USARK NO More

Originally Posted by AGoodwin

I couldn't agree more. People really need to think about the big picture here and start being more reasonable. The fact is that some compromises need to be made. Does it suck? Yes. Is everyone going to be happy? No. But that is ALWAYS going to be the case, no matter what the issue at hand is.

Question for both you and Chris:

Was the move PIJAC made with SB310 a compromise? Was it preventative? Or was it something else?

This is not a trick question - just seems like the "tea party" movement in the community and others feel like it was something else. Where do we draw the line at what type of preventative action is acceptable and what isn't?

In terms of the big picture, keep in mind that legislation can be amended, sometimes one sentence at a time. The big picture should be having an organization which has the vision, and just as importantly the bankroll to be able to protect the preventative and/or pre-emptive legislation they endorse.

Craig

The only problem with compromises of this nature are that they really aren't compromises at all. At least not on the part of both parties involved. A *real* compromise is one in which both parties give and take something from the table. In other words, give me something I don't already have but want, and I'll permit you to take something I already have that you want. There should be mutual giving and taking involved.

Instead, the way these compromises are arranged, is that THEY want to take 10 animals away, but will "compromise" by only taking 5. They can keep doing that forever till nothing is left any longer on the table. In my opinion, that's really not any sort of compromise at all. Saying that you got to keep half of what they wanted to take away isn't a compromise, it's a one way street concession. You still LOST without gaining anything in return.

But I guess this is SOP when dealing with government agencies.

If they could have worked out a deal with Big constrictors, venomous and large monitors where you had to pay a fairly hefty license fee for each animal it would have kept the 20 to 100.00 animals out of the reach of irresponsible peoples hands. The reptile industry needed to police themselves and didnt. Way too many people breeding retics and burmese and dumping the cheaper animals off to anyone with a few bucks. Now people who have knowledge, money and proper facilities for these animals are paying the price.

This is an interesting read:

http://www.kingsnake.com/blog/archiv...rew-Wyatt.html

Looks Like Wyatts site is up. Im sure itll improve in LOOKS once he opens up for donations.....

http://herpalliance.com/

Originally Posted by RichsBallPythons

Looks Like Wyatts site is up. Im sure itll improve in LOOKS once he opens up for donations.....

http://herpalliance.com/

Forgot this one as well

http://www.usherp.org/

Interesting read from Jeff Barringer

http://www.kingsnake.com/blog/index....ml&serendipity[csuccess]=true#feedback

On the second page they ask some very intriguing questions!

http://www.kingsnake.com/blog/archiv....html#extended

Previously posted in #104

Originally Posted by JColt

On the second page they ask some very intriguing questions!

http://www.kingsnake.com/blog/archiv....html#extended

Originally Posted by Skiploder

Question for both you and Chris:

Was the move PIJAC made with SB310 a compromise? Was it preventative? Or was it something else?

Craig

I was in the hearings for SB310. The options presented by PIJAK and several other private citizens actually helped in Ohio. Without the agreement, there would be no reptile industry in OH. The extreme side of thinking that they didn't have the "right" to regulate anything, therefore cannot regulate anything was failed from the start and they only made themselves look worse with all the conspiracy theories. The all or nothing stance doesn't work anymore.