good point but you are forgetting that many of the animals that were established were not purposefully released but escaped from roadside non-accredited zoos near the everglades during several hurricanes. There were also regulation already in place requiring owners to apply for a permit and then get the snakes PIT tagged by a certain size. These were enough to stop further releasing of the large constrictors but lawmakers thought "if we ban them the ones established in the everglades will just disappear" and that is what happened...
The Ohio situation. Read- this may effect us all
- Thread starter snakeguy101
- Start date
good point but you are forgetting that many of the animals that were established were not purposefully released but escaped from roadside non-accredited zoos near the everglades during several hurricanes. There were also regulation already in place requiring owners to apply for a permit and then get the snakes PIT tagged by a certain size. These were enough to stop further releasing of the large constrictors but lawmakers thought "if we ban them the ones established in the everglades will just disappear" and that is what happened...
So neither of you two have ever made a mistake or had anything go wrong? Congratulations your the only two on the planet. I don't know the answers to your specifics, nor do I need to comment on your situation. I do know things can/do go wrong. ERs and insurance adjusters are quit busy. There are certain things that are more damaging when bad happens, the line needs drawn somewhere with animals it exotic large mammals. There is no individual(s) that have or should have the right to keep such animals
With Zoos they need to be heavily regulated but that is another story.
Guys, this is America: If we want to let the government slowly strip us of our rights, then so be it. I mean, we have the right to allow of freedom to be restricted, so it's fine. We all need to become a little more domesticated anyway, right?
Anyway, each right that they take away is one step closer towards being in the same position that we were in when the United States were just another British colony: Everything was strictly regulated while corporations corrupt officials had the final say, and you couldn't do anything about it (sounds like modern times to me, huh).
To say that a responsible person can't keep a certain animal in a secure setting just because someone views it as dangerous is wrong. That's a risk that they choose to accept, and no one has the right to say that they can't take said risk if they're going to keep that animal in a secure setting.
It doesn't help when members of the animal keeping community decide to turn against a segment of the community if efforts to appease their enemy (HSUS, PETA, overzealous politicians/people, etc.). The problem is that these enemies don't intend on letting you keep your pets; they just want to eliminate the keeping of anything that's not domesticated and eventually eliminate pets altogether. By serving up part of the community on a platter, you effectively slit your own throat in order to try to buy some time for yourself. You don't care about anyone else; you just want to try to keep everything the same for you. Sooner or later, your segment of the hobby will come under fire, and you'll want help from others, but they're not going to help you. Oh, no, you betrayed them by saying, "Oh, that's okay. They don't need the right to keep those animals, so ban the keeping of those animals," while thinking that your segment will remain untouched even though it inevitably will not be spared. All you have done is given them a taste of victory, an appetizer of the feast to come. It's tough to regain freedoms once they are lost, so choose wisely. Remember: Do not give them an inch because they will try to take a mile.
As I said previously: United, we are strong; divided, we fall.
Anyway, each right that they take away is one step closer towards being in the same position that we were in when the United States were just another British colony: Everything was strictly regulated while corporations corrupt officials had the final say, and you couldn't do anything about it (sounds like modern times to me, huh).
To say that a responsible person can't keep a certain animal in a secure setting just because someone views it as dangerous is wrong. That's a risk that they choose to accept, and no one has the right to say that they can't take said risk if they're going to keep that animal in a secure setting.
It doesn't help when members of the animal keeping community decide to turn against a segment of the community if efforts to appease their enemy (HSUS, PETA, overzealous politicians/people, etc.). The problem is that these enemies don't intend on letting you keep your pets; they just want to eliminate the keeping of anything that's not domesticated and eventually eliminate pets altogether. By serving up part of the community on a platter, you effectively slit your own throat in order to try to buy some time for yourself. You don't care about anyone else; you just want to try to keep everything the same for you. Sooner or later, your segment of the hobby will come under fire, and you'll want help from others, but they're not going to help you. Oh, no, you betrayed them by saying, "Oh, that's okay. They don't need the right to keep those animals, so ban the keeping of those animals," while thinking that your segment will remain untouched even though it inevitably will not be spared. All you have done is given them a taste of victory, an appetizer of the feast to come. It's tough to regain freedoms once they are lost, so choose wisely. Remember: Do not give them an inch because they will try to take a mile.
As I said previously: United, we are strong; divided, we fall.
I have never had an escape and never had a bite. I know the same is true for LP as well. As for the rest of your post- I could not understand what you were saying or point you were making. As I have stated before, I know plenty of responsible exotic keepers (some with mammals and many with venomous or other large/ "dangerous" reptiles) that have never had a single incident either. All I ask is that you keep your mind open that not every exotic owner is some red neck animal abuser as was the case in Zanesville.
Again, when you think about the relatively large number of permitted private exotic keepers compared to the smaller number of AZA accredited zoos in the US you will find that zoos have a higher incident rate and a higher risk of bystanders getting injured. I am not against zoos (I used to work for one), I just do not understand why they take the stance that they are the only ones that should keep animals that are not domesticated or why the public turns to them to form our regulations.
Point is, bad things happen. Even to those that are most prepared. Your situation doesn't really apply since we are talking LARGE EXOTIC MAMMALS. But in your case, you've been broken into before, right? You no have measures set for this to never happen again or is that just an impossible thing?
That's how many scientist-type people are; they view others who are not them as unqualified and therefore inferior. Sure, there are are exceptions to the rule, but they can be few and far between.
Yes I have and I added a security camera, got new reinforced locks, and obtained a gun (more for me to shoot at the range for fun but I don't mind having the piece of mind either). I didn't barricade my door so that nothing can come in or out. That is how I view the response to this ban. Yes bad things happen and there should be things in place to minimize damage. You are never going to prevent it.
God I wish we had rep buttons....
ryan, chad and esp chris all hit the nails on the head. Perfectly!!
ryan, chad and esp chris all hit the nails on the head. Perfectly!!
Sneaky government banking on traditionalist values in an attempt to stop modern progress in pet keeping? Sneaky b****rds. Sorry, I have an issue with tradition, which I see as a hamper to progress. Therefore, LP, your ideas about breaking laws=stupid? Nonsense. It is dependent on what law, why that law and is up to logic itself to justify the need, with practicality being the foremost priority. Secondly, what needs to be done is a very obvious re-evaluation of the reptile industry, but this is flawed both ways. Firstly, you have the tards citing snakes as traditionally dangerous, and the industry itself trying to minimalise losses. If no one is actually able to soundly, and with equal, fair judgement, decide on the possible compromise, then perhaps we will make no progress. Of course, we have the stupid government perhaps, as many said, creating laws but not enforcing it, which also means we are suffering the by-products of the enforcement's flaws.
Again if you see my original post you'll note I pointed out it was in absence of a standing military.
Shall every citizen be armed with nukes so they can defend themselves from their government??? In the grand scheme of things there isn't much in the way of a firearm that will defend against the US military, lol. The realities when the law was written are different that what we have now. Intent and context matter. No prior pretense of Armament matters anymore, therefore we must establish a new and current dialogue with regards to weapons. I'm not saying BAN GUNS here I'm just saying the classic dialogue surrounding the issue is grossly irrelevant. Can't have a discussion if both sides are not speaking truths ya know. We have the privilege of voting to protect us from our government, both with our ballet and with our dollar.
