Important!!!

[Dyn]

There's no reason that a deathstalker needs to be kept as a "pet".

I think the point is ALL scorpions / tarantulas / centipedes are venomous.

 

[CFleming]

There's no reason that a deathstalker needs to be kept as a "pet".

What are your reasons for keeping the animals you do?

 

[Mojo Jojo]

I think the point is ALL scorpions / tarantulas / centipedes are venomous.

My tarantulas don't show up on LD50 lists.

 

[super-pede]

My tarantulas don't show up on LD50 lists.

still venomous. all it takes is a bad reaction to the venom and you're dead.(even though no one has died from a tarantula bite.)

 

[CFleming]

My tarantulas don't show up on LD50 lists.

Wow. Either you think you are being cute, or you truly dont grasp the concept that the majority of the populace feel that our hobby is pointless and there is no reason to keep spiders and bugs of any kind.

The LD50 dosent catelouge every species of venomous animal on the planet. Also the tests for LD50 are on mice. It is a
measure of how much venom it takes to kill 50 of 100 mice.

And you havent answered my question. What are your reasons for keeping the animals you keep?

 

[Mojo Jojo]

And you havent answered my question. What are your reasons for keeping the animals you keep?

Ok...I'll bite...

Because I think they are awesome. But I also think that Gaboon Vipers are awesome, but I sure in the hell wouldn't feel safe knowing that my next door neighbor had one.

 

[Tofuman]

I don't trust any sort of ban or regulation when it comes to reptiles and inverts right now, because one thing can easily lead to another. Yes, keeping large constrictors and can be dangerous and loose ones have done some dame to the environment. But if they're really concerned about the environment they should also ban dogs and cats since dogs have killed more people then pet snakes and cats have taken even bigger tole on the environment in some parts of the US. It all comes down to responsible ownership and that's what needs to be emphasized more from Pet Stores and Dealers. Keeping reptiles is a big part of my life and if I lost my right to keep them there would be a big hole in it. I've always wanted to own large constrictors and venomous snakes and I could easily get one if I wanted too. But for now I'm being patient and waiting because I don't have the space and it would be extremely irresponsible of me. I would really hate to have waited all these years and then find out It'll never happen.

 

[CFleming]

Ok...I'll bite...

Because I think they are awesome. But I also think that Gaboon Vipers are awesome, but I sure in the hell wouldn't feel safe knowing that my next door neighbor had one.

Thank you. They are awesome, that is why we are all here. I bet some your neighbors would be scared having you around if they know you keep tarantulas. Honestly you may have a neighbor already that has a gaboon, or maybe some species of cobra. Who knows. The fact is most keepers of such animals do so in a responsible manner where risk to the general public is zero and risk to themselves is as low as possible. There are so many more responsible keepers out there than irresponsible, but it is only the idiots that have no training and want to be cool or impress people that make the news.

I hope you change your mind on this issue, and can see your arguments are the same arguments that will eventually end the entire pet trade if we allow bans like this to happen. Because really there is no reason for any of us to own any animal as a pet except for the fact that we think they are awesome.

 

[pitbulllady]

To say you are ok with it is very dangerous. They start with burmese, then its something else, then something else, until eventually EVERYTHING will be banned. These kinds of bills may not affect invert keepers yet, but they are next on the list. You have to understand who is really pushing these bills. It is animal rights groups. They use made up scientific data, fear mongering to the media, and just plain lies to make everyone believe there is a threat to everyone. The burmese python issue is a South Florida, the Everglades in particular, issue. These animals CANNOT survive outside of this particular geographical niche. It is not a national problem. Florida has banned the posseion of burmese and transporting them across state lines. The problem is solved. If this bill passes dont be suprised when many other species start getting the same treatment. Scorpions and tarantulas will be high on the list since there are already invasive species thriving in Florida.

No, not everyone should own a burm or a retic, but there are lots of people who can properly care for them. They are wonderful pets, if you provide for them properly. and please dont take offense to this statement. But who are you to say what kind of animal someone can keep? Most of the population of Earth feel tarantulas are not pets, there is no reason to keep them, they dont do anything, so whats the point. So just because most of the world feels no one should keep Ts should we start banning them next? I am sorry if that came off rude, but this is a very sensitive topic for me because my main passion is snakes.

Thank you, CFleming. What many people fail to realize is that these proposals(apparently no one here bothers to read the USARK updates at all), along with the Rule Change, are being pushed by two groups who are opposed to humans keeping, breeding, owning, selling, and using ALL animals, period. This is a way to get their foot in the door towards their ultimate goal, which is total animal abolition-no animal ownership or use by humans for any reason whatsoever. Yes, folks, that does include kitties and puppies. When the current president and CEO of one these AR groups, the one most vocal in pushing for a ban on large snakes, has been quoted as stating, "I never want to see another cat or dog born" and "we have no problem with the extinction of domesticated animals...one generation and OUT", do you really think that they plan to stop with snakes? If you do, I've got some prime ocean-front real estate out in Arizona to sell you if you don't mind it being slightly charred at the moment. Snakes are an easy target because so many people are profoundly ignorant about them and afraid of them including many of you here, so it's easy to make virtually any claim about how bad they are, and you'll swallow it hook, line and sinker and start clamoring for their bans. The worst part of it, though, is the blatant hypocracy displayed by many of you when it comes to animal bans/restrictions. So many of you are so gung-ho to ban this or that animal, because YOU DO NOT OWN THOSE KINDS OF ANIMALS! You are more than willing to throw MY animals under the bus, and MY hobbies, or even many people's livelihoods, as long as no one touches YOUR animals, YOUR hobbies, or YOUR means of earning a living(which I'd wager that many of the most ardent ban supporters aren't even old enough to do yet). Sure, get rid of those big mean old snakes...just don't mess with my tarantulas and scorpions, while someone else is thinking, "who needs to own tarantulas? They're creepy and dangerous, so let's ban 'em...just as long as you don't come after my dogs"! You absolutely fail to realize that the same people who are trying to ban the large constrictor snakes DO want to come after your spiders, your fish, your scorpions, your cats and dogs, and will eventually find a way to do so. There will be no one left to help defend you and your animals, because you will have already thrown the herp people, the exotic cat owners, the farmers, the arachnid keepers, etc., all under the bus. Divide and Conquer-this is how the AR people are winning and we are ALL losing. Every victory for them is a loss for all of us, and by the time most of you wake up and realize this, it will be too late, and you'll be left wondering, "why didn't I listen to that crazy old Pitbulllady when she tried to tell us this?" Better pull your heads out of your rectal orifices, folks, and get over this "since I don't like/wouldn't have it/am scared of it/don't understand it, no one should be allowed to own/breed/keep/sell it" attitude. Take a look at the site you're own right now, a site devoted to the keeping of EXOTIC and controversial animals, animals many people fear and hate, and ask yourself, "why AM I here"? If you support banning or restricting animals that YOU don't like or don't keep, consider that there are many people out there who feel the same way about YOUR animals. If you honestly believe that banning animals or the sale of animals is the way to go, you really need to either take a step back and look at the bigger picture, or go hang out on the PETA or HSUS Facebook pages instead, since what you are doing is tantamount to someone who believes we should all stop driving cars and trucks and ride bicycles instead hanging out of a muscle car or NASCAR forum. I don't think either side is going to get much out of that, do you? Now, I'm not referring to everyone here, obviously, but those who do support banning this or that need to really take stock of where you stand, and just how you can justify keeping what YOU keep(if you keep animals at all, and I suspect some of you don't)while wanting to take away other people's animals. What makes YOU so special, in other words? And, WHO are you getting your information from regarding the animals in question-the government? The Animal Rights people? Or people who actually own said animals and have many years' worth of experience with them?

pitbulllady

 

[pitbulllady]

My tarantulas don't show up on LD50 lists.

Neither do horses, cattle, Pomeranians, goats or sheep, but all have and DO kill people, so if you're going to ban something based on its ability to hurt or kill us, then that pretty much has to include ALL animals. Believe me, the AR people don't have any problem playing the "dangerous card" when it comes to getting their plan through. If they can accomplish a ban or restriction on an animal by making that animal out to be too dangerous to keep, they'll do it. They'll play the "Cruelty/Neglect" card, the "Dangerous to people" card, the "Bad for the Environment" card, whatever it takes to get the gullible people to walk lock-step with them.

pitbulllady

 

[Tim Benzedrine]

Well....I agree with the slippery slope principle. The ARA folks are nuts and let them get their foot in the door and eventually we can kiss our more unorthodox pets good-bye. (I don't think they will ever have much luck with the mainstream animals, dogs and cats and some of the other domestics are far too ingrained within society to be displaced. Groups like PETA have and will continue to have victories in skirmishes, but will never win that particular war.)

So, I guess I'm in favour of swatting these proposed laws down in interest of the hobby in which I enjoy participating.

However, I'll join up with the few that go against the grain and state that they believe that some limits are not a bad idea. Somebody used deathstalker scorps as an example. I too see no reason for desiring to keep such dangerous specimens. Not as casual specimens. (Oh, I know the reason in most cases, I just don't see it as a good reason.) And I will go further to say that I would not be comfortable living close to somebody keeping ultra hot scorps or Gaboons, also mentioned earlier. I'm a little more lenient towards the keeping of less extreme hots such as the Crotalids and such. Hey, if a person wants to risk digit amputation and other disfigurement, I say go for it.
Now, I'm very ambivalent towards the big snake debate. If I were qualified to keep them, both financially and responsibly, I'd probably like to do so. Of course, they can be dangerous in inexperienced hands, but the potential for tragedy isn't as far-reaching.

I better pre-empt one argument...yes, I know life is chock fill of danger, and that you risk your life on a daily basis such as when tou get into a car and drive down the road. I also know that in comparison, the number of mishaps from exotoc pets, vicious dogs, etc are infinitesimally small. However, vehicle operation and ownership IS regulated. It is not easy for a 14 year old to obtain a vehicle and take it on the road and endanger himself and others. Getting a death stalker would probably be almost literally child play in comparison. My point being that the "nothing is without risk" argument doesn't really hold much water with me.

I'm beginning to see this animal debate as being similar to the gun-control one, where people will fight for their right to keep any weapon up to and including a nuclear bomb, in order to maintain their right to keep any weapon at all. Problem is, those folks usually come off as nutters, which pretty much has the desired effect that opponents are looking for.

Having said all that, I want to reiterate that I understand the threat these proposed laws are to the pet hobby, and would not support them.

Oh, one last thought directed at PitbullLady.... I enjoy reading many of your posts. They are usually interesting and informative. And we are hand-in-hand regarding contempt for ARA's. Your post sometimes lack one thing. Paragraph breaks. Without breaks I tend to scan more than actually read a full post, which can be detrimental to comprehension. I often cut and paste to wordpad and inset my own breaks for readability, (as I saw fit to do in this thread) but that's kind of a pain. Just a thought.

 

[super-pede]

when was the last time someone in the states died from a scorpion sting?

banning scorpions is a bad example.to the topic about regulating venomous snakes, well they already are(heavily) it was hard enough for me to get the two small eyelash vipers that I owned a while ago.often times the seller will check you out. I had three sellers turn down my orders for lack of experience.

when are they gonna start regulating poisonous houseplants? toddlers die from eating those all the time

 

[Tim Benzedrine]

Hmm....I'm not sure the houseplan comparison works.

Naturally there will be more kids harmed by ingesting poisonous plants than from envenomation from deathstalkers or other hot specimens of your choice, but I think your estimate is off-kilter. I didn't invest a lot of time researching as the burden of proof is not on me, but I went to the California Poison Action Line Website and noyed that there are 185 plants listed. Of those, I counted 85 plants that they rate as being a "1" within their ecaluatiion system. "1" being extremely toxic, "2" a minor toxin, "3" being plants that contain oxalates that can cause a great deal of discomfort and would likely require medical attention, and "4" being plants that cause dermatitis type reactions of varying degrees(Think poison ivy).

Now, I'm familiar with many of those plants listed as a "1" and almost half of those 85 rated thusly are plants that are not usually grown as houseplants. Many are outdoor plants while several others are considered noxious weeds that very few folks would grow. (My estimate is quite unscientific, I'll confess.)

So, statistically speaking, in comparisons to the number of deaths caused by hot scorps or snakes, the numbers would be in favour of the critters, but that's not necessarily indicative of the threat level of common house plants. I would imagine that the cases of fatal poisonings are relatively low rather than "all the time", however. Though not nearly as rare as say, death by scorpion sting, of course.

I'm not posting this as a refutation against keeping hots, but comparing regulations involving plants to regulations governing hots seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[super-pede]

all it takes is a allergic reaction.be it a cat, dog, plant, asthma,insect etc.