Skip

No Obamacare for animals
September 21, 2013 5:50 PM   Subscribe

From September 1, it is illegal in Alabama to rescue raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, oppossums and other animals.

The Alabama state conservation department has announced that anyone finding baby animals orphaned after hit-and-run accidents, or injured due to any other cause, must leave them to die or kill them; they will not issue permits to allow them to be rehabilitated. Wildlife rescue centres must immediately euthanize any such animals that are brought to them. "It's survival of the fittest, it really is," explained Ray Metzler, assistant chief of wildlife for the agency.

Wildlife rehabilitation centres have responded angrily to the new rules.
posted by dontjumplarry (64 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 


It's clearly a terrible idea to vaccinate healthy baby animals against transmissible infections like rabies before returning them to the wild or to have sick animals quarantined and then humanely destroyed if they show symptoms of disease. After all, "survival of the fittest" and the spread of mammalian disease only apply to wildlife, so it's not like humans or domesticated animals could ever be affected!
posted by nicebookrack at 6:01 PM on September 21, 2013 [5 favorites]


To be fair, I guess if you are going to apply stone-hearted, laissez-faire ideology to sick humans, you also need to apply it to animals just to be consistent.
posted by dontjumplarry at 6:05 PM on September 21, 2013 [29 favorites]


Removing orphaned or injured animals from the wild and nursing them interrupts the food chain and could help spread diseases such as rabies, Metzler said.

How? Because the people caring for them will infect the animals with rabies? Obviously not. The only logic I can see in that is "this will keep the wild animal population larger, and a larger population makes the spread of infectious disease more likely," which is fundamentally true.

What's the logic in stopping there, then? If Ray Metzler believes this is significant, and he is truly concerned about public health, why isn't he saying "we must kill all the wild animals?" Surely the (at best) hundred or so rehabbed animals are a drop compared to the total population of raccoons, skunks etc.

Why won't Ray just tell us that we must eradicate wild animals? If he's being earnest, then this is what he believes.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:08 PM on September 21, 2013 [2 favorites]


Talk about red in tooth and claw.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:08 PM on September 21, 2013 [2 favorites]


WTF? Since when have we officially recognized survival of the fittest in Alabama (other than social Darwinism, of course)?
posted by fogovonslack at 6:09 PM on September 21, 2013 [9 favorites]


This reminds me of when my great home state [Alabama of course], or maybe it was only some counties therein actually, decided to save money by not mowing the right of way next to roads until the grass was some crazy height.

What they were supposed to save in money they quickly lost in increased accidents caused by wildlife encroaching on the road.

I'm not one to spend $8k to save every raccoon/deer or even some dogs/cats that have been hit by a car but there's something to be said about how I think a complete, purposeful ban on treatment of any sort up to the point of making it illegal to assist is asinine and dumb and a demonstration of how lawmakers have their head so far up their asses they might as well perform their own prostate exams.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:09 PM on September 21, 2013 [8 favorites]


That $8k number is made up out of whole cloth for demonstration purposes only, I didn't pull it from anywhere in the real world or the article.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:12 PM on September 21, 2013


If those animals want to survive after getting hit by a car, they can do like every other American and run up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the emergency room.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 6:14 PM on September 21, 2013 [19 favorites]


I very much believe that people capturing and attempting to nurse wild animals back to health is a terrible, bad, misguided idea. At the same time, I hate absurd unnecessary laws. I think I hate this law a lot more than I hate the behaviour it is trying to curtail.
posted by 256 at 6:15 PM on September 21, 2013 [4 favorites]


I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that a lot of the rescued animals are inevitably going to be from "nuisance" species like racoons and possums, and the state just doesn't feel like it's worth expending resources to rehabilitate an animal that's just going to grow up to be roadkill or get into someone's trash or potentially be a vector for disease?

Not that I agree with that, but if I was a bureaucrat at the Alabama office of Wildlife Control looking at my annual budget for 2014, I might decide it wasn't worth spending money to rehabilitate all the orphaned baby squirrels people find. I mean, squirrels die. They're not endangered. And presumably the state of Alabama has bigger fish to fry. (Hopefully not cute and cuddly orphaned ones, though, I guess.)
posted by Sara C. at 6:22 PM on September 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


Here in North Carolina it is illegal for a wildlife rehabilitator to take a raccoon. Reason being, they might harbor rabies. That hasn't stopped people from trying to raise orphan raccoons themselves. One such individual brought a baby raccoon to my workplace (pic is on my facebook page, actually.)

I wonder if that person realizes that a full grown raccoon can wreak real havoc in a household?


This does sound cruel, I agree, but in the long run, Nature is pretty cruel anyway. And rabies is no joke.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:27 PM on September 21, 2013


Sara C., IIRC the majority of private rehabbers do it at their own volunteered expense of money and time, with little to no assistance from the state.

Picture the reaction if a similar announcement came out declaring, "There are just too many kittens around, and cats are technically an invasive species anyway. Kill all the foster kittens!"
posted by nicebookrack at 6:29 PM on September 21, 2013 [9 favorites]


I, for one, support letting animals die the deaths they have earned through the vicissitudes of natural law.
Kittens too.
Did I mention I'm currently running for mayor of NYC?
posted by GoingToShopping at 6:33 PM on September 21, 2013 [2 favorites]


Again, I don't actually agree with the new law, I can just see that, for someone with more knowledge of wildlife and the specific situation on the ground in Alabama, it might be an attractive option.

Also, if you think vet's offices and animal shelters aren't required to euthanize stray kittens that potentially harbor disease, may you stay this adorably naive forever.
posted by Sara C. at 6:33 PM on September 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


I would have thought in Alabama saying "survival of the fittest" would be a felony.
posted by maxwelton at 6:37 PM on September 21, 2013 [18 favorites]


St. Alia, that is why other states have rabies vector species licensing requirements for rehabbers. It varies from state to state, but it's usually something like "you must have been an experienced rehabber for X of years plus complete X amount of training" before you can take in RVS. Training and experiencing that the rehabber is almost always the one paying for.

I have a friend who was one of the only people RVS licensed for raccoons in Georgia, and she got calls about baby coons from all over the state.
posted by nicebookrack at 6:37 PM on September 21, 2013 [3 favorites]


Also, if you think vet's offices and animal shelters aren't required to euthanize stray kittens that potentially harbor disease, may you stay this adorably naive forever

1. The personal insult = not warranted.
2. The state of Alabama seems to be under the impression that rehabbers AREN'T doing this already for the animals they care for. For my raccoon-rehabbing friend, one of the most wished-for "if I win the lottery" expensive toys she coveted was a "kill box" to euthanize animals quickly and peacefully in the familiarity of her home.
posted by nicebookrack at 6:42 PM on September 21, 2013 [6 favorites]


This is actually a good point: "'Orphaned animals often become food for larger predators in the wild and removing them from the woods can have a ripple effect on other species', Metzler added."
posted by Houstonian at 6:42 PM on September 21, 2013 [7 favorites]


nicebookrack, I don't mean to be patronizing, it's just that... well, what are the options?

You find a baby raccoon on the side of the road. You:

- leave it, knowing it will probably be some other animal's dinner within hours.

or

- take it, thinking "awwww da cute widdle guy, oooooh think of the youtube videos..."

If you leave it to be part of the ecosystem, circle of life, nature, whatever, you are then not forced to deal with any future consequences of bringing the animal into your life. If you take it, the outcome is now on you, and anything short of keeping a pet raccoon for life amounts to ultimately having a hand in its death. And deciding to keep it for life introduces a whole bunch of other complicated variables into the mix, because raccoons are not pets.

It's cute to think that you can have a hand in "rescuing" an orphaned baby animal, but in reality, you can't, and it's probably better for people to just leave it alone.

I mean, I don't like the way the Alabama law shakes out in terms of human choice (illegal? really?), and the language is abysmal, but at least it communicates that the easiest choice is simply to NOT take in wild animals. I feel like a series of PSA's and maybe some PR outreach to local media would probably cover it rather than passing a law, but hey, maybe they already did that and now feel that their only option is to start issuing citations.
posted by Sara C. at 6:52 PM on September 21, 2013 [2 favorites]


WTF? Since when have we officially recognized survival of the fittest in Alabama (other than social Darwinism, of course)?

Survival of the Fittest is not Darwin, it is Herbert Spencer: a man who was really into eugenics and the master race. So, this doesn't shock me in the slightest.
posted by munchingzombie at 6:59 PM on September 21, 2013 [10 favorites]


If you take it, the outcome is now on you, and anything short of keeping a pet raccoon for life amounts to ultimately having a hand in its death.

Do you seriously think trained wildlife rehabbers are no different from "random person picking up a baby animal who has no clue what the fuck they're doing"?

That's my cue to walk away from this conversation for now, sorry. I'll breathe deeply and try again in the morning.
posted by nicebookrack at 7:01 PM on September 21, 2013 [7 favorites]


The way they're throwing the word "species" around, I think my wildlife rehabilitation center would just go along with it. No sir, we don't have any of those seven prohibited species. See, those aren't bats, they're Eptesicus fuscus, Lasiurus borealis, and Lasionycteris noctivagans. And those aren't skunks, they're Spilogale putorius, and Mephitis mephitis.
posted by gueneverey at 7:04 PM on September 21, 2013 [5 favorites]


“Basically, there is no biological reason to rehabilitate these animals,”

with that logic, might as well close the hospitals too.
posted by HuronBob at 7:14 PM on September 21, 2013 [8 favorites]


A bill to prevent intercourse with the animals was soundly defeated in the GOP controlled assembly
posted by Renoroc at 7:15 PM on September 21, 2013 [3 favorites]


don't many other states have similar laws? - anyway, the vast majority of animals killed in the wild are killed without us even knowing it

i'm not getting the outrage here
posted by pyramid termite at 7:17 PM on September 21, 2013


Oh my god, no rehabbing bats? White nose isn't enough?
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:17 PM on September 21, 2013 [10 favorites]


i'm not getting the outrage here

I understand what you're saying... but...

When I was a kid my sister was a biolog my teacher...she had a collection of native animals and would go from school to school with demonstrations. Most of the animals in her collection (snakes, mammals, birds, hawks, owls, turtles, frogs, toads, etc, etc) were brought to her by well meaning individuals who found them in the wild and decided they needed "help". They probably didn't, and would have been either OK or part of that circle of life... but, here they are, her choice was to let them go to certainly die (in most cases, injured, too young, etc)..or, take care of them until they could be released... The choice seems pretty obvious to me...

It really all comes down to money...
posted by HuronBob at 7:31 PM on September 21, 2013


yeah... I have no idea what happened to that phrase in my post, but "a biolog my teacher" should have been "a biology teacher"... go figure...
posted by HuronBob at 7:45 PM on September 21, 2013


with that logic, might as well close the hospitals too.

Oh please. Are you really making the argument that a raccoon is the moral equivalent of a human US citizen?

That is some ludicrous kum-ba-ya sentimentality run amok.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 7:48 PM on September 21, 2013 [2 favorites]


I suspect this is more about not keeping a clerk on the payroll than anything else.
posted by Ardiril at 7:54 PM on September 21, 2013 [2 favorites]


A living creature is an active part of a complex ecosystem. An injured and dying creature is nothing more than meat for vultures and maggots.

This change is stupid and unnecessary and solves no problems.
posted by oceanjesse at 8:01 PM on September 21, 2013 [2 favorites]


Only "fines for illegal possession of wild animals"? I'm thinking the people who do that are just the kind of people Alabama legislators want to see thrown in jail (and losing their right to vote).
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:03 PM on September 21, 2013


I think taking the law into this direction is stupid and counter-productive to its supposed goal. Not just in forbidding anyone from rescuing specific species of animals - and aside from whatever consequences may arise from jiggling the ecosystem like that - but also in curtailing introducing vaccinated animals into the wild, which would work towards solving the heart of the problem. There doesn't appear to be any law against shooting a critter that gets in your garbage cans, and so disease control seems a whole lot more productive than a blanket forbidden-to-help ban.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:16 PM on September 21, 2013


Vultures and maggots are also active parts of a complex ecosystem.
posted by plastic_animals at 8:34 PM on September 21, 2013 [10 favorites]


And I don't think they'll starve anytime soon, regardless of what animals we forbid people from saving.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:45 PM on September 21, 2013


I don't know if this is good or not. I will have to review it.

I do know humans do not "rescue" animals. I would say they are saved from death.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:51 PM on September 21, 2013


Oh please. Are you really making the argument that a raccoon is the moral equivalent of a human US citizen?

A raccoon has greater cognitive abilities -- and just as much ability to feel and understand pain and suffering -- than many US citizens. For example, infants, some people with some developmental disabilities, some people with intellectual disabilities and impairments, some people with severe dementia or Alzheimer's, coma patients, anencephalic babies, and people with severe brain trauma.

Is it "ridiculous kum-bay-ah sentimentality" to care about the suffering of any of these classes of people? No. So why is it so abhorrent to you that someone might care about non-human animals with the same (or even greater) capacity to feel pain or suffer?
posted by dontjumplarry at 9:04 PM on September 21, 2013 [11 favorites]


Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a bit more sophisticated than "survival of the fittest" and sometimes even contradicts that concept. Anyway, this seems like a reasonable rule, and if you want the cute little Bambis to survive, don't drive.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:32 PM on September 21, 2013


I think if suffering is your concern, then you can keep a gun and shoot any too-young, injured wild animals you see, provided you are a good shot and won't just increase its suffering.

I don't like Alabama, (not that Texas is anything to brag about), in general, and they could probably have handled this better, but yes: animals in the wild should be left to live and die in the wild, except in an extraordinary circumstance like endangered species.

Raccoons, possums, and squirrels are not endangered. An injured one may very well have rabies, and injured animals fight and bite. One that has lost all fear of humans from being hand raised, might, when released, become an aggressive pest.

why is it so abhorrent to you that someone might care about non-human animals with the same (or even greater) capacity to feel pain or suffer?

Nature doesn't care, and very often, when humans seek to impose human standards of compassion on wildlife, we make things worse.

I actually think it disrespects animals to treat them as tiny people in fur suits for us to cuddle. They are not. They are part of the ecology of a place when they die just as much as when they live.

Now: none of this precludes human beings from doing things to, for example, reduce roadkill incidents, leave enough land to support a variety of species, and keep the air, water and ground clean enough that they don't get sick. We can and should remove and stop introducing invasive species. Our compassion does a lot more good in that case.
posted by emjaybee at 9:35 PM on September 21, 2013 [8 favorites]


dontjumplarry: "To be fair, I guess if you are going to apply stone-hearted, laissez-faire ideology to sick humans, you also need to apply it to animals just to be consistent."

In August, WI DNR agents raided a sanctuary and killed a fawn.

I seriously just don't understand. This is not how "evolution" works. Survival of the fittest is bullshit in this manner. Ugh.
posted by symbioid at 10:04 PM on September 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


Wild animals belong in the wild, both those living and those dying.
posted by IvoShandor at 10:15 PM on September 21, 2013 [3 favorites]


This policy about non-intervention by humans would be great - if we hadn't already intervened with roads, chemicals, cats, dogs, and all sorts of things that injure wildlife (and many wild animals that are found by the side of the road have been hit by cars, which are not exactly natural). People saving a few wild animals is not interfering with the overall balance of nature - there are too many injured wild animals for that to be the case. This is a dumb policy that I suspect probably only exists because someone likes to think of themselves as a tough person who lives by 'natural' rules. While driving a car and using all the unnatural things we've populated the world with.

And I really don't get the bats. With all the issues with catastrophic bat illness and disease you'd think they'd want them live so at least they could work out if they respond to any treatment.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 10:42 PM on September 21, 2013 [11 favorites]


My understanding is that we have similar laws or policies for some species here in Washington.

Apparently people would hear baby seals and interpret their sounds as cries for help. They would then rescue kidnap the seal and/or scare the mother away due to human scent and activity. The end result would be an institutionalized baby and a panicked mother.

People have mentioned diseases spreading to humans, but there's also the possibility of human interaction introducing disease, demographic shifts, or dependencies into wild populations. Yes, we've already affected them, but that shouldn't in iteself be an excuse to double down.

Humans usually don't understand what it means to be human. I don't know the particulars of this law, but I think there's a definite possibility that it's a very well thought out policy intended to stop feelings from getting in the way of public safety, wildlife safety, etc.
posted by tychotesla at 12:15 AM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


jetlagaddict: "Oh my god, no rehabbing bats? White nose isn't enough?"

Well, now, thanks for educating me on something so sad-making right before bed.
posted by Samizdata at 12:22 AM on September 22, 2013


oceanjesse: "A living creature is an active part of a complex ecosystem. An injured and dying creature is nothing more than meat for vultures and maggots.

This change is stupid and unnecessary and solves no problems.
"

And maggots and vultures, and we will not count other creatures who primarily scavenge, are not active parts of a complex ecosystem?
posted by Samizdata at 12:31 AM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


A twister hit the forest next to our home one night around 1962. We heard a terrible crying. My father waded into the mess with a flashlight and emerged with two baby raccoons. Their mother was dead.

My mother, with a vet's guidance, nursed Hans and Fritz and they lived with us for years. They were set free every spring and returned on their own after a month or so, wild oats having been sown.

The things that I learned from this relationship are beyond price and gave me an understanding of the wisdom of wild things, their sharp intelligence and sense of humor. Other kids envied us. My sister and I still share stories about those days.

Oh well, maybe we'd be better people now had we simply let the little things wail until they were attacked and eaten or starved to death. But I doubt it.
posted by kinnakeet at 3:55 AM on September 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


Bats are in trouble because of the White Nose fungus mentioned above. Entire populations of bats are dying off. Bats are also one of the more useful wild animals - they eat huge amounts of insects and pollinate plants. Making it illegal to help injured bats is probably the most bone-headed thing I've heard of this year. I expect there will be a MAJOR outcry about this from conservation groups.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:03 AM on September 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


This year, they have been finding not a few local bats with rabies. I assume, again, that this is why bats are on that Alabama list.

Having said that I don't understand why they can't rehab them with properly trained and licensed rehabbers.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:34 AM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


My mother was wildlife rehabilitator for a number of years, though not licensed to handle rabies vector species.

... injured animals fight and bite. One that has lost all fear of humans from being hand raised, might, when released, become an aggressive pest. [...] I actually think it disrespects animals to treat them as tiny people in fur suits for us to cuddle.

This is exactly why trained wildlife rehabilitators are important, and why preventing them from rehabilitating wildlife is a problem. It is in many people's nature to help wounded and abandoned creatures. As the article states, discouraging those people from contacting actual wildlife rehabilitators merely encourages them to attempt to care for abandoned and injured wildlife on their own. Leading to loss of fear of humans and rabies vector species raised as pets.

Wildlife rehabilitators are trained to not do those things (as much as possible, anyway), leaving open a responsible avenue for the compassionate person who comes across an injured or orphaned wild animal. I think that's more beneficial than attempting to discourage that sort of compassion altogether.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 9:07 AM on September 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


We've talked about white nose fungus and bats a few times before; it's a serious problem that's killing hundreds of thousands of bats. The last couple of private caving sites I've visited in the eastern US have had signs up about how they're working to contain it by not allowing cavers to bring their own equipment, telling them to wash their clothes before arriving and spraying Formula 409 on their shoes or making them walk over what they call antiseptic mats to get into the caves.

Anyway, the idea that bats can't use a little help from wildlife rehabbers seems to me a little insane.
posted by mediareport at 9:24 AM on September 22, 2013




Alabama is home to 2 species of endangered bats. I am shocked they can't be rehabbed. That said, I'm not sure how you rehab a bat. We had in one in our bedroom one night and because we were asleep while it was flying around with its tiny little teeth potentially biting us, Public Health needed to test it for rabies, which means it had to die. I guess you would just handle rehabbed bats carefully and hope they weren't infected.
posted by Biblio at 10:10 AM on September 22, 2013


Are wildlife rehabbers treating bat populations for white noise fungus?

Because if not, it sounds from the thing about caving equipment like increased interaction between humans and bats might make white noise fungus worse, not better.

Also it doesn't make any logical sense to say "all the bats are dying -- LETS MAKE THEM OUR PETS YAY!" I mean I guess if you can truly rehabilitate a bat and return it to the wild in a way that is actually realistic (and, again, doesn't increase the chances that they are bringing a deadly disease back into the general population), on a micro level, that's cool? But even so, it's not like individual wildlife rehabbers, by saving the odd bat with a broken leg or something, are singlehandedly fighting the white noise fungus problem.
posted by Sara C. at 10:49 AM on September 22, 2013


Active participant in the sense that the animal is alive and participating?

Ok, that's a pretty damn circular thing I said, but I still don't see the point of the law. Rehab is usually paid for by donations, I thought.
posted by oceanjesse at 11:01 AM on September 22, 2013


Bothering to pass this law makes no sense to me unless the animal rehab movement has become an organizing center for opposition to development because that destroys habitat, or because rehab work is having success keeping endangered species around, and that's preventing development by invoking the provisions of the endangered species act, so the legislature is trying to prevent them from doing that.

Alabama is home to 2 species of endangered bats. I am shocked they can't be rehabbed.

I wonder if this could be the real target of the law, and the rest of the named animals are in there to obscure the real intent-- which might open the law up to challenge in Federal court if it were known.
posted by jamjam at 11:37 AM on September 22, 2013


I don't support laws like this in the absence of strong evidence of rehabbers contributing to rabies outbreaks, but:

Oh well, maybe we'd be better people now had we simply let the little things wail until they were attacked and eaten or starved to death.

It ain't about you and what you learned.

If it were, we ought to hire people to kill raccoon mothers to increase the supply of these valuable lessons in life.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:39 AM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


I guess the legislators in Alabama just don't have any serious problems in front of them, since everything is humming along so smoothly these days. Might as well deal with the little things now there's so much general prosperity all over.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:52 AM on September 22, 2013


Well, that's one way to create an alternative to food stamps.
posted by john wilkins at 12:50 PM on September 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Raccoons, foxes, skunks, opossums, coyotes, bats, and feral pigs, or
Omnivore, omnivore, omnivore, omnivore, omnivore, insectivore, omnivore.

Like most fish and game departments of most states, the ADCNR is probably most concerned with the impact of these species on game animals, and most of the creatures listed are efficient consumers of eggs of ground-nesting birds (turkey and quail) which are very popular with hunters.

The inclusion of bats in the list of prohibited species is doubly puzzling, unless they're looking at trying to reduce the population of a rabies reservoir. An earlier news story in May includes such a concern about Rabies.

Bats *are* the vector of 90% of the human rabies reported in the US, but citing that as a reason for prohibition of rehabilitation seems quantitatively specious. I'm entirely okay with prohibiting rehabilitation of six of those seven species: they're the opposite of endangered, and 4 of them are camp-followers whose populations are growing wherever people live.
posted by the Real Dan at 1:49 PM on September 22, 2013


A lot of our questions are answered in this article and others. (Unfortunately, I think the quotes were left out of the articles originally posted here.)

Q: How does this stop rabies?
A: "Testing has shown that rabies is spreading beyond its historical boundaries into places like Shelby County in suburban Birmingham, and officials want to minimize the transportation of animals across natural boundaries like rivers to help stem the disease."

Q: What about endangered bats?
A: "Alabama does have some engendered bat species, but Metzler said special exemptions could be issued as needed in those rare cases when someone attempts to help one of the winged mammals."

Q: Why are they passing this law now?
A: "Metzler said the agency came up with the rule as it attempted to develop Alabama's first standardized policies for regulating organizations that take in wild animals."

The Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources isn't the type of agency that wants to kill of endangered species.
posted by Houstonian at 2:01 PM on September 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


The way I read Houstonian's article and the original, this is not the result of new legislation, but an agency changing its rules. The laws were already in place, but the agency has stopped issuing licenses.
posted by Ardiril at 2:38 PM on September 22, 2013


This will be an excellent addition to my collection of articles on how humankind is just a bunch of sissies, crybabies, and 'fraidy-cats. Let us throw our legs across the backs of our gleaming yellow steeds, and bulldoze the terrifying night away.
posted by turbid dahlia at 4:45 PM on September 22, 2013


If I lived in Bammy, it would be a great honor to have the opportunity to break their stupid, petty, ignoramus law.

Maybe one day they'll get their sorry asses out of the 18th-century. Even though the whole 20th century suggests otherwise.
posted by Twang at 6:01 PM on September 22, 2013


« Older It warped my fragile little mind   |   On Charles Mingus Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post