The biggest non issue of the year. Can't you spend your time digging up some more stimulus bucks for Oregon instead. What a guy.

Has Bloomy taken the time to even read the stimulus bill, but he has time for this?

Since Bloomy proposed this last June, before the stimulus bill existed, I'd say yeah, he probably has time to do both.

But to be fair, I think it's annoying that one incident can trigger a national debate. Yes, it was awful. Awful things happen all the time, and don't get this kind of coverage or response. It's one incident. That's hard to say since I really disagree with having exotic pets, but still, the response seems drastic.

Earl's points make sense to me but I too question where this issue should rank on the national priority list. Also seems like it could/should be dealt with at a much lower level than the federal legislature.

Kari,

I agree that small issues do have a place in Congress, and are easy to check off. But this seems to me like a strange and possibly opportunistic move.

It's strange for me to say this, because I'm anti-breed specific legislation, but....

There have been more, and more deadly, attacks by pit bulls than chimpanzees, but I haven't seen a ban on interstate commerce of pit bulls. Ditto with german shepherds and akitas and other breeds. However, what you do see is states implementing local legislation. At the same time, I haven't heard of any proposed bans on interstate commerce of cigarettes or alcohol, both of which cause many more deaths than chimpanzees.

There are many things that Congress, and States, could do to protect pet owners - by regulating and monitoring animal breeders to make sure that domestic pets are vaccinated, trained, and healthy. But as long as backyard breeders are allowed to churn out inbred and unsocialized dogs that are dangerous, what good is this one ban on one uncommon specific transaction going to do? Banning chimpanzee commerce makes as much sense as breed-specific legislation. It doesn't work.

If transporting primates across state lines is breaking the law, how will Earl make his once a year trip back to Oregon.

Is this guy out of touch or what? The economy is collapsing and he is worried about pets and bicycling with a bow tie on.

Kari:

Uh Brian? Individual states can't regulate interstate commerce. Only Congress can do that.

Bob T:

How will a chimp sold within a state be less likely to bite someone than one sold to someone in another state?

Bob Tiernan Mult Co

Good point Bob Tiernan. Maybe this law is toothless.

If the fed bans interstate transport of chimps, and a state bans chimp ownership, will the chimp have to be killed rather than going to a sancutary? Will zoos and other conservators be forced to choose between dismantling captive breeding programs for certain subspecies of chimps or engage in inbreeding?

The best way to curtail irresponsible animal ownership, of both exotic and domesticated animals, is to educate the public, or better yet, the individuals interested in purchasing a particular animal, about what the needs of the animal are, how much work it is to keep the animal properly, to keep that animal healthy, happy, etc, and what the risks inherent in keeping a particular animal are, not banning ownership. That's why I'm against breed specific and species specific legislation.

Libertarian Guy:

Good point Bob Tiernan. Maybe this law is toothless.

Bob T:

Well, it shows that some think banning sale of items across state lines lessens possible dangers associated with those items (the way they think throwing money at problems leads to the problems ending). But keep in mind that to the New Deal mind, "interstate" means "intrastate" as well as person. Wickard v. Filburn from c.1943 attests to that. Somehow, a farmer raising wheat for his own family's consumption affected interstate commerce (because it could have been sold elsewhere). With that way of think, a total ban on chimp ownership (except by government zoos) would be considered valid regulation of "interstate commerce". Up is down, and war is peace.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

Bob T:

How will a chimp sold within a state be less likely to bite someone than one sold to someone in another state?

Kari:

Um, probably won't. But in-state regulation ought to be left to the states, right Bob?

Bob T:

Sure, but I'd still like to know why anyone thinks banning inter-state monkey sales will cut down on monkey bites. The only difference will be who gets bitten in the end.

Kari:

Good to see that the federalist system is starting to work again....

Bob T:

Oh, I don't mind it at all, so long as rights are not denied (like African-America Rev. Craigmiles of Tennessee who was threatened with fines and jail time for doing no more than selling caskets until free-marketers, not progressives or the ACLU, defended his right to do so and had this decades-old "regulation" thrown out).

I just hope to see a reversal of a lot of things that are dictated from the top, and have noted that progressives have in recent years seen how central control (a progressive era hallmark from that days when it was discovered that it was easier to lobby one central legislature than many separate ones) can stifle reform from everything from marijuana reform to assisted suicide. The way the courts have been seeing it, despite their personal opinions, Federal laws need to be changed before states can ignore them. But anyway, isn't this the biggest monkey story since 1920?

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

If Blumenauer really has interest in doing something good for this state and for our nation he would filibusterer on the floor of the house until a complete ban on all primate testing in this nation. Pet owners at least love these animals and have the good intentions of caring for them. Researchers and corporations do not have those same intentions and weather or not they are trying to come up with some miracle drug or not. Medical testing/torturing any primate is morally repulsive.