|
1-10 of 13 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Politics and your hobby.
|
Reply
|
|
by thenewdisciple on September 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I just responded to a post on another thread and it got me thinking. In the upcoming election we are seeing one side that has interests in taking species of animal off protected lists and advocates activities such as arial hunting of Timber Wolves. The other side has people afraid of the possibility of not being able to own guns and Im sure theres some more fears of losing other rights such as owning your exotics. Where do you draw a line and invest your vote towards the best interest of the wild animals in not in your ability to keep them?
|
| |
|
RE: Politics and your hobby.
|
Reply
|
|
by tj on September 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The right to keep exotics was never in the Constitution, it's a priviledge, nothing more.
I hate certain laws, but they are necessary since vendors and hobbyists can't protect and police themselves, and it's gonna be the end of private keeping.
Personally, I'd like to see a Federal exotic permit that would be similar to a gun permit. We show we are competent, pay for the permit, and register animals.
If someone is found with exotics and no permit, charge them with a felony. YES, a felony. It's more important for people like us to keep them legally then it is for some flybynighter to go to prison. If one can't afford the permit after buying a $500 snake, like we hear so often, then frankly, they can't afford proper housing or care for the animals they keep and shouldn't be keeping them.
It's no different then someone spending money on a gun they can't buy bullets for.
|
| |
|
RE: Politics and your hobby.
|
Reply
|
|
by tj on September 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BTW, I know that was a ramble and didn't really answer the question. If an animal has a sustainable population and needs to be controlled, I'm all for it. If they have a sustainable population and secure future, I'm for taking them off of protected lists.
I'm at a loss, as far as who to vote for. We all know the popular vote doesn't mean squat anymore and it really lies on the electoral college. So, gun control, animal control, it's really going to come down to who has the most money given to them by the most powerful groups and which group can persuade them. It's part of politics. Presidents don't sit around thinking of what they can ban or unban, they are told by the people who fund them. In these cases, it's animal rights advocates, game hunters, and land owners....most of which are highly wealthy and powerful groups.
That being said, you may still see more gun control, but you'll never see them re-write the constitution.
|
| |
|
RE: Politics and your hobby.
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on September 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Want to bet on that ????
Obama might not re-right the Constitution, but he would appoint Supreme Court Justices that would re-interperate it.
If you value your rights, you need to vote against him.
"Minor" things like wolves and polar bears can be dealt with by the USFWS and State Game and fish. We are mostly talking about harvesting animals with large, sustainable populations by indigenous peoples like Yupik, Inuit, and Aleut. These peoples have been using animals for tens of thousands of years for food, and clothing and income earning.
Just realise that anything you see in the very biased news and TV will be full of lies. They have a very slanted agenda.
Take a look at the "facts" at this site:
http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.3666.2.3398917
There is a very valid reason that the Framers / Founders of the US Constitution wanted the Citizens to be able to own firearms. They knew that Government could get out of control. And they knew that only armed Citizens could set things back on track again, if it was ever needed.
History repeats itself. The Marksist Obama will do what all other Marksist have always done. Disarm the Citizens. He has already stated he wants to form a Government Police Force with the same powers as the Military ! Come on folk, wake up ! Can you not see History trying to Repeat Itself ???????
Best Regards John Z
|
| |
|
RE: Politics and your hobby.
|
Reply
|
|
by LadyBloodRose on September 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don;t agree wtihthe "if you can't afford the permit you can't afford propper housing" thats alil near sighted because frankly there is alot more to obtaining the permits then just goin out an payin like oh say a 15$ fee you need to get a deer hunters liscence or fishing lisence.
Now I am all for say an afordable permit, perhaps even a required class with so many hours, an even registering the animals. However the more expensive these things are the less likely someone will comply.
As far as Obama goes....... Sounds to much like Osama to me >.>
|
| |
|
RE: Politics and your hobby.
|
Reply
|
|
by pitbulllady on September 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, there is NO property specifically spelled out in the Constitution, other than firearms. While the right to OWN property is stated, as is the requirement that the government compensate citizens for any property they seize, it does not mention just what constitutes "property" per se. It HAS been ruled, however, that animals ARE property, by the Supreme Courts of various states, and therefore ownership of animals SHOULD be protected under the Constitution; however, it is recognized that contraband, such as controlled drugs, are NOT property in the sense that they are prohibited by the law of the land, and the goal for the anti-animal people, whether they oppose ownership of dogs or exotics, is to eventually make ALL animals prohibited in the same way that cocaine and heroin are now prohibited, thus taking away their status as property.
|
| |
|
RE: Politics and your hobby.
|
Reply
|
|
by pitbulllady on September 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So, in other words you are opposed to people owning, selling and buying animals, as well as eating animals, using animals to further medical advances for both humans AND other animals...and of course, you're opposed to animals killing other animals, for whatever reason. If a snake kills a rat, does that not violate that rat's "right to exist"? Why would it not, if it violates a steer's "right to exist" if I should eat a steak?
|
| |
|
RE: Politics and your hobby.
|
Reply
|
|
by Rob_Carmichael on September 7, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This thread has gotten away from the original question. To me, as John Z mentioned, there's no question of a doubt who is the better choice. We can still provide the rights of private ownership while protecting the rights of the animals to live in their natural habitat via USFWS/and, state DNR's and fish and game departments. I don't know if we would have that with Obama....too much potential for private individuals to have their rights taken away. But, I do have questions that need to be answered on both sides.
|
| |
|
RE: Politics and your hobby.
|
Reply
|
|
by tj on September 8, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"thats alil near sighted because frankly there is alot more to obtaining the permits then just goin out an payin like oh say a 15$ fee you need to get a deer hunters liscence or fishing lisence"
Actually, if you knew more about laws and permits, you'd realize that most permits are not that expensive and that more than a few states require a hunting/fishing license. It's better than an all out ban.
Florida is $100. Big deal. And people complained about that when it went up. It's not nearsighted, it's people keeping animals that they shouldn't be keeping, simply because they want to be the coolest kid on the block. They don't want to pay the money or take the time to responsibly keep. This isn't my time on the forum. I've seen it hundreds, if not thousnads, of times. I'm a realist. I know that if there isn't a permit system and a fee, that exotic animals are going to be outlawed completely. People can complain about spending a few bucks, while sitting at their computer and doing absolutely nothing about the legislation. People have been doing it for years. Aside from NC and Fl, how far has that gotten them? SC is going through some changes, what are you doing about that except letting others like myself or Andrew Wyatt fight for your "rights"? I don't even live in any of the states that are going through changes, but have written more letters against legislation than most people have written anything for in their entire lives. Others have done the same, while Andrew works tirelessly and spends ridiculous amounts of money for lazy and ungrateful people who shouldn't be keeping, PERIOD.
Call me nearsighted, I call myself realistic and motivated, even when people in other states sit on their asses and bitch about things they CAN change.
John, you'll never see firearms completely outlawed regardless of who is in office. There is too much money and taxes made of off guns, ammo, clothing, taxidermy, hunting, etc, etc that the government wouldn't be able to tax, or sell licenses for. You outlaw guns, you start a cycle that people and government will lose money on.
|
| |
|
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.
|
