Re: Why not encourage people to try and find out...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Rat Snake Forum ]

Posted by KJ on May 28, 2002 at 06:48:24:

In Reply to: Why not encourage people to try and find out... posted by Gerry Binczik on May 26, 2002 at 21:41:26:

: ... rather than think up excuses not to try?

Not what I was doing. What I was doing was just stating that I won't form an opinion without proof. (I didn't even see a post backing up this story. Did you see one? HOWEVER, I don't even know if I read all threads on this post since I didn't see the show) AND I do encourage people to not make an opinion on ignorance. That is what I'd be doing if I put down that show now.

: You may be right in presuming that herps have no legal protection from animal cruelty, but personally - and I mean this as no offense, KJ - I see no reason to believe it.

Look up the regs in some states, and you'll see. (Want a laugh? Alligators are frequently considered furbearers by the laws and NOT reptiles. Why? Because alligators are managemed under similar laws as furbeares (since they are harvested for their hides) while other reptiles aren't (since they typically aren't harvested for their hides). If this made perfect logic, rattlesnakes should be considered furbearers, too, to me. They aren't anywhere as far as I know.

: I suspect (without evidence) that animal cruelty laws probably cover all vertebrates (off-topic, but since you mentioned it, can you name a single state which allows chicken fighting?),

Louisiana is one. I've seen proof that it is legal in other states, too. However, I can't remember which AND, I don't know if it still is. Matter of fact, I was good friends with two of my old university professors who were at a court case to prove that chickens WERE animals under the cruelty to animal laws. However, their side lost (I don't know if the supported chicken fighting or not, but they did try to prove that chickens were animals) and chicken fights are legal.

: television show's producers might be concerned enough about the possibility of liability and losing viewers that they would think twice before airing such barbarism again.

This is exactly my point. However, I don't watch it anyway. Therefore, how can my threat to cease help? See, I can't even contact their advertisers and complain because I don't watch the show? The only other option available to me would be to lie about my previous watching habits -- which I would never do.

I mean, if I did see it, I'd be on the phone right now trying to seek a solution to my anger. (Just ask extang for proof....lol - inside joke for some friends who'll be reading this: don't worry about it.)

: The one thing we CAN be sure of: If the people who care most do nothing, nothing will be done.

I work in the wildlife field. I hate seeing/hearing/knowing what is going on. However, you aren't going to get any laws passed to protect snakes from that man with a shovel. Heck, they ones they have protecting endangered venomous snakes - or lokk-alikes -- aren't even enforced much. Too many people think that "the only good snake is a dead snake" today. If the peace officer and/or judge feels that way, little to no citations will be written or prosecuted. Agreed?

Want another fact: commissioned peace officers are usually exempt from most of the regs to protect people. Even alligators, which are CITES protected, can be killed on-site by any commissioned peace officer (in the state of Texas, at least) if he thinks there is a danger to people. Granted, if it isn't an immediate threat, they usually just report them to the wildlife division (us) for us to take care of. I do believe that any laws written to protect snakes wouldn't have saved that individual one. Granted, if it was a black rat, it would be a case of mistaken identity for a dangerous one, but that wouldn't be rare in my hypothetical case. Don't you agree?

My point is that the best option is in getting the television to NOT show it as a "good" thing to do is a GOOD result and much more likely that getting the laws changed as the first resort.

Georgia tried to protect their snakes. What happened (generalized some here): venomous ones can be killed all day long by anyone while nobody can even keep the native harmless ones. This isn't a good choice, either.

I'm not trying to sound sarcastic here, either. I'm just passing along further info concerning my post. Besides, I think we've gotten in the habit of believing too much of what we are told to believe without proof. I'm not upset you questioned me, but I've given enough info for you to verify what I've said now with at least 2 state agencies.

Follow Ups:

You've misunderstood me, KJ... Gerry Binczik 05/28/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : ... rather than think up excuses not to try? : Not what I was doing. What I was doing was just stating that I won't form an opinion without proof. (I didn't even see a post backing up this story. Did you see one? HOWEVER, I don't even know if I read all threads on this post since I didn't see the show) AND I do encourage people to not make an opinion on ignorance. That is what I'd be doing if I put down that show now. : : You may be right in presuming that herps have no legal protection from animal cruelty, but personally - and I mean this as no offense, KJ - I see no reason to believe it. : Look up the regs in some states, and you'll see. (Want a laugh? Alligators are frequently considered furbearers by the laws and NOT reptiles. Why? Because alligators are managemed under similar laws as furbeares (since they are harvested for their hides) while other reptiles aren't (since they typically aren't harvested for their hides). If this made perfect logic, rattlesnakes should be considered furbearers, too, to me. They aren't anywhere as far as I know. : : I suspect (without evidence) that animal cruelty laws probably cover all vertebrates (off-topic, but since you mentioned it, can you name a single state which allows chicken fighting?), : Louisiana is one. I've seen proof that it is legal in other states, too. However, I can't remember which AND, I don't know if it still is. Matter of fact, I was good friends with two of my old university professors who were at a court case to prove that chickens WERE animals under the cruelty to animal laws. However, their side lost (I don't know if the supported chicken fighting or not, but they did try to prove that chickens were animals) and chicken fights are legal. : : television show's producers might be concerned enough about the possibility of liability and losing viewers that they would think twice before airing such barbarism again. : This is exactly my point. However, I don't watch it anyway. Therefore, how can my threat to cease help? See, I can't even contact their advertisers and complain because I don't watch the show? The only other option available to me would be to lie about my previous watching habits -- which I would never do. : I mean, if I did see it, I'd be on the phone right now trying to seek a solution to my anger. (Just ask extang for proof....lol - inside joke for some friends who'll be reading this: don't worry about it.) : : The one thing we CAN be sure of: If the people who care most do nothing, nothing will be done. : I work in the wildlife field. I hate seeing/hearing/knowing what is going on. However, you aren't going to get any laws passed to protect snakes from that man with a shovel. Heck, they ones they have protecting endangered venomous snakes - or lokk-alikes -- aren't even enforced much. Too many people think that "the only good snake is a dead snake" today. If the peace officer and/or judge feels that way, little to no citations will be written or prosecuted. Agreed? : Want another fact: commissioned peace officers are usually exempt from most of the regs to protect people. Even alligators, which are CITES protected, can be killed on-site by any commissioned peace officer (in the state of Texas, at least) if he thinks there is a danger to people. Granted, if it isn't an <U>immediate</U> threat, they usually just report them to the wildlife division (us) for us to take care of. I do believe that any laws written to protect snakes wouldn't have saved that individual one. Granted, if it was a black rat, it would be a case of mistaken identity for a dangerous one, but that wouldn't be rare in my hypothetical case. Don't you agree? : My point is that the best option is in getting the television to NOT show it as a "good" thing to do is a GOOD result and much more likely that getting the laws changed as the first resort. : Georgia tried to protect their snakes. What happened (generalized some here): venomous ones can be killed all day long by anyone while nobody can even keep the native harmless ones. This isn't a good choice, either. : I'm not trying to sound sarcastic here, either. I'm just passing along further info concerning my post. Besides, I think we've gotten in the habit of believing too much of what we are told to believe without proof. I'm not upset you questioned me, but I've given enough info for you to verify what I've said now with at least 2 state agencies. : KJ

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Rat Snake Forum ]