That is exactly right! Too bad that there are still a lot of animal owners, including a lot of people right here on AB, who feel(I won't use the word "think" in this case)that it IS OK and a fine and good thing to ban certain animals, animals that they themselves do not/would not own, so they believe that they and their animals won't be affected by this, OR they feel that everyone should have some sort of license or permit to own this or that, everyone except of course, THEMSELVES. The thing is, they never pause to consider who is enforcing the permit systems...the same folks who are pushing for outright BANS, the same people who ultimately are trying to chip away and away until animal ownership is slowly but surely regulated out of existance. If you can't ban it, regulate it it the extent that eventually no one will be able to afford it, or can tolerate the hoops you have to jump through to keep it, or pass the requirements necessary to get a permit to have it. Permits are often too pricey and the requirements too difficult, and are enforced by people with no knowledge of the husbandry of the animals in question, who would rather no one have those animals in the first place, so how fair would that be? It's like the HSUS's ballot initiative that they were pushing in Ohio, wherein THEY would have taken over the state's livestock and poultry industries and run them THEIR way, when HSUS does NOT own or keep ANY livestock or poultry, and have NO experience whatsoever in doing so. It would be comparable to obtaining your driver's license from someone who has never, ever driven a vehicle, knows nothing of how to operate one, and believes that cars should be totally banned because of their polluting the environment and using fossil fuels, anyway. Who are they to judge whether or not YOU can safely operate a motor vehicle?