Amphibian and Reptile Enthusiasts for Conservation and Responsible Pet Ownership, a proposal.
I know there are lots of other people out there in the herp community who generally feel the same why I do about the dark-side of the herp community; namely the collection of wild animals (legal and illegal), the keeping of illegal animals, the smuggling of protected animals and the mistreatment of animals sold to persons who don’t know how to properly care for their charges. Unfortunately, many of these people choose not to do or say anything about the problem because they think the problem is to big for them to affect or they are afraid of the backlash they will receive from the vocal few who refuse to admit that there is a problem, so I would like to make a humble proposal to try and change the problem such that every one can participate in the solution without outsiders dictating the changes to our hobby. I do not pretend to have all the answers, I am merely trying to start a dialog, but if people start to openly talking about the problem(s) and educate them selves about it, we can find ways to solve the problem(s) ourselves without outside groups, who have much different agendas than we do, forcing solutions down our throat. We need to make the changes ourselves, but not just because we are being forced to, but also because it is the right thing to do, and most of us know that.
The classic example of success in the face of massive outside criticism is the scientific research community that in the past did have cases of extreme animal abuse occurring within their ranks. As a result of those abuses, the scientific community was being attacked on all fronts by largely the same organizations that are attacking the herp community today. The scientific community recognized that there were problems within their ranks (the first major step to solving any problem), so the scientific community established a set of rules or guidelines by which all researchers and their research programs must conform to eliminate the questionable research practices and animal abuse that was going on. Further, they established a review panel to which scientists had to submit their research proposals for review by both their peers and members of the community at large to ensure that the research they were conducting was scientifically justified and that they were treating the animals used in research in as humane a manor as possible. Any one found to be violating the guidelines were ostracized from the community, which generally meant they lost their research funding. PETA is still not happy that animal research is continuing in any form, but by cleaning up their house, scientists effectively eliminated PETA’s major leverage in the argument against them, and scientists are now largely winning the public relations campaign because they responded in a reasonable manor to reasonable concerns.
The zoo community also participates in a very similar program, but their program is not quite as effective because it is driven more by gate receipts (i.e. the more people visit a zoo the more the zoo has to pay for its membership in the organization) than by enforcement of the rules of the organization. This is because the organization looses funding every time a member of the organization is removed from the group, so the organization has a financial stake in keeping its membership. The result is that there are rumblings of decent within the zoo community because of un-addressed problems at various zoos, which may force changes to the organization in the future, but at least the zoo community is trying to do something to self regulate in an effort to reduce outside criticism. Many larger zoos, that make bigger targets for the opposition, also participate in the scientific review process, especially when they are conducting real scientific research at their facilities, to further help eliminate the leverage PETA has in their battle to eliminate all captive animals. Once again, zoo’s have responded in a reasonable manor to reasonable concerns.
The herp community should follow this example and also respond to reasonable concerns in a reasonable manor. The herp community, however, does not have the “big stick” of funding elimination to help enforce the guidelines within it’s members like the scientific community has done, but we could set up guidelines for persons, breeders, organizations and pet stores that must be subscribed to in order to become a member and thus be allowed to display the membership logo for all to see. That way, people could choose to buy from a herp dealer or pet store that was a member of the organization (we could call it Amphibian and Reptile Enthusiasts for Conservation and Responsible Pet Ownership, or ARECRPO) and thus the person knew that the animal they were buying did not come from the wild and that the animal was maintained in a humane facility. If dealers and stores that sold wild collected animals or sold animals with out giving proper care instructions to the buyers and thus were not allowed to join the organization, started loosing sales to their competitors who were members, it would not take very long before the market would clean itself up. Yes there would have to be an inspection and enforcement board within the group to ensure that all of its members adhered to the rules, but this board would be made up largely of herpers who know what is going on with herps rather than some member of PETA or HSUS or some wildlife law enforcement agency that does not have a clue. I would, however, have representatives from legitimate organizations like HSUS, F&WS and TRAFFIC on the board to keep the lines of communication open, and to improve relations, but I would definitely keep PETA and other radical organizations at arms length and off the board. I would also recommend that breeders and pet stores be represented on the board as well, but the majority of board members would need to be herp enthusiasts to eliminate the financial pit fall that the zoo community has fallen into. I know there have been groups of breeders who have banned together in the past, and said they were trying to eliminate wild collecting, but they lacked the legitimacy the organization I am proposing would have because the breeder groups I am aware of lack the clear guidelines and independent review board that I am proposing.
With this organization, every herper in the US could actively participate in eliminating the dark-side of our hobby simply by buying animals and goods from dealers and stores that belong to ARECRPO. What do you think? Will this plan work, and if not, why not? I’m looking for real ideas on ways to solve the problem here, so if you have ideas, please speak up.
Big Brother
