Posted by:
DrPepper
at Sun Aug 3 13:47:55 2003 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by DrPepper ]
The moment I saw the article (before even starting to read it) I noticed immediately on the front page that the WashPost couldn't even note of the correct identification of the snake the gentleman was holding. That immediately tuned me into the fact that everything about the article from that point on should be taken with a huge grain of salt as a decent size chunk of it would either be slanted to make people look bad or badly written to make reptile folks look utterly stupid...the journalist did a damn fine job of that. I'd pay a lot of money for a 'ball python' the size of the one they apparently photographed (it is much too obvious that it is a burmese python).
The washpost appears to want to start another media frenzy against exotic ownership (remember the poor prairie dogs/gambian rats paranoia the media incited) by quoting people out of context/incorrectly and writing what is obviously incorrect information or information that goes out of its way to make people look stupid/ignorant.
I am a long time reader of the washpost and I do notice that the wash post is notorious for writing bad articles when it comes to 'animals'. Very rarely do I ever see articles of that nature where the information provided was correct and/or well done by the journalist. The journalists just want a 'sensationalist' angle to those articles to boost their ego or reputation...that is all they care about...not accuracy.
One notable example of the inaccurate nature of the article:
The article states that while Virginia allows venomous snakes, Maryland (& the District) ban them. Maryland does NOT ban the possession of venomous snakes. Copperheads or any non-native venomous snake may be possessed, but not sold or imported as pets. The one main exception is Timber Rattlesnakes which are listed as a native endangered species in the state and requires a scientific collection permit or an endangered species permit (which they do not issue to the general hobbyist only to bona fide educational facilities such as zoos). For the most part people keeping copperheads are not likely to be harassed for having them (COMAR 08.03.11.05 C clearly states that copperheads are legal). It's people keeping the non-native species that run into problems if they are deemed to be keeping hydrophidae, elapidae, ciperidae or crotloidae as a 'household pet' as noted in the maryland code 10-621 (re: import, offer, or transfer of dangerous animal).
DP
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Does Melissa Kaplan advocate a total ban on ownership of exotic pets? - DrPepper, Sun Aug 3 13:47:55 2003