Burden of Proof

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS PETITION BY VOICING YOUR OPINION

CLICK ON THE LINK TO SIGN

Put Burden of Proof on Homeowners Concerning Nuisance Wildlife Petition

NUISANCE WILDLIFE - BURDEN OF PROOF ON HOMEOWNERS

We are focusing mainly on backyard nuisance wildlife, such as the opossum, skunk, raccoon, squirrel, rabbit, prairie dog, beaver, bear, coyote, mountain lion, birds of prey, crows, pigeons, etc.

* We want to improve the animal cruelty laws to stop practicing speciesism and selective compassion, by including backyard wildlife, even if it has been labeled a nuisance.

* We want the burden of proof put on the homeowner that the animal truly is a nuisance:

1) Provide pictures of the correct species that is doing the damage

2) Provide proof of monetary damage

3) Provide proof of the specific animal by hopefully identifying the markings

4) Provide proof that they tried to enlist the help of professional animal control agencies, trappers, or preferably wildlife educator experts before taking matters in their own hands.

Homeowners shouldn't be allowed to get away with unnecessary cruel disposal of these necessary animals. With inadequate laws to protect wildlife that are "categorized" as a nuisance, cruel methods such as bludgeoning, setting on fire, shooting with arrows, leaving traps in the sun, etc., will continue to take place in the inexperienced hands of homeowners. Cruelty in any form should be punishable to the full extent of the law just like any other animal.

There are numerous humane alternatives that are readily available to every person (through the media, library, Internet, from trappers, animal control and humane officers, state and federal wildlife agencies, zoos, wildlife rehabilitators and educators, veterinarians, pet stores, etc.), and we all have access to each other's information. Even if one doesn't have a computer, they have friends that do, as well as library access. There is NO excuse for such cruelty to go unpunished.

One example - In 2003, Kirk James Broomall in CA severely tortured opossums and was not punished AT ALL! It is just too easy to lie to keep from being prosecuted justly. No matter what all the wildlife experts had to contribute as fact, the judge and jury still decided to believe the lies of the offender and let him get away with it unpunished.

The laws must be changed to be more fair and just. We would like the courts to take certain things into consideration when determining what a homeowner's rights are concerning animals that aren't even theirs. The wild animals belong to ALL of us. Other neighbors are impacted by the actions of the offenders, as well as the offspring left orphaned. As it stands, the law is undefined in this situation, so impossible to adequately punish homeowners that choose cruel methods in handling wild animals on their property.

More detailed recommendations:

1) Homeowners that kill wild animals on their property must provide proof

a) that they contacted an expert for advice rather than taking matters in their own hands;

b) of what the actual damage was (pictures and receipts);

c) a picture of the animal in the act, so at least it is known what species is doing the damage and identifying markings known; and

d) that they tried the proper exclusion methods provided to them.

2) Homeowners that "lure" the animals to their property by leaving pet food outside are fined for creating the problem themselves and their neighbors. Once they remove the food source, clean up their garbage, pick up fallen fruit, etc., the animal just leaves on its own. If they aren't willing to use exclusion methods, then all they want to do is kill the animal. This information is also available from countless sources. Trapping/Relocating/Killing (TRK) is not the solution here.

3) Homeowners that choose to kill animals instead of closing off access under their shed, house, jacuzzi, firewood, etc., are being negligent, because the animal will just leave once their den is blocked off.

4) Homeowners that discharge a weapon in a neighborhood should be penalized for this. To kill an animal is no excuse to use weapons! Another hazard is that to set an animal on fire poses a danger to the neighbors if the animal climbs onto their roof or goes under their house to die.

5) NUISANCE needs to be clearly defined! Just because a homeowner "claims" that an animal is a nuisance rarely makes it so. As wildlife consultants, which most wildlife rehabilitators are, we know first hand what is really going on in these situations:

a) To kill 50 coyotes because one killed a cat is wrong. First of all, the cat owner is really at fault for leaving their cat outside when coyotes are hunting. They might as well just put the cat in a bowl and call the coyotes for dinner! There is no way to know which coyote killed the pet, or even if a dog was the culprit. Now if you actually see the coyote in the act, you can then take action, but still in a humane way.

b) To blame a skunk for holes in a yard just because you see the hole during the day and skunks around at night, doesn't mean that they dug the holes. It could have been another species of animal. Regardless, there are methods one can use to deter the animal instead of trapping it, and there is no reason to torture an animal that is 95% of the time not even the offender.

c) To trap and kill ten raccoons because your eggs are being stolen or your Koi fish stolen from your pond, is wrong. There is usually only one animal doing it. Again, there are exclusion methods that work. Only trained professionals know the proper procedure to take.

d) What determines a nuisance?

(1) How much monitory loss? Should a person be able to kill wild animals that cross their lawn once a night because they assume that the opossum ate $15 worth of vegetables or fruit? What about the fact that the opossum really is keeping 100's of snails off the property?

(2) How severe is the damage to the house? Could it have been prevented by the homeowner using "preventive" methods? Why can't the animal just be trapped, the house repaired for no further entry, and the animal released back on the property?

Unfortunately, in the huge percentage of these situations, the homeowner merely wants the animal gone for the following reasons:

1) the opossum is considered ugly and they don't want it there;

2) the skunk is there and they are afraid of being sprayed;

3) the raccoon, coyote, etc. might do damage;

4) fear of wild animals harming their animals (it's usually the other way around);

5) spreading disease (can be eliminated by the exclusion methods mentioned above), keeping pets indoors (at least when nocturnal animals are roaming), and educating children about sanitation and leaving wild animals alone.

Since the majority of the time, wild animals are killed because of ignorance and fear, we will continue to educate the public anywhere we can and hope that the media will help us accomplish this.

For more information on Protect R Wildlife, how to join our team or become a member, e-mail us at ProtectRWildlife@aol.com

@ 2003 Protect R Wildlife. This article may not be reproduced or distributed without permission; however, should you receive permission, appropriate citation must be given to the author, Share Bond, and PRW at www.ProtectRWildlife.org