mobile - desktop
3 months for $50.00
News & Events:
Posted by Trust on March 14, 2003 at 17:52:53:
In Reply to: Re: PPS posted by WW on March 14, 2003 at 04:57:37:
I don't mean to interrupt this fantastic discussion, but what do legislators have to gain by taking the time to familiarize themselves with the nuances being discussed here? I think if FWCs were not already considered "venomous" and therefore subject to prohibition, all a law-making body would have to hear is the case of the pet store employee and that would be it - FWCs would be regulated as venomous. What is the benefit of not regulating them? The group of people who own, or would potentially own FWCs, is politically insignificant.
I'm more of the mind that if it doesn't need to be regulated, it shouldn't be regulated. In other words, allow people the freedom, and therefore the associated responsibility, of owning FWCs, or other animals that do not present an imminent threat were they to escape. That means taking the time to learn the issues, but I kind of think freedom, in all endevors, is worth the effort.
One more thing: do you think that pet store employee will volunteer to test out the bite of psammophis? ;-)