Nevada Animal Owners Sportsman-Voting Alliance 2007
Candidate Response
Submitted by Patrick Antonio Ferguson
Candidate for Municipal Judge Department 6 (2 Year Term)
THIS CANDIDATE IS ENDORSED BY THE NAOS-VA
* Do you or anyone in your immediate family own a dog, cat, ferret, etc.?
Answer: No. Although I grew up with numerous dogs (as many as 10 at once!) and even a
cat for a while, I do not currently own a pet. My in-laws grew attached to and kept my
wife's pug, leaving us pet-less.
* Is your animal spayed or neutered?
Answer: N/A.
* Do you support any animal rescue organizations or shelters?
Answer: Not recently.
* Do you or anyone in your immediate family hunt, with or without a dog?
Answer: No. My grandfather was a hunter and used to keep dogs just for that purpose,
but I haven't hunted since I was a boy.
* Do you philosophically support any animal rights or animal protection organizations?
If so, please identify the organizations.
Answer: I philosophically oppose unnecessary cruelty, but neither support nor identify
with any animal protection organizations.
* Do any animal rights or animal protection organizations endorse you as a candidate or
financially support your campaign?
Answer: No.
* Do you support intrusive pet legislation, such as the proposed federal law on breeding
frequency and a dog's parenting age (the so-called "Puppy Protection Act," H.R.3484)?
Answer: No, but I do support laws prohibiting and punishing unnecessary cruelty or
neglect.
* Should pets be granted legal rights and accorded "guardianships?"
Answer: Generally, no. If you are referring solely to the concept of making a pet the
beneficiary of a will or trust, I have no problem with a person of sound mind disposing of
his or her property however s/he sees fit, including leaving it for the benefit of a pet.
However, as animal neglect and cruelty laws currently protect animals from undue harm,
I see no need to grant pets "rights" like those currently accorded only to people, or to
otherwise legally redefine the relationship between pets and their owners.
* Do you support the states' prerogatives to manage their resident wildlife populations
and establish local hunting regulations, without federal interference?
Answer: Yes, but with reservations. I do not oppose federal legislation requiring states to
take appropriate steps to preserve endangered or otherwise threatened species, nor would
I oppose legislation that prevented one state from unduly burdening another with its
regulatory scheme (e.g., State A, which contains numerous hunting grounds for Species
X, but shares one of them with State B, this being State B's only hunting ground for
Species X, allows hunting of Species X to near extinction in its portion of the hunting
ground located on the border between the two states, thus depriving State B of its fare
share of sport-hunting for Species X).
* What is your position on the following animal and/or hunting related issues?
A. Hunting, including the use of hunting dogs
Answer: If the hunt is pursued humanely, I have no objection to hunting, with or without
dogs; it is a part of American culture and a sport enjoyed by thousands of Americans.
However, the slow, vicious slaughter of prey by a pack of dogs seems little better than
illegal animal fighting.
B. Fishing:
Answer: Let's work to keep it simple. In some states, the rules and regulations regarding
which fish may be caught, the manner in which they may be caught, and the size, weight,
and quantity in which they may be caught are dizzying. While I appreciate the need for
conservation, I have seen too many hapless recreational fishermen hauled into court to
explain why they fished in the wrong river with the wrong hook on the wrong day. If you
have to be an expert just to follow all the regulations, the sport will be lost to many
people. We should protect the weekend fisherman as well as the fish.
C. Animal medical research:
Answer: So long as the research is performed as humanely as reasonably possible in
pursuit of legitimate scientific goals, it should be permitted.
D. Animal ownership and breeding (including pets, livestock, research animals)
Answer: Decisions regarding the breeding of pets, livestock, and research animals should
be made with veterinary consultation to protect the animals from undue risk and needless
harm.
Thank you for your interest.
Best regards,
PATRICK ANTONIO FERGUSON Non-Partisan
Web: http://www.fergie4da.com
Email: fergie4da@aol.com
Fax: 702-973-2914 - Phone: 702 239-0638 - Bus' Ph: 702-486-3126
Candidate Response
Submitted by Patrick Antonio Ferguson
Candidate for Municipal Judge Department 6 (2 Year Term)
THIS CANDIDATE IS ENDORSED BY THE NAOS-VA
* Do you or anyone in your immediate family own a dog, cat, ferret, etc.?
Answer: No. Although I grew up with numerous dogs (as many as 10 at once!) and even a
cat for a while, I do not currently own a pet. My in-laws grew attached to and kept my
wife's pug, leaving us pet-less.
* Is your animal spayed or neutered?
Answer: N/A.
* Do you support any animal rescue organizations or shelters?
Answer: Not recently.
* Do you or anyone in your immediate family hunt, with or without a dog?
Answer: No. My grandfather was a hunter and used to keep dogs just for that purpose,
but I haven't hunted since I was a boy.
* Do you philosophically support any animal rights or animal protection organizations?
If so, please identify the organizations.
Answer: I philosophically oppose unnecessary cruelty, but neither support nor identify
with any animal protection organizations.
* Do any animal rights or animal protection organizations endorse you as a candidate or
financially support your campaign?
Answer: No.
* Do you support intrusive pet legislation, such as the proposed federal law on breeding
frequency and a dog's parenting age (the so-called "Puppy Protection Act," H.R.3484)?
Answer: No, but I do support laws prohibiting and punishing unnecessary cruelty or
neglect.
* Should pets be granted legal rights and accorded "guardianships?"
Answer: Generally, no. If you are referring solely to the concept of making a pet the
beneficiary of a will or trust, I have no problem with a person of sound mind disposing of
his or her property however s/he sees fit, including leaving it for the benefit of a pet.
However, as animal neglect and cruelty laws currently protect animals from undue harm,
I see no need to grant pets "rights" like those currently accorded only to people, or to
otherwise legally redefine the relationship between pets and their owners.
* Do you support the states' prerogatives to manage their resident wildlife populations
and establish local hunting regulations, without federal interference?
Answer: Yes, but with reservations. I do not oppose federal legislation requiring states to
take appropriate steps to preserve endangered or otherwise threatened species, nor would
I oppose legislation that prevented one state from unduly burdening another with its
regulatory scheme (e.g., State A, which contains numerous hunting grounds for Species
X, but shares one of them with State B, this being State B's only hunting ground for
Species X, allows hunting of Species X to near extinction in its portion of the hunting
ground located on the border between the two states, thus depriving State B of its fare
share of sport-hunting for Species X).
* What is your position on the following animal and/or hunting related issues?
A. Hunting, including the use of hunting dogs
Answer: If the hunt is pursued humanely, I have no objection to hunting, with or without
dogs; it is a part of American culture and a sport enjoyed by thousands of Americans.
However, the slow, vicious slaughter of prey by a pack of dogs seems little better than
illegal animal fighting.
B. Fishing:
Answer: Let's work to keep it simple. In some states, the rules and regulations regarding
which fish may be caught, the manner in which they may be caught, and the size, weight,
and quantity in which they may be caught are dizzying. While I appreciate the need for
conservation, I have seen too many hapless recreational fishermen hauled into court to
explain why they fished in the wrong river with the wrong hook on the wrong day. If you
have to be an expert just to follow all the regulations, the sport will be lost to many
people. We should protect the weekend fisherman as well as the fish.
C. Animal medical research:
Answer: So long as the research is performed as humanely as reasonably possible in
pursuit of legitimate scientific goals, it should be permitted.
D. Animal ownership and breeding (including pets, livestock, research animals)
Answer: Decisions regarding the breeding of pets, livestock, and research animals should
be made with veterinary consultation to protect the animals from undue risk and needless
harm.
Thank you for your interest.
Best regards,
PATRICK ANTONIO FERGUSON Non-Partisan
Web: http://www.fergie4da.com
Email: fergie4da@aol.com
Fax: 702-973-2914 - Phone: 702 239-0638 - Bus' Ph: 702-486-3126
