 | mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
| mobile - desktop |
|
|
|
News & Events:
|
| [ Login ] [ User Prefs ] [ Search Forums ] [ Back to Main Page ] [ Back to Ball Pythons ] |
Posted by: wftright at Fri Mar 10 22:28:08 2006 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by wftright ] The answer to "why not" is that most bans only hurt the innocent. While even responsible animal keepers are going to lose an animal occasionally, an occasional lost gerbil isn't likely to lead to an out of control feral gerbil population. Denying people a pet they want will do more harm than the occasioal escapee will do. Furthermore, those who really want to keep them will sneak them into the state anyway. Some of these people are also the ones more likely to be irresponsible and allow more escapes. Before any restriction is put on people, those favoring the restriction need to have strong justification. "Why not" should never count. "Why not" should get legislators impeached. The fact that some people don't like them is the weakest reason of all why others should be denied them. | ||
>> Next Message: RE: Because most bans only hurt ... - crazydart, Fri Mar 10 23:52:23 2006 >> Next Message: why - jyohe, Sat Mar 11 09:30:08 2006 | ||
<< Previous Message: RE: Why not - jyohe, Fri Mar 10 17:41:19 2006 | ||
|
|
|
|