The Ohio situation. Read- this may effect us all

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Epic win post


A. gigas said:
A dog, a cat, a bird, a ferret, a fish, a snake, a frog or a spider. Each is a pet to someone. Each is loved in a way that is special to its owner. Some are not quite your fancy while another is perfect for you.

Across the United States more than 65 million of us choose to have a pet and I respect the rights of every single one of them to responsibly do so. I myself have never owned or wanted to own a spider but I completely understand the affection and awe that arachnid lovers have for their creatures. Nobody is likely to argue that they are as affectionate as a dog, but you know what? They don’t have to be in order to be a pet. Being a pet owner is not always about companionship. It is about many other things. Things like personal responsibility, a sense of wonder, a deeper understanding of and a connection with nature, and a sense of pride for the way you care for your animal. All of those are valid reasons for pet ownership.

Millions of Americans own spiders. Millions more own reptiles or birds. Multiple millions more have a dog or a cat. I have never questioned the choice of pet that an individual makes. Your choice to be a responsible pet owner is good enough for me. The family that chooses a dog as their family pet is just as correct as the couple who has a pet python or the little girl who has a pet hamster.

Being a pet owner is a common bond shared by multiple millions of responsible Americans. It is unlikely that I will ever own a spider or a ferret or a bird but I will absolutely defend the rights of other Americans to do so. For their own misguided reasons there are people out there who think they need to inflict their peronal preferences on you and me. They choose not to own pets of a particular persuasion and feel that nobody else should either. There is something inherintly audacious and conceited in that perspective and it disappoints me. They trumpet their cause under the banner of “humane treatment”, “protecting the environment” or “public safety” but the reality is that they want the world to be as they see it. They don’t accept that a diverse group of people make diverse choices in pets. Their desire to force-feed us their view of the world pushes me toward anger. What is even more disappointing is their saavy ability to abuse the political processes in our country to push closer to their desired end.

Around this country pet ownership is under attack. It is happening at the local, state and federal level. The rights of dog breeders have been crushed in Tennessee and the rights of reptile owners are in jeopardy in Florida and nationally. I’m sure that bird owners and breeders are under attack somewhere right now and I don’t even know about it. Pet owners, because of their diversity have had a historical lack of cohesion. Within small groups (usually by choice of animal) we fight against those who want to take away our rights. But the small size of each group diminishes our voice. The enemies of pet ownership know this and have been using it against us for a long time. When the day comes that we start to look at one another as “pet owners” and not bird owners, snake owners, dog owners or cat owners we will become a much more powerful voice against those who are working to limit or eliminate our pet owning rights. The combined voices of the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and all the other organizations seeking to limit or end the rights of pet owners are a mere whimper when compared to the power of a collective voice of all pet owners in America. Think about it.

If humans are the custodians of this planet then keeping pets is a link to that greater responsibility. Pet ownership is an attachment to nature and a doorway to a lifetime of learning for many young Americans. We (as in ALL pet owners) must all work collectively to protect that right.

~Colin Weaver


I could not have said it better than this!
Click to expand...
 
The knee jerk reaction is what scares me. If politicians stopped and thought(lack that ability) we wouldnt have to worry but we all know that aint happening.

I just know my chance of getting my serval is now zero
 
I just know my chance of getting my serval is now zero
Click to expand...

i feel ya there....i have wanted one for years but have not gotten one, even with it being legal in ohio, because i don't have the space or ability to care for one right now.

and just a little response to some of the people that posted at the beginning of this thread, not everyone from ohio is a hillbilly nor should we be looked at that way. they did what they had to do to protect the community, and i seriously doubt any of them felt good about it.

as far as the ban on exotics, i don't think any should be banned, but stronger regulations are needed. i personally don't see a reason why anyone would think they can care for a tiger, but if they are capable more power to them. regulations are needed, not bans. i do believe that if they start placing bans on exotics, all of us as pet owners will pay for it eventually
 
Maybe we can just go all out and clone Dinosaurs for us to keep as pets. A couple of T-rexs, herd of anklyosaurus & Triceratops, a flock of teradons would make awsome pets. Maybe we could even do Megaladon!

Personally I want a Freakin' Kraken to unleash on my state!
 
Lepisosteus platyrhincus said:
The knee jerk reaction is what scares me.
Click to expand...

That's the thing with politics and laws/regulation. It's all reactive, not proactive like it should be. Just look at all the major events that have taken place, and all the knee-jerk reactive regulation that gets put in place afterwards. 9/11, school shootings, and any other 'shocking' events. It's all knee-jerk. When something like that happens, they scramble around trying to put regulation in place to prevent it from happening again.
 
jcardona1 said:
Owning guns makes you a nut bag? I'd say he was more a nut bag for keeping the animals he kept, but whatever...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the illegal possession of certain types of guns coupled with having a history of abuse and neglect would qualify one as a "nut bag." The more I read up on this situation, the more I see that it could have been prevented years ago when the police threatened to take the animals back in 2005 because of improper caging yet they did nothing even when he didn't make the necessary changes.
 
Wiggles92 said:
I'm pretty sure the illegal possession of certain types of guns coupled with having a history of abuse and neglect would qualify one as a "nut bag." The more I read up on this situation, the more I see that it could have been prevented years ago when the police threatened to take the animals back in 2005 because of improper caging yet they did nothing even when he didn't make the necessary changes.
Click to expand...

When you look at the situation and research what happened it quickly becomes apparent that:

A. This guy was a nutbag
B. Everyone new it and did almost nothing about it.
C. He violated every law but it didn't make a difference because the sheriff wasn't in the habit of enforcing the laws.

The whole trip Jack Hanna is on is kinda redundant, had the state and local authorities done their jobs he wouldn't have still possessed the animals and couldn't have released them. In this case more laws probably wouldn't have stopped him because the sheriff wasn't enforcing what he had already. I'd be fine saying yeah get in there and regulate this stuff except that regulation or lack there of isn't really the culprit here, its bad law enforcement and bad pet stewardship. The pet owner is dead so one loose end is tied up but what about the sheriff???
 
jcardona1 said:
Owning guns makes you a nut bag? I'd say he was more a nut bag for keeping the animals he kept, but whatever...
Click to expand...

You do know im an avid gun owner right? He is a nutbag for owning ILLEGAL machine guns. Not guns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom