The plan should be to defeat the idea of a positive list to begin with, I agree, just thinking out loud though..

In order to effectively defeat the positive list, we have to construct a convincing argument with scientific basis.

I brought up the definitions because right now we are in the black until jeff and the other god guys at the front get some confirmation for us regarding HR669.

Until we get some confitmation or the guys at the top issue some statement which may direct our efforts towards something, we have time to wait, or time to covers other things which we normally wouldn´t have time to.

This is why I brought up the topic of definitions. Martial Meyers thought they were important enough to mention but not important enough to waste time on in Congress.

There are many definitions clouting this topic, not only domestication.

Next time the AR group announces a "knee jerk" ^_^ piece of legislation we would be better prepared to form a strong defence right from the start.



Right now the plan is to defeat the positive list in respect to invasive species, but as I understand you also have a positive list in regard to dangerous animals in the horison.

The definitions debate would perhaps be a good transition to the next piece os legislation we address.

I just spill my thoughts here, no filter, maybe the above is not a good idea, you descide.

In the opposite case, which definition of "domesticated" does your congress use?

What is officially understood as a "dangerous animal" and how dangerous does an animal need to be in order to be considered "dangerous to humans"? with out a stable definition one might argue that the notion of dangerous animals has no merit to it at all, since even small spiders are dangerous to fruitflies..



In the british definition of "dangerous animals" I think not only the ability to cause physical harm is included, but to some degree also the ability to frighten the fellow citizen, correct me if this is wrong.



One could argue that a rattle snake is no more dangerous than a golden retriever, in the hands of a responsible keeper. Though, both the rattle snake and golden retriever can be very dangerous in the hands of "the wrong keeper".

Still, venomous snakes have been kept in Germany for more than a century and during the past few decades they have even grown much in popularity but the german society still doesn´t seem to think that venomous snakes pose a danger in their society and also statistical data show that venomous snake keeping in Germany doesn´t amount to a lot of damage, in fact very little. Which would suggest that americans also have a potential to be responsible venomous keepers, without posing a danger to society. Yet bans against venomous animals are existant in several US states.



There is also the topic of "exotic", in contrast to "domestic"? animals, but "wild" is also opposed to "domestic", and we enter the wishy washy of unstable definitions where we are forced to argue with words withjout scientific basis.

In the other thread there was a call for scientific advice.

In my oppinion it would be great to shed some scientific light on the definitions of the bans who pose a threat to us.



If we can punch the breath out of certain definitions in a bill, the whole content may start to loose meaning, and then it´s back to the drawing board for them and another victory for us to keep. If we get lucky, some definition may be a vital part to several of their bills, in which case we gain ground against several of their bans, both those in place and those under construction.

Or maybe this hunt for clearer definitions with stronger rational basis will yield no fruits but from my perspective it´s tempting to investigate further. I´m no expert on definitions so this is also a possibility for me to educate myself in preparation for the next fight back home.. ^_^



I think that by claiming the right to keep reptiles just because the zoos do so, is a weak offence. Zoos are already pressured by the AR movement, pushing the law to ban primates and big cats from zoos. We are adding pressure on zoos by hiding behind them in my opinion. If zoos were banned, what principles do we stand behind then?



oby

[ Show Entire Thread ]