Ernie,



>>I see huge distinctions. Methods of operation, personal view points, end results in the various areas of the live animal trade and not so live animal trade but…



>>Unfortunately this is how it is. You can`t pick and choose. If you support private ownership you have to support the industry, if you support the industry you can`t support certain individuals and not others.



A agree with you and I believe I stated that there is a distinction in my post but in view of the current regulatory climate, THEY do not make any attempt distinguish one from the other. In THEIR eyes, we are ALL the same. Therefore, it’s “us-against-them”. If one day I can afford it, I’d never part with any of the animals that I produce…



Their approach is the “industry” as a whole and not in parts. In other words, all of mankind is capable (potential) for violent crime (even though only a VERY small minority of the entire population actually commits these acts of violence) and therefore, EVERYBODY should be locked up! Of course, they’d exempt themselves and their own sanctioned “entities”…



I’ll wager a bet that the next version of HR-669 will include provisions that will “permit” (provided you “register” and pay a “fee”) certain activities of the “industry” in an attempt to “buy-off” a few opponents (to silence their opposition) to get some version of a bill passed.



The end justifies the means with this “stuff” and there is a documented history of them doing just this sort of thing going back decades…The “divide-and-conquer” strategy is a very successful formula for them and they’ve been using it for a long time. Just do some research about the current version of the Lacey Act…Previous legislation either didn’t solve the “problem” (inadequate) or they found something other “problem” that was not addressed in the original bill.



If the “problem” is solved, there can be no program to justify tax dollars to support it nor will the politicians (or the bureaucrats or lobbyist dot.org's for that matter) have something to campaign on (or lobby for) in the next election. After all, the first job of EVERY professional politician is to get elected and EVERY job after that is to get reelected…With out tax dollars, there is no reason for a bureaucrat at a government agency to have a job with a retirement package (taxpayer funded)…Heaven forbid! Without their government security blanket, this would mean that they would have to get a real job that would subject them to the REGULATIONS that they pass (that they are exempt from while government employed).



Regarding the dot.org's, there would be no reason for them to exist either and their charitable philanthropy grants would be unnecessary as well (forcing them to have to work at a real job) because their reason for existing would disappear. No lobbying, no "grants" to subsidize their employment, LIONS, TIGERS AND BEARS, OH MY!!!! Sorry that I have such a cynical attitude about this but, this appears to me to be the way it is with them…



Later,

Jim.


-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]