jenniferinny
Arachnoknight
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 174
Mushroom spore, if this was a bill to ban moving tarantulas between state lines, would you care then?
A lot less people care about tarantulas then care about snakes. Significantly more people keep snakes then tarantulas.
Probably the snake enthusiasts will beat this without your assistance.
The only way we can beat this kind of legislation is by working together. I know you think that this will stop with large snakes. If past examples are any indication, I would have to say that belief is erroneous.
Why?
Easy, because bills like this don't work. When they don't work, the law gets 'improved' on.
Take for example the lovely state of NY.
Here was the law passed in 2000
http://www.scalesandtails.com/pdf/Law.pdf
It completely banned all the large monitors and larger snakes, however, exceptions were made for those that could prove the had purchased the animal before a specific date.
Then, the city of Rochester brought about more exotic bans including banning hedgehogs..
http://www.scalesandtails.com/pdf/Rochester Law.pdf
I had friends of mine informed that they were no longer grandfathered in just a few months ago. He ended up having to remove all of his snakes and be inspected to make sure they were gone.
If you read the wording of the bill, the purpose is to protect wildlife by no longer allowing them to be brought into an area that doesn't have them already. The whole point is to put a stranglehold on large snake ownership. They know an outright ban would never pass nationally. If they pass it with those guys easily enough, it will be easy to add more species later. Who knows, maybe they'll do what happened with Texas and tack everything else on at the last minute.
Perhaps better read a link before you post it Mushroom,
"the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. The slippery slope can be valid or fallacious."
From what I've seen with reptile and other pet law, this particular "slippery slope" argument has past experience speaking for it validity.
A lot less people care about tarantulas then care about snakes. Significantly more people keep snakes then tarantulas.
Probably the snake enthusiasts will beat this without your assistance.
The only way we can beat this kind of legislation is by working together. I know you think that this will stop with large snakes. If past examples are any indication, I would have to say that belief is erroneous.
Why?
Easy, because bills like this don't work. When they don't work, the law gets 'improved' on.
Take for example the lovely state of NY.
Here was the law passed in 2000
http://www.scalesandtails.com/pdf/Law.pdf
It completely banned all the large monitors and larger snakes, however, exceptions were made for those that could prove the had purchased the animal before a specific date.
Then, the city of Rochester brought about more exotic bans including banning hedgehogs..
http://www.scalesandtails.com/pdf/Rochester Law.pdf
I had friends of mine informed that they were no longer grandfathered in just a few months ago. He ended up having to remove all of his snakes and be inspected to make sure they were gone.
If you read the wording of the bill, the purpose is to protect wildlife by no longer allowing them to be brought into an area that doesn't have them already. The whole point is to put a stranglehold on large snake ownership. They know an outright ban would never pass nationally. If they pass it with those guys easily enough, it will be easy to add more species later. Who knows, maybe they'll do what happened with Texas and tack everything else on at the last minute.
Perhaps better read a link before you post it Mushroom,
"the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. The slippery slope can be valid or fallacious."
From what I've seen with reptile and other pet law, this particular "slippery slope" argument has past experience speaking for it validity.