NYC animals (long)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Iguana & Water Dragon Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by NYanimals on August 15, 1999 at 07:55:56:

Hello all. I see you've been discussing the issue about the banned animals in NYC! Great!! :O)

This is long, but I ask you to please read everything and if you have any questions, feel free to email me. (You could post here but I may not get back for a day or two!)

I want to reply to a couple of things and let people understand where I'm coming from. Obviously, everyone thinks this is wrong for some reason. To me, it's more than just an issue of my beloved iggys being taken. I would do anything just short of killing (well...hehe) to keep them. They have become too big a part of my life to release them into some unknown void when I know they are getting the best care they can. (Not to mention they are spoiled rotten!) So this, of course is the first and foremost issue.

However, the problem is that most people who are not like us and do not have a love and respect for the beauty of animals other than humans, cannot understand what we are saying. IMHO, there are two types of people in the world: animal lovers and those who are not. The people who made this law, seem (and I emphasize SEEM) to think of animals as disposable property. They do not seem to understand that just telling a person who loves their little green baby (or whatever color) to get rid of that pet is not an option.

So that brings up the second issue which is constitutional rights. Since the lawmakers don't go on *feelings* and instead, see things as a matter of law, it's boiling down to a property issue. And since the constitution protects a person's right to own property, it may come to us having to fight on that rather than trying to force people who are not animal lovers into seeing why we love our animals and why it is so wrong to get rid of them.

On the issue of the grandfather clause, it is IMO that is it much easier to get the politicians to add something in rather than doing away with a whole ordinance. Also, the grandfather clause will make it so that these animals can no longer be sold to the people that do not know how to take care of them. I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's better than nothing.

But, if we're talking idealistically, in the long run what I would love to see is what Des and others have said about getting permits. If a new pet owner was required under law to have to pay $$$ for their new animal, it would make the animal a little less disposable. And it may also ward off a lot of the people who would potentially harm the pet as we have all seen done. Personally, I would pay any amount of money (within my means) to keep my green kiddys. And even though it is wrong for the city to just step in and do this, again, it's hard to fight them on beliefs, ethics and morals. We have to find the reason why this is legally wrong and work from that viewpoint.

So in essence, if you know any good lawyers, let us know please. And if you have any ideas, please join our mailing list and let us know.

We do need help. All the information I have found out regarding legal matters is from a family member who practices law in a different area. If he was involved in this sort of law, he would help but he feels we need someone who is current on these types of issues for us to be fully protected.

THe only problem is, no one seems to want to help. I've contacted lawyers and they either give me quotes for phenomenal consultation fees or they just say good luck.... I am waiting on responses from some of the area's legal clinics. So if you know anyone who would jump, please let us know!!!!

Again, feel free to email me. Thanks for the soap box, I now step down. :o)

Help save the NYC exotics!

Follow Ups:

Re: Just a thought Lola and Harry's Mom 8/15/99 (0)
Re: NYC animals (long) suzi 8/15/99 (0)
Re: NYC animals (long) Ziggy's Mom 8/15/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Hello all. I see you've been discussing the issue about the banned animals in NYC! Great!! :O) : This is long, but I ask you to please read everything and if you have any questions, feel free to email me. (You could post here but I may not get back for a day or two!) : I want to reply to a couple of things and let people understand where I'm coming from. Obviously, everyone thinks this is wrong for some reason. To me, it's more than just an issue of my beloved iggys being taken. I would do anything just short of killing (well...hehe) to keep them. They have become too big a part of my life to release them into some unknown void when I know they are getting the best care they can. (Not to mention they are spoiled rotten!) So this, of course is the first and foremost issue. : However, the problem is that most people who are not like us and do not have a love and respect for the beauty of animals other than humans, cannot understand what we are saying. IMHO, there are two types of people in the world: animal lovers and those who are not. The people who made this law, seem (and I emphasize SEEM) to think of animals as disposable property. They do not seem to understand that just telling a person who loves their little green baby (or whatever color) to get rid of that pet is not an option. : So that brings up the second issue which is constitutional rights. Since the lawmakers don't go on *feelings* and instead, see things as a matter of law, it's boiling down to a property issue. And since the constitution protects a person's right to own property, it may come to us having to fight on that rather than trying to force people who are not animal lovers into seeing why we love our animals and why it is so wrong to get rid of them. : On the issue of the grandfather clause, it is IMO that is it much easier to get the politicians to add something in rather than doing away with a whole ordinance. Also, the grandfather clause will make it so that these animals can no longer be sold to the people that do not know how to take care of them. I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's better than nothing. : But, if we're talking idealistically, in the long run what I would love to see is what Des and others have said about getting permits. If a new pet owner was required under law to have to pay $$$ for their new animal, it would make the animal a little less disposable. And it may also ward off a lot of the people who would potentially harm the pet as we have all seen done. Personally, I would pay any amount of money (within my means) to keep my green kiddys. And even though it is wrong for the city to just step in and do this, again, it's hard to fight them on beliefs, ethics and morals. We have to find the reason why this is legally wrong and work from that viewpoint. : So in essence, if you know any good lawyers, let us know please. And if you have any ideas, please join our mailing list and let us know. : We do need help. All the information I have found out regarding legal matters is from a family member who practices law in a different area. If he was involved in this sort of law, he would help but he feels we need someone who is current on these types of issues for us to be fully protected. : THe only problem is, no one seems to want to help. I've contacted lawyers and they either give me quotes for phenomenal consultation fees or they just say good luck.... I am waiting on responses from some of the area's legal clinics. So if you know anyone who would jump, please let us know!!!! : Again, feel free to email me. Thanks for the soap box, I now step down. :o)

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Iguana & Water Dragon Forum ] [ FAQ ]