Posted by:
jscrick
at Mon Mar 15 17:24:36 2010 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by jscrick ]
Steph, I have long claimed these animals are artificially maintained captive wild-type animals (generally used for display), and not Pets. One major appeal is the extremely low maintenance and the mimimal space they require. Most people refuse to agree. It's the "Pets" moniker that gets us into trouble. Great for marketing, but not reality in my opinion.
Nothing but bullets for the AR crowd's big guns. Example: "Turtles do not make good pets". Agreed! They do make good captives, though. I consider them non-traditional exotics. Same as tropical fish. A collection of non-traditional exotics (reptiles) can indeed be very rewarding and an enriching experience.
Unfortunately it is the sophomoric "Boxie" and "Cali King" mentality that line up to be used and manipulated by wildlife officials. This is the "Pets" crowd at it finest. These people assume their credentials by association, not by expertise or accomplishment. Like I said, regulators love all the support they can get from these non-authorities, for the appearance of peer consent and approval, thus validating their agenda.
Not that I'm speaking for the gentleman you mentioned, but I do believe he breeds those animals and I don't think he considers them "pets" in the strictest sense of the word. He will have to respond himself to set the record straight.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: It seems like... - jscrick, Mon Mar 15 17:24:36 2010