Jaykis,

I would argue we are not "bairgaining" but merely sharing thoughts and oppinions through a civilised discourse in this thread.

I agree with ernie in his point of "why".

In the opposite case of "if", if they really CAN do what they want I would argue they would have done much more, since we know they want MUCH more than what they have achieved so far..

IF we are doomed anyways, we perhaps have a moral duty towards our animals to put up a good fight, in stead of giving in slowly, little by little until none of us responsible private keepers legally exist.

In order to achieve a quick resolution to a conflict, it may be worth in some cases to make compromise. Otherwise, in most cases I don´t see a need to compromise with an enemy who wishes to abolish my animal husbandry.



In respect to reducing risk of invasive species, banning private husbandry of reptiles really does not offer any qualitative improvement.

If HR669 is passed, banning most herps in the US it will only strengthen my argument I think, there is no way of effectively influencing and controlling illegal reptile husbandry.



Any law that is passed concerning reptiles should reflect the interests of reptile keepers and their reptiles, and the environmental sustainability principle. If a law fails to give consideration to any of these three then it is fundamentally flawed to begin with. When a fundamentally flawed law is proposed I don´t see how a compromise from our part will benefit our animals.



Even if herps are banned, some herpetoculturists aren´t broken.

Compromising our right to responsible herpetoculture, in hope to gain public or political consent to keep our animals a little longer, may be a leap into a swamp which may easily take a decade or three to escape.

[ Show Entire Thread ]