why is debate lacking on this topic?

While the initiative seems half-approved by government there seems to be room for a lot of imrovement on the herpetocultural side at least, as a pair of frogs may easily give rise to a hundred tadpoles but certainly one shouldn´t be crucified by government if one´s frogs mate, right?

Conservation of frogs after all is good, though perhaps stacking large constrictors too tight isn´t?

Where does one draw the boundary? In wolves clothing following AR mafia tactics I am inspired to differenciate between stacking snakes too tight and stacking them responsibly, how to best define minimum resquirements for reptiles with a limited emotional awareness? To complicate matters some snakes are kept to be snakes while some are kept to be pets, illustrated through the fact pet snakes are more commonly handled and socialised differently than snakes who are cultures in bulk for the sake of their skin or the color variations on it.

I find both USARK and PETA have been both vocal and active to point of admiration and while public debate has not been lacking on this forum some topics are inherently more difficult to chop down to agreement and working documents which please both parties and due to this some topics are caught up un an awkward silence. In essence, should bad legislation pass through due to prejudice or due to awkward silence, the unfortunate consequence is all the same, unpleasant for many parties involved.

I recognize in this legislation are bad elements with respect to some animals but likewise some good elements with respect to some animals.

In recent months USARK´s influence on PETA has certainly increased and as such good debate on this forum may be more easily relayed while at the same time the point of message is likely to be considered with more attention by peta now than a year ago. On the other hand Peta, while being in a more vulnerable state economically at the moment, is essentially not as vulnerable ethically in all respects and as such the vulnerability ot peta may be seen as a hollow or passing construct. As such I understand the reptile nation may only hold Peta in check through intelligent debate rather than through angry letters and crucifiction of Andrew every time Peta manages to pull another piece of half baked legislation throug congress.



Understanding herpetoculture is in a perpetual process of innovation and change, change comes through the extinction of past practice. Rather than PETA defining how reptiles should be kept responsibly, USARK should be defining how reptiles should be kept, but again, this depends on public debate within the herpetocultural environment. Once definitions are agreed upon and binded into law there is still room for peta to continue their policing work, while the average responsible herpetoculturist will be more at liberty to tend to their animals in the sense that a responsible legislation defends the interests of both keepers and animals while also embracing a standard of sustainability in wider perspective.



In the future I recognize sustainability will be in position to trump rights on some topics but which ones, the public decides, and the laws of nature.



regards

oby

[ Show Entire Thread ]