Today, the Wild Hunt featured a story about a wildlife rehabilitator that has been caught on the wrong end of antiquated laws. As a licensed rehabilitator, the honorable Cindy McGinley took a couple of deer into her care to ensure their survival. You can investigate the details of the story by reading the full article (http://wildhunt.org/2015/07/rallying-for-deer-life.html), but in essence, the deer are unable to fully recover in a fashion that would allow them to survive out in the wild. The honorable McGinley applied for the necessary permit to keep the animals (named Lily and Deirdre), and was told the following:
We all understand (hopefully) that there are very good reasons why there are laws in place to prevent people from keeping wildlife as pets. However, given that releasing these animals into the wild would be condemning them to death, it seems profoundly unethical for the state to basically say "you have to murder these animals." I was both shocked and sickened when I read this story, which reminds me of the double-standard my species has for the treatment of non-human animals. Such a decision never would have been made if the subject was human.
Fortunately, there has been an explosion of support for the honorable McGinley and vehement protest against the deplorable suggestion by the state to murder these other-than-human persons. The final outcome remains to be seen, but there's an important lesson for us to remember here. When it comes to the law, one should remember the spirit of the law and not fall into the trap of following it merely to its letter. Preventing people from keeping wildlife as pets is important as it is respectful of those wonderful other-than-huaman persons we share our world with, but when releasing them would condemn them to death, the spirit of the law must be honored.
Then again, one has to wonder if the spirit of the law is actually about respecting the other-than-human persons of our world. If it is not, we need to really ask ourselves why.
Thoughts?
Six weeks later, she received a rejection letter that included strict orders on what to do. Lily should have been euthanized right away, she was informed. McGinley could either do so herself or turn the blind doe over to DEC officials to end her life. Those two options were also presented for Deirdre, along with a third one: lock her out and stop providing food and water.
We all understand (hopefully) that there are very good reasons why there are laws in place to prevent people from keeping wildlife as pets. However, given that releasing these animals into the wild would be condemning them to death, it seems profoundly unethical for the state to basically say "you have to murder these animals." I was both shocked and sickened when I read this story, which reminds me of the double-standard my species has for the treatment of non-human animals. Such a decision never would have been made if the subject was human.
Fortunately, there has been an explosion of support for the honorable McGinley and vehement protest against the deplorable suggestion by the state to murder these other-than-human persons. The final outcome remains to be seen, but there's an important lesson for us to remember here. When it comes to the law, one should remember the spirit of the law and not fall into the trap of following it merely to its letter. Preventing people from keeping wildlife as pets is important as it is respectful of those wonderful other-than-huaman persons we share our world with, but when releasing them would condemn them to death, the spirit of the law must be honored.
Then again, one has to wonder if the spirit of the law is actually about respecting the other-than-human persons of our world. If it is not, we need to really ask ourselves why.
Thoughts?