HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!
By understanding the animal rights/welfare movement's "half-a-loaf" problem (Part IV)
Another
example of the "half-a-loaf" problem arose in Colorado Springs, the
county seat of El Paso County, Colorado. The county is the most populous of the
64 counties in the state.
By a 3-2 vote of the county commissioners, the following law was adopted: "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, trade, barter, lease, rent, give away, or display for any purpose a pet animal on any public street, road, highway, alley, sidewalk, or any other public place, or in open areas where the public is invited by the owner or person controlling such areas, including commercial parking lots, outdoor special sales, swap meets, flea markets, parking lot sales, or similar events." Violation of the law resulted in a fine.
ISAR certainly approved of the law's intention. For years, we have fought
against, so-called "roadside sales" of companion animals.
That said, however, the El Paso County law raised once again the
"half-a-loaf" problem.
While Section (a) of the law quoted above could have been better drafted, it
would probably have been adequate if that was all there was to it.
The problem was that there was more. Section (b) was shot through with
exceptions, which took much of the punch out of Section (a).
Under the statute, Section (b) expressly did not apply to (1) Agents of state
licensed pet stores, (2) Events for the sale of agricultural livestock, (3)
Shelters, and (4) Sales of pet animals on private property with the owner's
permission.
Cumulatively, these exceptions allowed for many animals to be sold at the
"roadside," to a considerable extent gutting the intent and express
language of the supposed prohibition contained in Section (a). Here again,
"better a half loaf than no bread?"
Although ISAR has long approved of, and fought for, mandatory spay/neuter laws,
several years ago we were obliged to oppose a statute introduced into the
California legislature because it, too, was gutted by exceptions to an
unacceptable extent. (Mandatory
Spay/Neuter Beat Goes On.)
In that instance, we were unwilling to accept "half-a-loaf" because
ISAR believed the statute's enactment would have allowed the opponents of
mandatory spay/neuter to resist further, proper legislation by arguing that the
pro-mandatory spay/neuter forces had already received enough and that no
further laws were necessary or appropriate. The companion animal overpopulation
problem -- one of ISAR's five major programs -- is so extensive, and of such
crucial importance, that the proposed California statute was not worth
accepting a compromise.
All of the laws discussed in this article, and many more like them, demonstrate
that the "half-a-loaf" problem is a difficult one for the animal
rights/welfare community. Because of moral, humane, strategic, and tactical
considerations, it is often a close call to determine whether opposition to a
proposed "mixed" law is appropriate because instead a
"perfect" enactment might be possible, or whether support of such a
law is better because the "perfect" is unobtainable while the
non-perfect "good" can be achieved and at least ameliorate companion
animal suffering and make a dent in overpopulation.
ISAR will continue to make those close calls, with betterment of animals always our prime consideration.
Posts
