There was a thread a few days ago discussing herp keeping as a privilege, and not a right. I wanted to bring up some points, but I didn't want them to get lost in the shuffle, lol.
And as an aside, it's kinda ironic, that since I don't post in the venomous forums often, when I first noticed them gone from the snake forums, I immediately thought that there was some sort of conspiracy against hot herp keeping....... then I found where they were moved to, lol. And I don't even keep hot herps. Anyways....
Keepin herps, or any animal most certainly IS a *right*. So is gun ownership, having and raising kids, worshipping your own religion (or not), driving and owning a car, etc. etc. Just because some of these things aren't in the Constitution as "rights", doesn't mean they aren't rights. The Constitution did not set out to enumerate each and every right "of the people and for the people". (In the case of cars and herp keeping - they hadn't been invented yet anyways, lol.) It simply picked those cases that were political hotbuttons in their day, for establishing a free society - and a society free from oppression. Guns were on the list, due to other governments (ie. British) taking away the guns of colonists, in order to "control the populace". Religion was on the list due to religious oppression.
Does this mean that as Constitutionally protected rights, that there are no laws regulating them? Of course not. There are tons of laws "regulating" gun owners "rights", just as there are tons of laws "regulating" religious people's "rights".... The gun owners rights regulations, we are fairly well versed in due to the NRA, but for religions, there are plenty of laws establishing what can and can't be a federally recognized religion, how to register for IRS purposes, Bush's "faith based" charities - not all federally recognized religions are treated the same - that's for sure! Even who can and can't register as a tax exempt religious charity.
An arguement was made that driving and owning a car was a privilege, not a right. I would respectfully disagree. First, we have the freedom of transportation - we can go where anywhere we want in this country. We also have the right to Assembly. How can we "assemble" if we aren't free to convey ourselves to the location? In many parts of the country, public transportation simply doesn't exist. But more to the point, yes, states can and do regulate how we drive, and how we maintain our cars, etc. And if we break those regulations, yes, they can take away an individuals "permission" to drive under those regulations.
But that is a different issue than whether driving is a right or a privilege. Consider a state (or federal) gov't saying that we are going to take away everyone's "privilege" to drive PERIOD. No one is allowed to drive AT ALL. Aside from the economic havoc this would create (obviously for the time being a gov't would be more interested in 'controlling' it's population, than in it's economy)........ would everyone be ok with this, because it's just a "privilege"? Wouldn't there be a revolution, and general chaos, if everyone's right to drive was taken away? If driving, or cars, were effectively "banned"? Driving is a right, most definitely, but that doesn't mean it can't be regulated.
There are even laws regardig how one can and can't raise their children - ie. child welfare and endangerement laws. And individuals can have their right to raise their children taken away from them. But the gov't (state or federal) can't come in and say, children are banned. Having a family is banned.
Now, those are scenarios that affect everyone. It make no difference that herp ownership, exotic animal ownership, or even just 'animal' ownership, is a 'minority' of the population..... And of course, what are the actual numbers if you add together all animal owners of any kind - are we really a minority?
But they (the AR crowd) seek to divide and conquer. Their goal is to influence the gov't to ban animal ownership. Totally. Period.
They do this now, by targeting just the "dangerous" exotic animals - big cats, wild canids, elephants, primates, bears, crocodilians, giant constrictors, venomous animals, etc. etc.
They also seek to confuse people who don't know their agenda - confusing true animal "welfare" with animal "rights".......
They pit the dog owners against the wolfdog/wolf owners, domestic cat owners against exotic cat and hybrid owners....... everyone against herp owners, because "of course - snakes are EEVIL!" yadda, yadda, yadda...... Get animal owners to ban other's animal ownership.
Eventually, once everything is banned except pet domestic cats and dogs, and eating meat, then those will be the final targets. Then they will work to get those rights taken away - the right to own a dog or cat, and the right to raise, and eat, meat.
But before we LET IT GET TO THAT POINT - we must get all animal owners together to fight collectively for our rights. Yes, herp keeping etc. IS a RIGHT, and NOT a PRIVILEGE. You can REGULATE a RIGHT, but you can't take it away by BANNING it.
Bans need to be fought, wherever they appear. Propose regulations and permits in their place.
Join an Animal Law group - if there isn't one in your state, form one. There are a large number of national organizations trying to fight this stuff. I will post a list of these organizations soon. We can't just sit and talk about this stuff any more. We have to do something to protect our rights.
This is what, and why, we have to fight.
Thank you all for reading this!
-----
Lisa
Living Earth Environmental Education
@__/ __/ __ / __==< :>--
]
