The Ohio situation. Read- this may effect us all

[kamikaziechameleon]

Exactly. It's hard to get sympathy for one's particular preferred group of animals if you've just sold out another group.

Even more than that the fundamental underlying principles of all pet keeping are identical, with only "dangerous" animals requiring any kinda extenuating circumstances were in neglect of these principles puts OTHER people in more immediate danger. This percieved danger is why we argue for supervision of said animals.

The oversight doesn't cost much it goes like this, law is past, no one extra is highered the license and inspection process is handled by and existing government entity on a case by case basis. As far as enforcement goes if you make it so that there is a law or process and someone circumvents it and an individual reports them/tips of the authorities there is now grounds for government involvement. No new agency and next to no extra tax payers funds spent, everyone is happy. Its not like tigers are the new rage and everyone is getting them ya know, the appeal of said animals is niche at best. I would point out that we have a major public and private infrastructure for handling of dogs and cats and bad owners, can't we exotic animal lovers share in this government love too, lol???

I'm getting a kick out of the, "zoo's are evil", "put them in the wild" calls we get on here only because if we did only that so many species would have already gone extinct. What is this wild you speak of??? There is no fair argument to rule against the private ownership of any animal when properly housed and cared for.

 

[rgonzales]

I disagree with people keeping domestic cats because of all the damage they can do but I'm not gonna support a ban on them either

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

The problem is that he's allied with the HSUS which advocates for the banning of keeping all exotic animals with the end goal of banning the keeping of all animals. People respect him and may come to do the same with the HSUS by association.

Another problem is that many people (probably over 50,000 by now) have signed that petition that I posted about earlier that called for banning keeping all exotic animals in OH yet said petition lacked any specific wording on exactly what animals to ban; if lawmakers listen to the people who signed the petition and the signatories do not wake up and realize what they've done, then a law that actually banned the keeping of all exotic animals in OH could easily come to pass solely because people get all worked up and then make rash decisions without actually stepping back to look over the situation.

OK, I'm totally understanding now. THATS BAD!!!

 

[Wiggles92]

Most people would consider stingrays, arowanas, etc. as exotic pets. Ask some of the California members how they feel about not being able to own rays because the state decided to ban them. What about Asian Aros and Snakeheads?

Exactly.

The Asian arowana thing is a bit more complex than just a ban (although they're legal in other countries if captive bred and have proper documentation); they are CITES listed and on the Endangered Species List after all. When it comes to snakeheads, it serves to show a good example of over-regulation thanks in part to a few individuals misdoings that resulted in an invasive species being introduced to our waterways that then led to a ban of all snakeheads despite the fact that most species pose little threat to humans and the native fauna and flora and most of those species are unable to survive through the winter in most, if not all, of the states.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

I disagree with people keeping domestic cats because of all the damage they can do but I'm not gonna support a ban on them either

Same, probably the worst domestic animal IMHO but I still wouldn't get behind legislation attacking the outright ownership.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

Exactly.

The Asian arowana thing is a bit more complex than just a ban (although they're legal in other countries if captive bred and have proper documentation); they are CITES listed and on the Endangered Species List after all. When it comes to snakeheads, it serves to show a good example of over-regulation thanks in part to a few individuals misdoings that resulted in an invasive species being introduced to our waterways that then led to a ban of all snakeheads despite the fact that most species pose little threat to humans and the native fauna and flora and most of those species are unable to survive through the winter in most, if not all, of the states.

yeah Asian arrows where saved by the aquarium trade and would have certainly died out due not only to illegal fishing but also from natural habitat destruction. Its a great example in favor of what we are talking about!

 

[jcardona1]

This percieved danger is why we argue for supervision of said animals.

I don't think so, not IMO at least. It's not just the danger factor. It's the animal. The species. There's a huge difference in the needs and care of a goldfish vs a shark. A common house cat vs a tiger. A bunny rabbit vs a bear. A hamster vs a monkey. That's my issue. There are just some animals that people have no business keeping as pets. It's naive to assume that because you ban certain exotic animals, it will include all common pets. And I'll say it again, why do people feel the need to keep some of these exotic animals as pets? Does it make you feel good? Powerful? Superior? A sense of accomplishment? Or your selfish materialistic tendencies?

 

[Wiggles92]

Well, it looks like there are at least 40,000 uniformed/stupid/crazy people (hopefully mostly uninformed) out there: Animals Petition: Gov. John Kasich: Ban the sale, ownership, and harboring of wild and exotic animals in Ohio.

Up to over 55,000 people now... The number of people who've signed this petition and their reasons for signing it is sickening; most of them are inadvertently going to be calling for the banning of animals that they currently keep as pets as well as the animals that they really want banned...

 

[Wiggles92]

I don't think so, not IMO at least. It's not just the danger factor. It's the animal. The species. There's a huge difference in the needs and care of a goldfish vs a shark. A common house cat vs a tiger. A bunny rabbit vs a bear. A hamster vs a monkey. That's my issue. There are just some animals that people have no business keeping as pets. It's naive to assume that because you ban certain exotic animals, it will include all common pets. And I'll say it again, why do people feel the need to keep some of these exotic animals as pets? Does it make you feel good? Powerful? Superior? A sense of accomplishment? Or your selfish materialistic tendencies?

Yes, there certainly are very different needs for these animals yet that does not mean that someone should be prevented from keeping them even if they meet or exceed those needs while maintaining the animal in a safe manner. You also must remember that many people do not view fish as common pets; to many people, the only common pets are domestic dogs and cats.

The problem with trying to push for much tighter legislation after such an incident is that those who think that no animal should be kept as a pet are able to easily push their viewpoint using slick wording that anyone who stops to read what is being pushed should notice yet most people don't take the time to stop and think about these things rather they just act. It's all in the wording, and most people aren't going to notice that fact until its too late.

After all, laws are far easier to pass than to repeal. For example, I highly doubt that Asian arowanas will be legal in the U.S. any time soon despite the success of responsible captive breeding efforts that have allowed the wild populations to stabilize and rebound.

 

[jcardona1]

Yes, there certainly are very different needs for these animals yet that does not mean that someone should be prevented from keeping them even if they meet or exceed those needs while maintaining the animal in a safe manner. You also must remember that many people do not view fish as common pets; to many people, the only common pets are domestic dogs and cats.

The problem with trying to push for much tighter legislation after such an incident is that those who think that no animal should be kept as a pet are able to easily push their viewpoint using slick wording that anyone who stops to read what is being pushed should notice yet most people don't take the time to stop and think about these things rather they just act. It's all in the wording, and most people aren't going to notice that fact until its too late.

After all, laws are far easier to pass than to repeal. For example, I highly doubt that Asian arowanas will be legal in the U.S. any time soon despite the success of responsible captive breeding efforts that have allowed the wild populations to stabilize and rebound.

Yeah I hear you. I know there are people that can keep them properly. But my thing is, why? These are majestic animals. They don't belong in a cage. I'd support them being kept in captivity, provided they have adequate enclosures. And I don't mean a cage where they could do a few laps. I'm mean large, open land, with perimeters, where they are free to roam. If they're going to be locked up, at least that is how these animals deserve to be kept. And quite frankly, who would be able to do that? Zoos can barely provide that. How many private facilities would have the means?