Before I state anything else I feel the need to clarify a few key points about this retort. First and foremost is who I represent: I am not a leader of the "zoo community", I am simply a zoo who happens to have sat down and created a webpage - so don't assume that I speak for anyone but myself. Anything else herein is my opinion or my own speculation. My goal is to dispel the fallacies and incorrect assumptions being disseminated from a variety of sources, not to attack the character of the people involved.

      Now that all of the introductory nonsense is out of the way, I can move on to the subject at hand. I realize that for every group of people there is another group who views the subject differently, such is the way of things. I am; however, surprised at false data being used to cast a dark pallor on an already poorly understood subject such as zoophilia.

      Here , the HSUS list a number of arrests and, in so doing, imply that zoophiles are amoral and violent. This list seems at first very impressive and serves quite well to associate zoophilic behavior with criminal behavior. On closer inspection however, it will be realized that the list of arrests was created for its shock value. Some of the people were arrested for violent behavior, others because they lived in states in which bestiality is illegal. Just because zoophiles are known for having sexual relations with animals does not imply that every person who has intercourse with an animal is a zoophile. I could present here a list of names of people who were arrested for killing innocent bystanders at various protests, but this would not mean that all protesters are violent people intent on violating the law. Furthermore, I could make a list of people who had violated a law because they felt the law was unconstitutional. Among these latter names would be Jane Pitman, who refused to relinquish her seat on a bus just because of the color of her skin. A list of arrests proves nothing other than the fact that these people were arrested. My point here is not to diminish the impact of the violent crimes reported on the list, nor is it to imply that any of these people were falsely accused or even that they were right, but to show that this list is not a representation of zoophiles.

      An issue that comes up often in discussions about internet is that of pornography. While I do not promote pornography, I do not condone it either. The issue that the HSUS makes here is the easy accessibility of such sites. Here I agree with the first part of this page. The easy access to pornography (whether it is bestiality, bondage, or any other form) is a matter of concern. There are several specific words that someone looking specificly for pornography would type. If the various pornography sites were to police themselves and limit the keywords they use; then they would still find their customers and reduce the accidental exposure rate. This is not an issue that exists only among the bestiality sites (which are frequently accessed by "normal heterosexual males" more than by zoophiles), but is developing into a serious problem for the entire internet sex industry.

      Later on the same page however, the HSUS presents the viewer with a list of websites. It should be noted that they did not provide links to the listed pages. If they were looking for "evidence" of malicious abusive behavior then providing links would only demonstrate that such would not be found on a zoophiles page. I can only assume that the HSUS intended people to take their word for it and not check the information themselves. With the possible exception of various animal rights groups, it would be difficult to find a group of people equally concerned about animal welfare than the average zoophile.

      In the last section of the page, the HSUS presents quotes and snippets from A.S.B. and potentially a few other locations. The problem here is that many of the quotes have been altered, "edited for content" one might call it. They have scanned posts from zoophiles and others (yes, some of the people who post and visit zoophile sites are not zoos) looking for statements that have one or two lines that can be taken out of context and warped. Other statements are those posted by people who are not zoophiles, but still visit the various sites.

      In the next section the HSUS deliver a number of quotes. This too seems valid at first, but when one looks first at the statements themselves and then at the names - a few issues arise. The first issue is that of context. Were all of these quotes delivered with the full content of the quote or were any of them "edited" to deliver a quote that is more in agreement with the HSUS. Second, there are nine quotes from seven people - three of whom are members of the HSUS. I don't believe anything further need be said about this section.

      Here the HSUS gives a rough outline of of their suggested legislation. I wholeheartedly agree that there should be penalties for people who would neglect, beat, or kill an animal for their own perverse pleasure. I couldn't agree more with those issues, but having a loving relationship with an animal should not be criminalized. I have never known of a zoo who would risk physical or emotional harm to their partner, doing so would be absurd. This proposed legislation is yet another pass at the age old philosophy that we should destroy anything that we don't understand. It is the same type of thinking that leads to discrimination. I note that animal husbandry has been deliberately excluded. Why, if it is so traumatic to the animal has this been left in place?

      In conclusion, I would like to state that if groups such as the HSUS were to research their subject they would find that there is no evidence that zoophiles are a menace. Quite the contrary, it would be seen that zoophiles are average citizens who happen to find love in an unusual companion.

by Tache