I think a scientist doesn´t need to be a genious, to fool the public once. However, after 35 years of the same crap, some scientists loose credibility. I also think it is wrong to place all "reptile guys" in one big basket. There are responsible and irresponsible reptile guys I think, we should give moral credit to some of the reptile guys I think, we are not all reptile robots with the same opinions.



I would argue that rotten politicians act much like Animal rights terrorists, though politicians are more diplomatic about their business. In my country the animals I would like to keep were outlawed before I was born, so in essence herpetoculturists of my age in norway are being punished for the alleged crimes of others animal owners more than 30 years ago.



Politicians who discriminate people depending on which species one chooses to share companionship with, is much the same as discriminating people depending on their age, race or sexual orientation.

Today it is no longer a crime to be a homosexual, but certain politicians think keeping snakes is a crime, and that snake keepers are criminals, or at least act in that spirit.

Now..

If a politician doesn´t have a racist intent, but still discriminates people because of their race by action, then that politician is a racist in consequence, even if she or he doesn´t have malicious intentions.

If a bill which has racist consequences is passed in the US, then the law will be racist, if not by intent, at least in consequence.

A person can not choose his "race", his parents or his country of origin.

Likewise, and to somewhat but not entirely similar degree, a person can not choose who to fall in love with, which friends to bond with and which animals to get attached to.



A person cannot choose which species of companion animal appeals to hers/his interests, more than one can choose what type of people to fall in love with.

I feel that passing a ban against the keeping of certain animals is similar to passing a ban against Americans bonding in marriage with people of certain other "races", for example Canadians, Chinese or Norwegians.



When the people are discriminated and criminalized on the grounds of which species they seek companionship with, I would argue that democracy has been replaced with dictatorship, even if this is clearly not the intent of the good politicians.



Although nazism and animal rights philosophy have some profound differences, I find that they have some profound similarities too.

Before WW2 certain governments started burning certain books, and they advocated that some people were better than others, because they belonged to a different race. Jew´s were burned to death because of their beliefs and their origins.

Some 50 years later our government is freezing thousands of reptiles and amphibians alive, because of their origin. Certain animal keepers are deemed criminals by the law and society, because of they cherish the companionship with "wrong species".



All people have a relation to animals of some kind. Some have strong bond to animals and a basic need to share their life with them but today, certain animals are labeled invasive and or dangerous, in much the same manner as Germans prior to WW2 regarded Jews as an invasive threat to the german society.



It is impossible to place all people with a relation to animals in one basket with out over generalizing but I will make this small attempt to illustrate a thought.



At one extremity of the scale, we have some people who are against all animal husbandry.

In the middle we have the people who are against irresponsible animal husbandry.

In theory there should be a third grouping of people at the other extremity of the scale, who are pro all animal husbandry, regardless whether it is responsible or irresponsible.



In real life, I have never heard of groups who are pro all animal husbandry, regardless if responsible or irresponsible. I believe that in society this amounts to a skewed perception of normality. where the responsible exotic animal keepers are mistaken with extremists by the general society.



I received this very interesting article earlier today. Even though most people like animals, apparently no one wants to be chief of animal cervices because of human activists. This is a puzzle to me...



regards

oby



L.A. Animal Services chief is the impossible job

L.A. should revamp Animal Services

 



Updated: 05/06/2009 09:41:22 AM PDT





WHO in the world would want to lead the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services?

It's got to be the worst job in City Hall - with near-constant criticism from a fragmented and confrontational activist community, sometimes violent attacks by extremist groups, and shifting support from city leaders who are quick to denounce the manager when they see political opportunity.

 

That's probably why recently resigned General Manager Ed Boks was the fifth person to head the department in a decade. Previous directors were forced out or resigned under the pressure of the job; one manager had his apartment smoke-bombed by activists and another was hospitalized for nervous seizures said to be related to his work in the department.

 

Boks, who announced his resignation late last month, came to L.A. after leading departments in Arizona and New York. He knew from experience the tensions of animal services, and the former preacher came out swinging when critics challenged his leadership. Yet Boks also stoked controversy with the ill-fated Hooters for Neuters fundraiser and the doomed Pit Bull Academy, in which ex-convicts would be trained to rehabilitate abused pit bulls.

 

With Boks' departure, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has a unique opportunity to remake this department in crisis. Indeed, with the city in a deep fiscal hole and a lack of leadership for this $20 million department, perhaps the city should rethink how it provides animal services altogether.

 

First, Villaraigosa should drop the goal of becoming a no-kill city. It's a great sound bite for the campaign trail, but it's too politically charged and few people agree on what no-kill really means. (Do you count the euthanization of older, sick or "aggressive" animals?) It would be better for Los Angeles to tone down the rhetoric and focus more on service than statistics.

 

Second, Villaraigosa and the City Council should consider privatizing or contracting out some portion of Animal Services, or partnering with other agencies.

 

Villaraigosa is already looking at turning over the Los Angeles Zoo to a private, nonprofit foundation, why not look at a similar option for Animal Services?

 

The city could still retain animal control officers, responsible for picking up strays and enforcing city laws, but the city could contract with nonprofits to run the animal shelters.

Los Angeles taxpayers approved a bond measure in 2000 to build new animal shelters, yet a Northeast San Fernando Valley shelter was completed but never opened because of budget problems. Nonprofit animal welfare groups are savvy at fundraising and running quality shelters on a shoestring budget; imagine what they could do with city-owned shelters.

 

Or the city could merge operations with Los Angeles County's Department of Animal Care and Control. The county operates shelters throughout the region and offers animal services for 50 small cities - yet it seems less bogged down in politics than L.A. city Animal Services. By combining forces and resources, a city-county animal agency could reduce administrative and, perhaps, de-politicize the mission.

 

These options may or may not make sense for Los Angeles Animal Services, but there is certainly a need to rethink the mission and management of this dysfunctional and controversial agency.



- http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_12303648

[ Show Entire Thread ]