Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 21, 2010

Click here to view bill details.

 The verbiage in the bill bans ownership OR POSSESSION of non-human primates as pets in Michigan. Since circuses are not in the exempted group and since this bill is supported and promulgated by HSUS, I am presuming the principal reason for this bill is as a back-door attmpt  to ban circus acts and cause financial harm to circus companies since they would basically not even be permitted to bring certain animals into Michigan.

We need to look at the positive economic impact on Michigan when circuses come to communities. These events provide employment, tax revenue, and peripheral economic benefit to restaurants, hotels, and shops in the vicinity of the circus venues.

Additionally, what was the exact legislative discussion as to the scope of this bill?  Non-human primates is all-encompassing but the parenthetical above states (Ban pet monkeys or apes).  What about lemurs and tarsiers? Those are primates, as well.

Further, what about the Michigan residents who already own such animals as pets? There is no provision in the bill for them to retain their animals upon passage.  Are they to immediately euthanize their pets?

 

• This bill makes no exceptions for USDA licensed educators or exhibitors who, under federal law, are already allowed to take these animals to educational programs in schools and other commercial venues, as long as they follow federal guidelines. Education is crucial to preserving some species of exotic animals and without public awareness some of these species may become extinct.

 

• This bill offers no grand fathering clause for those animals that were legally purchased before this bill was introduced.  The responsible owners of exotic animals in this state have been living with their legally purchased animals without incident for many years and to suddenly make that illegal is unacceptable

 

• Legislation aimed at the ownership of exotic animals is being pushed through without any thought about where the animals will go if they can no longer be legally cared for by their owners. The refuges that are willing to accept animals are filling up and before long their will be no refuges for these animals to go to.  This bill also puts unnecessary demands on the refuges.

 

• The equal protection clause of the 14^th amendment prevents the states from passing discriminatory laws.  This bill takes action against the ownership of exotic animals without taking the same action against the ownership of other animals in the state such as domestic and farm animals.  The state must demonstrate a legitimate state interest, and a rational relationship between the regulation and that interest. If the reason for this bill is to create regulations that are rationally related to securing the public health and safety of the state, then the state has the obligation to prove that exotic animals are a public health and safety threat within that state.  Since there have been no incidents involving exotic animals as a public health and safety threat then this bill goes against the equal protection clause of the 14^th amendment.

 

• As well as requiring the states to provide equal protection of the laws, the 14^th amendment also states that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.  The basic requirements of due process are notice (meaning that an individual must be notified before deprivation), and an opportunity to be heard (at which the individual may give their side of the story). This bill places mandates on the ownership of property without sufficient notice or opportunity to be heard, thus violating the due process clause.

 

• There is no scientific evidence to prove that non human primates are a public health or disease threat. According to the CDC, there has never been a case of disease transmission from a pet nonhuman primate to a human in the US.  Infections have been found in nonhuman primates held in research labs where the animals were imported from other countries but the importation of nonhuman primates into the US for pets has been banned since 1975.  All nonhuman primates bred for pets come from breeders within the US who have breeding animals that are not infected by the diseases associated with health threats to the public.

 

I'm not sure if such a drastic measure should be taken... I can understand that some animals are a bit more dangerous than others (lions and such) or can transport diseases but let's not get too hasty with this shall we. As a veterinarian and part of the veterinarians Vail AZ group I demand we need to look a bit more into this problem.