Reptile & Amphibian Forums

(Also heard a few folks finding this - "Ownership of non-domestic animals as "pets" almost always ends cruelly for the animals, and sometimes their owners. Tragic but very avoidable with common sense and appropriate regulations banning the selling of wild animals outside of zoos or appropriately managed wildlife parks." - Posted in their vets offices)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/in-light-of-ohio-wildlife-tragedy-avma-warns-against-owning-wild-animals-2011-10-19

In Light of Ohio Wildlife Tragedy, AVMA Warns Against Owning Wild Animals

SCHAUMBURG, Ill., Oct. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- In the wake of the release of dozens of wild animals from a farm in Muskingham County, Ohio, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a reminder to the public that individuals should never own wild and/or exotic animals.

Since 2006, an AVMA policy has urged lawmakers to ban private ownership of wild and exotic animals because they pose a significant risk to public health, domestic animals, and native ecosystems and species. The only exceptions to this policy are for recognized research and conservation programs.

This unfortunate situation in Ohio has ended in tragedy, not only for the owner of the animals, but also for the animals. Many of these animals have already been destroyed through no fault of their own.

For more information about AVMA policies, please visit www.avma.org .

The AVMA, founded in 1863, is one of the oldest and largest veterinary medical organizations in the world. More than 81,500 member veterinarians worldwide are engaged in a wide variety of professional activities. The year 2011 is being celebrated by veterinarians around the world as Vet2011, the 250th anniversary of the birth of veterinary medicine and education.

SOURCE American Veterinary Medical Association

Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

"Since 2006, an AVMA policy has urged lawmakers to ban private ownership of wild and exotic animals because they pose a significant risk to public health, domestic animals, and native ecosystems and species. The only exceptions to this policy are for recognized research and conservation programs.", Tom McPheron, AVMA.

What's going on here? Who is this Tom McPheron (+1-847-285-6781, Cell: +1-773-494-5419, tmcpheron@avma.org)? And, how does this jive with what the AVMA website says:

AVMA policy

Private Ownership of Wild Animals
(Approved by the AVMA Executive Board November 2006)

The AVMA recommends limiting or prohibiting private ownership (as defined below) of indigenous and non-native wild animals that pose a significant risk to public health, domestic animal health, or the ecosystem, as well as those species whose welfare is unacceptably compromised. Except under special circumstances (such as recognized conservation and research programs) , the AVMA especially supports regulatory efforts to prohibit private ownership, and the importation for the purpose of private ownership, of non-native animals that threaten public health, domestic animal health, indigenous wild animal health, agriculture, or the ecosystem, as well as those species whose welfare is unacceptably compromised.

Definitions:

* Private ownership – Ownership by individuals, non-public entities or institutions that are exempt from the Animal Welfare Act.
* Wild – Species that have not yet been subjected to domestication or that may be in the process of being domesticated. These species may be indigenous to North America or non-native (exotic).
* Non-native (Exotic) – Originally imported species; not native to North America; not domesticated.
* Indigenous – Native to North America.

Source: AVMA policy -- Private Ownership of Wild Animals

Whoever this Tom McPheron is, it seems to me that he's twisting the actual AVMA policy to something of his own liking.

...well then the next step is simple:
Identify all veterinarians that belong to the AVMA and make sure that we never give them any money.

Many reptile lovers are also dog and cat owners. let's make sure that AVMA vets never see any animals at all.

ARAV vets on the other hand, we must make sure get lot of our business and money.

Student loans for vet school are big hard to pay back. Let's make sure that money is well earned!
-----
www.voodoomagicboas.com

Good Luck!
Almost all vets are in AVMA.
AVMA provides local required CE programs for vets. You get substantially discounted rates if you are a member. AVMA provides malpractice and health insurance for vets and their staff. When I was in vet school, I had AVMA-provided student loans and health insurance. Again, membership was a requirement.
AVMA is to veterinary medicine what Monsanto is to agriculture.
AVMA is the veterinary industry monopoly and has all practicing vets in a vice-grip. If you are an associate of a practice owned by another vet, or work for any unit of government, your membership may be employer-provided, whether you like it or not.
I would suspect most ARAV vets are also AVMA members out of necessity, as described above. AVMA is also in collusion with H$U$.

Does anyone not see the difference between these two statements:

"Since 2006, an AVMA policy has urged lawmakers to ban private ownership of wild and exotic animals because they pose a significant risk to public health, domestic animals, and native ecosystems and species."

and

"The AVMA recommends limiting or prohibiting private ownership (as defined below) of indigenous and non-native wild animals that pose a significant risk to public health, domestic animal health, or the ecosystem, as well as those species whose welfare is unacceptably compromised."

IMO, the first statement says that all private ownership of exotics should be banned, while the second statement says that only those exotics that pose a significant risk should be banned.

Also, IMO, the AVMA is not our enemy, and they do not always side with HSUS. See AVMA responds to HSUS criticism

And are now...I do see the difference in the 2 statements, but its seems that anything with a sharp edge these days thats not a cat or dog is considered by "those that know better" to be too dangerous for the "common man" to keep.

I wonder why they changed. Maybe they are trying to appease the ARists?
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

Good point, those statements are different.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

...reading comprehension skills are wonderful skills to have indeed.

Read the Mr. McPheron's assertion and then re-read the AVMA'a statement again, paying *special* attention to the segment that begins with the word "Except under special circumstances...".

Really, the only changes are Mr. McPheron's use of the word "urges" instead of "supports" and his use of the word "ban" instead of "prohibit".

Not very darn much difference in actual meaning, just a difference of fewer syllables, and perhaps more emphasis.

Yes, I agree that reading comprehension skills are wonderful skills to have indeed.

If you don't comprehend the difference between McPheron's statement and that of the actual AVMA position on exotic animal ownership, then it might be that you have a willful blindness to the difference. So, we disagree.

The difference is nominal at best. There is a little more force to the words "urge" and "ban", that is all.