The Bill To Ban Our Hobby Is Here!

Hamburglar

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
585
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...
 

pitbulllady

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2,290
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

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
201
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

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
1,748
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
 
Last edited:

Pulk

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,049
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).
 

pitbulllady

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2,290
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
 

proper_tea

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
550
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

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
3,015
Does this bill really mean that we cant legally keep tarantulas and snakes anymore?
 

ThomasH

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
1,185
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

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
1,185
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

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
1,185
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.
 
Last edited:

pitbulllady

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2,290
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

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
1,185
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

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
1,185
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.
 
Top