There has to be a balance somewhere-a sense of reason-in the way we approach animal protection issues nationally. So often, those of us who are determined to protect animals from cruelty, suffering, and neglect are accused of exaggerating the problems, of "making a mountain out of a molehill," and trying to take away Americans' freedom to exploit animals for entertainment, food, clothing, or sport.
But, what if we really are acting with due caution? What if we are trying to protect animals and people from unnecessary misery, pain, and distress?
Last week, a woman's pet monkey was seized after the capuchin bit someone at a California pizzeria's parking lot. Two other monkeys were impounded, pending proof of the legal permits to have the animals. There is no justification for anyone in America owning a pet monkey. It's not good for the animals, and it's not good for people.
Maybe this bite did not result in hospitalization or massive harm... but it could have. It could have happened to a child or an infant. It could have been a chimpanzee, not a capuchin, and resulted in the next Charla Nash incident. We know that it can happen; so, why isn't more done to prevent such horrors?