The Ohio situation. Read- this may effect us all

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
jcardona1 said:
Yeah I think so. But it just seems like there's so few places in the country that could actually provide large parcels of land to these big, wild animals. The hard part is, who and how would determine what is appropriate for each type of animal?



:ROFL: At least we're getting somewhere



:ROFL: I think we agreed that we agree while disagreeing on our agreements.
Click to expand...

yeah you pretty much summed it up. I think with a basic level of regulation in place, say permits to start even an ambiguous law is sufficient to do LOTS. I mean the whole thing is all you need the moment you require permits is one or two loose infractions/justifications to pull the permit and re-house the animal. As far as rehousing goes as stated in prior posts there are a small but ever present community of land rich individuals that can help fill this void I expect. At any rate just putting up any level of restriction is a HUGE deterant to many people and gives you 10 times the recourse.

So who wants to move out to rural country get a huge farm and raise some lynx, bobcats, or fox???:ROFL:

Edit: forgot honey bears!
 
So now the real question, how do you turn this keyboard warrior MFK talk into real-world action? :)
 
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!
 
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...

Well put.
 
Honestly the herping industry should have started out slow and steady in the first place, but as with most things it didn't.
Anyone who says lions, tigers and the like are not pets? Come'on, that's essentially being drunk with traditional values, which have no basis. The practicality of keeping such large and dangerous creatures, is NOT a traditional value however, and that should be the sole factor for consideration, not a stupid ancestral idea about how only dogs and cats for example are "pets". Dogs evolved from wolves, the same could possibly happen to reptiles in your next few centuries essentially.
Also, the argument to conservation via captive propagation? That's crap. Nothing but a side effect and an excuse, to the actual ideas of pet keeping. Let's just say, the key is to stop exploitation.
Looking at fish keeping at a rational, intuitive point of view? Most tanks are almost certainly too small. Again, practicality prevents us from achieving really good living standards for the creatures, which is why we are subject to minimum values which are in the greatest sense, below the actual minimum, but the prevention of exploitation is the way to go.
 
snakefin said:
Honestly the herping industry should have started out slow and steady in the first place, but as with most things it didn't.
Anyone who says lions, tigers and the like are not pets? Come'on, that's essentially being drunk with traditional values, which have no basis. The practicality of keeping such large and dangerous creatures, is NOT a traditional value however, and that should be the sole factor for consideration, not a stupid ancestral idea about how only dogs and cats for example are "pets". Dogs evolved from wolves, the same could possibly happen to reptiles in your next few centuries essentially.
Also, the argument to conservation via captive propagation? That's crap. Nothing but a side effect and an excuse, to the actual ideas of pet keeping. Let's just say, the key is to stop exploitation.


Looking at fish keeping at a rational, intuitive point of view? Most tanks are almost certainly too small. Again, practicality prevents us from achieving really good living standards for the creatures, which is why we are subject to minimum values which are in the greatest sense, below the actual minimum, but the prevention of exploitation is the way to go.
Click to expand...

I'm so confused????
 
Im saddened at the post calling for strict laws for exotics. What everyone has to realisee is this guy was a nut bag that spent time in jail for illegal machine guns. This is not the norm!!!!!!!

And I saw someone mention gun lobby. Dude they have never got through any absurd legislation regarding firearms, heck the anti's have an illegally passed law on the books

Conservation through commercialization
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom