My intention isn't to get someone heated, or rob you of your opinion, but I find it a little hypo-critical to complain about people who co-habitate, when is it really all that ethical to cage animals to begin with?
Captive animals tend to live longer, healthier lives than their wild counterparts. Not that I am arguing against wild animals... but if you keep your pet animals in an appropriate cage and provide adequate food, water, and environmental conditions, they will probably lead healthier lives than their wild counterparts. In addition, the keeping of animals in captivity serves to educate people about nature, animals, and ecosystems by exposure. People are only going to preserve the things they care about. I like to think that in my 3 years of bringing snakes into my classroom, I have improved the chances for numerous wild snakes that will be encountered by my students and former students. I hope they will remember my snakes and how calm they were and not go with that automatic societal reflex to "kill the evil snake."
If you keep snakes, is it not hypocritical of you to say it's unethical to keep caged animals?? I see nothing wrong with holding the opinion that it is wrong to cohabitate snakes, seeing as how there are numerous reason not to. It is an opinion I myself share with the original poster.
Ricky87 said:
I mean, a lot of people on this site are dead-set against HR669, but is that because it's un-ethical on behalf of the reptiles, or because their are a lot of people who are dependant on the profit of the reptile trade?
Does it matter? Yes, there are people whose financial lives depend on the reptile trade. Just like there are people whose financial worth is wrapped up in horses, cattle, bison, or dogs. I see nothing wrong with that. If you do... then you probably have more in common with the proponents of HR 669 than you do with those of us who are against it.
For what it's worth, my issue with HR 669 is that it will have NO impact on invasive species, and it will, overnight, ruin all reptile rescue groups and reptile breeders. It will also prevent me from taking care of my animals in my will, meaning that when I die, they will have to die too. I will fight that until my dying day.
Ricky87 said:
I'm just saying. People who are for HR669 think their fighting on behalf of non-native animals, and some for good reason.
The Humane Society of the United States does want you to think that they are fighting on behalf of the animals... but in reality they are an anti-pet, anti-reptile group who wants to see our hobby cease to exist.
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/should_wild_animals_be_kept_as_pets/
Check out that link... it has everything you never wanted to know about the HSUS and their stance on captive reptiles.
Once you have read it, then sit there and tell me that they "care about our animals."
They don't give a damn about them.
Ricky87 said:
I love all of my pets, but I can't say it doesn't bother me when I go to a reptile show and it's stacked top-to-bottom with dealers selling things that few should own, yet anyone can buy; Anacondas, Constrictors, and some other dangerous species.
Regulations are needed for some people, and for the animals protection. In my opinion, instead of HR669, their should be a required license or ALL buyers of non-native species, and some others, so that people who choose to purchase and take on the responsibility are held accountable. Maybe people dis-agree, but that's just how I feel about it.
Ricky, if they make licensing for all non-native pets, that would include cats, dogs, horses, ferrets, gerbils, most pet birds... in addition to all of our reptiles. Who will pay for licensing divisions? Pet owners? Tax payers? Who will make the laws? Who will decide how much is charged??
And more importantly... do you really believe that the people who would release a burmese python into the Everglades, which is already
against the law are going to not do that because they had to pay a licensing fee? Do you even think they are going to get their burmese pythons from licensed breeders?? Or are they going to get them from "under the table" or black market sources???
Did prohibition of alcohol get rid of alcoholism?? Did it prevent people from obtaining it?? Does the fact that drugs like cocaine and marijuana are illegal mean that there are no drug addicts in the US? I hope you know the answers to those questions... and I think that this is a similar situation.
The issues we face with introduced species are incredibly complex and are not solely the fault of the pet industry. Why then should we take the fall and 100% of the blame?? You can't fix complex problems by banning things. History has proven that.
My apologies to the original poster for veering off topic... but I can't not respond to animal rights jargon.
