I joined the group, and I read the posts, read the media releases, followed along. Sometimes it was high on my list of daily thoughts, sometimes it was low on the list, however the fact remained that the case was something that hit fairly close to home, as rabbits are considered dual purpose animals - both livestock and pet. Potbelly pigs seem to occupy that same niche, as well as many other smaller animals typically considered farm animals. It's an awkward place to find yourself, if you own these animals. Where do you stop being a small hobby breeder or unusual pet owner and become a harbourer of livestock?
At first, it seemed pretty cut and dry. Eli is a potbelly pig, raised in the home. He is house trained, he walks on a leash, he is (presumably) provided required vet care. However, according to the bylaw in Strathcoma County, there is no exception for potbelly pigs to be considered pets, because all pigs(potbelly or otherwise) are considered swine, and are thus considered livestock. A neighbour complained, the bylaw officer checked it out, and found that yes indeed there was a potbelly pig in the home, and the owner was charged with harbouring livestock. The owner then set about fighting the charge, trying to prove that her pig was not livestock but a pet, and that he should be allowed to stay. As of this writing, he is still in the home, despite the owner being found guilty in a court of law for harbouring livestock. Eli now has some time while the courts move forward with getting permission to remove the pig from the home, if he is not voluntarily relocated.
Sounds like the government is outstepping their boundaries, does it not? I mean, they're trying to forcibly remove a beloved pet from its home, an animal that is a certified therapy animal, that has done nothing wrong, that has received an award from the county for work as a therapy animal. The county should simply allow an exception for Eli, so he can remain with his family forever, and the neighbour should be put in jail for being so mean and heartless!!!
Not exactly...
See, according to some reading I've done, there's not actually any governing body that certifies potbelly pigs as therapy animals. There's no specific training for therapy animals at all. Any animal with a good disposition can be taken through a short course with one or two bodies and become an approved therapy animal, but therapy animals are not exempt from local bylaws. Service animals, however, do have a rigorous training process and certification process and are exempt from local bylaws(within reason).
Oh, and Eli's supposed therapy animal certification has never been provided.
Also, the pig's owner was the one who received the award from the county, not for Eli and his work as a therapy pig, but for other works that she has done.
And the pig's owner has been reported as saying that she doesn't think ALL potbelly pigs should be allowed in her county, but that an exception should be made for Eli.
To read the group with the intent of saving Eli(it's an open group, go have a gander, I'll wait...), you would think that the county officials are going out of their way to make Eli's family suffer, that they've arbitrarily chosen to torture them. The members of this group blindly follow Eli's struggles, offering support and bling approval of all that is said or suggested. The group seems to believe that the county intends to take Eli and butcher him, or put him down or torture him. It's as though they believe that the county officials are simply acting in malice, and this has nothing to do with the law. Initially, I thought this way. Then I read more. And realized that no, the government was not attempting to forcibly remove Eli into a life of suffering, but that they are required to enforce a bylaw when a complaint is made. The county, in fact, offered a list of people/places that were willing to help with the rehoming of Eli, many being close enough that the family would still be able to visit him. They offered the correct manner in which to have the bylaw reviewed and changed, if the taxpayers of the county agree with the change. They offered to work with the family AFTER the complaint was satisfied and the bylaw enforced. They want the change to be made, but need the person attempting to make the change to go through the proper channels.
These politicians are not trying to be the bad guys. They're trying to help direct the misguided masses who insist that if enough pressure is put on the politicians, they'll cave and give into the demands. The politicians simply need this to follow procedure, and have done what they can to make it as easy as possible.
The fact of the matter remains, however, that while the pig is still living in the home, they are still considered to be harbouring livestock, and that means that there is still an open complaint under the current bylaw.
God helps those who help themselves, and those campaigning for Eli are not helping themselves at all.
They've been told that online petitions have no legal merit, they persist in sending the petitions around. They are collecting donations to pay legal fees, instead of merely relocating the pig for a few weeks while they get the bylaw changed. They are shooting themselves in the foot by attacking politicians and local counsel members. They are alienating their potential supporters by talking down about breeders, and by trying to drag the legal classification of rabbits into their mess.
In short, while I do feel badly that they were caught breaking the bylaw, they have lost my support by being rude, ineffective and refusing to consider a compromise while pushing forth a change of the bylaw. Instead of helping themselves, they're just trying to drag everyone possible down with them.