What I find interesting is the amalgam of interest groups listed in the first paragraph. I know it's been said many times before by Ernie, Tom, and others here. Worth repeating. I'm a believer. That entire message has probably been posted here before.

The common thread is the "Don't keep in captivity" way of thinking. That's what these groups all have in common. These are people on a "moral" mission, thinly disguised as an environmental imperative. They hold the position that "wild" should remain wild. Somewhat of an inflexible extremist ideologue mentality. It is emotionally based. Based on an individual's personal perspective on what one feels is best for animals, versus what one feels is morally reprehensible. It is faith based. It is based on one's faith that one knows what's best. They just know it in their heart. They are legislating morality. They are in fact telling you what is proper and what is a no-no when it comes to your personal interaction with animals. Indisputable truth being, more species/populations have been positively effected through captive propagation/possession in the private sector. Leaving it to the proper authorities has had a dismal track record. That is why they frame their argument with that thin veneer of the "invasive exotic threat". They put up a Red Herring Straw Man argument as a cover for an indefensible position of morality.

Thanks for the early enlightenment guys. Now, I've seen it for myself from their own mouths.

jsc






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

John Crickmer

[ Show Entire Thread ]