H$US: "We want to eliminate exotic animal ownership"

For anyone who still doubts what H$US's and Wayne Pacelle's stance is on us, this should sum it up quite clearly:

"We want to eliminate exotic animal ownership, the state wants to control it."

Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society president, says Ohio has a ways to go in its treatment of animals

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011...ociety_pr.html

Originally Posted by EricWI

For anyone who still doubts what H$US's and Wayne Pacelle's stance is on us, this should sum it up quite clearly:

"We want to eliminate exotic animal ownership, the state wants to control it."

Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society president, says Ohio has a ways to go in its treatment of animals

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011...ociety_pr.html

I think he just means and I quote: Bears, tigers, monkeys, crocs, dangerous and venemous animals. I don't think he's talking about anything else. I agree as well bears, tigers, monkeys and such shouldn't be pets. Too dangerous. If we're talking about snakes then I'm leniant on it. I'm not a fan of them. But I'm pretty sure I don't care either because they're behind confinement unlike a bear or a tiger which can destroy a home.

Kevin,go find another site to troll. You are clearly an embarrassment to this one.

"Exotic animal" means any animal that is non native, or non indigenous...

So Kevin can't voice his opinion? That's what he understood from your link and he has every right to post what he thinks.

Sure, Kevin is entitled to his opinion. Just don't expect such opinions to win any Academy nominations on what is clearly a REPTILE and EXOTIC ANIMAL owner's site.
WP and H$US may claim these are the only animals they want to ban, but most of us on here should know better than to buy into his PR doublespeak...

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. However, HSUS, the SPCA, and PETA intend as a long term goal, through lobbying, to make it illegal to own animals as pets, use animals for working purposes, and so on. HSUS spent many years going after the dog and cat industries before realizing that these groups where both organized and financially capable of destroying them. They made a strategic decision to go after exotic animals in order to avoid isolating their biggest donators. It was their belief that these industries and pet owners where neither organized enough or motivated enough to resist them. They believe that by successfully forcing legislation through congress restricting the rights of private individuals to keep this animals that they can use this as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal. The eventual illegalization of all pet ownership.

While my personal belief is that individuals citizens should be allowed to keep whatever animals they so choose to keep as long as they can do so properly. I do feel that permits and licensure should be required for the keeping of large or potentially dangerous animals. I believe this should be done at the state level not the federal level. I believe this is necessary to ensure the well being of the animals being kept and that they are being kept in a manner in which they cannot pose a threat to others in the community.

At the risk of upsetting some here I do feel that the giant constrictors, large monitors, and venomous animals should require a permit (That allows the state to inspect facilities keeping these animals to ensure proper basic husbandry, available equipment where necessary, and so on) and license (Similar to a contractors license in which the passing of a written test and proof of financial responsibility are required). My reasoning for this has more to do with the number of large snakes I have seen living in cramped enclosures (12-14' burms living in 75 gallon aquariums, instances of hot snakes escaping or envenoming their keepers; who then rely on anti-venom from local zoos rather than being responsible and purchasing their own (Yes, I know how expensive it is. If you can't afford the anti-venom then IMO you can't afford the snake), and the number of monitors kept in enclosures that are to small.

The aforementioned permits and licenses would help to ensure animals are properly housed and cared for. Additionally they would help to ensure that the keepers of these animals are financially capable and responsible enough to have the animals.

Back to HSUS check out this link for an eye opening look into HSUS:

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/sit..._2010_edition/

HSUS has not eliminated their efforts to ban ownership of cats and dogs either. While they are publicly hitting the exotics owners, they've also been pushing a huge successful campaign against dogs.

Don't think so? Have you used the term "puppy mill" or nodded approvingly at a legislation against a "puppy mill"? What's the definition of "puppy mill"? Surprise, there ISN'T one. Once laws are passed with vague terms, then HSUS can claim that it applies to ANYONE, including someone who breeds two show dogs a year, even if the animals are pampered housepets all year long. It can apply the term "hoarder" to anyone who has say... four rescues as beloved pets. They craftily show videos and construct tv shows of the worst of the worst, "Animal Hoarders" and secret video of filthy cramped cages of breeding operations... apply the terms and make the public believe that the terms ONLY apply to the worst conditions.

They pushed legislation that included regulations that would be HARMFUL to the animals, including stating that newborn pups could only be held/housed in temps that would actually be too LOW for their health. Crafty, considering any breeder that disobeyed to keep the pups healthy can be charged with neglect/cruelty and any breeder that obeys risks the pups dying and thus get charged with... wait for it... neglect/cruelty.

They've shoved the idea that anyone who breeds any dog at any time for any reason is either a "puppy mill" or a "backyard breeder" to the point that most people believe it. Even among dog fanciers... a show breeder will look with disdain at someone who breeds non-show dogs, claiming THEY are "backyard breeders" or "puppy mills" as if HSUS isn't aiming to ban show dog breeding as well. People who breed field use dogs look disdainfully at show dog breeders, calling them puppy mills and saying it's all inbreeding etc, as if HSUS isn't going to outlaw their own for-use dogs.

They've pushed laws banning the sale of pets in certain cities, claiming it's to eliminate bad pet shops supporting puppy mills(which convienant term they invented) while eliminating the source of pets for most city dwellers. After all, any private person breeding is a evil puppy mill or backyard breeder... right?

There is NO doubt that HSUS is going to outlaw all ownership of animals, probably within 10 years. Especially if people continue to walk into their traps of media and PR blindly.

I mgiht not think that most people should own XX animal, but I'm not for banning ownership of ANYTHING, as long as the person takes proper care of it. Should everyone own a chimp? No. Should someone with experiance and money and time be able to own chimps? Why not? I've seen private owners with set ups to rival good zoos. Why shouldn't THEY be allowed? Should some people own a cat? No, but a great deal of people do a great job with their beloved kitties... so why it okay to ban owning cats just because a smaller number of people abuse/neglect their cats? Insert any animal in place of either chimp or cat.

Unless more people wake up and see what's happening, including what's happening outside of their own favorite species, we will lose the right to own animals.

I live here in the commonwealth of Kentucky.for nearly 200 years you could own just about any animal you wanted. then, out of the blue, an exotic animal law was passed on July 1 2005. many of my fellow Kentuckians were caught of guard with this new legislation, since many laws in this state are done behind closed doors, most people didn't even know the bill was in the works. animals such as Crocodilians,primates,wolf hybrids,big cats etc. were now outlawed, if you had you're animal before the law you could keep it, under certain conditions which include, not breeding it,selling it or giving it away. proof of ownership was required and they(the state) made it hard to come up with that proof. anyway, soon after it was passed the HSUS and PETA praised the Kentucky legislature for their actions and said it was a huge step in the right direction. later it was revealed that these groups had lobbied long and hard in this state and true to fashion it payed off. Wolfy-hound you are dead right, it's about our rights to own the animal of our choice, not for the animal worshipers to tell others what they can and cannot own!

We need to stick together their is safety in numbers. If we sale out hot snake owners and big cat keepers we lose supporters and are a disband army. The bird people and farmers sold us down the river but it didn,t help them it made them weaker. PETA is back on them like flies on you know what. It gave them 1 year with out any heat it wasn't worth it.

Alex