Some thoughts on the proposed Shambala bill..... When currently obtaining a permit..... If one has a USDA permit, it is not valid in a state where monkeys are illegal. If one has a permit in a state, it does no good if the monkey is illegal in the city or county or according to local planning departments, the health department or animal control. Therefore local ordinances supercede state and state supersedes federal. We want alternatives to the Shambala bill.... It is not reasonable or constitutional....yet expecting to get by with "no regulations" is probably not a reasonable thing to expect at this time either. When making monkeys illegal, federal laws would, of course, supercede all others. When regulating for the right to responsibly keep exotics, we want fair state laws that is, for every state to adopt ones like those in Florida because they have put more research into their laws than any other state has. Their regulations are reasonable, although for the sake of the animals, cage sizes should be larger more like those required by California.
In the state of Florida, a potential exotics buyer is required to put in a certain number of hours caring for an animal of the same species. That means volunteering to feed and clean for someone who already has one. This provides a realistic look at care before purchase. When regulations in Florida don't work, it's because people "cheat" for example, a breeder will sell a monkey to someone and give them the experience hours "free" without the buyer putting in the time in order to ensure the sale of the animal. Severe financial penalties to buyer and seller should be imposed on anyone caught shortcutting their hours (or cheating in other ways). This would at least cut down on such practices. Maybe the adoption of the same or similar regulations would have to be done federally and not state by state. Financial penalties should likewise be imposed on those who "cheat" by not providing proper housing size, proper enrichment, etc. As others have said, people will get exotics illegally if they cannot get permits then the animals are unregulated, "hidden" (often in poor housing) and denied vet care and pose more of a potential public health risk. Where some exotics are already illegal, fish and wildlife departments say they don't have the money to monitor people with exotics permits, to inspect them and to pay for the cost of capture or relocation should either situation arise. States or the USDA can impose stiff fees for the permitting, if that is realistically what is required to monitor the animals. This is already done in California. In Hawaii, there is a $1,000 bond required for each primate you own in case the primate gets loose, etc. and costs the state money.
Bonding in every state is another possibility, although $1,000 seems quite high. Unfortunately, after a private owner spends a large amount to buy an animal, it is necessary to be willing to spend the same amount on proper housing. Many of the people on the Internet, who speak of loving their monkeys, unfortunately, are still in that category! Fair regulations can help people to put their love in action by providing proper housing. Failure to do this has always been one of the biggest downfalls of the private owner. Uniform permitting in every state is one way to improve this. Some people say that the sanctuaries are just trying to do the right thing with the Shambala bill and they risk putting themselves out of business to do it. That is absurd! There will always be rescue or unwanted monkeys that can be taken from labs or zoo surplus. The sanctuaries who want to will always have an abundance of exotics. They will never go out of business even if private ownership is banned.
Does the USDA regulate sanctuaries? No. They currently regulate what they consider to be businesses those who sell exotics and those who exhibit exotics. Thus far, when approached by individuals, the USDA has shown no interest in permitting sanctuaries. Sanctuaries, because most are "nonprofit" can SAY they are not businesses. Nonprofit organizations are allowed to pay themselves large salaries and are, in the opinion of many outsiders, businesses! While trying to strip the rights of the private owner, the sanctuaries want to remain unregulated!! There is ample evidence in print showing that at least two primate sanctuaries fundraise using stories that are dubious. A sanctuary can say that they need a certain amount of money for a cage they already fundraised for and already have, etc. They can make false promises to get an animal ("your monkey will be returned to the wild" or "I will return you monkey any time you want him back", etc). Because they are unregulated, few to date have had to answer for their actions.
What is the status of the sanctuaries who are proposing this bill? Sanctuary associations may give the impression that theere is some standard that must be upheld by its members but this is not true. The want to be free of the same standards that they would impose on private owners allowed to be grandfathered. How do private owners empower the very sanctuaries who are working to enact the Shambala bill? The Shambala bill is being proposed by the ASA, the American Sanctuary Association. "Primarily Primates, Inc." in San Antonio TX, started the ASA. Tippi Hedron was its first member. Both PPI (Wally Swett, President and Stephen Tello, Secretary) and "Roar" (Tippi Hedron's foundation) have complaints against them, as do some of the other sanctuaries included in their association. Primarily Primates had a substantial court case filed in 1994. Anyone who has called the prosecutor, assistant Attorney General John Vincent, knows that this case against PPI (for public fraud) not only has merit but was not officially dropped. Individuals charged in the case were Wally Swett and Stephen Tello. In addition, PPI used public funds to pay $40,000 for a team of attorneys to fight the charges.
Some counties have an allotted amount of funds which can be used to prosecute certain types of cases. A "rich" county with little crime will spend more to prosecute fraud than will an average or "poor" county with a high rate of more violent crime. With PPI, every time the DA had a court date, PPI lawyers showed up without their clients, asking for a postponement. Eventually the assistant DA "made a deal" with PPI. PPI agreed to stop embezzling private funds and to increase its board from one member (Wally Swett) to 10 members. PPI admits to taking in around $350,000 to $400,000 a year from the public, ample money to hire legal assistance. PPI supporters (many of whom have publicly supported PPI for years) say the case had no merit and was dropped. The assistant DA says PPI is guilty and that he has "a box-load of evidence" against PPI. TAOS, The Association Of Sanctuaries, was created first by Lynn Cuney. There is a video showing her on the local news. People were expressing complaints about chicken wire caging used for big cats! The caging was shown, and was found very disconcerting to local residents, who realized that the housing was not escape proof. Private owners certainly have the potential to house a few animals in a more responsible fashion. Primarily Primates is to date the biggest benefactor of funds received from private monkey owners. This is largely due to the fact that its president, Wally Swett, has been on the board of the Simian Society Of America (private monkey owners) for over a decade. A board member cannot remain seated in an organization without a majority of votes! The SSA has regularly contributed and continues to contribute funds from private owners to Primarily Primates.
Frisky's Wildlife and Primate Sanctuary has also been given funds (collected from private owners) by the SSA. Many private owners contribute to organizations like the HSUS, Humane Society of The United States, and other similar organizations, not realizing that some of their dollars are also used to fight against exotics ownership. If you want to donate to a sanctuary, have them write to you personally and tell you that they support your right to keep exotics and why. Make sure it is dated and signed. Some sanctuaries, like Frisky's Wildlife and Primate Sanctuary, tell monkey owners on the phone that they support private owners, while working to turn local animal control agencies against private monkey ownership.