|
1-10 of 13 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by 23bms on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am posting this NOT because I think people shouldn't be allowed, but because the title question is the inevitable response of the "mind thy neighbor's business" types who need to be effectively rebutted. I am asking the question in the hope that arguments will be suggested which ALL of us can use whether we are confronting sceptics, lobbying lawmakers or simply educating the person we're standing next to.
I would also like to see this site put together a reference page of EFFECTIVE arguments and tactics. No one knows it all. The is no such thing as too many arguments in the arsenal. Further, any ideas, even if they only sets the gears running creatively in someone else's mind, are worth the effort.
jrb
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by flfiremedic on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think it would be interesting to see some of the regulars and experts debate this on here...get some of the more experienced keepers to argue against having them...that would really help get ideas on why to keep them.
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by FlaSnakeHunter on January 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The most simplistic, yet inarguable, of answers to this question is that, as Americans, we enjoy the basic freedoms of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as eloquently stated in our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
The statistics definitively and inarguably demonstrate, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that venomous herpetoculture is considerably less dangerous than owning a dog. In the United States, with over 4,700,000 dog bites annually resulting in over 800,000 admittances to hospitals and 17 deaths, mostly children, we would never even contemplate the banishment of the right to own man's best friend.
As such, with the institution of Governments which are commissioned to secure and protect our rights, it is abhorrent when our legislators flagrantly breach their duty, as is the case when they attempt to circumvent our rights.
However, in order to protect our rights, we must engage in two activities:
1) We must not be apathetic; we must band together, as there is strength in numbers, and become vociferous in our defense of venomous herpetoculture. This does not mean gathering together and simply protesting to one another; rather, we must become politically active as a group.
2) We must be professional, cautious and respectful in our daily handling and maintenance of venomous reptiles so that accidental envenomations are scarce. Of course, the conditions by which we maintain any animals must be oriented strictly in favor of the animal's health and well being.
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by kacz on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the early 70’s I kept my collection, which included venomous species, in the biology department at a major Philadelphian university. You would think that such an entity would be accepted by my learned and intelligent colleagues. Not so! While some enjoyed coming into the lab, most of the building’s occupants (the Departments of Physics and Chemistry were in the same building complex) were quietly tolerant, with a few vocal antagonists. It doesn’t take long to realize that we are all rational within our own context. You end up either preaching to the choir or talking to a brick wall. That middle of the road person, who accepted an education during their visit, rarely changed their attitude. Unfortunately, when you’re talking about snakes in general, and venomous species in particular, the preconceptions are deep rooted and intense. In their book Venomous Reptiles Sherman A. and Madge R. Minton list a litany of prejudices based on social, religious and sexual pretexts. To those people who subscribed to these ideals they are no less rational and real than Santa Claus is to a six year old. And there are so damned many of them.
Then there are the real concerns. I stopped keeping hots 20 years ago when my youngest child developed a life-threatening allergy to horses. Back then Wyeth was the only antivenin that was available, and it just wasn’t worth the risk. When tagged by one of these animals there is the real danger of ending up in a world of hurt. A statistical analysis of dry bites is unlikely to change anyone’s mind. That includes you, your family, or your neighbor next door. Would you like your hypothetical neighbor, a member of the S.W.A.T. Bomb Disposal Unit, practicing their craft in the next apartment? A lot of people would consider this a perfectly good analogy!
Politicians and lawmakers are always looking for a reactive and sensational cause that will confirm their legacy. A no brainer is a cause that will save us from ourselves in the eyes of a large part of their constituency. Unfortunately we are a small minority against a majority that, at best, just doesn’t care.
Defending your Pursuit of Happiness is a noble endeavor. Picking the fight is folly. Leave the educating and convincing to those who seek it on their own volition. Unless the “call to arms” is imminent the best we can do is lay low and be as responsible and considerate as possible. Realize that every mistake and incident is a potential death knell to your interests. I fully support our right to keep these animals out of interest, fascination or the quest for knowledge, experience and conservation. I don’t care about our reasons. I do care about our responsibility.
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by ianb on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm not really trying to debate, but the dog bite stat analogy is a little misleading. Its not quite that simple. First of all, many many more home owners have dogs than venomous snakes and secondly even though plenty of rat terriers may have nasty temperments and little patience with annoying children, I'd hardly compare one of their bites to even that of a copperhead as being truely dangerous. In other words, most really dangerous dog attacks for the most part come from just a few breeds and the owners of those breeds deal with the same restrictions and bans that we do largely due to irresposible owners and the ignorance of society.
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by MattHarris on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To some degree, YET, the reason those dog owners ARE dealing with the problem is b/c the documented cases of dogs getting loose and attacking is ever mounting. This is not the same case with the venomous snake scenario, where venomous snakes are (In most cases) locked in cages, and are not purposely biting people. Yes, keepers have gotten bitten, but that would be equivalent to a pit-bull attacking its owner. This hasn't been the case.
Nor, if a snake got out, would it be instinctively trained to attack, which is precisely, what large dogs will do. So in essence, those certain dog breeds are still in more dangerous than venomous snakes. Reptile owners are fighting a stigma, not a threat that has statistics to support it.
MCH
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by ianb on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree with that, but I still think that most of the 4,700,000 dog bites can't be compared to the average venomous snake bites just like a nonvenoumous snake bite can't.
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by MoccasinMan on January 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everyone has made good points, but i think that it is the wrong question. The real question is "Why shouldn't people be allowed to keep venomous?" As we all know the case made against keeping relies on sensationalism, cultural bias and fear. The facts do not support an argument that the keeping of these animals creates a serious public safety problem. Is there a "potential" for an isolated problem?... yes. There is a "certainty" that many will die in car accidents tommorrow... but I am "allowed" to drive a car. Government is our servant not our master. Using self serving focus groups to determine what is in the best interest of the many thereby justifying their own existance is Socialism.
Andrew
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by bush_viper17 on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is a little off subject, but people look at venomous snake keepers as tattooed,drunken fools who are just doing it for shock value, but I have never met someone in this community that is like that. There are some people who shouldnt keep snakes, but probably 99% of the people I have met that keep venomous snakes are also very considerate towards the environment,care for other animals and have a respect for all living things and their habitats. I think that every state should get a permit system like Floridas. Florida should be the example for future laws and FL seems like the most sensible state so far. I definetly respect the law makers in Fl for giving the keepers there a chance to do what they love. Some people have probably invested alot of money,and their whole lives into making a good collection of snakes and all of a sudden the laws forbid him to keep them. Something isnt right.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
