Reptile & Amphibian Forums

All,

I think many of us understand the worry about exotics but much of this has nothing to do with us. We were not invited to the table to work out a win/win bill. This needs to change. We must have answers for their concerns. Rather then being re-active we should be pro-active. Many acknowledge that the Lacey Act needs revamping and we should lead the charge. It might be good to come up with a bill that addresses their concerns but protects our rights. This is only the beginning so pay your cell bill and buy ink cartridges and envelopes.

Welkerii
El Paso, TX

We cannot be expected to miraculously produce several? good quality bills on short notice?
We have been spending all our energy on raising awareness.

The right to engage in responsible bioculture is essential to our existence. Whithout that right we cannot culture cows and corn fo feed our fellow sitizens of society.
The right to responsible farming exists only as long as meat and grain farmers respect their duties and pay taxes.
Some farmers do not respect their duties, break the law and farm in other ways irresponsibly, however, the vast majority of farmers generally respect the laws all the time. The US government must not confuse the irresponsible farmers and reptile keepers, with the vast majority of responsible farmers and reptile keepers.

Do not punish the society for the crimes of the few. No responsible reptile keeper would ever release invasive species on purpose in their local environment!
American herpetoculturists love the natural herpetological diversity of the US.
In fact, many herpetoculturists jokingly note that if herpetoculturists were present at the time of the dinosaurs, they wouldn´t have gone extinct.

In terrarium is is possible so safely get a reaonable idea of the invasive potencial of a certain species.
A terrarium can be set up to mimick a certain environment, with todays technology most parameters of climate and environment can be simulated effectively.
We must determine the main factors which determine a species invasive potential. For example, no dartfrogs will tolerate frost, therefore they are no danger to keep in us states who experiance snow on occasion.

There is much room for improvement in the current legislation and there may be a dire need to improve animal welfare but improvement coms step by step. I hope the US government will continue with small steps in the right direction in stead of leaping in blind belief that animal rights organisations give advice with sound scientific support.

Regards
oby

If we do not start to introduce some bills of our owen this will be a never ending story. We will always be on the run and in the shadow od laws being made against us.

As for some doing it legal, it is hard to stay legal when they are making it all illegal. A lot of the law is not correct or fair not even to help the species they say they make these laws for. I have seen things go extinct even in protected parks due to lack of management. Why take captive breeding out of the hands of the public? They do not have the time, man power or money to do it all themselves.
They should not take the word of animal activist groups that are really large companies that make millions off of scare tactics and making people think all animals are being abused if they are in captivity. These people if they get what they want will cause millions of animals to die. They need to be exposed for the unrealistic flakes they are. Eric

What types of legislation are you guys thinking about?

The problem I see with "compromise legislation" to counter HR669-type bills that make no logical sense in the first place is that we (ie, all reptile owners) can just as easily be the target of other groups (ie, furry animal and bird owners) with their compromise legislation. The entire non-native pet industry/community needs to stand as one, if that's even possible.

Also, given the obvious goal of the forces behind the legislation is to ban reptile ownership completely, "compromise legislation" will, at best, simply delay further proposed anti-ownership legislation for a few years.

Thanks,
Ed

>>If we do not start to introduce some bills of our owen this will be a never ending story. We will always be on the run and in the shadow od laws being made against us.
>>
>>As for some doing it legal, it is hard to stay legal when they are making it all illegal. A lot of the law is not correct or fair not even to help the species they say they make these laws for. I have seen things go extinct even in protected parks due to lack of management. Why take captive breeding out of the hands of the public? They do not have the time, man power or money to do it all themselves.
>>They should not take the word of animal activist groups that are really large companies that make millions off of scare tactics and making people think all animals are being abused if they are in captivity. These people if they get what they want will cause millions of animals to die. They need to be exposed for the unrealistic flakes they are. Eric

Ed,

Never said anything about "compromise legislation." Marshall Meyers from PIJAC acknowledges that the listing process for injurous species under the Lacey Act needs revamping so more then just the "other side" sees that need. We need to acknowledge real issues and come up with solutions that will work for us.

My point is two fold. First, on legitimate issues like Lacey Act injurous listings or any other reasonable concern we need to come up with logical, scientifically sound solutions to these issues that solve the issue and preserve our rights without compromise. Secondly, it would be great to get legislation passed that guarantees our rights specifically. That way the AR groups would have to first over turn these guarantees before they can push their agenda.

We can no longer sit back and say don't regulate us. We can not ignore legitimate concerns. Someone is going to come up with solutions that we may not like or that damage us. Why not come up with solutions that solve the problem but preserve our rights? All the issues confronting us are not just AR propaganda. AR propaganda needs to be stopped from the get go, no compromise but legitimate concerns need solutions.

It would be great if the regulatory agencies, legislators, conservationists and academics came to us and said, "Here is the problem or issue. What ideas do you have? What solution will work for you?" Rather then not inviting us to the table and then coming up with proposed regs and other legislation, without our input, that are unacceptable. The current system of "public comment" is not working. In this situation our solutions find their way into garabage receptacles and the bad ideas, unworkable and wrong solutions are inacted despite our comments. We need to be invloved in the initial design phase.

And if they won't invite us to the table then we need to push our own legislation. Maybe legislation that gets us to the table?

Welkerii
El Paso, TX

With all due respect, you didn't answer the question.

What types of legislation are you guys thinking about?

Please be specific.

Thanks,
Ed

>>Ed,
>>
>>Never said anything about "compromise legislation." Marshall Meyers from PIJAC acknowledges that the listing process for injurous species under the Lacey Act needs revamping so more then just the "other side" sees that need. We need to acknowledge real issues and come up with solutions that will work for us.
>>
>>My point is two fold. First, on legitimate issues like Lacey Act injurous listings or any other reasonable concern we need to come up with logical, scientifically sound solutions to these issues that solve the issue and preserve our rights without compromise. Secondly, it would be great to get legislation passed that guarantees our rights specifically. That way the AR groups would have to first over turn these guarantees before they can push their agenda.
>>
>>We can no longer sit back and say don't regulate us. We can not ignore legitimate concerns. Someone is going to come up with solutions that we may not like or that damage us. Why not come up with solutions that solve the problem but preserve our rights? All the issues confronting us are not just AR propaganda. AR propaganda needs to be stopped from the get go, no compromise but legitimate concerns need solutions.
>>
>>It would be great if the regulatory agencies, legislators, conservationists and academics came to us and said, "Here is the problem or issue. What ideas do you have? What solution will work for you?" Rather then not inviting us to the table and then coming up with proposed regs and other legislation, without our input, that are unacceptable. The current system of "public comment" is not working. In this situation our solutions find their way into garabage receptacles and the bad ideas, unworkable and wrong solutions are inacted despite our comments. We need to be invloved in the initial design phase.
>>
>>And if they won't invite us to the table then we need to push our own legislation. Maybe legislation that gets us to the table?
>>
>>Welkerii
>>El Paso, TX

Hey Ed,

I don't know. What types of legislation are there? I don't have specifics. Marshall Meyers states in a PIJAC statment (posted somewhere below opposing HR 669) that there are issues with the Lacey Act listing system. So, what are the issues? What are the concerns? Once we know what they are we design legislation that addresses the issues and concerns, and protects our rights. If laws and regs are already on the books then that is the answer. If the issues or concerns are AR agenda then we stand up for our rights and try and expose their ridiculous agenda.

It would be great to pass laws guaranteeing our rights to keep what we want. I don't have specifics at this time but if they can propose laws to take our rights away, we should be able to propose laws that gives us the specific right to keep herps.

We have to be given a specific problem to solve and then from the view of the pet industry we solve it. That is, rather then letting someone who knows nothing of the pet industry making arbitrary, uninformed decisions. I can give better examples concerning herp laws here in Texas but these are just excercizes in futility unless we are going to work on them. They can't be answered in a quick post on Ksnake.

As always I am available to work on any of this.

Welkerii
El Paso, TX

One step forward
and we see the beginnong of the end
Extiction of captive animal husbandry.
Be prepared when the time comes to drop your pants, turn around and bend over, when police come to your door to confiscate your animals and archive them in the freezers of the FWS and them burn them to ashes, if you loose the next round.
Some wild reptiles who migrated to the US in the early 19th century thrived in terrarium and divirsified to the point where new and completely different forms came into existence. Piebald ballpythons for example, and glow-in-the-dark amelanistic leopard geckoes. These new forms who first appeared in America are very on the brick of population collapse in very few years.
And if other countries of the world follow the american trend, a vast majority of the diversity in captive animal husbandry will go extinct across the globe within few decades.
two steps back.
We are now aware of the magnitude of the problem and the graveness of the matter.
50.000 letters divided by 22 cogressmen = 2273 americains who sent letters. I recon somewhere around 3000 american herpetoculturits and perhaps 30-90 people from abroad have engaged themselves in stopping HR669.

A very small number of people have put up a herculian effort but how can 3090 people in a joint effort undo the wrong doings of a multi million dollar AR industry?

We need to draft a bill, that outlines the right to responsible bioculture.
The right to responsible bioculture is essential to the existence of mankind.
Without the right to farm crops, ranch cows and breed frogs, we cannot sustain the cultural diversity of our society.
Examples of responsible bioculture may be responsible cropfarming, cowfarming, hunting, scientific experimentation or companion animal husbandry.
If we have a right to keep animals, we also have a corresponding duty to respect the exceptions to the general rule and the premises of the right.
In the effort to minimise invasive species it is not enough to slap a sloppy piece of legislation and expect the problem to dissapear.
After we got a reptile ban people still continued to keep reptiles.
People in america will still continue to keep reptiles even if this law is passed.
HR669 offers no sollution to invasive species risk reduction in respect to animal husbandry.
People will only go underground and no one will really know who keeps what where in america. Then the hunt will begin for illegal creep keepers who threaten society with invasive species.
What happened in norway after our ban was that fewer people kept reptiles, but the ones who continued keeping gradually shifted their choice species.
The commercial value of reptiles was shot to bits, so no one kept reptiles for profit anymore, so people started keeping more exotic species. Now we have a small but diverse captive population of reptiles over here. Before ban more people were keeping the same species.
In any case, the diversity of foreign species which reside in american vivariums will rise in the future, regardless of HR669.
People do not let go of the right to responsibly keep their reptiles, therefore we have to look closer at out duties.
Also, there is absolutely no way to tell if an invasive species has escaped from a vivarium, or if it has been introduced by Animal rights activists. There really is not, and if some one says otherwise they are already treating you as guilty until proven innocent.
For all we know, many introductions of invasive species may be the working of overseas terrorists.
Overseas terror lords parhaps sponsor ALF to release different animals in different areas in order to cause panic, concearn, and consumes energy, effort and resources to fix. Introduction of invasive species may be accidental or a form of biological warfare.
Perhaps it is not our duty to consider other pathways of invasive species but we have a duty to reduce risk of invasive species caused by the herpetocultural society. The general society must recognize the difference between a terrarist and a terrorist. Reptile keepers are not terrorists, this reasoning heard at one EUFORA conference, but I find that it applies to all responsible animal culturists.

The human right to responsible bioculture is the unwritten one that needs to find it´s way to your declaration of rights.
A farmer can loose "the right" to keep cattle for a certain period of time or perhaps indefenetly, if he abuses his animals and breaks the law, yet this right to keep cows is nowhere cited in american law I would expect?
I haven´t heard of other countries in which this right is stated but I have noted that farmers have the right to keep cattle under the right premises in all countries of the world.
I expect that the american army also has an interest in securing the peoples right to responsible animal husbandry, this will secure the steaks in the mess hall and raise the fighting spirit, lest we want to face the terrorists of tomorrow with vegetarian warriors.

Launch a bill that seeks to secure the human right to responsibly keep certain animals, and let it be the duty of the AR movement to stop the bill. If it fails, launch it again next year in an improved version which gives more concideration to all critisisms. But, it is realistic for PIJAC and all parties now involved to draft a bill which includes the rights and duties in modern animal husbadry?

We only have to shape the the rights-based arguments in respect to herpetoculture, then other groupings of animal keepers have to shape the rights and duties in respect to their animal culture.
If we define our rights more clearly and more in detail, we will have a better starting point in defending them. If you introduce such, even if it is not passed initially you will create a precedent of historical value.
In order for herpetoculture to be a sustainable herpetoculturists have to take measures to reduce risk of invasive species and do their own risk assesment.
What is the risk of being bit by escaped venomous snake compared to risk of being struck by lightning. Risk for introduction of invasive species from the pet trade can not realistically be set to zero, but it needs a reference. How big of a potential does a species need to have in order to be considered banned from a certain area or the whole of the US?

regards
oby

We do need to create a Constitutional amendment that gives us the RIGHT to responsible bioculture. Currently it is considered a privilege, although I feel it should fall under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms, that and all the work the NRA does is the only reason we still have the ability to have guns. If we could change the Constitution in our favor it would make it very difficult for the animal rights people to take that away.
-----
Randy and Michelle
Art In Scales
(719) 439-4199
info@artinscales.com

If you have the rights to keep arms then you have the right to keep animals since companion animals are arms against depresion and bonbs of enrichment to our lives. ^_^

is that it provides a "solution" for the WHOLE country, whether needed or not. If there really are a few species that are likely to become problems for MOST of the states in the US, I would not be against some very strong Federal legislation to control those species. But this country has such a diverse climate and geography, that FEDERAL legislation about particular species is almost always going to be overkill for much of the country, in order to protect some small part of the US.

I have no problem with states proposing legislation for their own areas, and then the residents participate in deciding if it is warranted or not, considering their own regional conditions. It is much more likely that people within a state will consider the impact on their neighborhood pet shop, as compared to some lawmaker in Florida or Hawaii, who really doesn't know or care what kind of conditions they have in Minnesota or Montana.

So I am not sure what kind of Federal law would properly address the problem, WITHOUT being overkill?

Kathy,

I am not specifically talking about exotics. That issue is one of many issues we face. We face many other issues like: the right to sell wild caught, the right to harvest from the wild, the right to possess quantities of species, the right to collect from the road and the right to possess certain species.

I agree that some issues are state issues, however, we need to normalize herp laws and regulations across all states. We are national and international businesses. We buy and sell across state and national lines. We transport across state and national lines. If commercial means one thing in one state and something else in another it makes things very difficult.

Although everyone is concerned with the invasive ban and the boa and python ban there are many other issues that need to be addressed. Look at the turtle ban pushed by academics that is on going right now especially in the southeast and midwest. We haven't done diddly to try and stop that. Meanwhile turtle breeders and collectors are being screwed left and right. I keep natives so the invasive ban and the boa and python ban really don't affect me directly but I support others rights to work with those species. The turtle bans are what concern me. Next will be amphibians and then lizards and then snakes.

Welkerii
El Paso, TX

Kathy-

You've cut right to the gist of this question. The problem of invasive species is almost entirely a REGIONAL one. And who better to address such problems intelligently than those most affected by them in te state or states involved?

What WON"T get us anywhere is to stick our heads in the sand, or actively try to promulgate falsehoods and misdirection in an attempt to deny that a problem exists-let's leave those tactics to our opponents in PETA and HSUS!

The problem of invasives is a real one, and we should work with legitimate scientists and regulators to come up with solutions which will actually work, without destroying entire industries (and putting tens of thousands out of work) in the process......
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

You say that we should work with legitimate scientists, look at what Rodda did. He is a legitimate scientist that has his own agenda. We all know that burms can never live in DC or California, but he said they could and most people believe it. I have had people quote the map that he drew. I tell them that his data is flawed and they reply by saying "but he's the expert, now you now more than the experts"

We need to work on finding our own experts (legitimate scientists) that will testify on our behalf in these meeting, that will write papers and draw maps that are unbiased. Our grass roots uprising is working and we need to continue the fight, but I fear that in the end the powers that be will defer to the "experts". I know there are many scientists and vets that are on our side, we need some of them to step up and help us out so that when they do defer to the experts we still have a voice.
-----
Randy and Michelle
Art In Scales
(719) 439-4199
info@artinscales.com

I agree wholeheartedly, and I also believe that the scientific community as a whole will not, in the long run, support actions that are not supported by solid data. For evidence just look at how the New England Aquarium has bravely come out in opposition to HR669..

The Rodda paper was clearly flawed science-we need to point that out at every opportunity.
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

Maybe target a small group of select AR vets or scientists, and see which legitimate scientists will help you out to defeat their credibility?
Goodfolk have a tendency to bump into each other when they follow the right path and fight on the same side?
Corrupted scientists are protectors of the grain of validity in the AR philosophy which is the root of HR669.
So In going after the rotten scientists we are really digging into the root of the problem?
Isn´t is cruel though? attacking scientists for having a wrong oppinion?

oby

Randy and Michelle,

You are so very correct. The sad part is that many hobbyists side with academia and agency biologists that push skewed, biased and agenda based papers and opinions. It is generally estimated that anywhere from 30% to 75% of academia supports positions against this industry. Until those degreed professionals come out and speak up we don't know who is who. Many academics are really preservationists and not conservationists. They say they are for conservation but what they are really about is preservation. Many support the banning agenda. They testify at regulatory agency hearings as "experts" and scare the crap out of the regulatory biologists (who come from academia) and then those biologists pass banning regs and other arbitrary knee jerk reaction regs (example: turtles in Texas).

This is all part of the battle we are facing. This is why we ALL must come together under USARK and fight or kiss this industry good bye.

Welkerii
El Paso, TX

It is important to understand the thought process of the Academics and the Government Biologists.
Government Biologists are brought up by Academics and immersed within/among the issues, biases, philosophies, prejudices, mentalities, etc.
Conversely, Academics are dependent on the Government Biologists for funding and for the legislative support required for their priorities.
It's a Symbiotic relationship between/among like-minded people. They are philosophically, institutionally, and economically joined at the hip.
I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying one has to recognize the inseparable association and bonds among/within the group. It is important to understand where people are coming from, to understand their true motivation? These guys are on the same page. They speak the same language. Not much of a distinction there.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

There must be many of them out there but I suspect that all too often they are not heard or unaware?
If you live in the jungle studying lizardcrap and have a variable internet connection, I suppose it may be hard to keep track of stupid laws back home.
Some scientists in Europe at least are not completely corrupted and will sometimes work for free even!
Check out http://www.petcare.org.uk/
The british pet care trust. they produced a pdf with some scientific merit which may be useful to you, Pets are good for you.

Regards
oby

Click link to download a copy, below few extraits
http://www.petcare.org.uk/images/stories/pdfs/goodforyou.pdf?phpMyAdmin=5ec76861e4d05edf1ceb0f372c7030ff

"In a further study by A.H. Kidd and B.M. Fieldmann, elderly pet-owners were said to act with a greater sense of responsibility; they were regarded as more reliable or dependable, lacked egotism and self-centredness. Most were more helpful and benevolent and were more independent and self-sufficient than non pet-owners. "

"No wonder nearly half the population of Britain owns a pet. They help strengthen relations within a family, they bridge the generation gap and they share their loyalty with everyone — and without judgment."

"Researchers have also found evidence that attachment to a pet — rather than just being in a household where there is an animal — may be a particular benefit to children. Dr Nienke Endenburg, of the University of Utrecht, Netherlands told a 2002 conference organised by the Society for Companion Animal Studies (SCAS), “Being attached to a pet is related to positive emotional functioning and the positive self-esteem of children is enhanced by owning a pet.”
Pets are good for you - PDF download

Rodda is the best example. He knows how to make his job pay. He's been at it over 40 years and working with activist organizations just as long. He knows how this game is played. He paved the way ...................

The Brown tree snake and Guam ..ask anyone who knows about snakes and they'll say it's terrible what happened on Guam blah blah blah .

Who put out all the Guam tragedy information ? Rodda and his continuants starting 35 years ago and their still milking it. I've never seen a single independent study on the Guam situation to validate the information put out by Rodda and friends . I've seen many Government funded projects . Some very silly ..........scientific milk money. In Guam these guys can say what they want because nobody checks.

Why is Roddas information credible and trustworthy when he's in another country but in Florida he's a quack? Everyone just takes " their " word for it when it comes to Guam so my point is if the reptile guys will blindly accept this guy and his buddys expert opinion on one matter how can we expect non reptile enthusiast not to accept it on another ?

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

The church in Norway would probaly support your scientist.
Oficially the Church in Norway is against reptile keeping I presume. As explained by teologist NLA-LH Jan Rantrud, Who explains in a long article that animals devinately have rights and that it is every godfearing christians duty to respect animal rights.
http://www.kirken.no/miljo/index.cfm?id=108228
I´m sorry article is in Norwegian, I translate extrait;

"I will argue that the acknowledgement of animal rights is as central and "un-giveup´able" (which is not possible to give up) part of the christian basis of knowledge as the acknowledgement of human rights."

In reflect of this, reptile keepers in Norway are fighting God in their quest to legalise their friends, how can they win?

So God has given animals rights in Norway, by this teologist, who is also a wrighter for the rowegian branch of NOAH - For Animal rights!
http://www.dyrsrettigheter.no/

What is God´s oppinion on companion animals in the US?

Regards
oby

Like everything else involving religion it's open to biblical interpretation. Personal perception.I can't speak for God or the entire US. What I was taught was that animals were put on earth for mans use. I don't know of any passages in ether the old or new testament that specifically apply to reptile keeping , but there are several that state animals are mans possessions even going as far as to say ..if one man loses his animals and they are found by another they should be returned.

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

I googled " islam animal rights", Then I did a quick search on other religions.

Islam

"Conclusion
Humans are responsible for whatever they have at
their disposal, including animals whose rights must
be respected. 'Ali Ibn Abu T• alib (PBUH) says, "Be
obedient to Allah regarding His subjects and the lands
at your disposal, for you are responsible even for
the survival of animals." According to Islam, when
someone takes possession of an animal, he/she has a
responsibility for its living conditions and in case that
he/she would not accept the responsibility, it would
be the Islamic ruler's duty to obligate him/her to
observe animal rights."
- http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http://altweb.jhsph.edu/wc6/paper61.pdf&ei=Y0f0SfPMDsWC_AbS-ZXaCQ&usg=AFQjCNEoQMEVXm_GQmvYBEA6WR6tNmg_Nw&sig2=pbMb36RnJslHPm7n2x8i3g

"Judaism and Animal Rights
By: Richard H. Schwartz

Although it is not well known, Judaism has very powerful teachings about the proper treatment of animals. If Jews took these teachings seriously, they would be among the strongest protesters of many current practices related to animals."
- http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/jvanimalr.html

"Islam not only has laid down the rights for humans regardless of race, color, language and riches, but has also laid down the rights for animals. Animals, like humans are one of the creations of Allah(swt). Prophet Muhammad(saw) was not only sent as a mercy to Mankind but as a blessing to all creatures as the Quran testifies:

We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. – [Quran 21:107]"
- http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=296

"Christian Animal Rights Effort

If we believe that Jesus came to reconcile God's creation to God, and if we believe that by so doing, Christ is bringing creation back to its original state prior to the fall, then, it only makes sense that a Christian try to live the same way that Adam and Eve did. Does this include Nudity? Well, that's a whole other pamphlet, though Jesus did say in the Gospel of Thomas: "When you strip naked without being ashamed, and take your garments and put them under your feet like little children and tread upon them, they [you] will see the child of the living. And you will not be afraid." (The Gnostic Scriptures trans. by Bentley Layton). Personally, we at C.A.R.E., like to keep our clothes on, however, we do not want them made out of animal products."
- http://www.all-creatures.org/care.html

Budhism
"For this very reason, Buddhism looks upon life in the universe as a totality which has by itself a right to exist unhindered, with no threats of destruction from outside to serve the needs of any single person or group, whether they be under the direction of any human or divine authority. It is reckoned that the harmonious continuance of the universe does not permit or allow of such crude and clumsy handling of mother nature. In Buddhism, in a book called the Manual of Good Living or Dhammpada, this idea is expressad as follows.

All living things fear being beaten with clubs.
All living things fear being put to death.
Putting oneself in the place of the other,
Let no one kill nor cause another to kill.

Dhammapada verse no. 129"
- http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma7/animalrights.html

"Christianity and Animal Rights: The Challenge and Promise

by Tom Regan

Tom Regan is among the foremost ethicists of our time who argue for the rights of nonhuman animals. Christians who are concerned with the liberation of the oppressed must listen to the voices of such ethicists; they must begin to hear the demand that we see the wrongfulness in the mistreatment of nonhuman animals -- a demand Regan takes to be absolute. In such a demand, so Regan insists, many Christians are faced with an individual -- and a parallel social -- choice: to live out of hypocrisy or to act for the transformation of oppressive and evil habits and institutions."
- http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2326

"CURRENT ANIMAL RIGHTS ISSUES FROM A BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE

Although the following guidelines for working on animal rights issues follow clearly from fundamental Buddhist teachings, they are by no means exclusively Buddhist. My hope for this conference is that many of the participants, regardless of their religious views, will wholeheartedly embrace them in their future work for animal rights.

1) We should reduce the fear, hate, and thoughts of revenge generated by the torturing and killing of animals.

2) We should not be prey to negative emotions or violence. They compound the problem. Real solutions come from changing people's minds rather than from creating confrontation and friction.

3) We should not limit our compassion to the animals and to those of like mind, but extend it to all living beings, even if we feel that some are clearly in the wrong. Compassion should be the basis of all our interactions with others, regardless of their views and actions in the area of animal rights."
- http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/BuddhismAnimalsVegetarian/Buddhism and Animal Rights.htm

"Micah Publications is The Source for Jewish Vegetarian and Animal Rights Books"
- http://www.micahbooks.com/

"Buddhism lecture supports animal rights
By Siri Carlson, Luther College Chips, April 23, 2009

Decorah, Iowa (USA) -- As both a dog-trainer and a practicing Buddhist, Visiting Assistant Professor of Religion Scott Hurley combines two important aspects of his life when discussing animal rights.

In his lecture “Animal Dharma: Problematizing the Buddhist distinction between Human and Non-human Animals,” Hurley used Buddhist tradition to supplement animal rights discourse, but also used animal activism to critique certain aspects of Buddhist tradition."
- http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=62,8050,0,0,1,0

"Dalai Lama makes case for animal rights

Beerwah, Australia — With creatures great and small around him, the Dalai Lama called Wednesday for a halt to lab experiments on animals and made the case for eating only fruits and vegetables - all at the zoo of the late "Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin."
- http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jun/14/dalai_lama_makes_case_animal_rights/

I also found some books by Andrew Linzey which may be of value in this context.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Andrew Linzey

"Some so called Christian Vegetarians are more vegetarian than they are Christian"
"Comment: This is such a silly notion it pains me to even have to dispute it. "
- http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.net/christian.php

How many are "some", and what damage do they amount to in respect to conservation of a diverse and healthy companion animal population in the US?

Regards
oby

I'm not ready to give the Devil any credit . I'll leave that to the black metal bands.

In the bible Satan takes Job`s animals away and God restores them back to Job with their number increased. It could be argued that taking someone's animals is an acknowledgment to Satan.I don't know of any written word where God expressively forbids the ownership of animals. Activist base their writings with regards to animals rights and religion on interpretation / opinion. We all know the old saying about opinions.

Arguments can be made that the bible among other religious writing's advocate compassionate treatment of animals. There are also various writing's that suggest it's man responsibility to protect the earth and it's creatures. There are many biblical examples where the teachings of Jesus Himself prove good people may own and use animals .

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

the Brown Tree snake is a serious problem. There are entire books on it and similar species. It HAS decimated entire bird populations/species on certain islands. Our problem is that we cannot stand just as reptile people. We have to join with the fish and bird people and all the cute little fuzzy mammal people, because most of the population doesn't care about snakes.

There was a news story the other day on a real "snakes on a plane". Several pythons got loose on a Qantas flight in Australia. The reporter was telling how horrible this was until one of the Aussies mentioned they were baby Stimson's pythons. WTH? They were the size of pencils, yet the word python evoked horror with the reporter.

" the Brown Tree snake is a serious problem. There are entire books on it and similar species. It HAS decimated entire bird populations/species on certain islands."

Yes I'm familiar. I've been following it since the 70`s and have read many scientific articals and publications on the subject. And who put these out ? It might have happened as portrayed but just like the burm situation it's VERY likely to have been exaggerated. That`s where the money and the fame is for these guys.

If you study the whole Gaum picture and all that has a happened there you'll understand why question marks as to the authenticity of Rodda and friends information are valid.

The tree snakes had an impact but how much did they really do ? Combine that with the proof that Rodda and friends are very willing to skew the truth for personal gain. Burms are a text book example of their MO , I don't think they just picked this trick up yesterday.

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

What about proactive bills such as a marriage between the proposed legislation in NC and the FL legislation in effect for Reptiles of Concern.

On the one hand, it outlines minimum standards for caging and aspects of husbandry (the NC component). On the other, it proposes penalties for intentional release, microchipping for species of concern, permitting, and requires an questionnaire upon application (the FL component)?

Just musings...