege to the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, and in the name of saving children, burned the place to the ground with all the men, women and children inside it.

http://www.pubwages.com/22/remembering-the-mount-carmel-massacre

At about the same time, a lot of bad things were happening to people in Bosnia.

http://www.history.com/topics/bosnian-genocide

But most of the intelligent, intellectual and "enlightened"  I knew at the time, who lived in Houston, Texas and went to Rice University, were enraged about the atrocities in Bosnia, which were far, far away, and they did not care at all what was happening in their own backyard, in Waco, Texas, which was only a three hour drive away. They could have saved the children at Mt. Carmel, whereas they could have done nothing about the people in Bosnia. I am not saying what was happening in Bosnia was good, but it wasn't our business. What happened in Waco was our business, because it was our government that was doing it, using agents hired with our money and weapons bought with our taxes -- and they were doing it in our name!

The principle in both cases is the same: We are responsible for what happens to American children and American lions and tigers and chimpanzees, when it is our government that is doing it. We are not responsible for what happens overseas.

 Many animals are on the verge of extinction in Africa. There is nothing we can do about it. But we can stop making it hard for those private people who keep these animals and breed them and help them thrive here in the United States at their own expense and using their own means.

We can't save every child and every animal in the world. But what we can and should do is prevent our tax money from being used to keep American citizens from taking care of their own animals and their own children using their own funds. We should do this, because it is happening in our own backyard, and we have the means to stop it. And if we don't stop it, we are part of the problem.

Personhood

Yesterday there was a big flap over legal personhood for chimpanzees. In the morning a friend sent me this link:

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2015/04/judge-s-ruling-grants-legal-right-research-chimps?rss=1

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

http://www.zazzle.com/gifts?ch=alephbyaya