 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Shalaney on June 23, 2001 at 20:04:40:
In Reply to: Re: Yes, I saw it before..don't be to sure about iguanas..... posted by m chambers on June 22, 2001 at 10:39:15:
No one ever said you were wrong in that aspect. Alot of us were perturbed by the news arcticle making light of animal abuse, which is wrong, no matter what way you look at it. If this makes me a bleeding heart so be it. Anyway, I think these law makers need to step back and take a look at the word dangerous. If dangerous animals are " hazardous, perilous, able or likely to inflict injury ", they should broaden thier list to not only reptiles, large cats, bears, wolves, but also to horses, dogs, cats, bovines,etc ( you mentioned rodents too, and I agree, these animals can carry several infectious disease, and tend to be secondary hosts ). Each one of these animals can inflict injury and some of them death to people. Just because an animal is considered domesticated does not mean its safe. I cannot tell you how many times I've been kicked and bitten by horses. A local rancher friend of mine was kicked in the head and chest by a horse, he's lucky to be alive. Have you ever seen a pig devoure a dog? Think of what they could do to a small child, or if they got a full grown man on the ground? This has happened folks. Cows? Sheep? They aren't the shy, timid animals you think they are. Did I mention I had cracked ribs due to a nasty tempered ram a few years back? And where do llama's fit in? Dangerous is a vague word in the world of animals. If the government is going to try to make me believe that an exotic animal is more dangerous than a domesticated animal, they will have to start showing some serious proof. Until then, I will continue to write my letters, expressing my views on these laws. Finally, would seriously think about taking PR classes. We are all suppose to be on the same side, yet you come in here and make a few poorly written, " flammable " comments to the people of this forum. You can have all the herp experience in the world ( I don't doubt that your knowledgable in that aspect), but that does not make you good at what you do. If you cannot express your point clearly, and feel you must put other down because you know more than them, your doomed to fail in a world full of public relations. Why don't you use this " knowledge " to educate others for your cause? It's going to take more than just you to win this fight....and sorry to break this to you, your going to need all the people you can muster on your side...
: I'm not getting into it again with the bleeding heart igauna lovers on this forum, but didn't I say that this stuff was going to happen ? The interesting thing is to see how many of these people will go to bat on the proposed law. N.Y. now.....the other cities/states later ! Like I said before....ANY non-common ( defintition of non-common: the adverse of common, a smaller percentage as common, not ordinary )animal kept as pets can be perceived as DANGEROUS( definition of dangerous: hazardous,perilous, able or likely to inflict injury ). It is strange though that as a recipient of numerous secondary bacterial infections of hamsters, rats, mice etc, bites that these little critters wouldn't be included as dangerous in the proposed law. Maybe has to do with the cute little furry noses that these animals have ?
: Forget it ! I'm not going into a arguable, flammable, debatable situation again with you all ! LOL !
: M Chambers
: : It was not clear whether it included iguanas. I only saw monitors on the banned list. It is similar to an exotic bill that has passed in several states and iguanas is not on the list of dangerous pets. They are going after lions, tigers and bears, etc and making owners carry insurance.
