What has been said about the end result being a compromised version of the original complete ban proposal has been said by others and myself . I do agree with this possibility and understand how in some political cases this is the goal but I do not believe in this instance that it is .We are dealing with a very radical group. I would like to clarified my view on the matter .
While I do acknowledge the possibility of the final draft being less restrictive to some degree. In no way do I feel this is a case where someone is asking for everything but will go in knowingly ready to settle for less. The people behind this legislative ban proposal do not want compromise. The real law they are looking for is an all out ban. ON EVERYTHING ! If a lesser version of this proposal is submitted they will fight it and continue to ask for more. Keep in mind they are extremist.
When this all really started to take off here in Florida what was originally submitted was a proposal for an all out ban. Similar to what we are looking at now but on a state level. As soon as it became apparent that this wasn't going to happen here. The factions behind this attack on exotic keepers started to get things moving to have it handled at the federal level. Once again asking for an all out ban. These people are not hoping or interested in settling for less then a complete end to exotic ownership. Their mission statement is clear. Put a stop to EVERTHING. They may temporally and begrudgingly accept trimmed legislation but this is not what their looking for and it will in no way end there. In the case of bills featuring lesser restrictions being passed you can believe they will waste no time on resuming their attack against us . They want it all stopped and stopped now ! Make no mistake what these people are going after is exactly a what their asking for.
I fully agree that people often jump at and happily accept legislation that looks much more friendly then the original doomsday plan. This is a mistake. Again Florida sets a good example. Many people felt very happy with what they thought was the end result of the most recent ownership attack. A microchip / permit system sounded good ? But before the ink has even dried we are now confronted by this federal proposal and still face numerous ownership threats at the state level . We achieved nothing with any long term effect. Laying on the ropes and covering up may help you to survive the round but ultimately you will lose the fight.
Some things to consider when a sweeter sounding watered down version of doomsday legislation is presented are, What kinds of provisions are contained in the document ? Often times these include being an open ended policy meaning that additional species and restrictions can be added. Sometimes before you know it's happing . This is a very dangerous thing to say the least. It's a big part of the what the anti ownership people fight for when they don't get it all. Plan B . "the back door ". It's very important that if we agree to something that it provides us with some long term protection. We need things in place that assure us that our future is secure. In other words . We defended our case now here's what we would like. These types of documents can be written in a very complicated language that disguises key elements . This is why sound legal representation is needed.
When legislation is passed it serves to set a legal precedence that can be used for or against you. We need to have precedence set in place that will work for us. The long term rights to responsible ownership is the goal.
We all need to participate to protect that interest. Everyone must keep this thought in mind .
The real law they are looking for is an all out ban. ON EVERYTHING !
We can't maintain a why should I care attitude just because an issue might involve a species we have no personal interest in. We all have a common interest . A love of animals . We all need to look out for each other.
Lastly I'm probably repeating myself but again .This is not a government conspiracy.The man is not looking to put us down for no reason. If that was the case it would have been over long ago.
It must be remembered .The people we call humaniacs, fanatics, nut cases etc. are people law makers and politicians at all levels call tax payers, voters, campaign contributors and sometimes colleagues. Groups that are out to take everything away from us such as Peta , United States Humane Society and their supporters are citizens. What is happening is these citizens are actively approaching government officials and stating their case . Their demanding that something be done. What we're seeing is a government reaction to a request submitted by a segment of society .The approach these groups use is the very same one we need to employ. It's important to let these officials know that we are also tax payers, voters , campaign contributors and sometimes colleagues. We have to tell our side of the story and let them know about our numbers and contributions . We need to prove our point and let these officials know that we also would like something done.
Ernie Eison
Westwoodreptiles.com