I count it shameful what some "animal-rights" groups do to Gentry's Wild Wilderness Safari. They have an agenda: raise money through charitable donations, work with lobbyists to make their views federal law and then use that law to try to close down zoos and facilities like the Wild Wilderness Safari.
A closer look at the agenda of these groups often reveals that they attribute human feelings and emotions to animals and that they imagine that, if all animals were left in the wild, the animals would be happier and healthier. But, have they visited the Safari to see firsthand the care of the animals there? No. Have they seen what happens to animals in the wild? No. Do they understand that many of these animals they try to protect would be extinct if it were not for places like the Wild Wilderness Safari? Apparently not.
And, if you look closely at the views of many of these groups, you will often find they oppose all confined farming operations such as those used to raise poultry, hogs and cattle for food purposes. Many of them oppose any use of animals for food. Often they argue for control or reductions in human population to make room for the animals, and a bleak picture of the future is often painted in their propaganda materials if human populations are not limited or reduced.
Another thing these groups fail to consider is what would happen to all the animals they supposedly are trying to protect if the Safari, as well as other animal parks and zoos which exhibit animals (many of them exotic) for human education and enjoyment, were closed down. What would happen? The ability to care for the animals would be diminished because of a lack of incoming revenue. Animals would have to be sold or destroyed. And many animals which are threatened or extinct in the wild would become totally extinct and gone forever.
I've been around animals all my life and have spent a good many years in farming communities. I can tell you that those who raise animals, whether for food purposes, as pets or to display them to the public don't purposely abuse and mistreat their animals. To do so would be to their own detriment. Even farmers who raise animals to go to the slaughter house work hard to provide good care and to keep their animals healthy. And exhibitors, why would they neglect or abuse their animals? Their animals are constantly in the public's eye. It would make no sense to show to all the world poor conditions and sick or abused animals.
And having said all this, I'll add that I often visit the Safari to take photos of animals and of people interacting with and enjoying the animals -- perhaps this makes me an accomplice or somehow guilty of animal abuse in the eyes of certain animal-rights groups -- and I have not seen animals abused or lacking in care and attention. I've always been amazed at how well the animals are cared for at the Safari -- better than in most large public zoos.
Do animals sometimes get sick? I expect so. My own dogs have, on occasion, needed to see the local veterinarian. I expect any animal, at times, may need care due to accidental injury or illness. Do food dishes become dirty? I expect so. It happens when animals are fed, and a surprise inspection at any place animals are kept might find deficiencies if the inspectors arrive between the time animals are fed and the owner cleans up the feeding dishes.
Do animals sometimes become injured? I expect so, too. How could any zoo or facility keep more than 800 animals and not have some get hurt or injured over a 40-plus year period. During my lifetime and in the many places I've lived, I've seen animals (wild and domestic) get hit by cars, injured by farm machinery or hurt through contact with other animals. It doesn't mean the owners wilfully caused it or are even guilty of neglect.
I know the Wilmoth family and do not believe for a minute that any of the animal caretakers at the Safari are wilfully neglecting or causing harm to any animals. In fact, the ongoing work and improvements there are evidence that the family is trying to give the best possible care to the Safari animals and to make the visit of any person there safe, pleasant and enjoyable. I can also tell you, in all honesty, if I saw or knew of wilful animal neglect or abuse at the Safari, I would be saying a lot about it -- on Page 1 of the newspaper -- and would be supporting efforts to close the Safari and relocate the animals. I see no evidence of it!
My email inbox and spam box regularly include messages and releases from groups like PETA and AWI seeking to get me to promote their causes and to rail against innocent farmers and zoo keepers. They usually are sent to me from office buildings in places like Washington, D.C., Norfolk, Va., and other big cities. My suggesting to those folks is that, if they really care so much about animals, they come volunteer at the Safari or go to work on a farm or cattle ranch and take care of animals instead of sitting in some office building asking for donations to stick their noses into other people's business when they really know nothing about it at all.
My question to the USDA is simply this: Where in the enumerated powers of the federal government (Article 1, Section 8) does the United States Department of Agriculture fit? And, if it can be squeezed into the enumerated powers through some unintended loophole left unclosed by the Founding Fathers, what right does it have to be doing zoo inspections and raising money through fines in the state of Arkansas?
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
General News on 03/29/2017