BRAD LEUTWYLER - United States Congress
* Do you or anyone in your immediate family own a dog, cat, ferret, etc.?
Yes. Dogs.
* Do you or anyone in your immediate family hunt, with or without a dog?
Yes, and we own many guns.
* Do you support any animal rescue organizations or shelters?
Yes. The JRT rescue and Lied Animal Shelter.
* Do you philosophically support any animal rights or animal protection organizations? If
so,please identify the organizations.
Just animal rescue programs and the shelters that care for the pets of irresponsible pet
owners. It is tragic when a good dog is destroyed because some irresponsible person
failed to care for their animal(s) properly. If I can save a good dog from destruction, I will
try.I do not support any "Animal Rights" groups philosophically, because animals do not
have rights. We should treat them with due respect, because all life is sacred and should
be honored. Killing an animal for food is not wrong though, nor is it disrespectful. It is
NATURE
* Do any animal rights or animal protection organizations endorse you as a candidate or
financially support your campaign?
No. My suspicion is that they do not like me, because I believe PETA stands for, "People
Eating Tasty Animals" and have a tee-shirt that reads, "my way to the top of the food chain
to eat salad." I believe that the majority of animal rights organizations are misguided in
their position that animals have "rights".
* Should Spaying or Neutering of an animal be controlled by the government through
legislation or should it be left between a veterinarian and their client to decide?
The federal government has no constitutional authority to be engaged >in such
interference.
* Do you believe that animal owners should have their status as owners changed to the
status of guardians? As a guardian you do not own your animals, you are strictly a
caretaker?
No. Animals are property. Guardianship is not for property it is for beings with rights.
* Do you support the states' prerogatives to manage their resident wildlife populations
and establish local hunting regulations, without federal interference?
The federal government's role in game management is is limited because the constitution
gives the federal government very little room to be involved in such matters. Attaching
conditions to federal funding for state game management strikes me as wrong, as>that is
essentially de facto legislating.
* Do you believe in peoples rights to own (responsibly) any animal of their choice,
regardless of species: exotic or domestic?
All rights not expressly granted to the government in the constitution are retained by the
people. That having been said, it is important to note that there are, occasionally, health
and safety issues associated with animal ownership. Few reasonable people would argue
against the government regulating when and where a person can own a lion or a cobra:
we all know people who we do NOT want owning a Tiger. So long as there is a rational
basis for such a regulation (rational meaning that there is a health or safety issue) the law
clearly states that the constitution allows the government to regulate such ownership.
Otherwise, there are few rationales for the government to be involved.
* Do you believe it is okay to discriminate against exotic animal owners through unfair
bans?
This begs the question: it presupposes that certain bans are "unfair" and that such bans
are "discriminatory". Without a cogent explanation as to what you mean, I cannot answer
this, though I believe some of the other answers may indicate my philosophy concerning
the government's role.
What is your position on the following animal and/or hunting related issues?
a) Hunting, including the use
Hunting is a good thing, and most animals are quite tasty. Many Americans enjoy it, and
many rely upon it for a source of food. Government regulation should be minimal.
b) Fishing
Identical to hunting.
c) Animal medical research
Better them than me. The communities which engage in such activities should have their
own ethical guidelines. The marketplace wil determine whether those are adequate: if you
do not like what a cosmetic company is doing to bunnies, don't buy their cosmetics. If you
are ambivalent or do not mind that your products are safer for you and your family
because of animal testing, buy them. Sure, if I ran a company like that and I could
cost-effectively achieve great results without using animals I would probably do so: you
do not subject life to pain unnecessarily. Does that mean that the government should
impose my views on others? I answer, "No."
d) Animal ownership and breeding (including pet & livestock breeding, research animals,
circuses and rodeos)
I grew up in a farming community, going to rodeos (Pendleton Roundup etc.) and raising
livestock on our farm. The communities which engage in such activities should have their
own ethical guidelines. The marketplace wil determine whether those are adequate.
Government regulation should not. We are a nation built upon the ownership and
breeding of animals. Without horses, cattle, sheep, chickens, livestock etc. we never
could have come this far. It should be encouraged and the free market should determine
the success, failure and approach taken, not government intervention. Government's
role should be limited to health and safety as it relates to human consumption, disease
control etc.
Yes. Dogs.
* Do you or anyone in your immediate family hunt, with or without a dog?
Yes, and we own many guns.
* Do you support any animal rescue organizations or shelters?
Yes. The JRT rescue and Lied Animal Shelter.
* Do you philosophically support any animal rights or animal protection organizations? If
so,please identify the organizations.
Just animal rescue programs and the shelters that care for the pets of irresponsible pet
owners. It is tragic when a good dog is destroyed because some irresponsible person
failed to care for their animal(s) properly. If I can save a good dog from destruction, I will
try.I do not support any "Animal Rights" groups philosophically, because animals do not
have rights. We should treat them with due respect, because all life is sacred and should
be honored. Killing an animal for food is not wrong though, nor is it disrespectful. It is
NATURE
* Do any animal rights or animal protection organizations endorse you as a candidate or
financially support your campaign?
No. My suspicion is that they do not like me, because I believe PETA stands for, "People
Eating Tasty Animals" and have a tee-shirt that reads, "my way to the top of the food chain
to eat salad." I believe that the majority of animal rights organizations are misguided in
their position that animals have "rights".
* Should Spaying or Neutering of an animal be controlled by the government through
legislation or should it be left between a veterinarian and their client to decide?
The federal government has no constitutional authority to be engaged >in such
interference.
* Do you believe that animal owners should have their status as owners changed to the
status of guardians? As a guardian you do not own your animals, you are strictly a
caretaker?
No. Animals are property. Guardianship is not for property it is for beings with rights.
* Do you support the states' prerogatives to manage their resident wildlife populations
and establish local hunting regulations, without federal interference?
The federal government's role in game management is is limited because the constitution
gives the federal government very little room to be involved in such matters. Attaching
conditions to federal funding for state game management strikes me as wrong, as>that is
essentially de facto legislating.
* Do you believe in peoples rights to own (responsibly) any animal of their choice,
regardless of species: exotic or domestic?
All rights not expressly granted to the government in the constitution are retained by the
people. That having been said, it is important to note that there are, occasionally, health
and safety issues associated with animal ownership. Few reasonable people would argue
against the government regulating when and where a person can own a lion or a cobra:
we all know people who we do NOT want owning a Tiger. So long as there is a rational
basis for such a regulation (rational meaning that there is a health or safety issue) the law
clearly states that the constitution allows the government to regulate such ownership.
Otherwise, there are few rationales for the government to be involved.
* Do you believe it is okay to discriminate against exotic animal owners through unfair
bans?
This begs the question: it presupposes that certain bans are "unfair" and that such bans
are "discriminatory". Without a cogent explanation as to what you mean, I cannot answer
this, though I believe some of the other answers may indicate my philosophy concerning
the government's role.
What is your position on the following animal and/or hunting related issues?
a) Hunting, including the use
Hunting is a good thing, and most animals are quite tasty. Many Americans enjoy it, and
many rely upon it for a source of food. Government regulation should be minimal.
b) Fishing
Identical to hunting.
c) Animal medical research
Better them than me. The communities which engage in such activities should have their
own ethical guidelines. The marketplace wil determine whether those are adequate: if you
do not like what a cosmetic company is doing to bunnies, don't buy their cosmetics. If you
are ambivalent or do not mind that your products are safer for you and your family
because of animal testing, buy them. Sure, if I ran a company like that and I could
cost-effectively achieve great results without using animals I would probably do so: you
do not subject life to pain unnecessarily. Does that mean that the government should
impose my views on others? I answer, "No."
d) Animal ownership and breeding (including pet & livestock breeding, research animals,
circuses and rodeos)
I grew up in a farming community, going to rodeos (Pendleton Roundup etc.) and raising
livestock on our farm. The communities which engage in such activities should have their
own ethical guidelines. The marketplace wil determine whether those are adequate.
Government regulation should not. We are a nation built upon the ownership and
breeding of animals. Without horses, cattle, sheep, chickens, livestock etc. we never
could have come this far. It should be encouraged and the free market should determine
the success, failure and approach taken, not government intervention. Government's
role should be limited to health and safety as it relates to human consumption, disease
control etc.
|
