is usark scamming the reptile industry

Originally Posted by JCCS

Rodney, by reading all of your posts on this subject, it is apparent that you have no grasp on what is going on around you. I have been a part of USARK since the first meeting of it's predecessor, NCARK. I spoke to Andrew about reptile legislation before NCARK was ever started. I have donated a considerable amount of money to USARK and plan on continuing.

This organization is using common sense and realistic viewpoints to protect our rights as reptile keepers. Wake up and smell the coffee, you keep dangerous animals. They have and will kill people. Combine that with the fact that they are highly stigmatized in the general population. When you think about those things, you better thank your lucky stars if USARK is able to make legislation in your state that you only have to have locking cages for them.

On to your belief that one piece of legislation immediately means that they will continue to pass harsher laws. That is horse crap. What you need to be concerned about is when a state has no laws on the subject. If FL had that locked cage law when those idiots got their kid killed (supposedly), they would have been looked at as criminals and it would have been seen as more their fault than the snake's.

And honestly, your reason for putting this post up is because you think USARK is a special interest group? Of course they are a special interest group. Everyone who tries to get anything done legislatively in one specific area is a special interest group. I hope they are spending a ton on lobbying, it's how you get things done in Washington, unfortunately.

Also, who do you think is on the board of most organizations, it's normally composed of? You get on the advisory board of an organization by being a large donor.

I don't know what bone you have to pick with Andrew, but I have to assume that is what is driving these attacks, because if you really are attacking them based on what you're describing, you're an extremely naive person to the way the world works.

I hope your tic-keeping lawyer does well by you, but I think you have a thing or two to learn about politics and legislation.

Chris Canada-Smith

usarks stance is and you can look this up is that these animals are not dangerous. i would just like to point that out.

and the idea that i should thank my lucky stars for usark to get legislation passed is a joke. the only rules we have here in PA is if you want to legally breed and sell reptiles you get your license and that system has worked fine.

you mite want to read up on your FL laws. they had the roc permits and cage requirements at that time. at that time if you wanted to own a burm you had to get your roc permit and you have to follow the caging protocol. how dont you know this. and right now the father of that kid is suing the state for not taking the kid away when they knew the mom and boyfriend had the snake and wernt keeping it in accord with FL law.

and for the record since then FL has actually eased up on their laws. now all your need to own sell bred big snakes and nile monitors is a $50 class 3 dealers license. feel free to look into it.

as for this regulation not leading to more your wrong about that. its just a way to chip away at the industry slowly

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

usark tells us they are fighting for us yet they write legislation for other peoples states and at the same time ask us for money so they can keep fighting for our rights to keep these animals.

he obviously does not want to be bothered with the fact that these legislations are only proposed as an alternative to an outright ban. In other words, when there is no other option, that is when they propose these legislations. When there is an outright and imminent ban, that is when these things are proposed. Here is an Example. There is no impending ban in AZ. I do not see him coming here and writing and proposing legislation. Why do yo insist on not seeing this part?

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

where did andrew wyatt come from? who ever heard of him before usark? who ever bought a animal from him? who ever saw him at a show selling animals he produced?

I have been around a while. Andrew came from his momma. I have heard of him before. I did not buy an animal from him because he was interested in the big animals and I was not. I do not go to that many shows.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

there model legislation is a ban.

Dude, really? Are you stating a fact? An opinion? or perhaps spewing things out your rear end from pure ignorance on your part. Because I just took a test for reading comprehension last year and I got a perfect 100%. And I did not see where the outright ban is, in his model legislation. By the way. Model legislation. It is not exact. It is just a model. Changes can be made at the state level. It is just a guide.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

keep in mind what they are saying. its unlawful for a person to even expose someone to listed animals. and they also say unsafe contact. not unsafe contact and someone gets hurt just unsafe contact. and it list all said species. and what is meant by unsafe contact and who decides whats unsafe

They did not say it is unlawful to even expose someone to listed animals. I don't know what your primary language is, but you totally did not comprehend what you read. In fact I think you are seing things that are not there. In fact I thin you are just spewing things in hopes of convincing some person who does not know how to read.

Let me give you an example. It is against the law for me to expose my children to unsafe acts with my firearms. Guess what? My children are exposed to firearms. But they are not exposed "unsafely".

Rodney you are throwing out these arguements that rally have no merit with people that have at least half a mind. However you might be able to convince those who have less than half a mind and can't read or can't be bothered to read. Just because you say something is fact does not make it so. For example, if I say it is a fact that you are dumb, does not make it necesarily so.

Wow, really, do you realize that you completely contradicted your entire point.

as for this regulation not leading to more your wrong about that. its just a way to chip away at the industry slowly

since then FL has actually eased up on their laws

Now, which way do you want it? It can't be both ways at once, so pick.

Chris

Originally Posted by weird_science04

If Andrew is against large constrictors, why is he doing this?

http://united-states-association-of-...milies-alread/

Star

i dont think they want an out right ban i just think the want to put laws in place around the venomous big snake and croc to help take pressure off the industry as a whole and i dont agree with that. they are pandering to the publics manufactured fears and to their big backers and pretending like they represent all of us

now sicne the model legislation has been in place do you see any of the listed animals at shows

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

they are pushing their legislation that will destroy the venomous big snakes and croc part of the reptile industry.

"venomous big snakes" or "venomous, big snakes"

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

also i believe usark has duped the reptile industry into thinking they represent us as a whole, when really they are just a lobbying group pushing the agenda of their big backers. namely the people they are not representing are the breeders of venomous big snakes and croc.

Again "venomous big snakes" or "venomous, big snakes"

Also have you done research on their "big backers"? I believe they have some big backers who specialize in "big snakes"


I just realized something. I just realized what this whole thing is about.

You are against Andrew Wyatt and USARK because you are a Wilkins Crony.

like I have told you in the past. Do some real research. Find some real facts. Understand the language you are pretending to read. Find someone else besides Wilkins. Then come back here and present real, valid, arguements.

I can't remember honestly Rodney. Venomous were never at shows but I am only into Boa Constrictors (BCI and BCC mostly) and my husband is wanting to get into BP's. The last who I went to here, I was out in about 10 minutes. I walked in, got a bumblebee female BP and left. I am going to say I have seen burms and stuff at the shows but not venomous because they were never allowed anyways. However, I honestly can't remember because I don't go often and when I do go, it is to strictly pick up a snake.

Star

Originally Posted by HerpVenue

he obviously does not want to be bothered with the fact that these legislations are only proposed as an alternative to an outright ban. In other words, when there is no other option, that is when they propose these legislations. When there is an outright and imminent ban, that is when these things are proposed. Here is an Example. There is no impending ban in AZ. I do not see him coming here and writing and proposing legislation. Why do yo insist on not seeing this part?



I have been around a while. Andrew came from his momma. I have heard of him before. I did not buy an animal from him because he was interested in the big animals and I was not. I do not go to that many shows.

Dude, really? Are you stating a fact? An opinion? or perhaps spewing things out your rear end from pure ignorance on your part. Because I just took a test for reading comprehension last year and I got a perfect 100%. And I did not see where the outright ban is, in his model legislation. By the way. Model legislation. It is not exact. It is just a model. Changes can be made at the state level. It is just a guide.

They did not say it is unlawful to even expose someone to listed animals. I don't know what your primary language is, but you totally did not comprehend what you read. In fact I think you are seing things that are not there. In fact I thin you are just spewing things in hopes of convincing some person who does not know how to read.

Let me give you an example. It is against the law for me to expose my children to unsafe acts with my firearms. Guess what? My children are exposed to firearms. But they are not exposed "unsafely".

Rodney you are throwing out these arguements that rally have no merit with people that have at least half a mind. However you might be able to convince those who have less than half a mind and can't read or can't be bothered to read. Just because you say something is fact does not make it so. For example, if I say it is a fact that you are dumb, does not make it necesarily so.

their model legislation is a ban of sorts when it sets up so many rules around ownership and will drive away buyers. it allows you to have them and breed them but whats the point if nobody wants to buy them with all the regulations around them.

the model legislation i posted is what is law in NC. its not a paradigm its not a suggestion. its what would be enforced by law.

clearly you reading comp isnt as good as you think it is or you would realize when your dealing with courts they twist and manipulate words to fit their arguments and since the model legitimation is so vague in its application, it needs clear definition and be not open to interpretation.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

there model legislation is a ban.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

i dont think they want an out right ban i just think the want to put laws in place around the venomous big snake and croc to help take pressure off the industry as a whole and i dont agree with that.

This dude will say whatever he thinks you want to hear. He will say whatever it takes for you to stop supporting Andrew Wyatt and USARK and start supporting his new group with his buddy Wilkins.

Originally Posted by JCCS

Wow, really, do you realize that you completely contradicted your entire point.





Now, which way do you want it? It can't be both ways at once, so pick.

Chris

FL eased up because of who help write their new legislation and it wasnt andrew wyatt.

the reason they start getting specific in their proposed bans is because attempts to have large bans have failed in the so they try to do smaller bans and we are falling for it.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

clearly you reading comp isnt as good as you think it is or you would realize when your dealing with courts they twist and manipulate words to fit their arguments and since the model legitimation is so vague in its application, it needs clear definition and be not open to interpretation.

So the courts twist words.
And you want to make it so that they can't twist words.
And you will have to write the legislation.

So my options are USARK with SAFE keeping and handling procedures
VS
You and Wilkins with keeping and handling procedures that are spelled out for me so there is no room for interpretation.

One guy tells me to keep it safe.
vs
You telling me what I can and can't do.