# The Bill To Ban Our Hobby Is Here!



## ThomasH (Aug 5, 2008)

Time to be serious about this people.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6311/show
TBH


----------



## Hamburglar (Aug 5, 2008)

I didn't read the entire thing, but I gathered that its main purpose is to restrict the import of non native species into the US?  The text I quickly glanced over seemed like it was focusing on animals that were not captive.  Is this correct?  Or would they be afraid a pet might escape and bring the end of the world...


----------



## crpy (Aug 5, 2008)

Did you not post this already?


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 5, 2008)

While I wholeheartedly share BoaConstrictor's concern over this bill, which is indeed intended to ban the importation and interstate trade in ALL non-native, non-domesticated animals, including invertebrates, under the auspices of the Lacey Act, I can't help but notice the awful irony here.   Am I alone here, in finding it odd that someone who previously railed and ranted against dog ownership-and would surely support a ban on the keeping and breeding of domesticated dogs, whether at the local, state or Federal level-expects everyone to rally behind HIM now that HIS choice of animal is under threat?  Get a clue, kid-the move to ban the importation and trade in "exotic" animals is just one little piece of a much-larger problem, and people like YOU are a large part of that problem!  People who disagree with other people's choices of pets, who want to push their views on everyone else, are the reason why bills like this are drafted and pushed into laws, and behind them all is a widespread movement to eventually ban ALL animal ownership and animal use, for any reason.  Whether it's dog breed bans or restrictions, mandatory spay/neuter laws, exotic animal bans/restrictions, unreasonable enclosure laws, or whatever, they affect every one of us, directly or indirectly.  Anyone who thinks it's OK to ban or severely restrict one type of animal, making it virtually impossible for anyone to keep that type of animal, while pitching a hissy fit when the "Anti's" come after THEIR choice of animal, is a hypocrite, plain and simple, and loses all credibility.  We are all in it together, folks, whether we choose to own, breed and sell dogs, cats, horses, reptiles, birds, arachnids or whatever.  The movement that wants to ban one wants to ban ALL of them, and they will succeed as long as they can keep us divided, by taking advantage of the "I-hate-dogs-but-don't-mess-with-my-snakes" mentality, or the "I-love-my-dog-but-can't-see-why-anyone-would-want-a-snake" mentality.  There is no room for hate directed towards ANYONE'S choice of animal when we all face a common enemy, and you cannot expect people to defend YOUR choice of animal when you are so vocal in expressing dislike of and a desire to eliminate THEIR choice! Right now, as I type this, there are bills, and laws, all over the country, the intent of which is to make keeping animals for any reason more and more difficult and undesirable.  This Federal proposal is just the tip of the iceberg.  When you support a ban on keeping "pit bulls", or support mandatory castration and hysterectomies of all cats and dogs, or a ban on selling/transporting large boids, you support the entire anti-animal ownership movement, and every success for them is a loss for all of us.  You're either with us, or against us.  I see no room for fence-straddlers here.  If you want to succeed against the Anti's, there's no room for personal dislikes against anyone's choice of what animals they keep.

pitbulllady

pitbulllady


----------



## J_dUbz88 (Aug 5, 2008)

to add my own two cents to this some animals are more dangerous than other, i have never read in the news about an escaped and crazed T attacking and killing dogs, children and any other object in their path.  Simply put many dogs have been bred for one reason, size, aggression and as sadly as it is fighting.  The name pitbull is a prime example, a name derived form dog fighting, the "bull" of the "pits", and the pits are what people use to fight dogs in.  Some species that are imported have a negative effect on wildlife by taking over and killing native plants/animals.  The bans should focus on one thing,  THE OWNERS OF SAID CREATURES, form dogs to invertebrates.  To ban animals who have such a clean record is unusual and ridiculous.  Only intelligent and educated owners should be aloud to purchase any kind of pet to ensure the safety of themselves, the animal, and others.  

Jdubz


----------



## reverendsterlin (Aug 5, 2008)

I have to agree, they will make no distinction between good keepers and bad keepers. The situation in Florida with several species (iguanas, brachys [I think], pythons, and scorpions) are an example of how the few can make things bad for the many. This has been attempted, sometimes successfully with venomous snakes on local and State levels. Every time an exotic pet escapes, something dangerous bites someone, someone gets envenomated all keepers should cringe. With animal planet shows often showing it for the world to be entertained it comes to the notice of more and more people and makes the actual passing of something like this more possible. If some law like this passes it effects everyone. It will be a sad day when our collections become illegal.
Rev


----------



## Pulk (Aug 5, 2008)

pitbulllady:

as ridiculous as boaconstrictor's disapproval of dogs is, I don't see how it conflicts with opposition to this bill.

even though he may want dogs banned, the bill also would have other effects (e.g. banning snakes) that he doesn't like... therefore it would be fair for him to have at most mixed feelings toward it. (he has explained in other posts the moral difference between dogs and snakes)

or he could have a defend-to-the-death-your-right-to-say-it kind of attitude, and oppose the banning of dogs too.

it *may* be practically necessary to have an all-or-nothing attitude you're promoting, but that doesn't mean he has to personally like everything that includes something in the right direction (i.e., legal dogs -and- snakes).


----------



## Tarantula_man94 (Aug 5, 2008)

This is outragous! with this bill, no more arachnids!!!!!:evil:


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 5, 2008)

J_dUbz88 said:


> to add my own two cents to this some animals are more dangerous than other, i have never read in the news about an escaped and crazed T attacking and killing dogs, children and any other object in their path.  Simply put many dogs have been bred for one reason, size, aggression and as sadly as it is fighting.  The name pitbull is a prime example, a name derived form dog fighting, the "bull" of the "pits", and the pits are what people use to fight dogs in.  Some species that are imported have a negative effect on wildlife by taking over and killing native plants/animals.  The bans should focus on one thing,  THE OWNERS OF SAID CREATURES, form dogs to invertebrates.  To ban animals who have such a clean record is unusual and ridiculous.  Only intelligent and educated owners should be aloud to purchase any kind of pet to ensure the safety of themselves, the animal, and others.
> 
> Jdubz


And just who-and HOW-do you determine who gets to keep animals and who doesn't, Jdubz?  Do we trust the politicians and the HSUS/PETA folks to make that determination?  If we do, we can kiss our animals goodbye.  How do you determine if the little old lady down the street is "intelligent or educated" enough to own a Toy Poodle?  Is a cattle rancher who had to drop out of school in the ninth grade to support his family "educated" enough to continue to raise cattle or have dogs to help control those cattle?  If my sister's Great Dane has been bred for size, is that a bad thing?  Should someone come take her dog away and kill it because it's large?  Should my aunt's Jack Russell Terrier be destroyed because these dogs were-and still ARE-bred to hunt and KILL other animals?  Is a mentally-challenged person not "intelligent" enough to have a service dog?  What is the minimum IQ to be able to keep an animal, Jdubz?  90?  120?  140?  Suppose I were to be the one to decide who is intelligent and educated enough to keep dogs, snakes, tarantulas, or whatever, and I set that minimum at 138 IQ, with a minimum of a Master's Degree...would YOU still get to keep YOUR animals?  "Intelligence" and "Education" level have NOTHING to do with RESPONSIBILITY, and never will.  Horses kill around 40 people per year in the US alone; that's NOT a very "clean" record, as you put it.  Should we prohibit people from owning such animals due to the risk?  While snake bite deaths are rare in the US, worldwide that is NOT the case, so does this mean that no one is "intelligent or educated" enough to own a snake?

MOST of the "threat" with many animals is a PERCEIVED threat that is pushed by the people who want to ban the ownership of ALL animals, period.  There might not have been any deaths resulting from tarantula bites, but you'd be arguing against a brick wall with a politician who is terrified of spiders and believes what he/she has seen in the movies, or what he/she is told by the people at the Animal Protection Institute.  The media portrays spiders in general as dangerous and threatening and disgusting.  The media tells us that "pit bulls" are bred to be aggressive and that they kill people, and they reinforce this by calling every dog that does something remotely bad a "pit bull", no matter what it looks like.  It's like calling every snake a "rattlesnake"; it convinces people that ALL snakes are bad and dangerous.  When you fall into the trap of believing the media when it comes to animals, you damn every single one of us, yourself included.  

pitbulllady


----------



## crpy (Aug 5, 2008)

There is a quote in this from Mr. Internet, you should read it, its the 25th quote


http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=129310


----------



## proper_tea (Aug 5, 2008)

BoaConstrictor (and anyone else who's really upset about this)...

I'm with you... really I am.  It would suck if a new lime-green pokie were discovered, and we all had to be content to look at pictures of it on BTS.  However... anyone who is all that upset about this, and is getting ready to write their representative, or march in the street, or do some other crazy absurdness...

cool... so long as this is not your single issue.  'Cause really... in the generally scheme of things, on a scale of 0 to injustice... this is about as important as a ban on sidewalk chalk.  The world is big and full of evil, and much of that evil is done to us, and others around the world, by our own government.  It's important to be angry about that, and to fight it, and to do that in a way that is serious...

But neither is this bill serious (in it's possibility of being passed), nor is it life and death in any capacity.  Go get angry about something real.  This is a hobby.  If the importation of foreign stamps suddenly became illegal, it would be stupid and unfair and I'm sure a bunch of stamp collectors would be totally bummed... but it's not like they were bombed, lynched, raped, thrown in jail, had their houses bulldozed, were tortured in secret prisons, or even just lost their jobs to "free trade."

This is the world you and I live in, and if you're gonna take the time to defend it, or even change it, take the time to consider what issues really should be considered priority issues, and fight on those.


----------



## J.huff23 (Aug 5, 2008)

Does this bill really mean that we cant legally keep tarantulas and snakes anymore?


----------



## CrawlingKing (Aug 5, 2008)

New illegal job- Bug runner


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 6, 2008)

crpy said:


> Did you not post this already?


Mr. Internet closed it. He said it was worthless at the before bill "questioning stage." He said he would treat it seriously and fight it when it was a bill. So now that it really is I posted it.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 6, 2008)

proper_tea said:


> But neither is this bill serious (in it's possibility of being passed)


Animals are my livelyhood. This is serious. If we spend five minutes to e-mail the sponsors we will get our way. If we do nothing there will be a far better chance of it passing because to be against something you have to state your opinion. Nobody is going to read your mind or come up and ask you. Why are you telling people not to fight a ban of the hobby you love anyway? Sometimes fighting is your only chance.

P.S if you disagree just pm me.

PEACE,
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 6, 2008)

crpy said:


> There is a quote in this from Mr. Internet, you should read it, its the 25th quote
> 
> 
> http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=129310


Thank you for proving my point. Its not in committee any more it is about to be voted on by the house.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 6, 2008)

I'm sorry PBL. I don't think your animals should be banned and I respect your right to keep them. Both our animals of choice are for the most part innocent and gentle creatures. My problem is that when politicians want to fight pets its always my animals that take the hit.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 6, 2008)

BoaConstrictor said:


> I'm sorry PBL. I don't think your animals should be banned and I respect your right to keep them. Both our animals of choice are for the most part innocent and gentle creatures. My problem is that when politicians want to fight pets its always my animals that take the hit.



Apology accepted.  MY point is that the politicians do NOT just want to ban YOUR pets; they want to ban ALL of them.  If not ban, then make it so difficult, from a legal  and logistical standpoint, that virtually no one will be able to comply and be able to keep animals.  I belong to a pet law group, and we receive updates on laws/bills that affect pet ownership and animal agriculture, and the number of such laws is astounding, as is the number of people who do not realize the full implications of such laws if they pass.  Here's just a sampling of what we as animal owners face: 

  BSL-Laws to ban or severely restrict specific types of dogs, not just "pit bulls, but at present there are 75 breeds in the US alone which are either directly named, or would be included by default because of clauses in laws that state "any dog having a physical resemblance of..." a banned/restricted breed.  Many mixed-breed dogs can have a resemblance to a Pit Bull Terrier, and have no APBT in them at all.

"Vicious dog" laws that include very normal dog behavior, such as barking at strangers entering their property or chasing small animals, like squirrels, as "proof" that the dog is vicious and dangerous and requiring said dogs to be destroyed and the owner fined.

Unreasonable enclosure laws-laws that require such extreme measures to enclose an animal that few people would be able to comply.  Case in point, a recent Greenwood, AL bill which would prohibit anyone from housing a dog less than 200 yards from another person's property, would prohibit tethering a dog for any amount of time, require ALL dog enclosures(regardless of the dog's size)to be at least 150 square feet in size, be at least six feet tall, have a concrete bottom with drainage system, be hooked up to county water and sewer, be cleaned at least twice a day, and have heated/air conditioned dog house.  Only ONE dog could be kept per enclosure, and dogs would be required to be walked(on a least no more than four feet in length, NO choke or chain collars) at least one hour per day, rain or shine.

Pet limit laws-limits the number of animals, of ALL species(often including fish), that can be kept by any one household or kept on any one property, regardless of the size of the property, size of the animals, or financial means of the owner.  Often these numbers are set very low, like no more than three or four animals of any kind per property.  If you've got one over than limit, animal control is required to take it to the shelter and fine the owner.  I've seen this work first-hand, when my aunt lived in Richland County, SC, which has a strict pet limit law of three.  She took in a dog belonging to a fellow teacher who had become ill with cancer and could not care for the dog and no one in her family wanted the dog, a German Shepherd.  Animal control officers came in and gave her until five pm that day(it was 3 in the afternoon)to get rid of one of her dogs, giving her the decision as to which one to get rid of(their words-"get rid of").  They came back two hours later, and she still had four dogs.  She had been trusted with this Shepherd by an owner who loved him but could not care for him while seriously ill, so she had to let them take one of her long-time dogs that she'd raised from a puppy, to be taken away to a high-kill shelter, where he was ultimately killed.  She had to pay a $500.00 fine.

Exotic Animal bans/restrictions-you already know about these.  They are often broad-sweeping, including virtually every animal but domesticated dogs and cats, and are often based on fear of specific animals, such as snakes or spiders, rather than a real potential for a threat.  Just as BSL makes the assumption that all owners of "pit bulls", Rottweilers, etc., are drug dealers, gang-bangers and general criminal, many exotic animal laws make that same assumption about owners of non-traditional animals, based on news reports of tigers and alligators confiscated from drug dealers' apartments, as well as the belief that keeping any non-domestic animal is cruelty in an of itself.  Often, animals that ARE domesticated, such as ferrets and hamsters, are included out of ignorance.

Mandatory spay/neuter-this is one of the most wide-sweeping right now; requires ALL domesticated animals to be castrated/spayed at very early ages, in spite of evidence that this can be detrimental to the health of the animals, and imposes heavy fines and/or jail terms for being caught with an intact animal.  These laws are allegedly supposed to prevent animals from being euthanized in shelters, and do not take into account the main reasons why animals are abandoned in shelters in the first place, which usually have nothing to do with the animals' reproductive capacity, or the policies of the shelter itself, which often make it very difficult to adopt animals and result in most of their intake being killed.  The REAL purpose of these laws is to achieve zero population growth of these animals, so that there will eventually be no cats or dogs that are capable of reproducing.  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens when all those spayed/neutered dogs and cats and rabbits and ferrets and whatevers reach the end of their lifespans, and leave no generation to replace them.  As Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the US(and one of the main pushers of the Federal ban on importing and selling "exotic" animals), put it; "One generation and OUT".  In places where MSN has been imposed, shelter euthanasia rates went UP, substantially, as people surrendered animals to the shelter because they could not or would not have those animals "fixed" within the time frame given.  

The real force behind these laws is a movement that seeks to end all animal-human interaction, period.  If they cannot succeed on one front, they push for another.  If banning breeds of dogs does not work, then require all dogs to be "fixed" so no more will be born.  If you cannot ban exotics outright, make it so difficult to keep them that no one will.  One of the things they COUNT on in their court is that most people do not, or cannot, see the big picture, and only get upset or choose to act when a bill comes up that affects THEIR choice of animal.  They know that the old lady with the Toy Poodle probably will not be upset when they ban "pit bulls" or "wolf-hybrids" or large snakes, while many snake owners could care less if all cats and dogs have to be "fixed", if they don't have a cat or a dog.  In this way, they can isolate animal owners and create a false sense of security, a "but it doesn't apply to ME" mentality, when in fact it DOES.

pitbulllady


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 6, 2008)

Wow PBL, that's insane. I had no clue that they were regulating domestics now. Who knew that after thousands of years domesticating these animals that they would turn right around and regulate them?
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 6, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> One of the things they COUNT on in their court is that most people do not, or cannot, see the big picture, and only get upset or choose to act when a bill comes up that affects THEIR choice of animal.  They know that the old lady with the Toy Poodle probably will not be upset when they ban "pit bulls" or "wolf-hybrids" or large snakes, while many snake owners could care less if all cats and dogs have to be "fixed", if they don't have a cat or a dog.  In this way, they can isolate animal owners and create a false sense of security, a "but it doesn't apply to ME" mentality, when in fact it DOES.


I didn't know that either. Guess I'll have to find many, many more people to e-mail today.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 6, 2008)

BoaConstrictor said:


> Wow PBL, that's insane. I had no clue that they were regulating domestics now. Who knew that after thousands of years domesticating these animals that they would turn right around and regulate them?
> TBH


That is EXACTLY what the people backing this bill, the powerful and well-funded animal rights lobby, is counting on-that the proverbial left hand won't know what the proverbial right hand is doing. In other words, that the dog breeders will not be aware of what's going on in the exotic animal community, that the exotic animal people won't care what's going on in the dog or cattle-breeding community, that the little old ladies who feed stray cats won't see the problems with banning "pit bulls", etc.  This is how they succeed, by creating divisions within all the people who own, keep, breed, sell, hunt, eat, or in any way interact with animals.

Here's a quote from Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the HSUS, the primary sponsor of the bill in question, that sums up the animal rights view on domesticated animals, lest you still question whether domesticated animals are under the same attack as exotic animals:

_“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Animal People News_

_“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.” — HSUS grassroots coordinator John “J.P.” Goodwin_.  Mr. Goodwin, who often appears on tv as a HSUS expert on dogfighting, is a convicted felon who did hard time in the Federal pen for masterminding a firebombng of a laboratory when he was a member of the domestic terrorist group, ALF.   He claims to no longer be affiliated with the terrorist group, while at the same time, says of former fighting dogs, "leopards cannot change their spots", to defend the HSUS's position that all Pit Bulls confiscated in raids on suspected dogfighting rings should immediately be destroyed, not given a chance.  Wonder if terrorists can change THEIR spots, John?

Here are some quotes from Ingrid Newkirk, founder and president of People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals, regarding her organization's view on domesticated animals:

_
“I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”
— The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223


“The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Animals


“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— The Chicago Daily Herald


“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
— Harper's_

Don't make the mistake of brushing these groups off as a bunch of whacks. They comprise a multi-BILLION dollar industry, funded mostly by donations made by often well-meaning people who honestly believe that they are helping to save innocent animals from abuse.  They run a powerful membership drive that targets impressionable, emotionally-vulnerable young people-just like cults do.  The HSUS is pushing to become a government office, with law enforcement abilities.  They've made it no secret what they are really about, but most people still do not take them seriously, or actually believe that they're doing something good.  So you hopefully can see, BoaConstrictor, it's NOT just exotic animals that are under attack.  It's not just YOU they're after.  It's every one of us.  They're making greater headway in restricting domestic animal ownership, actually, because those animals are more obvious.  It's fairly easy to hide the fact that you have a snake, or a tarantula, but if you've got a dog, someone's going to know about it.

pitbulllady


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 6, 2008)

Wow, those people are down right scary. They sound like a terrible imagination sci-fi movie cult gone wrong. If they got what they wanted the economy would go straight to heck, millions would be unemployed, native animals would all be killed by starving domestics and domesticated animals would all die from starvation after being released. I can't even imagine how trashed the U.S would be if all those animals would be set out to roam. I don't even think it would be safe for me to e-mail the people you quoted and tell them my opinion even in a nice-as-possible manner. I didn't even know what HSUS was.
TBH


----------



## PsychoSpider (Aug 6, 2008)

I always new the u.s.a would end up like this.


----------



## 357wheelgunner (Aug 6, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> And just who-and HOW-do you determine who gets to keep animals and who doesn't, Jdubz?  Do we trust the politicians and the HSUS/PETA folks to make that determination?  If we do, we can kiss our animals goodbye.  How do you determine if the little old lady down the street is "intelligent or educated" enough to own a Toy Poodle?  Is a cattle rancher who had to drop out of school in the ninth grade to support his family "educated" enough to continue to raise cattle or have dogs to help control those cattle?  If my sister's Great Dane has been bred for size, is that a bad thing?  Should someone come take her dog away and kill it because it's large?  Should my aunt's Jack Russell Terrier be destroyed because these dogs were-and still ARE-bred to hunt and KILL other animals?  Is a mentally-challenged person not "intelligent" enough to have a service dog?  What is the minimum IQ to be able to keep an animal, Jdubz?  90?  120?  140?  Suppose I were to be the one to decide who is intelligent and educated enough to keep dogs, snakes, tarantulas, or whatever, and I set that minimum at 138 IQ, with a minimum of a Master's Degree...would YOU still get to keep YOUR animals?  "Intelligence" and "Education" level have NOTHING to do with RESPONSIBILITY, and never will.  Horses kill around 40 people per year in the US alone; that's NOT a very "clean" record, as you put it.  Should we prohibit people from owning such animals due to the risk?  While snake bite deaths are rare in the US, worldwide that is NOT the case, so does this mean that no one is "intelligent or educated" enough to own a snake?
> 
> MOST of the "threat" with many animals is a PERCEIVED threat that is pushed by the people who want to ban the ownership of ALL animals, period.  There might not have been any deaths resulting from tarantula bites, but you'd be arguing against a brick wall with a politician who is terrified of spiders and believes what he/she has seen in the movies, or what he/she is told by the people at the Animal Protection Institute.  The media portrays spiders in general as dangerous and threatening and disgusting.  The media tells us that "pit bulls" are bred to be aggressive and that they kill people, and they reinforce this by calling every dog that does something remotely bad a "pit bull", no matter what it looks like.  It's like calling every snake a "rattlesnake"; it convinces people that ALL snakes are bad and dangerous.  When you fall into the trap of believing the media when it comes to animals, you damn every single one of us, yourself included.
> 
> pitbulllady


The poster you quoted advocates punishing the owners of pets that do damage, no pets percieved as bad.  I'm all for that.

Banning a specific kind of pet is just like segregation and other racism, it generalizes a group because of one or two or ten bad apples.  Animals and people should be treated on a one by one basis.

If they execute the next person who's pitbull or other dog attacks and mauls a human, maybe people would take more responsibility for their animals' behavior.  I was mauled by a dog when I was young, it's not fun.  Owners of violent animals should be punished for their pets behavior.  If you can't control a dog or snake or scorpion, and it hurts someone, you should pay for it.

That said, owners who can safely keep centipedes, scorpions, spiders, dogs, cats, elephants, etc. shouldn't be told not to.  In America you should be able to own spiders, scorpions, centipedes, pistols, dogs, lions, automatic rifles, fish, firearm suppressors, fast cars, fatty foods, motorcycles...Anything you want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Pet hobbyists have the same problem that gun hobbyests do.  Some shooters think that revolvers are fine, but high capacity rifles aren't.  Some think that suppressors on guns are a good thing, but that full automatic fire somehow is more dangerous.  Some pet owners think that they should be able to keep venomous reptiles and inverts, but others shouldn't have dogs.  

In order to get anything done, people have to LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE ALONE and not step on their rights unless someone gets hurt.


----------



## 357wheelgunner (Aug 6, 2008)

BoaConstrictor said:


> Animals are my livelyhood. This is serious. If we spend five minutes to e-mail the sponsors we will get our way. If we do nothing there will be a far better chance of it passing because to be against something you have to state your opinion. Nobody is going to read your mind or come up and ask you. Why are you telling people not to fight a ban of the hobby you love anyway? Sometimes fighting is your only chance.


Voicing your opinion to these people won't do you any good.

The people pushing this bill are insane.  They're not your average democrats, they're the far left animal rights wackos, here to tell you what to do.

I'm not saying to do nothing, just that there's not much you can do by contacting the bill's sponsors.  Contact your state representatives and tell them to fight this retarded bill with everything they have.

The time to fight absurd rules like this is during the 2 year elections.  If you don't go out and vote against democrats like these guys, new stupid overbearing laws like this are your fault.  Vote in candidates who want less government and more freedom, and you're doing your part.

Somewhere on this board, there is someone who voted for one of these jackasses....I wonder if they'll chime in and voice their opinion of what their representatives are doing?  If they don't feel like posting, that's fine too, so long as they understand how personally responsible they are for aiding in the destruction of our hobby.

Boa, great job bringing this up.  My rant on the failings of democracy wielded by dullards was definately not aimed at you, your post just got me started.  Keep up the good fight!


----------



## J_dUbz88 (Aug 6, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> And just who-and HOW-do you determine who gets to keep animals and who doesn't, Jdubz?  Do we trust the politicians and the HSUS/PETA folks to make that determination?  If we do, we can kiss our animals goodbye.  How do you determine if the little old lady down the street is "intelligent or educated" enough to own a Toy Poodle?  Is a cattle rancher who had to drop out of school in the ninth grade to support his family "educated" enough to continue to raise cattle or have dogs to help control those cattle?  If my sister's Great Dane has been bred for size, is that a bad thing?  Should someone come take her dog away and kill it because it's large?  Should my aunt's Jack Russell Terrier be destroyed because these dogs were-and still ARE-bred to hunt and KILL other animals?  Is a mentally-challenged person not "intelligent" enough to have a service dog?  What is the minimum IQ to be able to keep an animal, Jdubz?  90?  120?  140?  Suppose I were to be the one to decide who is intelligent and educated enough to keep dogs, snakes, tarantulas, or whatever, and I set that minimum at 138 IQ, with a minimum of a Master's Degree...would YOU still get to keep YOUR animals?  "Intelligence" and "Education" level have NOTHING to do with RESPONSIBILITY, and never will.  Horses kill around 40 people per year in the US alone; that's NOT a very "clean" record, as you put it.  Should we prohibit people from owning such animals due to the risk?  While snake bite deaths are rare in the US, worldwide that is NOT the case, so does this mean that no one is "intelligent or educated" enough to own a snake?
> 
> MOST of the "threat" with many animals is a PERCEIVED threat that is pushed by the people who want to ban the ownership of ALL animals, period.  There might not have been any deaths resulting from tarantula bites, but you'd be arguing against a brick wall with a politician who is terrified of spiders and believes what he/she has seen in the movies, or what he/she is told by the people at the Animal Protection Institute.  The media portrays spiders in general as dangerous and threatening and disgusting.  The media tells us that "pit bulls" are bred to be aggressive and that they kill people, and they reinforce this by calling every dog that does something remotely bad a "pit bull", no matter what it looks like.  It's like calling every snake a "rattlesnake"; it convinces people that ALL snakes are bad and dangerous.  When you fall into the trap of believing the media when it comes to animals, you damn every single one of us, yourself included.
> 
> pitbulllady


Actually i do not fall into the trap of media, i watch news and other things to get a perspective on the world and current events.  And intelligence and education do have something to do with responsibility how could you say it does not?  Service dogs are very calm, and well trained dogs that have not been bred to attack other things and thus do not have the basic instinct to attack, the have the basic instinct to hunt all dogs but that is very different from attacking.  Jack russels are to small and not very powerful to propose much of a threat to anyone other than a baby or small child.  once again this boils down to the fact that pitbull were bred for fighting and jack russels for hunting, two very different things.  Great danes have been bred for size this is true but they have also been bred for being docile animals, once again not bred to fight.  With intelligence comes responsibility and with education comes the ability to care for that animal properly.  the farmer who dropped out of ninth grade to farm may not have a general education but knows a whole lot about farming and those animals on his farm.  So to decipher if someone can care for there animals there should be different classes grouping these animals so the poor little old ladies can still have their poodles and we can still have our exotics.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 7, 2008)

357wheelgunner said:


> Voicing your opinion to these people won't do you any good.
> 
> The people pushing this bill are insane.  They're not your average democrats, they're the far left animal rights wackos, here to tell you what to do.
> 
> I'm not saying to do nothing, just that there's not much you can do by contacting the bill's sponsors.  Contact your state representatives and tell them to fight this retarded bill with everything they have.


Yeah we can beat this. Just not with the sponsors. None of them have emailed me back. I guess they just thought they were ditching a real wacko. This probably won't become a law but we also just can't sit, take that chance and watch so start contacting people.
Thanks, 
TBH


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 7, 2008)

J_dUbz88 said:


> Actually i do not fall into the trap of media, i watch news and other things to get a perspective on the world and current events.  And intelligence and education do have something to do with responsibility how could you say it does not?  Service dogs are very calm, and well trained dogs that have not been bred to attack other things and thus do not have the basic instinct to attack, the have the basic instinct to hunt all dogs but that is very different from attacking.  Jack russels are to small and not very powerful to propose much of a threat to anyone other than a baby or small child.  once again this boils down to the fact that pitbull were bred for fighting and jack russels for hunting, two very different things.  Great danes have been bred for size this is true but they have also been bred for being docile animals, once again not bred to fight.  With intelligence comes responsibility and with education comes the ability to care for that animal properly.  the farmer who dropped out of ninth grade to farm may not have a general education but knows a whole lot about farming and those animals on his farm.  So to decipher if someone can care for there animals there should be different classes grouping these animals so the poor little old ladies can still have their poodles and we can still have our exotics.


If being "EDUCATED" is any indicator of whether or not a person should be allowed to keep animals, based on your so-called "knowledge" of dog breeds and what they were bred for, I hope you do NOT keep any animals!  Your first statement-"I watch news and other things to get a perspective on the world"-says it all.  My first assessment was correct-you are indeed gullible enough to believe what the news media tells you.  If the news media shows you a mixed hound dog that bit someone and tells you it's a "pit bull", you believe it.  If they tell you that little dogs cannot hurt anyone, you believe it.  You know NOTHING about dogs other than what the popular media has force-fed you.  I bet the folks at PetLaw Group would get a big kick out of your claims that a Jack Russell Terrier can't hurt anyone, or that Great Danes were bred to be docile and weren't bred for fighting, lol!  How about being bred to kill WILD BOARS?  Of course, Jack Russells don't kill people-because if they do, the news media would call them PIT BULLS, just like they did when that Jack Russell and a Plott Hound killed a two-year-old in Richmond, VA, a couple of years ago.  
I don't rely on the news to tell me about dogs.  I own dogs.  I breed dogs.  I hunt with dogs.  I have worked with people who have bred and worked dogs since before your parents were born.  I know dogs, and how they act, and what the different breeds were created for.  If we were to go by your derailed train of thought, 90% of dog breeds would be illegal, since they were bred to kill something at some point, and many still are.  But, that is actually irrelevant.  I've been around American Pit Bull Terriers since I was born, and I'm probably old enough to be your grandmother.  EXPERIENCE, your own and that of the people YOU learn from, is far more valuable than "education" and "intelligence" when it comes to keeping animals, or doing anything, for that matter.  I've seen and owned more REAL American Pit Bull Terriers than you have seen in your lifetime, and I know the breed better than the news media, or PETA, or you.  Yes, they were bred to fight-OTHER DOGS.  Great Danes were bred to fight and kill wild boars.  Jack Russell Terriers were bred to fight and kill foxes, badgers and other wild animals.  I've personally seen one single-handedly take out a big boar raccoon, an animal that can whip a whole pack of hounds and send bobcats packing.  Seen that, too.  Not watched it on the news on tv, personally experienced it.  Animal aggression is NOT the same as people aggression; if it was, no hunting breed would be safe to own, since all will kill any animal they catch!  Did you know-wait, that's a dumb question; I guarantee you don't-that for countless generations, APBT breeders shot any dog that showed any aggression towards humans, for any reason?  Old-school dog-fighters hired KIDS to handle their dogs in the fighting pit; those kids had to be able to pick up the dogs and take them to their corners and treat their injuries without risk of being bitten.  The dogs were also used as barter, traded for things the owner needed, like food or clothing, so the dogs were bred to accept any random stranger as their owner right away.  But then, the news doesn't tell you that. All the news-with the full backing of PETA-can tell you is that any dog that bites is a "pit bull", no matter what it actually looks like. My grandfather used to have a very descriptive phrase to apply to people who had gotten all their "knowledge" from the news, or from a book, trying to argue with someone who had actual EXPERIENCE with the subject at hand; he'd say that they were "trying to argue with Noah about the Flood", a very apt description for someone trying to sound knowledgeable about something they really no absolutely NOTHING about, making themselves seem like a fool to anyone with actual, real-life, first-hand experience in the matter.

pitbulllady


----------



## snakemaster1 (Aug 7, 2008)

I read over that bill and from what i read the bill suggests that they will ban all SPECIES OF ANIMALS NOT NATIVE TO AMERICAN SOIL so if the animal is not naturally ocurring in the USA all 50 states it will be banned and if you read the bill it states also this includes animals that are captive bred. so that would basically mean anything sold in a pet store would become illegal to own. from fish ,birds,reptiles,rodents the whole works.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 7, 2008)

snakemaster1 said:


> I read over that bill and from what i read the bill suggests that they will ban all SPECIES OF ANIMALS NOT NATIVE TO AMERICAN SOIL so if the animal is not naturally ocurring in the USA all 50 states it will be banned and if you read the bill it states also this includes animals that are captive bred. so that would basically mean anything sold in a pet store would become illegal to own. from fish ,birds,reptiles,rodents the whole works.


You got it, snakemaster1!  That is the intent-to ban the trade in ALL animals, period.  The HSUS is pouring hundred of thousands of dollars into getting this one passed, all money donated by people who think they're helping abused/abandoned cats and dogs or pets displaced by natural disasters, or stopping dog-fighting and chicken-fighting.  Many of those people own and breed and sell many of the animals that would be impacted by this if it passes.  The bill leaves it open to easily add species to the "Invasive Animal" section of the Lacey Act, so anything that is perceived as a POTENTIAL threat to humans, native wildlife, or the environment.

pitbulllady


----------



## crpy (Aug 7, 2008)

Does Pitbulllady rock or what, damn I not worthy, but i want to be on your team.


----------



## snakemaster1 (Aug 7, 2008)

The same thing is happening here in the cold frozen far north  AKA Canada i have been trying to get everyone on board here in BC. where they are trying to ban all alien species.  no one can seem to see the big picture here either they want to ban it all, they don't care how they do it . No matter what you keep we have to band together to fight these laws.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 8, 2008)

If this thing passes it will surprise the hell out of me!  I was surprised enough just to read such a thing so, who knows.  The people that decide how this ends up MUST be more sane than the people pushing it.  We try to elect sane people that represent the majority and the majority surely must think this bill is crazy.  I just don't think it will fly, even gov employees like their pets.  Pres Bush loves his dog.  Maybe an amended form of it will go through someday, but as it is ...that would be crazy!  I guess the "crazy" thing could happen.  I think the "left" is destroying the idea they believe they fight for ..freedom.  They want to control and protect everything like an over protective parent that doesn't let their children go and live their life.  There needs to be a rational balance and the majority seems to be denied more and more the right to represent that rational balance.  I too see that the media is very manipulating.  I remember hearing on the news that somebody had somebody else's dog that got lost in hurricane Rita.  The media was trying to turn that into a big story, and they almost did it.  Now use your own brain and take a look at it.  Somebody had somebody else's dog!   ......that's it!  That's all!  We all live in small worlds.  We hear on the news that somebody was murdered and they make us think how bad it is out there.  I don't want to sound insensitive but 1000's of people die every day.  They pick a bad scene and paint a picture of life for you to see and we let that become our perspective.  They decide what to tell us in the news and decide how they want us to think about what they say and then present it that way.  It's how people can start riots, cults, wars, etc.  They found a large fossil of an arthropod not too long ago and said it was the biggest arthropod that ever lived.  Most people would say, "Wow!, that's interesting..."  Use your own head again.  "They" don't know that, nobody does.  Nobody knows what the largest arthropod that ever lived on earth was, it's impossible to know that.  If they said, "....known to date..." that would change everything.  But it's more exciting to say ..ever existed..  My mind isn't out for rent as much as it used to be.  I question and think a lot more about what people tell me than I use to and I try to listen to both sides.  Well anyway, enough of that rampage.   If this thing passes as it is, ..speechless man!  I just don't know WHAT I would think.


----------



## EightLeggedFrea (Aug 8, 2008)

I hope to God this incredibly stupid thing doesn't pass. It sounds like another one of those things to distract us from the REAL problems going on right now.

Any idea WHEN they are going to vote on it anyway?


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 8, 2008)

Galapoheros said:


> If this thing passes it will surprise the hell out of me!  I was surprised enough just to read such a thing so, who knows.  The people that decide how this ends up MUST be more sane than the people pushing it.  We try to elect sane people that represent the majority and the majority surely must think this bill is crazy.  I just don't think it will fly, even gov employees like their pets.  Pres Bush loves his dog.  Maybe an amended form of it will go through someday, but as it is ...that would be crazy!  I guess the "crazy" thing could happen.  I think the "left" is destroying the idea they believe they fight for ..freedom.  They want to control and protect everything like an over protective parent that doesn't let their children go and live their life.  There needs to be a rational balance and the majority seems to be denied more and more the right to represent that rational balance.  I too see that the media is very manipulating.  I remember hearing on the news that somebody had somebody else's dog that got lost in hurricane Rita.  The media was trying to turn that into a big story, and they almost did it.  Now use your own brain and take a look at it.  Somebody had somebody else's dog!   ......that's it!  That's all!  We all live in small worlds.  We hear on the news that somebody was murdered and they make us think how bad it is out there.  I don't want to sound insensitive but 1000's of people die every day.  They pick a bad scene and paint a picture of life for you to see and we let that become our perspective.  They decide what to tell us in the news and decide how they want us to think about what they say and then present it that way.  It's how people can start riots, cults, wars, etc.  They found a large fossil of an arthropod not too long ago and said it was the biggest arthropod that ever lived.  Most people would say, "Wow!, that's interesting..."  Use your own head again.  "They" don't know that, nobody does.  Nobody knows what the largest arthropod that ever lived on earth was, it's impossible to know that.  If they said, "....known to date..." that would change everything.  But it's more exciting to say ..ever existed..  My mind isn't out for rent as much as it used to be.  I question and think a lot more about what people tell me than I use to and I try to listen to both sides.  Well anyway, enough of that rampage.   If this thing passes as it is, ..speechless man!  I just don't know WHAT I would think.


The Anti's won't try to use this bill to get rid of dogs, even though technically, with the way it's written, they CAN.  Instead, they're using other bills, mostly at the local/municipal levels, to gradually eliminate dogs and cats.  Mandatory spay/neuter laws, BSL, limit laws, ridiculous pet housing laws, so-called "vicious" dog laws that encompass most normal dog behaviors as "viciousness" are being put into effect all over the country.  Now, there are what I call "snitch" laws, where the HSUS actually pays people large cash rewards to tell on neighbors that might have an intact dog, or doesn't walk their dog enough, or if the neighbor has what might be a "pit bull" and therefore MUST be involved in dog-fighting or dealing drugs.  In California, a bill currently on the Senate Floor(it already passed the House), if it hasn't passed already, forces owners to spay/neuter cats and dogs IF there have been three complaints made about that animal.  Thing is, the complaints do not have to be substantiated or verified, just filed!  They can range from pooping on a neighbor's lawn to barking or looking menacing behind a fence.  The burden of proof is 100% on the animal's owner to prove that the animal did NOT do anything, while at the same time, the HSUS is offering people up to $5,000.00 to "snitch" on cat and dog owners, with full confidentiality!  In other words, If I know one of you lives in CA, and I can find out your address, and I know you've got an intact cat or dog, I can contact the nearest animal control office where you live and tell them your dog tried to bite me, or your cat peed on my car...and if I make three complaints, they can force you to spay or neuter your animals, and fine you...while I can collect a hefty prize of blood-money from the Humane Society of the United States!  Chicago is trying to pass MSN of ALL animals, regardless, and is also trying to prohibit anyone who has been convicted of a felony from owning any kind of animal as if animals were the same as firearms.  Now, when most of us think of "felons", we tend to think of violent criminals, BUT there are many non-violent or "white collar" crimes that carry felony penalties upon conviction.  Think "Martha Stewart".  Under this law, SHE would be prohibited from owning even a goldfish, let alone her beloved Chows!  The main purpose of this law, according to its backers, is to get rid of GANGS!  The theory is, if the gang-bangers can't have dogs, or can't breed dogs, or buy dogs(most of 'em around here steal dogs), they'll drop out of the gangs and stop all the other activity associated with gangs, like armed robbery, drug dealing, vandalism and randomly shooting five-year-old kids in playgrounds.  Talk about "fuzzy logic"!

pitbulllady


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 8, 2008)

Keep the e-mails flowing. Fight the good fight.


----------



## arachnocat (Aug 8, 2008)

Sounds like the rest of the country is becoming like California. The laws here about keeping pets are really ridiculous. Pretty much all exotic animals are illegal. Luckily snakes, lizards and tarantulas haven't made it to their list yet but they add more every year. California is also the only state where you can't have transgenic animals. So no Glo-Fish. Even though the glo fish are just the same species of zebra fish you can get in any pet store. 
I hope this law doesn't pass but people are always going to keep fighting for stupid laws like this.  
I hope it doesn't ruin our hobby.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 8, 2008)

Just a little bump to the top.


----------



## 357wheelgunner (Aug 8, 2008)

arachnocat said:


> Sounds like the rest of the country is becoming like California


The problem is that most of the country votes for whoever they think will give them the most free stuff, which usually means retards like these guys who think that the country's money grows on trees, and that they can control anyone they want by passing overbearing new laws.

America is definately not like california


----------



## crpy (Aug 8, 2008)

357wheelgunner said:


> The problem is that most of the country votes for whoever they think will give them the most free stuff, which usually means retards like these guys who think that the country's money grows on trees, and that they can control anyone they want by passing overbearing new laws.
> 
> America is definately not like california


A-cat said it "sounds" like, not "is" lol, but im with ya


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 8, 2008)

357wheelgunner said:


> The problem is that most of the country votes for whoever they think will give them the most free stuff, which usually means retards like these guys who think that the country's money grows on trees, and that they can control anyone they want by passing overbearing new laws.
> 
> America is definately not like california


Not to put down people who live in that state, but there IS a grain of truth to the oft-repeated saying, "Where goes California, so goes the rest of the country".  This has been very true when it comes to so-called "educational reforms", resulting in the mess we have today.  South Carolina, especially, has always looked to see what is en vogue in the Golden Gate State when it comes to deciding what new programs to force on public schools in this state.  As a result, we are nearly dead-last in education and graduation rate in the country, having put so much emphasis on feel-good "self-esteem" programs, copied from CA education mandates, rather than programs that actually educate children.

The same can be said of animal-related laws.  California is the first state to have mandatory spay/neuter laws, first at the local levels, and now it's being pushed through at the state level.  As a result, an epidemic of MSN has hit the rest of the country, all based on the California model, first filed by Lloyd Levine and Judy Mancuso.  This is seen as the only way to eliminate shelter euthanasias-by eliminating cats and dogs, period.  The original CA bill would have required forced spay/castration of ALL cats and dogs over the age of FOUR WEEKS(note that kittens and puppies are not weaned at that age and have only just opened their eyes, and can be very tiny and almost impossible to safely anesthetize), then increased the age to eight weeks, the age most puppies and kittens can be weaned and go to new homes, then four months.  The current version, the one that seems sure to pass unless Ahnold vetoes it, is the one I described above, the "Snitch Law".  Dallas, TX, just passed their version of the original law, and many, many other places are considering it, with proponents stating, "well, this is what they're doing in California!"  Makes me think of what my parents used to tell me when I was a kid and wanted to do something stupid, or pointless, simply because "everyone else was doing it"-"so, if California wants to jump off a cliff, I guess that means you have to jump off the cliff, too?"

pitbulllady


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 9, 2008)

Bump to gain more public attention.


----------



## ZooRex (Aug 9, 2008)

So just to clarify, would this Bill be Country or State wide? Eithor way it hurts our hobby...

I for one think the reason for the Bill is hipocritical. If it is all for the "negatively impact the economy, environment, or human or animal species' health, and for other purposes." Have such people not taken in to acount how large the pet indurstry is in America and how much it HELPS the economy! As far as health goes, have they not considered the mental health of those who love keeping animals?

And as for the environment, ferreal animals are a problem. But wouldn't education of proper bet keeping and progressive methods of removing said problem animals be better then removing all imports of exotics into the country!? That seams way over the top, not to mention enfringing on our rights... ~ Rex


----------



## EightLeggedFrea (Aug 10, 2008)

KingRex said:


> So just to clarify, would this Bill be Country or State wide? Eithor way it hurts our hobby...
> 
> I for one think the reason for the Bill is hipocritical. If it is all for the "negatively impact the economy, environment, or human or animal species' health, and for other purposes." Have such people not taken in to acount how large the pet indurstry is in America and how much it HELPS the economy! As far as health goes, have they not considered the mental health of those who love keeping animals?
> 
> And as for the environment, ferreal animals are a problem. But wouldn't education of proper bet keeping and progressive methods of removing said problem animals be better then removing all imports of exotics into the country!? That seams way over the top, not to mention enfringing on our rights... ~ Rex


Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I personally think this bill will fail, at least country wide. I don't about just individual state. But even then I can still see it having a tough time becoming law. The pet industry is just too big for something like this to succeed on a truly grand level.

As I've said already, it's monumentally ridiculous that such a ban has been proposed. It's people like this that make me ashamed to be a democrat.


----------



## snakemaster1 (Aug 10, 2008)

Here is a post on your bill H R 6311 that i found as a response on the edmonton reptile amphibian forums ( ERAS) this is the kind of additude we up here in Canada are facing when trying to fight laws against keeping any type of animals .
 07-14-2008, 09:17 PM  
FrogO_Oeyes  
Forum Member   Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 809  

 Re: H R 6311 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6311

This could have a significant impact on the herp trade. Animals alreay IN the USA are grandfathered...but it would be illegal to breed, trade, sell, or buy anything which is illegal to import. Just a basic assumption of which species would be prohibited, would quickly lead to a lot of breeders of those species to instantly be done. On the surface of it, this law should have been in place decades ago, before the real problems started. Now though, it's probably too far reaching and will certainly get a lot of opposition from the hobby.

The USA needs to be split into smaller countries. A species introduced to Florida probably wouldn't succeed in Idaho, but there are no real border controls between the two. Of course, even then it could end up being illegal to import or breed just about ANYthing in hospitable places like California and Florida. That's the Achille's heel: the USA is so large that almost anything could become established in the wild in the USA, and therefore almost everything could be banned.


----------



## J_dUbz88 (Aug 10, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> If being "EDUCATED" is any indicator of whether or not a person should be allowed to keep animals, based on your so-called "knowledge" of dog breeds and what they were bred for, I hope you do NOT keep any animals!  Your first statement-"I watch news and other things to get a perspective on the world"-says it all.  My first assessment was correct-you are indeed gullible enough to believe what the news media tells you.  If the news media shows you a mixed hound dog that bit someone and tells you it's a "pit bull", you believe it.  If they tell you that little dogs cannot hurt anyone, you believe it.  You know NOTHING about dogs other than what the popular media has force-fed you.  I bet the folks at PetLaw Group would get a big kick out of your claims that a Jack Russell Terrier can't hurt anyone, or that Great Danes were bred to be docile and weren't bred for fighting, lol!  How about being bred to kill WILD BOARS?  Of course, Jack Russells don't kill people-because if they do, the news media would call them PIT BULLS, just like they did when that Jack Russell and a Plott Hound killed a two-year-old in Richmond, VA, a couple of years ago.
> I don't rely on the news to tell me about dogs.  I own dogs.  I breed dogs.  I hunt with dogs.  I have worked with people who have bred and worked dogs since before your parents were born.  I know dogs, and how they act, and what the different breeds were created for.  If we were to go by your derailed train of thought, 90% of dog breeds would be illegal, since they were bred to kill something at some point, and many still are.  But, that is actually irrelevant.  I've been around American Pit Bull Terriers since I was born, and I'm probably old enough to be your grandmother.  EXPERIENCE, your own and that of the people YOU learn from, is far more valuable than "education" and "intelligence" when it comes to keeping animals, or doing anything, for that matter.  I've seen and owned more REAL American Pit Bull Terriers than you have seen in your lifetime, and I know the breed better than the news media, or PETA, or you.  Yes, they were bred to fight-OTHER DOGS.  Great Danes were bred to fight and kill wild boars.  Jack Russell Terriers were bred to fight and kill foxes, badgers and other wild animals.  I've personally seen one single-handedly take out a big boar raccoon, an animal that can whip a whole pack of hounds and send bobcats packing.  Seen that, too.  Not watched it on the news on tv, personally experienced it.  Animal aggression is NOT the same as people aggression; if it was, no hunting breed would be safe to own, since all will kill any animal they catch!  Did you know-wait, that's a dumb question; I guarantee you don't-that for countless generations, APBT breeders shot any dog that showed any aggression towards humans, for any reason?  Old-school dog-fighters hired KIDS to handle their dogs in the fighting pit; those kids had to be able to pick up the dogs and take them to their corners and treat their injuries without risk of being bitten.  The dogs were also used as barter, traded for things the owner needed, like food or clothing, so the dogs were bred to accept any random stranger as their owner right away.  But then, the news doesn't tell you that. All the news-with the full backing of PETA-can tell you is that any dog that bites is a "pit bull", no matter what it actually looks like. My grandfather used to have a very descriptive phrase to apply to people who had gotten all their "knowledge" from the news, or from a book, trying to argue with someone who had actual EXPERIENCE with the subject at hand; he'd say that they were "trying to argue with Noah about the Flood", a very apt description for someone trying to sound knowledgeable about something they really no absolutely NOTHING about, making themselves seem like a fool to anyone with actual, real-life, first-hand experience in the matter.
> 
> pitbulllady


You know not of what you talk i own dogs as well, where i may not have bred them i know a fair amount and can decipher what breed is which, and i don't hate dogs or wish for them to banned, i merely understand that some dogs are more aggressive than other and are prone to attack.  and if i watched no news how would i know what was happening in the world?  I watch and i read and there are many different outlets for news AB being one of them, this very thread is news, telling of how there could be a bill to ban exotics.  I am no fool and am not gullible at all, i dont believe most of what the news tells me i take what is credible and use it.  Unless you have a psychology degree i wouldent be trying to mentally map people out because obviously you are no good at it.  Ive seen my fair share of things as well i havent lived my entire life sheltered watching news, you are dwelling to much on the news fact and have put far to much in an ASSUMPTION, which is very foolish indeed.  You are not the noly person in the entire world to have any first hand experience another foolish assumption on your behalf, i have handled many dogs as i am an all animals lover, from boxers to mastifs, great danes, dobermans, cane corsos, labs, pointers and the list goes on.  I may have never owned or handled a pitbull but i can tell what the breed is and what it was bred to do, along with what many other animals were bred for.  You have based your argument on far to any assumptions and a very poor character assessment.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 10, 2008)

J_dUbz88 said:


> You know not of what you talk i own dogs as well, where i may not have bred them i know a fair amount and can decipher what breed is which, and i don't hate dogs or wish for them to banned, i merely understand that some dogs are more aggressive than other and are prone to attack.  and if i watched no news how would i know what was happening in the world?  I watch and i read and there are many different outlets for news AB being one of them, this very thread is news, telling of how there could be a bill to ban exotics.  I am no fool and am not gullible at all, i dont believe most of what the news tells me i take what is credible and use it.  Unless you have a psychology degree i wouldent be trying to mentally map people out because obviously you are no good at it.  Ive seen my fair share of things as well i havent lived my entire life sheltered watching news, you are dwelling to much on the news fact and have put far to much in an ASSUMPTION, which is very foolish indeed.  You are not the noly person in the entire world to have any first hand experience another foolish assumption on your behalf, i have handled many dogs as i am an all animals lover, from boxers to mastifs, great danes, dobermans, cane corsos, labs, pointers and the list goes on.  I may have never owned or handled a pitbull but i can tell what the breed is and what it was bred to do, along with what many other animals were bred for.  You have based your argument on far to any assumptions and a very poor character assessment.


Dude, you're not even HALF my age, so your experience is limited by THAT alone! I can make very accurate "assumptions" of your character and knowledge(or lack thereof)based on the fact that I, too, was once a 20-year-old youngster who thought I knew it all, and people who were older and far more experienced than I was were irrelevant.  Don't try to act like you've got all this experience with dogs, especially with a breed you've never owned.  Don't try to fall into that idiotic assumption that ANIMAL-AGGRESSION equals HUMAN-AGGRESSION, because it does NOT!  Many, many breeds were created for the sole purpose of KILLING other animals, including other dogs, but that does not by default make them aggressive towards human beings.  On top of that, you're in Ontario, so you're probably brainwashed by that province's evil BSL which has resulted in the deaths of many countless innocent dogs, who've done nothing, and most of those didn't even have any verifiable APBT blood at all; they just LOOKED the wrong way.  You're horribly naive if you think that there's no relationship between the push to ban or restrict certain dogs, based on what the media(at the behest of a well-funded animal rights movement)says, and the move to ban ALL other animals, from so-called exotics to large livestock.  It's all part of the same plan, by the same groups.  If you support one part of this plan, you support ALL of it, since the people behind it will not settle for partial success.  They've made it clear that their goal is TOTAL ANIMAL LIBERATION, and one of their biggest allies is being able to convince an easily-scared public that certain animals are uncontrollably dangerous, under any circumstance, or that it's inherently cruel to keep them.  This is how they succeed, and we fail; they are unified in their goal, but we're splintered into factions that still think it's OK to ban/eliminate OTHER people's animals, as long as they don't touch the ones WE have.  You want to ban or restrict certain dogs because you have been misled into believing that because they were bred to fight other DOGS, this automatically translates into human aggression, ignoring the FACT that human-aggressive dogs of that breed were historically culled from the gene pool.  You think THAT is fine, as long as no one comes after the animals YOU own, and you absolutely fail to take into account that eventually, one day, someone WILL come after them, and that you've alienated the people who might have taken up for you and your animals by supporting the government's attacks on THEM.  There are not enough exotic animal keepers to hold out against the Anti's, without the support of the dog owners, the cattle ranchers, the horse people, etc.  If animal owners/sellers/breeders do not stick together, we'll all fail.  Wake UP, and GROW UP!  You either oppose animal bans, or you support them all, because ultimately, each effort to ban a certain type of animal is just one piece of a bigger puzzle, and each success for the Anti's means one step closer to us losing the right to have any animal, of any species/breed, for any purpose.

pitbulllady


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 10, 2008)

Well said PBL.:clap: 
TBH


----------



## J_dUbz88 (Aug 10, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> Dude, you're not even HALF my age, so your experience is limited by THAT alone! I can make very accurate "assumptions" of your character and knowledge(or lack thereof)based on the fact that I, too, was once a 20-year-old youngster who thought I knew it all, and people who were older and far more experienced than I was were irrelevant.  Don't try to act like you've got all this experience with dogs, especially with a breed you've never owned.  Don't try to fall into that idiotic assumption that ANIMAL-AGGRESSION equals HUMAN-AGGRESSION, because it does NOT!  Many, many breeds were created for the sole purpose of KILLING other animals, including other dogs, but that does not by default make them aggressive towards human beings.  On top of that, you're in Ontario, so you're probably brainwashed by that province's evil BSL which has resulted in the deaths of many countless innocent dogs, who've done nothing, and most of those didn't even have any verifiable APBT blood at all; they just LOOKED the wrong way.  You're horribly naive if you think that there's no relationship between the push to ban or restrict certain dogs, based on what the media(at the behest of a well-funded animal rights movement)says, and the move to ban ALL other animals, from so-called exotics to large livestock.  It's all part of the same plan, by the same groups.  If you support one part of this plan, you support ALL of it, since the people behind it will not settle for partial success.  They've made it clear that their goal is TOTAL ANIMAL LIBERATION, and one of their biggest allies is being able to convince an easily-scared public that certain animals are uncontrollably dangerous, under any circumstance, or that it's inherently cruel to keep them.  This is how they succeed, and we fail; they are unified in their goal, but we're splintered into factions that still think it's OK to ban/eliminate OTHER people's animals, as long as they don't touch the ones WE have.  You want to ban or restrict certain dogs because you have been misled into believing that because they were bred to fight other DOGS, this automatically translates into human aggression, ignoring the FACT that human-aggressive dogs of that breed were historically culled from the gene pool.  You think THAT is fine, as long as no one comes after the animals YOU own, and you absolutely fail to take into account that eventually, one day, someone WILL come after them, and that you've alienated the people who might have taken up for you and your animals by supporting the government's attacks on THEM.  There are not enough exotic animal keepers to hold out against the Anti's, without the support of the dog owners, the cattle ranchers, the horse people, etc.  If animal owners/sellers/breeders do not stick together, we'll all fail.  Wake UP, and GROW UP!  You either oppose animal bans, or you support them all, because ultimately, each effort to ban a certain type of animal is just one piece of a bigger puzzle, and each success for the Anti's means one step closer to us losing the right to have any animal, of any species/breed, for any purpose.
> 
> pitbulllady


Once agian you have just continued your assumptions of what i perceive form the media and my character lumping me into a fearing public persona. Calling em brainwashed is a ludacris claim, and you have yourself in your final paragraph contradicted yourself.  You can continue to think i am a know it all youngster and i will continue to think ur just a stubborn old timer.  I do not condemn the hobby in anyway by supporting a ban on certain animals.  Potentially danger animals, which is a wide spread category from large cats to alligators or crocodiles.  Some animals are not meant to be kept and should be relocated or banning form public ownership.  Your assumptions of what i obsorb form the media has clouded your entire perspective of me, and thus there is not point in further conversation  I respective retire from this thread  and spread my brainwashed heretics elsewhere.

Jay W.


----------



## mikeythefireman (Aug 10, 2008)

Jay, 

The fundamental error in that logic is based on who is doing the decision making regarding "potentially dangerous" animals.  Is it an educated Zoologist, a dedicated hobbyist, or a rational and impartial judge?  No.  It's the masses.  Nothing, nothing is more uninformed and judgemental than the masses.  

Support responsible hobbyists and animal keepers.  Support public education on conservation, animal husbandry, and global ecology.  Support punishment for irresponsible pet owners that abuse/neglect/mistreat their animals.

Supporting a ban on any currently legal animal is just asking for them to ban all "exotics" and anything else the media and the ANTI's deem dangerous or unsafe or (gasp!) unusual.

Thanks,
Mikey


----------



## crpy (Aug 10, 2008)

BoaConstrictor said:


> Well said PBL.:clap:
> TBH


Ya see why I think she is kick butt:clap: 

Dont worry PBL ,just an admirer not a stalker lol


----------



## kyrga (Aug 11, 2008)

J Dubz, you're the reason our age group has so many negative stereotypes attached to it. Thanks a lot for helping reinforce them.


Anyway, PBL, thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience with us. Are there any websites or anything you can link so we can get more information on some of these topics? I think you mentioned also a couple pages back you belong to some email list that informs you of this type of legislation? 

Also, I've known about PETA for years now (I actually wrote a whole term paper on all the nasty business that goes on with them), but I only recently heard the truths behind the Humane Society (and to think of all the quarters I donated as a kid  ) ...are there any large-scale organizations out there that truly help animals without having a sinister agenda?

Thanks!


----------



## ErgoProxy (Aug 11, 2008)

mikeythefireman said:


> Jay,
> 
> The fundamental error in that logic is based on who is doing the decision making regarding "potentially dangerous" animals.  Is it an educated Zoologist, a dedicated hobbyist, or a rational and impartial judge?  No.  It's the masses.  Nothing, nothing is more uninformed and judgemental than the masses.
> 
> ...



Very well said sir! The problem is the government has a tradition of only listening to those who are telling them what they want to hear. In this case they are NOT going to go to the responsible/experienced/"educated" hobbyists or Scientists (trust me, I'm in both groups on that one). It's been said by others on this thread so I won't repeat it ad nauseum, but it falls down to powerful lobbyists really running the government (don't get me started on that and corporations, because we will get really off topic their) who "own" the politicians, and most politicians don't really take the time to "educate" themselves on the true facts of the issue. They go with those who keep the $$$$ rolling in.

People may SCREAM at me for this one but for animals that are potentially quite dangerous (say certain venomous snakes and scorpions) I don't think there should be a ban as much as a "proof of experience". Something like X amount of hours working with these species before you can own one. That isn't restricting anything really. What it does is it keeps the animals out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them because they haven't taken the time to learn what it takes to keep the animal safe/healthy, but also themselves and those around them. We had something a number of years ago in the area where I live, where this one IDIOT was keeping things like Gaboon Vipers in tanks without tops, Spitting Cobras with wire top-cages,  (not to mention the 2 panther cubs he had)...all in an apartment. This guy was the POSTER CHILD for the "Darwin Award Waiting To Happen". He was finally "busted" big time (before that it was just minor).  And it wasn't the public wanting to "shut this guy down for good" but the responsible herp owners in the area because it IS people like him that endanger everyone around them, and also give ammunition to bills like the one in question.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 12, 2008)

....................


----------



## Rochelle (Aug 12, 2008)

Jdub....it is far better to be thought a fool; than to open your mouth and prove it.
If you are getting your "education on breeds" (specifically APBTS) from the media.....then it logically follows that I should be able to drive an win, with a Nascar Stock Car and also win a UFC Championship. Because I watch it all the time and therefore I am experienced and knowledgeable about what it takes to win ....right?
Pffft.... if you have never owned it - you don't have "experience" with it. You are parroting the media...which has already been established by everyone; regardless of party affiliation, as_ slanted._
If you want to actually "know" about the aggressive or non- aggressive nature of APBTs; then contact AKC and ask them about their bite-poll. It's done yearly on a bite per capita basis, to allow for larger numbers in larger places. The USPS also does the same poll...guess who is the biting-est dog in the country...20 years in row?   THE COCKER SPANIEL...... followed by every other spaniel, followed by every other retriever, followed by shepards...with APBTS coming in nearly last...even though they outnumber most breeds on the list polled. When was the last time you opened up a newspaper and read the headline "Cocker Spaniel Mauls Baby"?  (never...it wouldn't be exciting, would it?) :wall: 
Learn about it, before you argue about it.
Please educate yourself on the difference between animal aggression and human aggression before you say another word. I haven't added to this thread, because PBL knows exactly what she's saying...but I am seriously offended by dint of your admitted inexperience; yet you have the gall to argue the point. 
Will you argue with the doctor who needs to do surgery on your mother; because you saw an episode of E.R. that gave a different diagnoses? Or will you trust his/her years of experience and education.....that is far greater than your own? 

APBTS are the ONLY breed in the world that has been specifically bred NOT to bite humans..... 

Your  Rottweillers, Dobermans, Mastiffs, Shepards, etc...they were all bred to DELIBERATELY bite humans. 
Apparently you have never hunted behind a very cute pack of Beagles, have you? You'd better get to the rabbit before they do...they'll literally rip it apart while still alive, if you don't. You'd probably faint if you ever followed a pack of hunting Danes...it's truly gruesome. 


Keep talking sense, PBL...the rest of us are listening. This legislation MUST be stopped...for every pet owners sake, regardless of their choice of pet.
(You can lead a horse to water......)


----------



## Rochelle (Aug 12, 2008)

ErgoProxy said:


> Very well said sir! The problem is the government has a tradition of only listening to those who are telling them what they want to hear. In this case they are NOT going to go to the responsible/experienced/"educated" hobbyists or Scientists (trust me, I'm in both groups on that one). It's been said by others on this thread so I won't repeat it ad nauseum, but it falls down to powerful lobbyists really running the government (don't get me started on that and corporations, because we will get really off topic their) who "own" the politicians, and most politicians don't really take the time to "educate" themselves on the true facts of the issue. They go with those who keep the $$$$ rolling in.
> 
> People may SCREAM at me for this one but for animals that are potentially quite dangerous (say certain venomous snakes and scorpions) I don't think there should be a ban as much as a "proof of experience". Something like X amount of hours working with these species before you can own one. That isn't restricting anything really. What it does is it keeps the animals out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them because they haven't taken the time to learn what it takes to keep the animal safe/healthy, but also themselves and those around them. We had something a number of years ago in the area where I live, where this one IDIOT was keeping things like Gaboon Vipers in tanks without tops, Spitting Cobras with wire top-cages,  (not to mention the 2 panther cubs he had)...all in an apartment. This guy was the POSTER CHILD for the "Darwin Award Waiting To Happen". He was finally "busted" big time (before that it was just minor).  And it wasn't the public wanting to "shut this guy down for good" but the responsible herp owners in the area because it IS people like him that endanger everyone around them, and also give ammunition to bills like the one in question.


This may be unpopular...but I have to agree! :clap:


----------



## kyrga (Aug 12, 2008)

Rochelle said:


> This may be unpopular...but I have to agree! :clap:


I also agree in theory... but the debate still arises: who says which species are dangerous? Who says how many hours are enough, and what constitutes those hours? 

If the government wanted to get a bunch of experts--real experts, who've spent their whole lives around these creatures, who can or have written books about the subjects, who devote every waking hour to these animals and have no agenda other than safely promoting the truths about the animal, and dispelling harmful myths--and poll them on which species genuinely constitutes some real threat to human, and how best to train potential owners to ensure responsible animal care... then I'd be all for it. There are animals that are illegal in my area that I'd love to have the opportunity to raise someday, and it'd be great if they made a system where I could get a permit and then own that animal.

But in reality, if a system like this came to pass, ownership of any animal that _could _bite, whether or not it was prone to biting or had a dangerous bite, would require some ridiculous prerequisite... like a doctorate in zoology or something.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 12, 2008)

kyrga said:


> J Dubz, you're the reason our age group has so many negative stereotypes attached to it. Thanks a lot for helping reinforce them.
> 
> 
> Anyway, PBL, thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience with us. Are there any websites or anything you can link so we can get more information on some of these topics? I think you mentioned also a couple pages back you belong to some email list that informs you of this type of legislation?
> ...


I would strongly encourage everyone who is concerned about the future of being able to keep animals, whether dogs or exotics or livestock animals like cattle, sheep and hogs, and who wants to still be able to participate in the legal trade in animals that our hobbies depend on, to join the Yahoo Group, Pet Law.  They can be found here: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/pet-law/
This is a high-volume, moderated list, and trolls and troublemakers will not be tolerated, and people who think that as long as it's "not about us", will quickly get an education!  If they choose to be educated, fine, if not they are asked to leave.  We have no room in the hobby for those who feel it's fine to ban, restrict or target "other people's" animals, as long as no one touches THEIR choice.  This is, as most of you can concur, a terribly immature and dangerous mindset, regardless of your chronological age.  It is the main reason why groups like PETA, the API and the HSUS are so successful.  This is NOT a "SEP"-"Somebody Else's Problem", to steal a concept from the late, great Douglas Adams.  It's OUR problem, whether we have snakes, tarantulas, Bengal Cats, APBT's or Angus cattle.  This group monitors and keeps each other informed of things that can impact the our hobbies and livelihoods where animals are involved.  If you can get your hands on a copy, read _The Hi-Jacking of the Humane Movement_ , by Patti Strand, an eye-opening book that, even though written over two decades ago, shows the radical turn from "animal WELFARE" to "animal RIGHTS/LIBERATION" groups.  And while it's not directly related to "exotic" animals per se, by all means read Nathan Winograd's _Redemption_, which explains how many animal shelters have bought into the Animal Rights philosophy of "Better Off Dead", when it comes to animals.

Oh, and JDubz, "Ludicris" is the name of a rapper known for some really controversial lyrics.  LUDICROUS is an apt adjective I use to describe anyone who believes that if the Anti's succeed in taking my APBT's, they won't bother coming after YOUR inverts and herps.  They use the same method of taking down both-convince the gullible public masses that OUR animals pose an extreme risk to the safety of humans everywhere, either through attacks, envenomation, or diseases, and therefore WE-as in you and I both-should not be allowed to keep them.

pitbulllady


----------



## ErgoProxy (Aug 13, 2008)

kyrga said:


> I also agree in theory... but the debate still arises: who says which species are dangerous? Who says how many hours are enough, and what constitutes those hours?
> 
> If the government wanted to get a bunch of experts--real experts, who've spent their whole lives around these creatures, who can or have written books about the subjects, who devote every waking hour to these animals and have no agenda other than safely promoting the truths about the animal, and dispelling harmful myths--and poll them on which species genuinely constitutes some real threat to human, and how best to train potential owners to ensure responsible animal care... then I'd be all for it. There are animals that are illegal in my area that I'd love to have the opportunity to raise someday, and it'd be great if they made a system where I could get a permit and then own that animal.


THAT IS EXACTLY what I am talking about. A system that was based on the facts. Being from the Scientific area (at one time...sigh) it was always frustrating to hear when laws were being passed or concepts thought on, but the law-makers were NOT basing their decision on SOUND DATA. A system like this COULD REALLY WORK if the Government would get their answers from the scientific sector and from experienced handlers/breeders etc. But they don't, hence discussions like these...




> But in reality, if a system like this came to pass, ownership of any animal that _could _bite, whether or not it was prone to biting or had a dangerous bite, would require some ridiculous prerequisite... like a doctorate in zoology or something.


Not necessarily. I'm not saying it would be easy to derive the prerequisites, but it would be better than the alternatives we are faced with!  As a very loose analogy, some locations (states, cities) etc. allow "conceal and carry" of handguns. But I believe (at least what I read about some places) the people wanting to do this (legally, at least) have to take a gun safety course and pass it. And technically you cannot LEGALLY drive an automobile without having a license and you have to pass a test (though not a very difficult one, if you ask me and also people should have to RETAKE the exam I think every X amount of years...too many BAD DRIVERS on the road, IMHO, but that is way off topic).  So it should be a balance I feel....not only looking at the "potential" or "danger" of the organism in question, but also at the "competency" of the PERSON who wants to own them.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 14, 2008)

................


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 17, 2008)

So more people shall seeith.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 19, 2008)

BoaConstrictor said:


> So more people shall seeith.


And again.


----------



## crpy (Aug 19, 2008)

lol.........


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 19, 2008)

crpy said:


> lol.........


  Yeah, I know I'm desperate. I've already gotten over 1,500 people to see it though. Which is good. You can't expect them all to act but hopefully a good percentage did.
TBH


----------



## Pulk (Aug 19, 2008)

ok... bumping can be merited if you need to sell or buy something urgently, or you're not getting replies at all, but neither of those is the case here. (this is the thread with the most views in the past month.) just because you think your thread deserves more attention than the others, doesn't mean everyone else does. if they did, there would be no point to bumping it.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 20, 2008)

Hmm..... I was unaware of that Pulk. Oh well, time to let this one go.


----------



## Dillon (Aug 20, 2008)

This should be the most important thread on the boards atm.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 21, 2008)

Thanks Dillon. Have you spoken to state reps yet?


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 23, 2008)

:?  Has _anyone_ spoken to their reps yet?
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 23, 2008)

Does anyone else in the arachnid community even care enough to fight this? I know the herp community is going insane right now.
TBH


----------



## Drachenjager (Aug 23, 2008)

ErgoProxy said:


> THAT IS EXACTLY what I am talking about. A system that was based on the facts. Being from the Scientific area (at one time...sigh) it was always frustrating to hear when laws were being passed or concepts thought on, but the law-makers were NOT basing their decision on SOUND DATA. A system like this COULD REALLY WORK if the Government would get their answers from the scientific sector and from experienced handlers/breeders etc. But they don't, hence discussions like these...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Technically, the second amendment guarantees you the RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms, and it shall not be infringed. 
Keep=own or possess
Bear=carry
infringed=interfered with in any way
Therefore all US citizens have the RIGHT to own and carry any weapon they see fit in any manner they see fit. Any other interpretation of the second amendment is a failure to understand simple English, and the lack of a dictionary. 
Any state, county, or city that bans any weapon, if in violation of the 2nd amendment. There is no way around this. 
Some day I sincerely hope the USA gets off this idiocy called democracy and goes back to how it is supposed to be which is a Constitutional Republic.

Seeing as how the USA doesn't care about the LAW of the land , IE the Constitution, anymore and we allow politicians get away with serious violations of said Constitution with their "laws" I don't think there is much chance they will do whats right in this case either.
BUT please call or write these folks with the ID 10 T errors and let them know how you feel.
Like i said, i really pity this country if we don't get back to the constitution as THE LAW.


----------



## naturejoe (Aug 23, 2008)

I may be coming into this a little late but I read the bill and it only states to ban those animals on the prohibited list.  I have a problem with the fact that the list has not been made and there is no way to know what the intentions are until then.  The really scary part of the bill, in case you missed it, is that there is a part were even the legal animals will all be put on a no mailing list.  Meaning even the animals allowed will not be able to be shipped through the mail.  

I find it quite ironic that the fish and wildlife folks have been directly responsible for most of the worst introductions.  In the west there is now a lot of money spent on reintroducing native trout species to historic waters.  The main reason they are disappearing is the introduction of rainbow and brown trouts by fish and wildlife for sportsman.  Native Kokanee salmon in Flathead Lake Montana have become increasingly rare due to the introduction of Lake Trout and the subsequent introduction of mysid shrimp intended to provide more food for the salmon.  Problem is, the shrimp moved up and down in the water column in a similar pattern as the lake trout not the salmon.  Nice job boys!  Also look at the situation with brown snakes on Guam.  They introduced mongoose to eat the snakes but they liked the flightless birds more.


----------



## JohnEDove (Aug 23, 2008)

BoaConstrictor said:


> Yeah, I know I'm desperate. I've already gotten over 1,500 people to see it though. Which is good. You can't expect them all to act but hopefully a good percentage did.
> TBH


The real problem is that most people who really care animals have unknowingly signed petitions and or made donations to splinter groups of those who are really behind the drive to pass this ban.
Anytime that was done their names were added to the list of people supporting those organizations, those organizations are then considered a powerful lobby group because they can show the names of so many supporters when they push for this type of legislation. It does not matter that people got their names on the supporters list without knowing what they were doing.
Let us say that we, those opposed to this legislation, got 1,000,000 people to write in their objections. The odds are that at least ½ of them are also counted by the other side as supporters. That discounts our side by ½ bringing us down to 500,00 and you can bet that they have many many more than that signed on from dog lovers, horse lovers etc.

I am not saying don’t try, I’ve already spoken to a couple of congressmen myself, but be aware that we are behind the eight ball from the start and the odds are greatly against us unless the media picks it up, helps to make ALL Americans aware of this situation and comes down in a positive manner supporting the rights of ownership..


----------



## ErgoProxy (Aug 25, 2008)

Drachenjager said:


> Technically, the second amendment guarantees you the RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms, and it shall not be infringed.
> Keep=own or possess
> Bear=carry
> infringed=interfered with in any way
> ...



I'll preface what I am about to write with that it does not directly apply to the Second Amendment on its own...


But laws/ideals should EVOLVE along with an EVOLVING society. Note that is EVOLVING, not DEVOLVING!  Some concepts ideals that are centuries old should be kept intact, while others rethought in the best interest of the public, in general, based upon SOUND THOUGHT.  That is what is supposed to be the model that our government follows....but they don't, in that it never seems to be SOUND JUDGMENT, or intellectual thought that leads to laws in this land, but as we have all been stating, the pressures from special interests groups that FUND our "leaders".

Drachenjager, I cannot agree more that we need a change and that Democracy really has been failing us (but in my opinion, it's from letting our society be based on a model of a Democratic Capitalistic Society (where the Capitalism outweighs the Democracy), as opposed to a true Democratic Republic (where the interest of the people and not all the large corporations is what is at the heart of the government).

Back on subject though...

It seems that the bill proposed would only ban future imports. Animals already in the states (and part of the breeding program) would be "grandfathered in" While at first, this doesn't sound as bad as it could be, this would truly limit importation from overseas breeders of legally bred (not wild caught) animals. Overt time the inbreeding in the US would KILL the hobbies (herps, arachnids etc). 

And I caught that part which would prohibit the mailing of even allowed "non-native species". I'm curious if that only means the federal mail system or would it also effect private couriers like Overnight Express, FedEx, The Box Nazis (errr....UPS) etc. On the surface it would seem to apply to only the USPS, but I'm betting they would "interpret" the "not so careful wording" of that section to include ALL "mailing" type companies.

Other countries have closed border policies, but in those cases it's to halt the exportation of species (which may have been exploited to near extinction in some areas) or/and to protect native wildlife/ecosystems from worse disasters than have been experienced (in the past through accidental or on purpose introductions...think the Cane Toad issue in Australia, or what happened to the native bird fauna in New Zealand). Now in the US we have seen some issues with invasive species, but looking at the data, and the potential, while I support fully the concept of stopping the spread of invasive species, I think that as stated by others here, this is not really the intention of the groups "backing" this bill.

And on another note, will the government REALLY be talking to "neutral scientists" on this issue or just start to put together a minimalistic list of what is approved, thus excluding everything else, and the list more or less based off so-called "scientists" in the pay of those lobby groups.

One last note reading this....as it is stated, I don't think we have to worry about canids and the like and the importation of ones not already in the US (think that came up from someone?). The domesticated dog is not seen as "wildlife" and also, it's one species (despite the different breeds, those are not viewed as "subspecies" by science).  Though I'm not saying we wouldn't see an amendment to this some day to include some less "wild" animals as well....


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 25, 2008)

JohnEDove said:


> The real problem is that most people who really care animals have unknowingly signed petitions and or made donations to splinter groups of those who are really behind the drive to pass this ban.
> Anytime that was done their names were added to the list of people supporting those organizations, those organizations are then considered a powerful lobby group because they can show the names of so many supporters when they push for this type of legislation. It does not matter that people got their names on the supporters list without knowing what they were doing.
> Let us say that we, those opposed to this legislation, got 1,000,000 people to write in their objections. The odds are that at least ½ of them are also counted by the other side as supporters. That discounts our side by ½ bringing us down to 500,00 and you can bet that they have many many more than that signed on from dog lovers, horse lovers etc.
> 
> I am not saying don’t try, I’ve already spoken to a couple of congressmen myself, but be aware that we are behind the eight ball from the start and the odds are greatly against us unless the media picks it up, helps to make ALL Americans aware of this situation and comes down in a positive manner supporting the rights of ownership..


That doesn't matter. Most laws started as trash in/trash out bills. People disagreed but didn't step up. The government won't know we're against them if we don't make it crystal clear.


----------



## clam1991 (Aug 25, 2008)

well i dont think the animals that are the problem

if someone wants an alligator
by all means get one
but make sure you can care for it
there should be a system to make sure that people are able to keep pets
even if it means that gov. people would come into our houses and inspect
they dont have to be strict but keeping an alligator in a kiddie pool is ridiculous
however keeping him in a proper enclosure is not
keeping a ball python in a cardboard box is not ok
keeping it in a proper tank is fine by me

and then more common animals
why should people be allowed to get dogs if they leave them outside all year

i can understand some situations but in extreme heat or cold you need to properly care for them

so basically its not the pets doing wrong
its the keepers who just want the pets and dont know enough to care for them
tests or something
even a pet license
if you should have to have a license to drive you should have one to care for another beings life

like kids if someone cant care for kids
gov steps in and takes them to a care center
same principle


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 25, 2008)

clam1991 said:


> well i dont think the animals that are the problem
> 
> if someone wants an alligator
> by all means get one
> ...


I would have to respectfully disagree. The permitation system is a terrible idea because the government would choose the requirements. Look at Florida. You have to provide an enclosure as long as your snake now. Who could afford a collection like that? The point is that government permitations are usually expensive and have obscene rules. In Florida you have to work a thousand hours to get a hot. That's insane. You can learn yourself, I know numerous self taught people. When the government steps in with rules they say "Hey look that passed, maybe we can make it steeper." One regulation is never enough for the government. They must be stopped as soon as they make the first bill and it is a dumb thing to suggest a permitation system.
TBH


----------



## crpy (Aug 25, 2008)

Well, what awoke the sleeping ,sniveling incompetent giant (gov), is people getting cobras turning up in there garage for one thing.


----------



## Hedorah99 (Aug 25, 2008)

crpy said:


> Well, what awoke the sleeping ,sniveling incompetent giant (gov), is people getting cobras turning up in there garage for one thing.


Not to mention the fact Burmese Pythons are pretty much going to be living in the wild along the Southern United States forever now. Along with nile monitors, green iguanas, spectacles caimen, (unconfirmed) anacondas, etc etc etc...


----------



## crpy (Aug 25, 2008)

Hedorah99 said:


> Not to mention the fact Burmese Pythons are pretty much going to be living in the wild along the Southern United States forever now. Along with nile monitors, green iguanas, spectacles caimen, (unconfirmed) anacondas, etc etc etc...


I actually found a yellow, and am hot on the trail,  or tail,of a big green.


----------



## Hedorah99 (Aug 25, 2008)

crpy said:


> I actually found a yellow, and am hot on the trail,  or tail,of a big green.


And yet we wonder why plans to somehow stop adding to this problem are being put in  place


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 25, 2008)

clam1991 said:


> well i dont think the animals that are the problem
> 
> if someone wants an alligator
> by all means get one
> ...


I am not ashamed that I keep my dogs-all 11 of them, with an average weight of 80 lbs., outside year-round.  Mine are working/hunting dogs, not foo-foo house pets; yes, some folks still keep dogs to work cattle, hunt big, dangerous wild game, and protect property.  I tried keeping a 95-lb. Catahoula Leopard Dog inside the house once, and he literally destroyed the place.  He demolished the kennel crate he was in, ripped apart every piece of furniture, smashed two storm windows, threw a computer across the room, and finally ripped up the bottom of a metal door like it was tin foil, and was gone. The insurance adjuster who came out to view the damage, after I filed a claim, told me that the only time he'd seen an animal so utterly destroy the inside of a home was when a wild black bear got inside a vacation rental home in Georgetown County, SC.  He doubted that a mere dog could do that much damage-until I showed him my other Catahoulas.  That convinced him. So much for that notion that all dogs want to be indoors or need to be indoors.  I kept my first Akita indoors for most of her life, but could not continue to torment her in the winter, when I was most comfortable with the heat on, but she was sweltering.  Ask pretty much any hunter, or cattleman, or farmer, who uses dogs, and you won't find many who keep their dogs inside.  It's not practical, nor is it fair to a high-energy, large working breed of dog, unless you can be home 24/7 to keep them occupied.  This is one of the standard "weapons" used by the Animal Rights crowd to end the practice of keeping dogs,period-the claim that dogs MUST live indoors with people, and sleep on the couch/bed and watch tv, etc., and if you can't keep every dog inside, you shouldn't be allowed to have a dog, period.  They're passing anti-tethering, anti-penning laws, but you can't let a dog run loose, either.  This is really aimed at strong working or hunting breeds that simply do NOT do well inside and will not be happy inside, as that large Catahoula proved in no uncertain terms, since the Anti's know that hunters and people with real working dogs usually have more than one dog, and that these are generally too big or too high-energy to be left indoors, and of course, hunting dogs are the ones they most want to eliminate, along with "pit bulls".

pitbulllady


----------



## clam1991 (Aug 25, 2008)

thats fine if you keep them outside but they have food and arent starving or freezing out there cuz you know how to care for them properly.

and im saying the license idea b-cuz if you can pass a test that says you know what your doing then you can have a pet
but if you cant pass a test to just know how to care for it why would you allow a person to care of it?

and people dont go broke getting their drivers license



GOSH!


----------



## sassysmama (Aug 25, 2008)

I don't agree with this bill at all, but I do agree with rules on venomous snakes.  No, 1000 hours is not crazy for you to be able to have a cobra.  Sorry, but it's not.  And no, I do not believe you should "self teach" how to handle one.  You can DIE.  Period.  Self teach with a tarantula, or something not DEADLY. And yes, you can get antivenom, but they are not native so anti-venom is not going to be readily available, and it is going to cost thousands of dollars.  And if Joe Schmoe buys a cobra, tries to teach himself how to handle it, makes one incorrect move, gets bitten, and then goes to the ER, who foots the bill?  Does Joe have thousands of dollars on hand to pay for it?  Nope.  
That is why the gov't doesn't want inexperienced people to handle venomous snakes.  It's simply a case of a few bad apples ruining it for everyone.  And yes, that is unfortunate, but it is better than putting people at risk by allowing anyone to keep exotics. 
We should be more angry with the people who have released their exotic animals and hurt our hobby's reputation.  Pitbullady, you should be equally as angry with the people who abuse their pitbulls and raise dogs that will attack people.  When I hear about a county that bans pitbulls, I am angry with all the people in that county that were stupid and ruined it for the people with great dogs.  I work at a vet clinic, and when I see a pitbull that is aggressive, I get angry with the owner of that dog, and the breeder of that dog, that allow it to tarnish the name of pitbulls everywhere.
It is so unfortunate that we live in a society that makes rules like this, but the reason for it is because some people can't use common sense or good judgement.  If everyone could behave appropriately, we wouldn't need to have any laws.  But some people will steal, drive 130 mph, and yes, release cobras, and unless there are laws to punish them, they will do it forever.  This is my motto on the days at work that are one headache after another : People Suck.  Simply, I wish everyone could be a good pet owner.  But they aren't, so live with it, recognize that it sucks, and try to make it better.-Ally


----------



## clam1991 (Aug 25, 2008)

exactly you cant expect everyone who gets a dangerous pet to know how to care for it
some people will assume and get hurt or get others hurt

you cant just know how to handle these things it takes training or something bad will happen


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 27, 2008)

clam1991 said:


> thats fine if you keep them outside but they have food and arent starving or freezing out there cuz you know how to care for them properly.
> 
> and im saying the license idea b-cuz if you can pass a test that says you know what your doing then you can have a pet
> but if you cant pass a test to just know how to care for it why would you allow a person to care of it?
> ...


What we should do is have stronging animal cruelty inforcement agents or police to take animals out of bad conditions. Not make all these stupid tests and licenses.
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 27, 2008)

sassysmama said:


> I don't agree with this bill at all, but I do agree with rules on venomous snakes.  No, 1000 hours is not crazy for you to be able to have a cobra.  Sorry, but it's not.  And no, I do not believe you should "self teach" how to handle one.  You can DIE.  Period.  Self teach with a tarantula, or something not DEADLY. And yes, you can get antivenom, but they are not native so anti-venom is not going to be readily available, and it is going to cost thousands of dollars.  And if Joe Schmoe buys a cobra, tries to teach himself how to handle it, makes one incorrect move, gets bitten, and then goes to the ER, who foots the bill?  Does Joe have thousands of dollars on hand to pay for it?  Nope.
> That is why the gov't doesn't want inexperienced people to handle venomous snakes.  It's simply a case of a few bad apples ruining it for everyone.  And yes, that is unfortunate, but it is better than putting people at risk by allowing anyone to keep exotics.
> We should be more angry with the people who have released their exotic animals and hurt our hobby's reputation.  Pitbullady, you should be equally as angry with the people who abuse their pitbulls and raise dogs that will attack people.  When I hear about a county that bans pitbulls, I am angry with all the people in that county that were stupid and ruined it for the people with great dogs.  I work at a vet clinic, and when I see a pitbull that is aggressive, I get angry with the owner of that dog, and the breeder of that dog, that allow it to tarnish the name of pitbulls everywhere.
> It is so unfortunate that we live in a society that makes rules like this, but the reason for it is because some people can't use common sense or good judgement.  If everyone could behave appropriately, we wouldn't need to have any laws.  But some people will steal, drive 130 mph, and yes, release cobras, and unless there are laws to punish them, they will do it forever.  This is my motto on the days at work that are one headache after another : People Suck.  Simply, I wish everyone could be a good pet owner.  But they aren't, so live with it, recognize that it sucks, and try to make it better.-Ally


You're inexperienced ideas are useless. You have no venomous experience so don't talk. I have hook handled copperheads outside and I sure as heck didn't need a thousand hours of experience to do so. Cobras are not cheap or easily obtainable in non-PA states very few Joe shmoes obtain them. 911 is public record. When was the last time you heard of an exotic snake bite recording and you know it would have ended up on the news if it exsisted. Statistically speaking cars are a thousand times deadlier than snakes. Did you work a million hours to get your license?
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 27, 2008)

Hedorah99 said:


> And yet we wonder why plans to somehow stop adding to this problem are being put in  place


Huh? All these animals you are speaking of were found in Florida. Florida now regulates and radiochips them. So I don't understand where you're getting that comment from. Why does it need to be a national law any way? Last I checked Boids and Crocidilians can't make it in VA or the 99% of the U.S. The point is Florida, where the problems occured now regulates them. Why make it a nationwide law just now after the issue's being resolved?


----------



## sassysmama (Aug 28, 2008)

Whoa.  I'm sorry, I thought this was a forum, a place for public debate.  Telling me that my inexperienced ideas are useless is uncalled for.  I was not aware that only people who agree with you were permitted to post in your thread.
By the way, please check the classifieds on any snake forum, you will see spitting cobras for less than $100, and monacled cobras for around $150.  That is cheap.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion.  Peace out,
-Ally


----------



## NevularScorpion (Aug 28, 2008)

I love all animals and each one of them have a special way to charm people. i fully agree with pitbull lady your either against it or not. once this thing becomes a bill i will try to contact my representative and ask some scabies members for help about this issue. the main reason i'm against this bill is because we will lose the eligibility to breed endangered animals like pokies and other animals that are becoming extinct from urbanization. its not impossible to breed even if the bill is pass but it will be difficult for most people to breed exotic animals because it will need a lot of money to get all the permits for legalizations.


----------



## Taceas (Aug 28, 2008)

BoaConstrictor said:


> You're inexperienced ideas are useless. You have no venomous experience so don't talk. I have hook handled copperheads outside and I sure as heck didn't need a thousand hours of experience to do so. Cobras are not cheap or easily obtainable in non-PA states very few Joe shmoes obtain them. 911 is public record. When was the last time you heard of an exotic snake bite recording and you know it would have ended up on the news if it exsisted. Statistically speaking cars are a thousand times deadlier than snakes. Did you work a million hours to get your license?
> TBH


Totally uncalled for response. You can't just have people who agree with your point of view participate in your thread, otherwise you might be talking to yourself in the end. Everyone's opinion on this matter is valuable, whether or not you agree with it.  

To go off on a related tangent: They're wanting to force the NAIS onto me for keeping backyard chickens. They want to register my property, having its coordinates on GPS, subject to stiff fines and culling of my animals if I don't follow the rules, making me microchip every single bird on my property, notifying them within 24 hours when a chicken so much as farts on my neighbor's property. You know, never mind the fact the chickens don't leave my property...they're born here and they die here. Some threat to food safety that I am. 

But yet the very "farms" that house thousands of your food animals in horrid conditions with sick animals are exempt from these stringent laws aimed to protect the public's food. They only need a small sampling from each "herd" to register and keep tabs on.  

I don't think 1000 hours is necessarily too much to ask to keep, breed, and sell venomous reptiles. Not only is it for the keeper's safety but the public that lives around him as well. Copperheads aren't remotely deadly, unless you're already near death, extremely young or old...is that supposed to be a badge of honor or a "Here's your sign"?

As for dogs, I don't mind pitbulls...I don't like them and I don't trust them, but I don't mind them. I just wish that every Tom, Dick, and Harry didn't need one to make his dick look bigger to his friends. 

Around here they're the most surrendered and euthanized "breed". They come to the shelters in poor physical health, starved or having been fought, they come in unsocialized and are thus unadoptable. They take up valuable time, space, and resources that already struggling shelters can't provide to pets that are more salvageable as it were. And as thus I don't think that every person should own one. Again, it comes down to animal welfare and public safety. You wouldn't dream of owning fish without an aquarium and water...so why would you get a large, potentially aggressive dog without a decent fence?

I don't really care what the statistics show, around here they're the dog that _does_ bite. Whether its the breed, or lack of breed (most seem to be mutts), the lack of socialization, the lack of proper care, or all of the above...I don't trust one any further than I could throw it. I also don't trust most smaller dogs as they're also unpredictable, moody, and apt to bite. But most Cocker Spaniels can't rip you to shreds in the blink of an eye, either.

Spay/neuter laws don't really bother me surprisingly. I am not a breeder, my dog and cats are fixed by choice, and I see an abundance of feral animals decimating the natural landscape and overcrowding the local shelters due to people too damned lazy or cheap to get their pets fixed. If you want to breed your champion mutts and sell the pups for insane amounts of money, then you should be able to afford a breeder's license, eh? However I don't think such a policy will work given the nature of the American sheeple.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 28, 2008)

Taceas said:


> Totally uncalled for response. You can't just have people who agree with your point of view participate in your thread, otherwise you might be talking to yourself in the end. Everyone's opinion on this matter is valuable, whether or not you agree with it.
> 
> To go off on a related tangent: They're wanting to force the NAIS onto me for keeping backyard chickens. They want to register my property, having its coordinates on GPS, subject to stiff fines and culling of my animals if I don't follow the rules, making me microchip every single bird on my property, notifying them within 24 hours when a chicken so much as farts on my neighbor's property. You know, never mind the fact the chickens don't leave my property...they're born here and they die here. Some threat to food safety that I am.
> 
> ...


"Statistics" are a HIGHLY unreliable source of information when it comes to "pit bulls"-notice the use of quotation marks  here, since the term "pit bull"(often misspelled "pitt bull") is a very broad, wide term that basically includes every short-coated, muscular dog-or just any dog that acts aggressive, regardless of its appearance.  I've even coined a phrase for it-"Rattlesnake Syndrome".  Just as people who are terrified of snakes tend to "identify" every snake they see as a "rattlesnake", and interpret every snake behavior they observe as a threat, attack, charge, strike, or other form of aggression, people have now had it drilled into their heads that there are these killer monster dogs out there, who exist for no other reason that to eat people and little Fluffy.  Thus, many people are developing that same deep-rooted cultural fear of dogs that they have had of snakes since that whole misinterpretation of the Book of Genesis.  Every dog that they see running loose, every dog that barks at them, and certainly every dog that bites, will be reported as a "pit bull", just like many people will insist every snake they see, even if it's bright green, is a "rattlesnake".  It doesn't occur to them that there can even BE any other kind!  Don't assume that animal control officers or law enforcement can do any better at identifying breeds; heck, *I* myself, a veteran breeder/owner of purebred APBT's, have been fooled by mutts with NO APBT genes at all, and I know that there are many combos of breeds that can look a lot like an APBT.  Of course, when any of these countless mutts bites someone, or is simply PERCEIVED as threatening(and people tend to be horrifically stupid when it comes to knowledge of dog behavior, made all the worse by fear), it is officially reported as a "pit bull attack", and thus goes into the "statistics".  Even the CDC, who initially came out with a report blaming "pit bulls"(again, a non-existent breed, since it's used to describe so many different dogs) for the most human attacks, later retracted that statement and admitted that statistics based on breed were highly unreliable due to the difficulty of properly identifying the breed involved, especially where bias against particular dogs is rampant-Rattlesnake Syndrome at work.

pitbulllady


----------



## crpy (Aug 28, 2008)

Taceas said:


> the nature of the American sheeple.


And the herd is huge, well atleast some species


----------



## ErgoProxy (Aug 28, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> "Statistics" are a HIGHLY unreliable source of information...


Sorry for cutting that so "short" PBL, but you can take that "argument" to an even more basic level in that Statistics are unreliable due to the nature of statistics. Two different people can take the same dataset, and depending on which set of statistical tests/formulas they CHOOSE to apply, can come up with radically different interpretations of the data. That is the "power" and the WEAKNESS of statistics...they can be quite biased, which goes to show how "subjective" they can be (as in most instances, the data can be "massaged" to show exactly what you want it to, and it is only the skill of the statistician in employing the "correct" test for the question at hand that will lead to a more "realistic" interpretation and avoid something like this).

But look at the level we are talking about. Organizations that WANT to have that bias in the interpretation of the results so that they can have their agendas met, and John/Jane Q. Public, in most cases, really isn't aware or educated enough to know the difference...

Want to talk "misidentification"...some time ago, with my last dog, Animal Control showed up one day saying there was a "complaint" that we were keeping a DEER in our yard (in the "city limits")....then the agents saw the dog (a Kelb tal-Fenek) and well, shut up really fast and left.  

And for "interpretation" or using data to say what you want it to, I was interviewed while working at a local Natural History museum in the past regarding "Brown Recluse" spiders, since someone went into an ER with a mysterious wound and the ever so "know it all" doctor right off said "brown recluse bite" even though the area I am in, is not in their native range. Possible, yeah, with an accidental introduction, BUT the "victim" didn't even notice a spider bite at all and traced it back to working in a "wood pile". No evidence of a spider bite, let alone a brown recluse.  Well I was really contradicting the doctor's "opinion" and when the interview aired on the Evening News...the lead in to the story was "Dangers Spiders showing up in XXXX", and then they used what I said during the interview completely out of context to make it seem that a spider "expert" was agreeing with this doctor. That was one of the moments in life when I was most livid, but bit my tongue in lieu of negative press for the institution...but told the marketing department I would NEVER EVER speak to that local news station again, which was KNOWN for sensationalism in their reporting of the "news".

How did that apply? Well, news stories ALWAYS blow things out of proportion to the point that they have the public BELIEVING what they want them to. Have Pit Bulls attacked people in the past. Yes. Does that mean that every Pit Bull is a vicious killer? NO. But people are going to believe what others tell them because they have it INGRAINED into them that somehow the NEWS is reporting things in the best interest of the public, instead of "tweaking" things to drive up ratings and get better sponsors.

All that said, I do still support some type of "permits" for dangerously "hot" reptiles and inverts.....but ones based on sound REASON and not set by the government appeasing the lobby groups that BUY the congressmen and president.


----------



## clam1991 (Aug 28, 2008)

and you can say cars are more dangerous than a cobra but have you noticed how many cars are in America compared to cobras

if you want a venomous snake that bad do the hours and quit complaining;P


----------



## crpy (Aug 28, 2008)

Well Ill tell you who is gonna get our hobby/business banned, the pet shops that are continuing to sell mislabeled inverts. I read this all the time and someone will get tagged bad and that might be it. 


Pet shop management incompetence=aaaaaaahhhhh!!


----------



## ErgoProxy (Aug 28, 2008)

crpy said:


> Well Ill tell you who is gonna get our hobby/business banned, the pet shops that are continuing to sell mislabeled inverts. I read this all the time and someone will get tagged bad and that might be it.
> 
> 
> Pet shop management incompetence=aaaaaaahhhhh!!


NO LIE, and despite everyone's BEST EFFORTS to get them to change (even some of the "independently owned" local chains....

I knew of one guy/gal who worked in the "herp room" (where they kept the inverts as well) who knew something of what they were talking about (but then they always talked to me when I was in there   ) and would tell people what they were actually purchasing.  I recall hearing a story of that place selling some unsuspecting client a Haplopelma minax, not even knowing (different workers) the potential speed/defensiveness of that Genus/Species (esp. being WC) and the person returned it because it went from PET ROCK to running around and tagging them, when they were poking at it.

Granted a Hap, won't kill you, but it adds some ammo to the point....


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 28, 2008)

clam1991 said:


> and you can say cars are more dangerous than a cobra but have you noticed how many cars are in America compared to cobras


That comment makes no sense at all. My statistics were worldly including snakes confronted outside. Many countries have far more native hots than vehicles. Just to put it in prospective my boss has owned hots since he was twelve. He was sent to the hospital once from a snake bite, five times from dog attacks and three times from car accidents. He's spent far more time with hots than vehicles too. The average U.S. hot owner gets bit every 15-20 years, the average U.S.person gets in a car accident every six. You do the math. Please stop commenting on my thread. You are just too uneducated on this topic, I feel like I'm arguing with a five year old.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 28, 2008)

crpy said:


> Well Ill tell you who is gonna get our hobby/business banned, the pet shops that are continuing to sell mislabeled inverts. I read this all the time and someone will get tagged bad and that might be it.
> 
> 
> Pet shop management incompetence=aaaaaaahhhhh!!


I strongly agree. My local pet shop got in trouble and shut down for roaches and an all over disgusting shop. They didn't seem to know that the word tarantula wasn't a species. They always had a 5.5 gallon labeled tarantula. It was usually G. rosea, A. seemani or H. lividum. They kept them on a 1/4 inch of dry, grainy bark with a tiny bowl and sponge.
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 28, 2008)

Taceas said:


> Totally uncalled for response.
> I don't think 1000 hours is necessarily too much to ask to keep, breed, and sell venomous reptiles. Not only is it for the keeper's safety but the public that lives around him as well. Copperheads aren't remotely deadly, unless you're already near death, extremely young or old...is that supposed to be a badge of honor or a "Here's your sign"?


Than what does that make your response?
I'm not an egotist. I just like hots. I'm not bragging I'm just trying to educate and give my own opinion. Thank you for illustrating my point. They aren't deadly, so why work an obscene number of hours for them?
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 28, 2008)

Genei Ryodan said:


> I love all animals and each one of them have a special way to charm people. i fully agree with pitbull lady your either against it or not. once this thing becomes a bill i will try to contact my representative and ask some scabies members for help about this issue. the main reason i'm against this bill is because we will lose the eligibility to breed endangered animals like pokies and other animals that are becoming extinct from urbanization. its not impossible to breed even if the bill is pass but it will be difficult for most people to breed exotic animals because it will need a lot of money to get all the permits for legalizations.


It is a bill. Actually they aren't going to give permits to breed anything on either list. Everything will also be put on the nonmailing list except natives. If this law passes all we can keep are native U.S. animals and probably dogs, cats and farming animals.


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 28, 2008)

sassysmama said:


> Whoa.  I'm sorry, I thought this was a forum, a place for public debate.  Telling me that my inexperienced ideas are useless is uncalled for.  I was not aware that only people who agree with you were permitted to post in your thread.
> By the way, please check the classifieds on any snake forum, you will see spitting cobras for less than $100, and monacled cobras for around $150.  That is cheap.
> I respectfully disagree with your opinion.  Peace out,
> -Ally


Debating is what I'm doing, thank you. I was just pointing out that this wasn't your field of experience for such strong opinions. You are permitted to post and I am permitted to reply. Monocles and Spitter prices aren't cheap after you put in air cost. They usually aren't easily obtainable in your area unless you're in PA. They used to also be obtainable in Florida and Texas but they were legislated. It costs $109+ box charge for hot shipments and you must go to the air port to get them. Most dealers won't ship or they must hear your voice and question you before shipping. So it would be about 209+ gas costs depending on how far the airport is. Not cheap or easily obtainable for me. 
TBH


----------



## clam1991 (Aug 28, 2008)

its amazing!
everyone that doesn't agree with you is evidentially uneducated


----------



## sassysmama (Aug 29, 2008)

I assume that you keep insisting that I'm uneduated because of my previous thread where I said I had no experience with hots.  Well, the point of that post was to help me find out where to get experience, which I am happy to say I did, two weekends ago.  I got to go with a guy while he looked for rattlesnakes (we did encounter a few).  Crotalus atrox, in case you were wondering.  After that I went to his house where he let me work with his collection, very supervised of course.  So I am happy to report that I have now personally hooked 8 western diamondbacks, of various sizes, a few being over 4 ft.  Which is like .0000001 of the amount I would like to work with before I feel comfortable, but it's a start.  There a quite a few deaths on record for that species, some even after anti-venom was given, so please don't tell me that western diamondbacks don't count.  They are also known to be quite defensive, and readily strike.  I didn't do anything more than put them from one container to another, but I had a good time and gained a TON of respect for hots.  So no, I am not totally uneducated.  And just in case you didn't know, repeatedly telling people that they are uneducated, and telling them to stop posting, is not debating, it's called FLAMING.  I hope you can learn to be respectful while you disagree, because the way you are carrying on is making you appear childish.  If you wanted to draw attention to your thread, this was the wrong way to do it.  
-Ally


----------



## K-TRAIN (Aug 29, 2008)

im against it as much as everyone else, but my question is, why is it that if the government is so worried about stuff like immigration, terrorism, the war in iraq, the economy, etc, why are they wasting there time making a bill against animal keepers instead of spending that time to make laws regarding the bigger things? 

it doesnt seem to make sense if you ask me. maybe im just not seeing the big picture though. :?


----------



## clam1991 (Aug 29, 2008)

its just to distract people from those major problems and "realize" that the government is actually helping


----------



## K-TRAIN (Aug 29, 2008)

clam1991 said:


> its just to distract people from those major problems and "realize" that the government is actually helping


ah now i see now. i didnt think of that


----------



## Arachnopets (Aug 29, 2008)

*Moderator's Note*

Ok everyone, simmer down.

Let me make this crystal clear. The ONLY one who can tell someone to stop posting anywhere on this site is a moderator. And seeing as you are most certainly NOT a moderator, BoaConstrictor, then YOU need to stop trying to act like one, or you will be the one that will be told to stop posting .....

EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion. It does NOT mean the are not educated. You are extremely insulting and my tolerance level is diminishing quickly. I suggest you get yourself in check swiftly.  

Debby


----------



## ThomasH (Aug 29, 2008)

sassysmama said:


> I assume that you keep insisting that I'm uneduated because of my previous thread where I said I had no experience with hots.  Well, the point of that post was to help me find out where to get experience, which I am happy to say I did, two weekends ago.  I got to go with a guy while he looked for rattlesnakes (we did encounter a few).  Crotalus atrox, in case you were wondering.  After that I went to his house where he let me work with his collection, very supervised of course.  So I am happy to report that I have now personally hooked 8 western diamondbacks, of various sizes, a few being over 4 ft.  Which is like .0000001 of the amount I would like to work with before I feel comfortable, but it's a start.  There a quite a few deaths on record for that species, some even after anti-venom was given, so please don't tell me that western diamondbacks don't count.  They are also known to be quite defensive, and readily strike.  I didn't do anything more than put them from one container to another, but I had a good time and gained a TON of respect for hots.  So no, I am not totally uneducated.  And just in case you didn't know, repeatedly telling people that they are uneducated, and telling them to stop posting, is not debating, it's called FLAMING.  I hope you can learn to be respectful while you disagree, because the way you are carrying on is making you appear childish.  If you wanted to draw attention to your thread, this was the wrong way to do it.
> -Ally


I'm not going to say atox's don't count. I didn't say any snake doesn't count. All I'm saying is that I think the thousand hour rule is messed up. I agree that keeping tabs on hot owners and what exotics they have is good. I just don't think you need to work a thousand hours for it.
TBH


----------



## Hedorah99 (Aug 29, 2008)

If you want to continue this thread with intelligent discourse into the pro's and or con's of this bill, feel free. Anything else other than that will result in infraction or suspension and the thread will be closed. This is the last warning.


----------



## What (Sep 2, 2008)

While I am personally opposed to a few genera of arachnid ever reaching the invertebrate hobby, the bill seems to have the potential for far more negative things to come than positives. I went through the bill and cited the specific problems that I can see(other than the broad topic of the lists), please feel free to add your own input.

- Sec 3.a.1: Would keep new/undescribed species from entering the hobby.
- Sec 3.a.11: Basically a blank check for bans/regulations.
- Sec 3.d: California and ferrets are a perfect example of how laws can be passed on half-assed data.
- Sec 5.a.2: Allows for the formal ban of importation of all invertebrates covered in the plant pest act.
- Sec 6.a.6: Makes the breeding, selling, trading, or buying of banned animals already in possession a crime.
- Sec 8.a: Allows for the permits and or fines to be prohibitively expensive for the average person.


----------



## arachnocat (Sep 2, 2008)

Just a quick note..
If you are interested in the many changing rules/regulations about pet ownership, I would suggest joining this group: Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council.

This organization keeps it's members up to date on what's going on in the pet trade. A lot of the information is really useful. It's only $35 for hobbyists to join and have access to the whole site plus their newsletter.

I keep quite a few different animals and it's important to me to know what's going on. I don't like being surprised when California adds a few new animals on the list of illegal pets like they did this year


----------



## barabootom (Sep 2, 2008)

There are many reasons why I think this bill is bad, but one big reason is the list of current exotics that are to be banned isn't made yet.  This bill is an open book to ban all exotics period.  Don't expect some government official or politician to care about your hobby, they will eventually ban all exotics and this bill will help them do it.  Anyone who supports this bill is supporting a ghost.  Make a solid list of banned animals rather than a phantom list to be created later.  If you value your hobby get active in defeating this bill.


----------



## JohnEDove (Sep 3, 2008)

*Put up or stand aside*

Okay folks let's get organized now.
Andrew Wyatt who helped to found the North Carolina Association of Reptile Keepers and defeat similar legislation in that state has started a United States group to fight this one.

Let's get behind this one and get something done by supporting a proven winner.
http://usark.org/


----------



## ThomasH (Sep 14, 2008)

JohnEDove said:


> Okay folks let's get organized now.
> Andrew Wyatt who helped to found the North Carolina Association of Reptile Keepers and defeat similar legislation in that state has started a United States group to fight this one.
> 
> Let's get behind this one and get something done by supporting a proven winner.
> http://usark.org/


Good one, but I am with Rexano. I'll still check it out though. Rexano isn't just reptiles. It is about a person's choice of pet no matter what it is.
TBH


----------



## snakemaster1 (Sep 15, 2008)

Even though i am a canadian i will be joining PIJAC usa soon as well as USARK to help in this major battle to keep all of our pets no matter what they are we must band together in this challange or we will certainly lose. there is simular legislation going on here in BC, Canada.


----------



## ThomasH (Sep 21, 2008)

Well the bill doesn't seem to be too active but keep the congress e-mails up. We can't risk the consequences of it going any further.
TBH


----------



## -Exotic (Oct 2, 2008)

Question is this bill to ban thehobbie affect Canada? because i live there and if it happens at canada im gonig to be crushed


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 2, 2008)

-Exotic said:


> Question is this bill to ban thehobbie affect Canada? because i live there and if it happens at canada im gonig to be crushed


Yes! The law only regulates the United States not Canada. Most captive inverts come from the U.S. people in Canada's hobby will most definitely see much less availability, more wild caughts and way higher prices. You should act on this regulation too.
TBH


----------



## -Exotic (Oct 2, 2008)

Damn brother... ill talk to abrax me and him live in the same province and city


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 10, 2008)

-Exotic said:


> Damn brother... ill talk to abrax me and him live in the same province and city


Good Idea!
TBH


----------



## ShellsandScales (Oct 12, 2008)

I'm not gonna write a novel. I just don't understand how anyone that loves a species of animal enough to keep it captively, can dislike any species of animal enough to support any kind of ban or legislation against ANY species/breed. There are some animals I don't care for but I respect them enough to fight to the death your right to keep it humanely! Preventing cruelty to animals is the only thing that should have any kind of legislation behind it reguarding transportation and keeping of animals.


----------



## ShellsandScales (Oct 12, 2008)

J_dUbz88 said:


> Actually i do not fall into the trap of media, i watch news and other things to get a perspective on the world and current events.


The news is the poster child for the media trap!!!! I don't trust any news that I don't see first hand. The BBC published an article full of flat out lies as fact!! Stating that B. smithi is deadly and grows to 10". Any reporter worth half their weight in fly crap could have done 5 min of research and published the truth. But it would have been less sensationalistic and wouldn't have served their agend to try and ban T's across the pond. 99% of All news is extreemly biased and is really all about ratings and selling diapers and denture cream!!!!


----------



## ShellsandScales (Oct 12, 2008)

Pulk said:


> ok... bumping can be merited if you need to sell or buy something urgently, or you're not getting replies at all, but neither of those is the case here. (this is the thread with the most views in the past month.) just because you think your thread deserves more attention than the others, doesn't mean everyone else does. if they did, there would be no point to bumping it.


If this thread wouldn't have been bumped so enthusiastically I wouldn't have seen it and I couldn't be happier that I saw this now so I can do my part to help prevent this idiotic legislation. I knew about the problem facing pitbull owners and the bans on small turtles but had no idea it so widespread and rampant. I wish I would have know about this many years ago when I had an opportunity to sit down with a congressman and ask ?'s of him. This is a very daunting problem that if it continues this site would become obsolete!!! I would consider this to be the most important issue on the boards. And (ahem.... MODS) should be a sticky

Instead of posting again I'll add to this. It doesn't matter what you opinions are on the details about permits and what should be regulated/ what shouldn't etc. Its an all or none thing!!! ANY legislation against the industry in any way, is a foothold, one more step in the wrong direction making it easier for the "anti's" as PBL calls them to furthur their agenda. If they fail on one bill they'll come up with another that seems more reasonable and when they get that to pass they site that bill to take the next more restrictive step. Even if you hate chickes(saw them referenced earlier) or are a vegetarian. Those regualtions that have been put in place (microchipping, registering, etc) hurt the industry as a whole not just those keeping chickens. One more step, and then another, and another and pretty soon they've made leaps and bounds and its all over!!!! I assure you I will be in jail or dead if it gets to that point. I would participate in a revolution to prevent anything like that from happening. Animals have always been a big part of my life and I couldn't imagine enjoying life anymore if I wasn't able to interact with animals. Lets not forget domestic cats came from egypt. They are not native to the U.S. if this bill were to pass how hard would it be to include/amend cats as non natives?????????? It's truly the first time I have felt such eminent doom in my life and its scary. I would encourage EVERYONE!!!! to visit www.usa.gov/contact/elected.shtml and let your voice be heard. I'm going to dedicate all of my free time to helping fight this cause. It is an outrage and I have always hated the Humane Society so now I have some bullets in my gun of protest.


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 19, 2008)

:clap: Thanks. 
TBH


----------



## Shagrath666 (Oct 19, 2008)

i will now fight the good fight, thanks for bringing me out of my ignorance:worship:


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 19, 2008)

Wow...two months and nine pages later, and nobody's actually read the bill.

From the text:



> SEC. 4. LIST OF APPROVED SPECIES.
> (a) Requirement To Issue List-
> 
> (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a list of nonnative wildlife species approved for importation.
> ...


Like...um...tarantulas! Millipedes! Roaches!

As for the rest, it's saying that all banned species would be placed on a list and well...just read:



> (1) IN GENERAL- If the Secretary determines that an emergency exists because a nonnative wildlife species in the United States poses a serious threat of harm to the United States economy, the environment, or human or animal species’ health, the Secretary may temporarily place the nonnative wildlife species on the list of unapproved species.
> 
> (2) DETERMINATION- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register and *make available to the public through the Internet or other appropriate means a final determination of whether to maintain the nonnative wildlife species on the list of unapproved species, within 180 days after temporarily adding the nonnative wildlife species to such list.*


This bill is making it easier for us to figure out what's legal and what's not by giving us a list of species names and placing it here on the interwebs.

_That's a good thing._ All we need to do now is to figure out where that list is. I'd assume that anybody keeping things like phasmids who voluntarily gives them up would be granted amnesty.

It's also saying that anything which is already so widespread that legal action would be pointless would essentially be deregulated.

That describes the vast majority of the animals in the hobby. I can assure you that nobody is going to be banging down your door to confiscate your rosies.

The only part I can't figure out is section 42 of title 18 US code. Title 18 deals with federal crimes, and _chapter_ 42 deals with credit card extortion. Doesn't seem to fit.

Of course, I have no idea what this website is...or even if it's a reliable source. I just read the bill.


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 19, 2008)

What said:


> While I am personally opposed to a few genera of arachnid ever reaching the invertebrate hobby, the bill seems to have the potential for far more negative things to come than positives. I went through the bill and cited the specific problems that I can see(other than the broad topic of the lists), please feel free to add your own input.
> 
> - Sec 3.a.1: Would keep new/undescribed species from entering the hobby.
> - Sec 3.a.11: Basically a blank check for bans/regulations.
> ...


Ah...I should read the replies before commenting. I guess What...maybe two or three others read the bill.

After a breif re-reading...including the parts Kevin pointed out, there are some problems...but I still think it's overall a good bill. I think Kevin has some pretty good insight, but there are some things which I interpreted quite differently.

As for 3.a, I don't think it's possible to assess risk for anything without knowing exactly what it is in the first place. Besides...that's one of 10 other factors.

With many species in the hobby not being known to species level (and with the difficulty this entails), I don't think we should be worrying about 3.a hindering the introduction of new species, I think we should be asking ourselves if that's even plausible.

3.d...seeing the research that allowed the bans to get passed in the first place is definitely a plus. For example, if something were known to host varrora mites...and if there were good data showing this, it would be acceptable grounds for cessation of importation. Varrora mites, in conjunction with a virus (the mites make the bees more susceptable to Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus, for the apiarists here) is thought to have decimated bee colonies here in America. If bees aren't the only host, then any animals which have been to harbor both the mite and the virus should be banned.

This is just one example (and a good one in my opinion), but it holds true for any potential pest.

But the transparency section makes me feel a bit better about 3.a.11, but it's still way too vague. Assuming they stick to section 3.d, it's just an insurance policy because there are dozens of factors which can make something into a pest...and it's difficult-or impossible to list them all (definition of pest from a university pest management class? Anything which damages plants, vectors disease or annoys people.).

Is title 18 the plant pest act? If so, it should be on here somewhere. But either way, the bill also explicitly says that those species which are so widespread that controll would be impossible wouldn't be prosecuted. This means pretty much all roaches...and the AGBs which have historically been questionable.

For example, 6.a.6 making the breeding, selling, trading and buying of banned animals illegal doesn't bother me...that's the definition of 'illegal'. We shouldn't expect our stock to be grandfathered in...as long as there's a way we can unload them without being subject to punishment. I'd also like amnesty for the first offense...and the proposed punishments are pretty vague. A large fine is _implied_, but not explicitly thrown out there.

As for Sec. 8.a...I've seen the types of facilities some of these guys are kept in. They're not that easy to build...it's quite expensive to house these guys with 0 chance of escape. Chances are, people keeping some of the worrysome critters wouldn't be keeping them in conditions which are preferable.

That being said, that section does worry me a bit.

So, we get better transparency and better communication as well as deregulation of some very common species. I'd say that's a win...and nowhere near banning the hobby.

As a minus it may be a bit more difficult to introduce new species into the hobby...but with the focus on captive bred individuals, is this a bad thing? Will this really effect us as much as we think it will? Things are really only imported a few times now, then breeders step in and do their thing.


----------



## ShellsandScales (Oct 19, 2008)

It is in no way a good bill and I read it in its entirety. It is worded too vaguely and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Just because there will be list of approved species and a way to amend that list doesn't mean that we won't be stonewalled in every attempt to alter the list. It gives way to much power to the secretary who likely knows very little about animals. Its just bad news. And there are a lot of little things worked in. For ex. anything that is currently owned and would be put on the illegal list would be grandfathered in, however it would be illegal to breed, sell, or trade those species and that would cripple many breeders who would be stuck with animals they have to care for but cannot get income from. If they put any T's on the list there would be no more captive breeding of that species allowed and they would become extinct in the us hobby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 20, 2008)

ShellsandScales said:


> It is in no way a good bill and I read it in its entirety. It is worded too vaguely and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Just because there will be list of approved species and a way to amend that list doesn't mean that we won't be stonewalled in every attempt to alter the list. It gives way to much power to the secretary who likely knows very little about animals. Its just bad news. And there are a lot of little things worked in. For ex. anything that is currently owned and would be put on the illegal list would be grandfathered in, however it would be illegal to breed, sell, or trade those species and that would cripple many breeders who would be stuck with animals they have to care for but cannot get income from. If they put any T's on the list there would be no more captive breeding of that species allowed and they would become extinct in the us hobby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




PLUS, the bill does not simply address the importation of banned animal species from other countries, but also prohibits the interstate transport and commerce in species that have long been bred in captivity and are the mainstay of the whole reptile industry, such as Boa Constrictors and Ball Pythons.  The whole purpose of such is a thinly-veiled attempt to totally crush one entire aspect of the animal industry, and as I've pointed out many times before, it's just ONE piece in a very nasty puzzle.  Anyone who feels this bill is in any way a "good thing" is either pro-animal rights/anti-animal owner/breeder, or fails to grasp the "big picture" and realize the total impact such a bill would have if it passes.  These are not agricultural interests backing this bill, but hard-core animal rights groups who are absolutely dedicated to eliminating ALL animal use by people.  There is NOTHING good, in any way, shape or form, about ANY bill that's backed by these people, not if you own, sell, breed, or buy animals, or products made for animals.

pitbulllady


----------



## cjm1991 (Oct 20, 2008)

There is nothing more important for them to worry about.. bills like this make me are rediculous.


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 20, 2008)

ShellsandScales said:


> It is in no way a good bill and I read it in its entirety. It is worded too vaguely and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Just because there will be list of approved species and a way to amend that list doesn't mean that we won't be stonewalled in every attempt to alter the list. It gives way to much power to the secretary who likely knows very little about animals.


That secretary is backed by thousands of PHD level researchers studying plant pests.

Furthermore, the research in the decision will be made available to anyone.

I've been outspoken against these types of bills in the past...and this is _exactly_ what I've wanted all along. A comprehensive list made public, and transparency in the decision.

Sorry to say, but we can't have everything we want to keep. Ideally, we want to eliminate the potential for 8 legged cane toads but at the same time be able to keep species in captivity which wouldn't be able to establish themselves in the areas in which the keepers live. It's not exactly an easy medium to reach.

Add that to the fact the definition of a 'pest' is very vague (due to a combination of non-pet industry related factors) and many times anthropocentric...well, this makes for a hard time writing a bill with any degree of specificity.

It's far from a perfect law because the punishments are vague and because it might make importing new species a bit more difficult amongst a handful of minor things, but it's not bad at all.

As for the rest of your post...yes. That's exactly what a ban is.



pitbulllady said:


> PLUS, the bill does not simply address the importation of banned animal species from other countries, but also prohibits the interstate transport and commerce in species that have long been bred in captivity and are the mainstay of the whole reptile industry, such as Boa Constrictors and Ball Pythons.  The whole purpose of such is a thinly-veiled attempt to totally crush one entire aspect of the animal industry, and as I've pointed out many times before, it's just ONE piece in a very nasty puzzle.  Anyone who feels this bill is in any way a "good thing" is either pro-animal rights/anti-animal owner/breeder, or fails to grasp the "big picture" and realize the total impact such a bill would have if it passes.  These are not agricultural interests backing this bill, but hard-core animal rights groups who are absolutely dedicated to eliminating ALL animal use by people.  There is NOTHING good, in any way, shape or form, about ANY bill that's backed by these people, not if you own, sell, breed, or buy animals, or products made for animals.
> 
> pitbulllady


Taken care of by the part I quoted in my original post. It explicitly says that species which are so widespread, ball pythons and boa constrictors for example, that enforcement would be impossible would be deregulated.

I think the bill is a good thing. I despise animal rights activists and have a long history of verbosely bludgeoning them here on AB. I also own animals myself, which I occasionally attempt to breed.

I work with foreign crop pests on a daily basis. Doing research for a paper on locusts right now, actually.

I am in a good position to see the 'big picture'.

The rest of your post is a giant false dichotomy.


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 20, 2008)

cjm1991 said:


> There is nothing more important for them to worry about.. bills like this make me are rediculous.


Actually, if you do some digging into agricultural history you can see why these kinds of bills are more important than you may think...especially with people keeping ant farms and wasp colonies.

Here's an article I wrote on my old blog (the new one should be up about Thanksgiving) about one species of introduced pest:



> Koeble sent about 12,000 of the tachnids and only 129 R. cardinalis. The tachnid flies proved to be less effective in controlling the beetles everywhere except in cooler climates. R. cardinalis, however turned out to be a voracious and effective predator. Those 129 specimens turned into about ten thousand, and then exploded to millions within a few years. *Imports of citrus out of California nearly tripled, from 700 carloads per year at the peak of the infestation to 2,000 carloads per year.* Not too bad for $1500.


And this is _one_ pest, _Icerya purchasi_, which _R. cardinalis_ and _C. iceryae_ were brought in to control. There are a few hundred species of introduced pests which have comparable histories.

On an off-topic note, Koeble then went to Hawaii after this and did biocontrol there. Biocontrol turned out to be an ecological disaster there...decimating the native insects of Hawaii. These laws also help to prevent things like that from happening by limiting what can be brought into the country.


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 20, 2008)

Cheshire said:


> That secretary is backed by thousands of PHD level researchers studying plant pests.
> 
> Furthermore, the research in the decision will be made available to anyone.
> 
> ...


Please do tell how banning most REPTILES will have a major impact on agriculture in the US?  Inquiring minds want to know.  There's a huge difference between invertebrates that are known to destroy crops and/or spread agriculturally-significant pathogens, and a Ball Python, yet this bill treats both of them the same.  I'm no idiot, yet I fail to grasp the logic in that.  This bill leaves wide-open the possibilities of including ANY non-native species, including not just commonly-kept reptiles, but also many other vertebrates which are the backbone of the non-traditional pet industry, merely on the words of the "anti's" that keeping, selling and trading in such animals is bad.  The push to include boids(including small species like the aforementioned Ball Pythons)and many lizard species is just a part of it; there is also a move to include ALL primates and ALL "exotic" cats, including several recognized as domesticated breeds.  Most of the species YOU are concerned with are little known outside of agricultural interests, and are not generally commercially traded, but the same cannot be said of the many other targeted species.  As it is currently written, the bill leaves the door wide open for the inclusion of many animals that several of us here keep, breed, sell and buy-and which have no history of significant agricultural impact, if any at all.

pitbulllady


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 20, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> Please do tell how banning most REPTILES will have a major impact on agriculture in the US?  Inquiring minds want to know.  There's a huge difference between invertebrates that are known to destroy crops and/or spread agriculturally-significant pathogens, and a Ball Python, yet this bill treats both of them the same.
> 
> <snip>


In the past month, I have gotten three private messages inquiring about parasitoids...both wasps and flies. Those do not vector diseases, nor do they damage plants. Yet, they are also strictly controlled. And for good reason-a failed biocontrol project is responsible for the decline of saturniid moths in the US.

Agriculture is one big part of the reason for this bill...the environment is another.

Ask anybody in Florida about the impact of the pet industry on the environment in terms of non-native reptiles. It's common knowledge...no need to cite sources: Florida is overrun with alien species. Most of our endangered species are threatened because of competition from exotic species. This includes reptiles.

Another example...138 species of exotic fish are in the US, many of them introduced from the aquarium trade cost over $1 billion to manage per year.

And as I said earlier, ball pythons are too widespread to be enforceable. Therefore, they are deregulated under the section I quoted in the first paragraph. Your argument...once again...doesn't apply. It won't, no matter how much you repeat it.

Not every bill to regulate the hobby is a step towards apocalypse. Even though this bill certianly has problems with vagueness in important parts...the deregulation of hobby staples, easy public access to the list of banned species and the ability to see the research which led to the decision to ban are definitely pluses. As is the deregulation of hobby staples.


----------



## ShellsandScales (Oct 20, 2008)

NO you are not seeing what they are trying to accomplish. Just in reguards to Tarantulas and nothing else for ex. Any species not native to the U.S. would go extinct in the U.S. hobby. You couldn't breed anything non-native. Could not sell anything non-native.(yeah they say there will be a list but they haven't even offered a tenative list, they won't even give examples of what might be on there) Could not ship anything. The tarantula hobby would be dead. All native species of tarantula would likely be hunted to extinction as well since they are so slow growing/breeding and there would be no non-natives available to quench our thirst. Basically all native animals would suffer greatly from overhunting. Frog, salamanders, newts, toads that are already collected very extensively for the pet trade would suffer massive population decline. Box turtles that are already suffering from over collection would all but be removed from the face of the earth.(they are collected illegally[in many places] now, why would that stop with animal agents focusing on non-natives) Captive breeding would not keep up with demand when you remove all of the non-natives from the pet pool. Just think. There is nothing good about this bill. I agree, introduced species are bad for the ecosystem..... sometimes. Many times they do assimilate with little or no long term consequence {ex. medeterranean house gecko.} But this is not the way to prevent such introductions. Also just because they say that species that are too widespread to be enforcable won't be targeted.... who decides what is enforceable???? That is very subjective and wide open to interpretation. This bill is too broad in scope and would afford too much power and control to those that have the wrong interests backing them. Do you think the secretary has ever had anything but a dog or cat??? (just speculating here but it is unlikely). Would he/she really care at all about T's or reptiles. Maybe they would have an irrational fear of such animals and use their power to put them on the list of species that aren't allowed. It is unreasonable to assume that this bill wouldn't be abused or streached to fit the agenda of lobbysts for AR. And even if you disreguard most of the bill the fact that animals would not be allowed to be shipped would cripple every pet store in the country. Not to mention all of the lost sales on products as all of the "illegal" animals start to get fazed out. Think about the economic backlash. Its an outrage and I'm surprised a spokesperson from petsmart or petco or some other major pet company hasn't stepped up against this bill yet(as far as I know).


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 21, 2008)

And then we'd be forced to take each other as loveslaves.  

I call dibs on the cute girl in my O-chem class. You can't have her. She's mine.

I'll just reply to the only part of your post which hasn't been dealt with (most of your post is actually dealt with in the bill...the fact you don't know what APHIS is speaks volumes about how little you know on the subject). You have clearly not read the bill.

Nowhere in the bill does it say that nothing will no longer be imported. It says that there will be species approved for import, and those are presumably in future legislation. This is a bill proposing a new method of handling imports of exotic species and we shouldn't expect a list...and it gives a time frame for the list.

I read through the bill three times already...and I caught this the fourth time:



> (f) Animals Imported Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of a species that was imported legally, even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act.


Don't know how I missed that. Basically, your grandfathering argument...which was already irrelevant...doesn't hold water.


----------



## ShellsandScales (Oct 21, 2008)

SEC. 3
(f) Animals Imported Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of a species that was imported legally, even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act.

SEC. 6
(a) Prohibitions- No person shall--
6) knowingly sell or offer to sell, purchase or offer to purchase, barter or offer to barter for or offer to barter for, release, or breed any nonnative wildlife species referred to in section 3(f).

This is what I'm talking about.


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 21, 2008)

ShellsandScales said:


> SEC. 3
> (f) Animals Imported Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of a species that was imported legally, even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act.
> 
> SEC. 6
> ...


Yes. If something is banned, there is good reason to believe it will cause some amount of harm to the environment or to agriculture. The whole point of banning something is to ensure that nobody can get ahold of that species and thus eliminate the possibility of unintentional releases and make it possible to eliminate them from unwanted environments without the possibility for re-introduction from the pet trade. 

Animals are occasionally banned when some things (see my previous posts about Florida, varorra mites and fish) are discovered about them or if they've been shown to be invasive...it's a fact of life.

Section 5: If it was legally imported, you can still own it even if it was banned by future regulation. This only applies to animals which have been banned for importation, not animals which are deregulated.

The regulated and deregulated animals are explained in the bill, as well. Take another read.

Section 6: You can't breed, advertise, buy, sell or release any animal which has been banned. If it's been banned (this is mentioned in other sections of the bill), it's because there is research (which they're trying damn hard to make publicly avalible, BTW) which shows it will have a significant environmental impact. This means that they don't want people to own them because there's a chance of them being released and thus causing harm to the environment. However, they aren't going to raid you for owning them...just _selling_ them.

For example, let's take _Platymeris_. Had this bill been enacted before they were banned, members would still be able to have cultures...they wouldn't be able to sell them legally.

The fact they put the word 'knowingly' into section 6 is definitely a plus for us...they aren't going to prosecute unless they can prove that we knew it was illegal to keep.

In other words, this most likely means amnesty for the first offense. No fine...just a confiscation.


----------



## Galapoheros (Oct 22, 2008)

Oh man, I can't read everything in this post and deserve a flame for not reading all of the bill.  I'll just throw in a couple of things.  I just heard yesterday about a group of people out there that are fighting for the animals.  They don't want people to own any animals or use any animals, nothing.  I would have a hard time believing it if I didn't hear an animal rights member talk on TV a long time ago.  It was a few years ago but I remember some of it because I remember thinking how different they thought about animals than most people.  They don't even want people to own a goldfish.  What the guy was saying was really alien to me, I couldn't believe my ears.  But if I use my imagination and try to think like he was, I can see where he was coming from.  As much as I don't like it, I think I understand their mindset.  This group feels like people are denying animals their rights.  Their way of thinking is that a dog should not associate with a human, a dog should associate with other dogs, cats with other cats, horses with other horses, goldfish with other goldfish, etc.  The way they see it is that "man" is hurting animals by not letting them be free.  So are these people, this group, "working" this bill?  It sounds like a conspiracy theory but these are strange times and I never believe in conspiracy theories.  But I do consider the possibilities and I've seen what people call conspiracy theories turn out to be true.  I consider them but don't "believe" in them.  I heard the price of a barrel of oil was going to be pushed to $150 a barrel.  I heard that 2 or 3 years ago (Lindsey Williams).  Coincidence? ..I don't know.  But the price of a barrel of oil went to $149+ one day and has gone down since.  So I keep an open mind to what at least sounds possible.  That animal rights group is out there.  I think some people are concerned that these radical animal rights fanatics are associated with this bill or at least are trying to infiltrate it and manipulate it.  But it may only be that, "concern" and the intentions may be what they say they are.  Only time will tell the way I see it, interesting to watch.


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 22, 2008)

Galapoheros said:


> So are these people, this group, "working" this bill?  It sounds like a conspiracy theory but these are strange times and I never believe in conspiracy theories.


No...they are clearly not.

The current legislation, the plant pest act, defines an invasive species as one which could potentially eat plant material, pollinators or predators of plant pests and makes no mentions of exactly what's enforced and what isn't. In contrast, this bill offers clear deregulation of hobby staples and offers to make a list of what's enforced availible to the public amongst other things I've personally wanted for a long time.

Anybody who's read both will see this is a _huge_ step forward. Some people arguing against the bill simply want to see no restrictions on what can and can't be kept. Some people are genuinely afraid of blanket bans and probably can't understand the legalese in the bill and are being swayed by the fear-mongering of the first group. As usual, some are also in the middle.

I mean...really. When people who oppose the bill say things like:



> Please do tell how banning most REPTILES will have a major impact on agriculture in the US?


I'm sorry, but that's just brain-fryingly stupid because the comment can't be reconsiled with the language in the bill. Reptiles and amphibians have just as much potential to be invasive species as any other taxonomic group, and there are many good examples of even native species which are invasive in the US after their range has been artificially expanded.

There will _always_ be laws regulating what we can and cannot keep-and there are good reasons for _most_...not all...but _most_ of them. Blanket bans should be fought against...but when there's data availible which shows that a species has the potential to be invasive, or if the species has been shown to be invasive in the past it should not be allowed in the pet trade. 

When the agency banning the animals makes strides to make that list easily accessable to the public as well as the research which allowed the decision...well, that's hardly ending the hobby. When this legislation is enacted, I highly doubt the sky will fall. If anything, we'll hardly notice a difference.

For example, the bill classifies live animals as non-mailable material. Just like they are now.

I know the types of people you're talking about...earlier this year, they firebombed a medical researcher's lab and threatened to bomb people who were working with _fruit flies_.

I work with fruitflies in pest management class. I kill them on a daily basis with some pretty toxic chemicals.

Scary times to be a prospective scientist.


----------



## ShellsandScales (Oct 22, 2008)

Cheshire said:


> Section 6: You can't breed, advertise, buy, sell or release any animal which has been banned. If it's been banned (this is mentioned in other sections of the bill), it's because there is research (which they're trying damn hard to make publicly avalible, BTW) which shows it will have a significant environmental impact. This means that they don't want people to own them because there's a chance of them being released and thus causing harm to the environment. However, they aren't going to raid you for owning them...just _selling_ them.
> .


You are putting way to much trust and faith into a system, and people that have proven to let us down in the past. Its a lot harder to remove the bill if it passes and you get "buyers remorse". I just think the whole thing needs reworked and needs to be much more specific as to the species included before it passes. I don't think they should have the power to add or remove species from a list thats what I see getting out of hand. They are very good at manipulating information to suite their needs. And just because the information that would lead to a species being banned would be public doesn't mean they will care or reverse a decision if people disagree with the information that is presented. Even with good argument and facts to back it up there is little doubt that once a species goes on the list it will ever come off (wether it was put there justifiably or not) like I said before introduction of foreign species is sometimes a bad thing but this is not the way to handle it. Say for example that a rare species of gecko could possibly bring into the country a type of mite. And there is already someone here that breeds those geckos. Their stock has been quarantined and is healthy, not a carrier of those mites. So the gecko goes on the list and the breeder here is done. Yes they can still "KEEP" their geckos but if that species is an improtant cornerstone of their breeding projects they are going to suffer. Why would they ban the captive breeding of such an animal from proven healthy stock that already exists in the country??? That is wrong!!! I know I'm being a little dramatic about some of this but it is a very slippery slope and this bill is much more dangerous to the pet industry than it is beneficial to the environment and ecosystem.


----------



## ShellsandScales (Oct 22, 2008)

Cheshire said:


> For example, the bill classifies live animals as non-mailable material. Just like they are now.
> .


Live animals are mailable now! That is how I sell 90% of the animals I produce. Just another aspect of the bill that has very little to do with protecting agriculture and doesn't need to be in there. If I mail bufo marinus(cane toad) to someone in new york it poses absolutely 0 threat to the environment. That is another problem. I plan on moving to Florida to help collect invasive speciec and remove them from the state. How am I supposed to remove these animals and send the to areas where they do not pose a threat like minnesota. We can supply the pet trade with healthy non imported animals at a great price and help the natural ecosystem recover but with the bill it would put a stop to even that. Then what, are we just suppsoed to "kill" the invasive animals??? That is just wrong. It is far too encompassing. How am I supposed to do business If I can't ship my products to the consumer???


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 22, 2008)

ShellsandScales said:


> You are putting way to much trust and faith into a system, and people that have proven to let us down in the past.  Why would they ban the captive breeding of such an animal from proven healthy stock that already exists in the country??? That is wrong!!! I know I'm being a little dramatic about some of this but it is a very slippery slope and this bill is much more dangerous to the pet industry than it is beneficial to the environment and ecosystem.


A _little_ dramatic?

You're acting like a bill which _relaxes_ the current legislation is going to end the exotic pet hobby in the US. That's simply not a logical conclusion you can draw from reading this proposed legislation after you read the current legislation.

Yes, data can be manipulated...but your conspiracy argument just doesn't add up-plain and simple. Under current legislation, no data need be provided to ban any critter. The wording of the current legislation outlaws any animal which eats insects or plants.

Your mite example is a good one, but in your scenario that animal would be viewed as a potential resivior for disease. Do a search on any 'pet shop' thread and you'll quickly see that not all animals sold in the US are healthy. It's a sad fact, but it's quite possible for epizootics to be able to hide in the pet trade.

Besides I get the feeling that paragraph is more meant for invasive species, which (mostly) don't become any less invasive after being pets.

Your argument is starting to sound like it's based soley on your opposition to legislation.



> Even with good argument and facts to back it up there is little doubt that once a species goes on the list it will ever come off (wether it was put there justifiably or not) like I said before introduction of foreign species is sometimes a bad thing but this is not the way to handle it.


I mean, really.

Look...the blonde's mine. The brunette's cute, but I like the personality of the blonde better. You can have the brunette. It's fine by me.

I figure if we're making up scenarios, then by golly I might as well have a love slave!

Look...I don't like bans any less than you do. But this bill actually relaxes the current legislation. That's not a bad thing...it's a step forward. A small step...but that's how journeys start.



ShellsandScales said:


> Live animals are mailable now! That is how I sell 90% of the animals I produce. Just another aspect of the bill that has very little to do with protecting agriculture and doesn't need to be in there. If I mail bufo marinus(cane toad) to someone in new york it poses absolutely 0 threat to the environment.


Yeah...go to the post office. Use the automated shipping service. The first question is 'are you mailing live animals'. If you hit yes, it tells you they can't ship it.

Under current laws, it is technically illegal to mail live animals through the federal postal system (at least as far as I know...I was told this by an inspector when some scorps I had shipped to me escaped all over the post office). The exception is through private shipping firms, such as fedex who often times won't knowingly mail live animals because of liability concerns.

I highly doubt this will be enforced very seriously unless your animal escapes...many postal employees are seemingly unaware of this law as it is. As far as I know, this is just a re-iteration and will be paid attention to about as much.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with you on this part. I believe the best solution is that US should be divided up into four bands based upon temperature and invasive animals banned based upon conditions in those zones.

But the logistics of that are nearly impossible-simply not enough manpower. I've had it explained to me by APHIS inspectors.

I'd also love to hear your plan for personally removing the 30,000 plus...and rapidly expanding population of burmese pythons in the everglades. This is _one_ species out of a few dozen invasives so after you're done with that feel free to start right in on the water monitors and iguanas.

As for what you're supposed to do with the excess stock you can't sell?

Zoos are always looking for donations. APHIS can also take unwanted stock off your hands. You should be able to get a tax deduction for donating the unwanted animals to the zoo or university (if applicable).

Unfortunately, sometimes things just turn out to be bad investments from a business perspective. The touchplay people here in Iowa were stuck with hundreds of touchplay machines worth thousands of dollars apeice after the game was banned because of the state's asinine aversion to gambling.

This is no different.


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 22, 2008)

Ummm..... Needing to be banned? You must seriously be kidding yourself. Look at Australia, the same kind of thing happened 50 years ago exactly like this. Now there is no way to legally obtain any nonnative/"noncute" animal. I can basically guarantee you this Cheshire only cute fuzzy animals and livestock will be legal. Our pets are always the ones regulated against. We can't take the risk. So quit it with the page long "hey give me attention posts" and shut up or fight against this. I have read it and this is bad! So don't you dare tell people not to fight against it.
TBH
<Edit> My above post sounds real nasty, please don't misinterpret it. Anyway, there is absolutely no reason for you to fight against us Cheshire. I don't get why you are. Do you want regulation? Otherwise there is absolutely no reason for your posts. This can be passed dispite the pet trade being a multibillion dollar trade, so don't feel comforatable. Drugs and Child pornography are also multibillion dollar trades that got regulated against. So it is extremely vital not to feel comfortable.


----------



## ShellsandScales (Oct 23, 2008)

cheshire I'm having a hard time believing that you actually believe what you're saying. You CAN mail ANY invertebrates USPS and any other non venemous vertebrates through any other shipping service. Scorpions are LEGAL to mail through USPS. Whoever told you they weren't was misinformed.

I'm not giving a conspiracy theory, which you keep bringing up. I don't see any kind of cover up. They are right out in the open about wanting to prevent animal/human interaction. I have no idea where the blondes and brunettes come in that just seem irrelevant to the post, not really sure what you were getting at there.

"But the logistics of that are nearly impossible-simply not enough manpower. I've had it explained to me by APHIS inspectors."

I have a very hard time believeing that. It seems like it would take the same amount of manpower either way. Just with four different zones there would be four different lists. The amount of man power to enact on such a law would be the same.

I don't understand how you see banning new animals as relaxing the law?? This is just contradictory against itself.

Not sure where you got the 30,000 number but every little bit helps and your obvious lack of enthusiasim suggests that you don't want to help. I will do whatever I can to help the situation even if all I can do is scratch the surface, maybe others will take my lead and do their part too. As for zoos accepting animals, TRY IT!! Zoos rarely take animals as donation so not sure where all those animals would go. Besides under this bill according to section 3f I doubt you would even be able to do that.

And yet another contradiction that is irrelevant to this post. Iowas aversion to gambling???????? Thats why council bluffs, IA has casinos but across the river in omaha, NE we do not. Sounds like Iowa has a real aversion to gambling.

I will agree to disagree with you but I think way more people understand the TRUTH and realize that this bill is bad and do not want it to pass.


----------



## Stylopidae (Oct 24, 2008)

The point about gambling was made in response to your complaint that breeders would be stuck with animals they wouldn't be able to sell. I chose a recent example of something similar which happened in the state to compare your claim to.

Gambling was illegal in Iowa until 1972 (I think...I'd have to check the exact date) but now is allowed at a select few casinos, mostly on Indian reservations, riverboats, and of course an exemption is made for the state lottery. Touchplay machines were slot machines owned by the state lottery (or subsidiaries of, actually...it's complicated) and were designed to look like slot machines. They were placed in many area businesses but were banned as of a few years ago because they looked like slot machines.

However, my state's hypocrisy when it comes to gambling has nothing to do with the law at hand. The point in bringing it up is that when practices (or in this case, animals) are banned, there is often equipment (in this case, livestock) left over which cannot be sold. It is a fact of life and is rarely, if ever the cause of business failure because there is other livestock which is being sold.

The law, as mentioned about a thousand times, deregulates hobby staples already in the country. The exotic pet trade will _still_ be around, although it's more likely that the variety of new animals entering the hobby will slow. However, it will not completely _stop_.

The main argument I hear from you and PBL is that this law treats hobby staples the same as new animals...and this is not true. It's not going to ban your dogs, cats, ball pythons...what have you. This law merely demands that proof that a species being considered for import will not become an invasive species.

In effect, it creates a 'dirty list' and a 'clean list' and requires the animal proposed for import to be placed on either list before import. Hobby staples are automatically put under the 'clean list'. Both lists, under the bill, are to be made available to the public.

That's all it really does. It's perfectly fair.

I've given several good examples of why, exactly this is important.

A quick check of the postal service website reveals that you are, in fact, correct about live, non-venomous animals being legal to ship. I should have done my homework before blanketing the claim over all animals.

However, the way the vast majority people here ship doesn't fit the way they're 'supposed' to ship.

Furthermore, I said the animals I was shipping were _Centuroides vittatus_...fairly mild for scorps. The guy (and if you can find me any proof he was wrong...feel more than free) told me that since they were a species that injected venom they were classified as venomous and that I'd have to use Delta Dash.

Here's an appeal from the USPS website which says the same thing as he read me:



> 1. 18 U.S.C. 1716 provides in pertinent part: 1716. Injurious articles as nonmailable
> 
> (a) All kinds of poison, and all articles and compositions containing poison, and *all poisonous animals, insects, reptiles*, and all explosives, inflammable materials, infernal machines, and mechanical, chemical, or other devices or compositions which may ignite or explode, and all disease germs or scabs, and all other natural or artificial articles, composi- tions, or materials which may kill or injure another, or injure the mails or other property, whether or not sealed as first-class matter, are nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or station thereof, nor by any officer or employee of the Postal Service.


Most of the animals shipped on here are considered 'poisonous insects', according to the guy I talked to. Yes, I told him the LD50 of C. vittatus. Yes, I told him they didn't inject enough venom to cause any damage.

Did he care? No. So...like I said. It's likely very little is going to change when and if this law is enacted. 

The blonde and brunette thing is to highlight exactly how asinine your slippery slope argument is. You're giving me an apocalyptic scenario where every animal and reptile species in the US goes extinct as a direct result of the law. That will not happen and this will most likely only be applied to new animals entering the hobby.



ShellsandScales said:


> "But the logistics of that are nearly impossible-simply not enough manpower. I've had it explained to me by APHIS inspectors."
> 
> I have a very hard time believeing that. It seems like it would take the same amount of manpower either way. Just with four different zones there would be four different lists. The amount of man power to enact on such a law would be the same.


Actually, no. Every animal has to be inspected for import at the point where it enters the country. Under my proposal, every animal transported across the country would have to be inspected multiple times in route.

The staff needed to do this, according to the inspector, would be increased by at least two...most likely three.



> I don't understand how you see banning new animals as relaxing the law?? This is just contradictory against itself.


I said the restrictions were relaxed because the laws I've been following deal with invertebrates. In the past years, many bugs thought to have been legal for many years have been confiscated under the plant pest law under a provision which is so vague that it bans pretty much every animal in the pet hobby anyways.

A plant pest is considered anything which eats any part of a plant and the law doesn't make any provisions for anything living or dead. Under the plant pest law, AGBs and cockroaches are considered plant pests and you technically need a permit to own them.

Mantids and Assassin bugs began to be confiscated under this law with no warning a few years ago because another provision of the plant pest act bans anything which could eat pollinators or predators of plant pests. This was allowed because the law is so vague as to cover...well, anything really.

As I've now repeated at least five times, I am saying that this law is a relaxation of the current legislation because it clarifies what can and can't be kept and enforcement will be based upon a list which is easily accessable to the public. In other words, it prevents them from pulling stunts like that and makes it easy for us to figure out what exactly is legal and illegal. 

It also says that things which are so common as to be unenforceable like AGBs and cockroaches, are deregulated. So they can't confiscate AGBs and the like.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a total win.



> Not sure where you got the 30,000 number but every little bit helps and your obvious lack of enthusiasim suggests that you don't want to help. I will do whatever I can to help the situation even if all I can do is scratch the surface, maybe others will take my lead and do their part too. As for zoos accepting animals, TRY IT!! Zoos rarely take animals as donation so not sure where all those animals would go. Besides under this bill according to section 3f I doubt you would even be able to do that.


Dude...look at my post again. My source was hyperlinked into the post so if you can't figure out where I got the information you're clearly not reading my posts. It's from a site called science daily which is probably the most respected popular science site on the web. The source cited in the article is a respected source...it's basically the summary of a primary research paper. It's one of three pop-sci sites I've seen used by professors in classes.

Reticulated pythons are predicted to spread to about 1/3 of the southern US, according to other articles on that site. Unfortunately, citizen based attempts on the management of invasive species have historically been failures. _Rubus armeniacus_ is one such example I've read about where people are encouraged to go out and kill every plant they can find, but the pest just comes back.

Unfortunately, large, concentrated and sweeping programs are needed to eliminate invasive species once they become established. Tsetse fly elimination projects (biomedical pest, not an invasive species...but same concept), for example, cost millions per year to operate. Sometimes, we just have to deal with the damage. Sometimes, we just have to deal with seeing entire ecosystems wiped out by invasive pests.

But many times, these projects are successful. Prickly pear cactus was wiped out in Australia through a combination of many programs.

As for zoos, if they can't take an animal they'll direct you to a source who can usually a rescue project of some sort.

It's not that I don't want to help...I just don't see how the law is unfair. I love keeping pets, but responsibility to the environment and our native biodiversity comes first and foremost in my eyes and the proposed law is far less strict than the Australia laws so a comparison of the two isn't really valid.

I also don't want to see the reticulated python thing turn into something analagous to the Guam tree snake or the cane toad.

And Boa Constrictor has managed to land himself on my ignore list for comparing the pet hobby to something as vile as child pornography.

One should be legal, but regulated. One should result in the death penalty for anyone who produces it. 

Guess which is which?
I've posted the correct answer in white if you're thinking of mischaracterizing my position.
Child pornorgaphy=death penalty. Just in case


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 26, 2008)

:wall: Oh my god Cheshire. You've really outdone yourself this time. I don't even think there is enough time for me to correct you. Over half of what you say is _complete BS._ I don't care if they let us have dogs, cats and BPs. Just because it isn't popular doesn't mean it should be illegal. 
TBH


----------

