Posted by:
TOM_CRUTCHFIELD
at Tue May 5 13:51:41 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by TOM_CRUTCHFIELD ]
The fact is that with the research I've done NO ONE has ever been bitten by an exotic venomous snake but the owner. The large constrictors are ONLY a potential danger to their owners. THE PUBLIC AT LARGE HAS NEVER AND WILL NEVER BE AT RISK THROUGH HERPERS HAVING HERPS. DENNIS SARGENT, THE FIRE CHIEF OF LAKE COUNTY, FL AND A HERPER, LOOKED FOR INCIDENTS NATIONWIDE INVOLVING ACCIDENTS WITH REPTILES AND IN EVERY CASE THE PERSON INJURED WAS THE OWNER. In fact considering the HUGE number held in captivity injuries and deaths are very rare which means we do a pretty good job anyway. The fact is a domestic dog is far more likely to harm the public than any captive reptile. These are facts not conjecture. We consistently get a bad press and I am sick of it because it's simply not true.... ----- Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com
[ Hide Replies ]
- Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - Albey, Fri May 1 16:52:38 2009
- Compromise?....... - amcroyals, Fri May 1 23:23:04 2009
- RE: Compromise?....... - Oz, Sat May 2 05:55:51 2009
- RE: Compromise?....... - TerryHeuring, Sat May 2 09:28:24 2009
- my thoughts also,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - RoyalVariations, Sat May 2 11:02:50 2009
- RE: my thoughts also,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - amcroyals, Sat May 2 12:22:23 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - stu, Sat May 2 06:17:01 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - Oz, Sat May 2 06:34:33 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - brhaco, Sat May 2 08:21:07 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - stu, Sat May 2 08:30:42 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - TOM_CRUTCHFIELD, Sat May 2 09:58:42 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - TOM_CRUTCHFIELD, Sat May 2 10:07:13 2009
- Very well put... - amcroyals, Sat May 2 10:10:44 2009
- Bill AND Tom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - RoyalVariations, Sat May 2 11:10:10 2009
- RE: Bill AND Tom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - stu, Sat May 2 12:43:41 2009
- RE: Bill AND Tom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - RoyalVariations, Sat May 2 13:58:50 2009
- RE: Bill AND Tom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - TerryHeuring, Sat May 2 14:05:00 2009
- RE: Bill AND Tom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - wstreps, Sat May 2 14:57:56 2009
- RE: Bill AND Tom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - RoyalVariations, Sat May 2 15:05:00 2009
- RE: Bill AND Tom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - wstreps, Sat May 2 15:34:28 2009
- RE: Bill AND Tom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - amcroyals, Sat May 2 18:47:50 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - stu, Sat May 2 08:28:36 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - amcroyals, Sat May 2 10:01:47 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - wstreps, Sat May 2 12:19:42 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - Thomas S., Sat May 2 11:19:59 2009
- What is a "reasonable comprmoise"? - jason, Sat May 2 09:22:54 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - wstreps, Sat May 2 11:50:04 2009
- RE: Bill Brant on HR669 and NRIP - evansnakes, Sat May 2 22:13:41 2009
|