Hey John,



I have no idea where you are going with this line of thought.

What is it that you hope to achieve?



Let's forget the issue of semantics (ie, definition of "pet".



I thought you were against government meddling, regulations and bans. Are you saying we should *promote* the general idea that reptiles are NOT good pets, but dangerous "cold blooded creatures that can put an eye out" and/or carry harmful bacteria??



This will be a huge green light for a ton of legislation, required permits and outright bans!!



I also think your gun analogy is flawed. Here's one that I think is appropriate, though. Some pit bulls are aggressive and dangerous. Does that mean we should say dogs are not pets?



Thanks,

Ed





>>Of course it will. That's exactly the problem. People seem to have some rather misguided conception on what these animals are.

>>They are not cute cuddly "pets" that seek and return affection as the moniker "Pets" implies.

>>They are scaly cold blooded creatures that have sharp claws and teeth and tails that can put an eye out. My iguanas always thrashed their tails at the eyes in defense. It was an instinctive reaction, not some cleverly crafted strategy.

>>These animals routinely harbor bacterial flora that have been known to cause gastrointestinal and other illnesses in humans.

>>Let me return to the gun analogy -- just because there are recreational firearms sportsmen out there, does this mean guns are toys? Of course not.

>>"Pets" is just not a good descriptive term to use when referring to these animals. It's just too far off the mark and leads to so much misinformation, errors of fact and judgment, and irresponsible behavior by the uninformed.

>>jsc

>>-----

>>"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"

>>John Crickmer

[ Show Entire Thread ]