The Bill To Ban Our Hobby Is Here!

[pitbulllady]

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]

Bump to gain more public attention.

 

[ZooRex]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well said PBL.:clap:
TBH

 

[J_dUbz88]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[Rochelle]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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