Spectacular Radio Show on Keeper's Rights & Fights

Your show sucks, period. Your childish rants of "F JMG" and "JMG Sucks" "those gecko people", "this old curmudgeon of a man", laughing about how you blocked his banner at the show etc on your "NARBC In Review" show disgusted me. JMG is one of the most cutting edge breeders in our industry, not to mention they are honest, straightforward, decent people, and the way you made fun of them (not to mention the profanity that litters your shows!) and the way you talked about them on your radio show showed your immaturity, your stupidity, and your extreme lack of professionalism.

These are not the type of people we want representing us as professional herpetoculturists.

This is the show I refer to above, fast forward to 28:54-
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/urbanju...g-hamburg-more

I've been to Captive Born Reptiles probably a dozen times at least. That place is disgusting. I've seen "vivariums" with dead plants and dead giant day geckos. Alligatos in aquariums so small they can't turn around, and cannot get out of the dark opaque brown shitwater they are sitting in. Small retic cages that literally sag under the weight of the giant retics in them, little bedding, at least on old complete shed, shredded in the cage, and large live rabbits, just 'hanging out' in the cages. Large sulcata tortoises in filthy stinking bedding.....

Seriously - it THIS who you want representing our hobby? Sure, he has a big voice, and speaks out against regulation, animal rights, etc... with signs all over his store, but *he can't get basic husbandry skills down* and that's all he does is *run a pet store*! Sure, everyone has times when pristine cage cleanliness may lapse a little bit, when things get hectic, but *he runs a pet store*. *That's what he does*. And when he tells people, on camera, no less, that alligators make great pets for everyone, just like dogs and cats do - this is NOT who we want representing "us" as herpers to the world.

Lisa McCune
Living Earth Reptile Encounters

I have only listened to those airings that interested me, admittedly. This was one of them. However, I don't like being duped into thinking there is some new "savior" on the horizon, which is how a lot of people will perceive Terry Wilkins when they listen to this airing of the show. Some, like me, will be curious as to who exactly this person is and do a simple Google search. Many, especially regular listeners who do not challenge the shows content and contributors, will not.

Terry Wilkins is a great public speaker, and possibly a very influential one, it is not in the hobby's best interest to pursue him or help his organization as representative of us. That much is evident if you just take 5 minutes to read through some of the threads here, and the news articles about him withholding money.

I want to say that Terry is NOT remarkable after you get past all the powerful speaking. ANYONE can speak out against the opposition. It is your RIGHT to attend public hearings about this issue, and any others that may concern you. This is the part that members of the hobby don't seem to get, the part massive letter campaigns don't address. Showing up in person to protest and speak out against these laws is far, far more valuable than stacks of letters. You are showing your face and using your voice, in a venue where you can't be ignored, and your words can't be thrown in a waste basket.

Originally Posted by urbanjungles

**And if I excluded bad reptile tatoos Rich, the show wouldn't have a host and a good portion of it's top guests.
I was 17 ok?

I don't think it is relevant for a RADIO show, but if you send a representative to speak to our legislators IN PERSON, well, think carefully about how THEY will perceive YOU. In my opinion, you have to think of the IMAGE that you want to be portrayed to the average Joe and Jill on the street as well as the representatives that you plan to approach with your message to try to win them over to our side. You WILL be judged by them in many ways. The livelihood of many people may hinge on how your appearance, mannerisms, and attitude are interpreted by people that do have to power to terminate this industry based on nothing more than their OPINION.

The average Joe and Jill on the street probably just thinks reptiles are "yuchy" and why the heck would anyone ever want to have one around anyway? We NEED their support, like it or not. We do NOT need them seeing someone who looks like what their mind's eye view of "snake keepers" probably already is anyway and then have them feeling like they have a good reason to get them out of the business that propagates "these" kinds of people. You know the old saying, I'm sure, that you only get ONE chance to make a good first impression. All I'm saying is DON'T BLOW IT when a "representative" of this industry first walks into an office, or gets their picture posted in the local news rags. Appearances DO count.

Heck, I worked for the Florida Legislature for several years and saw our state level representatives first hand. Quite frankly, they FIRMLY believe that they were voted into Godhood. If you come into their offices spitting fire and brimstone and being abrasive towards them, do you REALLY think they fear you? They are in the office because of the WILL of the public! Who the heck are YOU? If they were tottering on the fence about our issues, that sort of presentation will most definitely get one more vote into the enemy's camp for certain.

My point here is, think VERY carefully about what steps you take and how you choose to take them. Mistakes made at this point could be very costly for a lot of people.

If you want my opinion, find people who are already giving reptile shows to schools and other events and institutions and encourage them to be ambassadors for this industry in as many levels as possible. THEY are actually already on the front line talking to people on the street who probably have no firmly set opinion about reptiles, and can easily be swayed to our side by people who already display the knack of showing others the positive side of reptiles as pets. Quite frankly, THIS is where candidates for representatives should come from. They are already in the business of doing what we would want representatives to do anyway. If they are successful in that business, quite possibly they could be just as successful talking to legislators.

So who do you think would be more likely to get a positive reaction from a legislator? Someone who tells them "I give reptile shows to children's hospital wards and grade schools" or someone who claims to know the ropes because they have been on the wrong side of the law?

Originally Posted by sally-dog

Exactly. Thank you.

Don't get me wrong. I WAS all for what this guy was saying on the show. I agree that we do need to act more aggressively with these legislators. We elected them into office and they use our tax dollars to perform a job that is supposed to protect us and our personal freedoms. He is right about not rolling over when these AR activists feed our politicians their lies under the guise of being "experts".

I did a simple Google search on Mr. Wilkins and BAD things were on the top of the first page: several BOI threads, hints of a criminal background, money owed to the government, it goes on and on. It did not paint a good picture for me. He's a very good motivator. So what? Aren't most criminals persuasive in that aspect?

The problem with having him speak on the show isn't so much of what he said, but that by giving him free reign to speak without many people knowing who he was, there was this wholesome picture painted of him. A picture that sounded very nice to a lot of listeners (including myself) that made us think "Hey, what about THIS guy? Apparently HE gets results! He might be great to represent us!" If you knew as much about him before hand, I think you at least hold the responsibility of not letting your listeners know the background of Mr. Wilkins so his statements could be judged and weighed more clearly.

While I know that you can't please all your viewers with the guests you choose, because ultimately, they are not all of a "squeaky clean" background. Many dislike certain people in this hobby and I agree that has to stop. However many of those others have been in this industry long enough to lend a good degree of credibility to their statements. I did NOT see that kind of credibility from doing a check on Mr. Wilkins. I saw BAD advice given to customers on repeated occasions, the criminal record, you name it.

Sometimes, it's not about what we WANT to hear, and the truth can be cruel. Myself and others had to eat our good statements that we made last night upon seeing the background of this person- which hurts YOUR credibility as well.

take a look at crutchfields past record

Originally Posted by sally-dog

I am not saying I disagreed with the message these gentleman brought to light last night. It was basically the same message, said in different ways.

We ALL know about Tom's past and most have come to accept it and that he has moved on. He is definitely one of the grandfathers of our industry. Aside from the message, and the criminal background there is a LOT of difference between Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Crutchfield. Many will agree that Tom has "paid his dues" so to speak with his contributions to the hobby and by staying out of trouble over the years. He has bred more species for the first time than any other person I can think of, and has managed to remain on the forefront and is generally a respected person in this hobby.

Going by the posts here, alone, Mr. Wilkins has an entirely different image. He sells animals in sub-par conditions, to the wrong people under the wrong circumstances. Why? Because there are NO standards set forth in the state of Ohio stating the conditions of a sale of such an animal. He is vocal about keeping it that way, because that is his business. NOTHING I have read on him has dictated otherwise! I wish I could say there was something positive! He definitely represents the extreme NO REGULATION stance on the hobby.

All we are implying here is that sometimes you do get the WRONG person in the spotlight. He had a lot of beautiful things to say, and many of them were right, but at the end of the day he still has the same muddy reputation. We already know that a lot of hard political battles are won by the "bad guys". However, it does not make any him less unscrupulous because he appears to be on OUR side.

While most people are apt to come up with their own conclusions based on what they hear out of the mouths of other people, it is apparent to me that some listeners do not do any more research beyond what is said, particularly on who is saying it. They hear what they want to hear and run with it.

Another thing that is disconcerting to me is that you are providing listeners with the links to his organization on your FaceBook for people to donate to, when in all reality those same people asking for it would RUN the other way if they had done the simple search on Mr. Wilkins myself and others have. There is a reason he is not getting the money he is needing to get it off the ground- because there is probably not a whole lot of trust there. Would you give him money after reading those things?

Overall, yes, it was a good show. It brought to light most subjects we have been talking about as keepers from all angles- self regulation, government regulation, fighting harder against our legislators, and whatever new tactics can be employed in our battle.

I really did like the show, but I have a hard time coming to grips that a person who has gained most of his notoriety giving out FALSE information with a criminal record is given air time because he is supposedly on "our" side. It was hard finding the many political battles he has supposedly won under all the dirt he has kicked up under his business name!

Never before on the show, in all the episodes I have listened to have I ever encountered a name with such bad press associated with it being construed as some sort of role model because he knows how to boss around politicians. I realize you did not do that intentionally by your above statements, and believe viewers, for the most part are going to sort the facts out by ourselves. While that is true for most of us, it is certainly not true for others.

Let me tell you that I have bossed my own local politicians around. It is NOT hard to make them see eye to eye with you if you SHOW UP and don't take no for an answer, especially if you show up with friends... and your friends' friends. Empowering people, like Terry did on the show was a good thing. However, that is what some of us have been doing for a long time. I'm active in the dog rescue circuit, with pit bulls. I've had to get up on the podium a couple of times to defend the breed or to put forth suggestions for a better ordinance. The first time I did it, I was 17 and very scared. However, just because Terry showed up at several hearings being the lone Representative as a reptile keeper in no way makes him qualified to be one. Just like the opposition, whoever is loud enough and persistent enough will get the prize, and often times money is involved. Make a threat about money and it's on! It doesn't matter how misconstrued the facts are or how much they actually do know. Doesn't the HSUS prove that on a regular basis?

Maybe the reptile community can take a hint from the pit bull community. They are both hopelessly divided among each other (by matter of opinion) and have the same enemy we do... the AR extremist groups. They certainly don't let anyone with profound criminal background speak out for them!

All of us are being inspected by a fine tooth comb here. Better to err on the side of caution than to possibly stick your foot in your mouth and promote someone who should not be promoted- no matter how good the intention.

Most of this is directed at the viewers who became enamored by last night's show, but did NOT know about Terry Wilkins' bad business practices. Those very people might be sending him money when they can get out and do what he is doing with a little self education and mostly for free.

extreme NO REGULATION stance on the hobby.
really your going to label him and everyone else that thinks the government should stay out of ours lives and let us have our pets as extremist

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

extreme NO REGULATION stance on the hobby.
really your going to label him and everyone else that thinks the government should stay out of ours lives and let us have our pets as extremist

No, she is saying that he has an extreme no regulation stance because he is, well, abusive to the animals in his care and were there some sort of regulation in place regarding just basic needs of reptiles that must be met in captivity, Mr. Wilkins would not be allowed to keep any herps much less sell them!

the most important thing to take away from last nights show is there is another way of fighting this fight. you can attack terry all you want but he as proved time and time again that you can beat these bans and we dont just have to roll over and die.

all i heard from the first two guest was that the reptile industry is done so give your money to usark and they will try to make it so you can still keep breed and sell some reptiles.

terry showed us that we can fight these bans and win.

and terry has just as much right to stand up and speak his mind and tell the industry what he thinks we should be doing to solve this problem as andrew wyatt dose.

andrew wyatt thinks he has the right to write legislation for other peoples states without asking them. who made him king of our industry. who gave him the right to decide what the rules in other peoples states should be. was there a vote that i missed that gave him these rights.

i asked him to explain why he dosent think he needs to consult with hobbyist before he writes their state legislation and he wouldnt answer me and im one of the people hes supposed to be representing.

andrew wyatts solution to this problem is sell out the venomous big snake and croc keepers by writing restrictions for keeping them

terrys solution is have everyone stand together and fight for everyones rights. i prefer this way.

if you dont think usark is selling out the big snake, venomous and croc people with their bmp's. ask your self this. if these rules are put in place because its whats right for the society and the animals then why not have these bmp's for all reptiles

look at it this why if you read what andrew wyatt wrote for NC you will see there are mishandling rules and violation. if your irresponsible and someone gets hurt you are liable. heres the rule right from usarks page

I Mishandling of reptiles declared public nuisance and criminal
offense.
The intentional or negligent exposure of other human beings or the
environment to unsafe contact with reptiles that are venomous, with large
constricting snakes, or with crocodilians being potentially injurious and
detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, and the environment, the
indulgence in and inducement to such exposure is hereby declared to be a
public nuisance and a criminal offense, to be abated and punished as
provided in this Article.

you will notice that this rule only applies to the big snakes crocs and venomous.

tell me its not possible that you could be irresponsible and let a little kid hold a ball python and and the kid gets bit in the eye and losses an eye. thats highly unlikely but it is possible.

now usark is saying we need to police ourselves and these rules are our way of doing that but there only for policing some of us. wouldnt it be fare to have bmp's for all repties since if we need to police ourselves we need to do it as a whole. but you will never see that from usark and ill tell you why

the truth is that these rules crush breeders. there is too much legality surrounding the animals and the industry will shy away from them.

the people funding usark the big contributors are the gecko and ball python breeders. the people that usarks legislation wont affect. i guarantee the second usark proposes across the board bmp's for all reptiles and ball pythons and geckos are now subject to caging requirements and registration and so on the checks to usark from the big breeders will stop.

you know this is a public forum. why hasnt usark or andrew wyatt come on here and said anything.

Just an FYI, I never once in any of my posts mention USARK.
And KelliH, you are right on the money with how my statement was meant to be interpreted.
I read the OTHER active thread on this topic, and have to say... it's quite a trainwreck, face-palm inducing ordeal, so I have chosen to ignore Mr. Boalich's statements.

I've pretty much covered all I felt I needed to say in this thread. Please read my statements carefully before picking out bits and trying to misconstrue them.