is usark over stepping its rights by proposing rules for states without asking us

Originally Posted by AW2EOD

I don't think you guys know Rodney well enough, or you wouldn't waste your time replying to him.

So, Rodney...what do you propose? Down with Wyatt and USARK? Down with the only organization who is trying to help us, in our time of need? Down with compramise and let's follow the "I'm gonna keep my snakes, even if they become illegal and they have to be pried from my cold, dead hands...*insert manly battle cry here*"?

You're not a big breeder. You have a clutch or two, every year. Sure, you've kept snakes for a very long time, but that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You stand on your pedestal, looking down at all of us "small time people", talking AT us like we're just supposed to blindly jump in line behind you, pick up our pitch forks and storm off to USARKs castle and demand they stop helping us. Sorry, but you're outlook on EVERYTHING just doesn't fly with the masses.

So, if Wyatt steps down and disbands USARK, what are you going to do? Take up the torch and demand from every state legislature that they can't take away out right to own reptiles? Are you going to converse, attend meetings and state hearings, spend tireless hours at the office...all in the name of helping us out?...and, do so without asking for a single penny, from your supports? You can't even type a sentence, using proper capilization, spelling and punctuation. Sorry, but I say Wyatt stays where he's at, HELPING US.

For those of you that aren't up to speed with the Mr. Rodney Boalich...he has a bad habit of slandering people, stating things as fact when he has no proof, doesn't care to throw people under the bus when they're trying to help him/us and just all around, thinks he knows better than everyone else, about every subject you could possibly think of.

Those of us who are supporting and spreading the good word, of USARK, are still going to be doing so. Your propaganda hasn't worked, yet again. Sorry, buddy.

thanks for the words of wisdom andy. as always they shed new light on the subject at hand.

this guy jumps into everything and runs his mouth. i have a complaint with how im being represented by usark and i have a right to voice that complaint.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

please listen to the radio show tonight

i produced around 160 retics last season and i moved in the middle of breeding season. i hit on seven females

That's all you got, out of that entire paragraph? Not answering any of the questions, except for stating that you produced Retics, last season?

You didn't take ANYTHING else away, from the statement?

You get any higher, on that pedestal of yours and we're gonna have to install phone lines up to you, to talk to you.

Point proven, I do believe, sir.

i have stuff to do today i have to go but go to this link tonight at 10 i think you mite want to check that time

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/urbanju...om-crutchfield

So, if Wyatt steps down and disbands USARK, what are you going to do? Take up the torch and demand from every state legislature that they can't take away out right to own reptiles? Are you going to converse, attend meetings and state hearings, spend tireless hours at the office...all in the name of helping us out?...and, do so without asking for a single penny, from your supports? You can't even type a sentence, using proper capilization, spelling and punctuation. Sorry, but I say Wyatt stays where he's at, HELPING US.

im guessing this is what yur referring to.

im not saying anyone should step down or usark should disband and no im not going to try to be the president of usark. i just feel that as the president he should consult with the people he represents before he writes up model legislation for their states

not sure where your going with me going to state meeting and not asking for a single penny. but now im not going to do that either. i think wyatt pays himself 80k salary i mite be wrong maybe its less. you would have to look it up.

and yes i will continue to have bad grammar

if you read the model legislation that andrew wrote up for your states you will see. the legal repercussions of a violation of his rules. one being a Class 2 misdemeanor. which can carry a $1000 fine and up to 6 months in prison. plus if the authorities are told you mite be violating these rules such in the case of owning a reptile without a license they can come right into your house and take it. and they can do all of this only on suspicion of a violation

Rodney, I know that your state (PA) was done hte very thing you mentioned (taking animals) with THEIR own game comssion. The reptile keepers better get it in their heads, that a model MUST be proposed or you'll lose EVERYTHING. This is nothing different then the exotic animals. The larger, more potentially dangerous animals are targeted first. The reason is two fold, first t divide and conqure within the ranks. Second, it's asier to get support verus something that can kill or ESPECIALLY, eat you. Then the powers that be can go after the other animals later.

I guess you'll have to decide if you want to continue doing what you are doing and if the restrictions are to steep, doing in a smaller capacity OR NOT DOING IT AT ALL, if you leave it up to legislature. Things will NEVER be like they were.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

that wasnt helpful

It wasn't supposed to be helpful... it was supposed to be illustrative, and possibly motivating. Whether that's 'helpful' or not would be up to the reader. You and I might agree on something, though... that it wasn't necessary. You went ahead and let everyone know exactly how you "are" in this thread without me or anyone else needing to point it out. I've met your type before, and this was the same hand-to-the-forehead experience it always is with your type. All you're doing is fulfilling a stereotype at this point.

Stop and think for a moment that you might be wrong about something... like, ever. If you're able to deflate your opinion of yourself enough to conscience that thought for a moment, consider that you might be wrong about THIS. You won't, but you ought to give it a try. No one is disagreeing with you because we don't understand your point of view, despite your best efforts. Everyone else in the thread is disagreeing with you because you're wrong about this situation. You're acting a bit unhinged, like some aging anarchist who's convinced that any rules regulating anything are a government conspiracy and an automatic slippery slope.

Just stop... acting this way is not the way you get your questions answered. I'm surprised it took the poor guy as long as he did to block you, I'd have refunded your membership fee and blocked you in the middle of that first exchange.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

i and they can do all of this only on suspicion of a violation

That's a tabloid lie; it's not really true but is flavored with truth enough to get a rise, which is what you have been trying to do. From the very beginning you have told us the sky is falling, I encourage you to walk outside and see that is not the case.

A behavior must rise to probable cause, a higher standard than mere suspicion, before action is taken. So your tabloid lie is, well, a lie. And a deliberate one, meant to scare and stampede.

AGAIN, you are running with sensational charges without including what has been repeated to you over and over and over, that these are proposals only, and only meant to prevent an absolute ban.

AGAIN, this argument is not the grail for you, a readback of several pages of posts on this site shows that you sensationalize almost everything. Coming here with cheap drama seems to be your daily entertainment.

Originally Posted by Lucille

That's a tabloid lie; it's not really true but is flavored with truth enough to get a rise, which is what you have been trying to do. From the very beginning you have told us the sky is falling, I encourage you to walk outside and see that is not the case.

A behavior must rise to probable cause, a higher standard than mere suspicion, before action is taken. So your tabloid lie is, well, a lie. And a deliberate one, meant to scare and stampede.

AGAIN, you are running with sensational charges without including what has been repeated to you over and over and over, that these are proposals only, and only meant to prevent an absolute ban.

AGAIN, this argument is not the grail for you, a readback of several pages of posts on this site shows that you sensationalize almost everything. Coming here with cheap drama seems to be your daily entertainment.

and what do you think probable cause for suspicion of keeping a reptile illegally will be for them.

this is right from the model legislation



§ VI Investigation of suspected violations; seizure and examination of
reptiles; disposition of reptiles.
In any case in which any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer
has probable cause under the law to believe that any of the provisions of this
Article have been violated, it shall be the duty of such officer and he is
hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to immediately investigate such
violation or impending violation and to forthwith seize the reptile or reptiles involved, and all such officers are hereby authorized and directed to deliver
such reptiles to the State Department of Natural Resources or to its
designated representative for examination for the purpose of ascertaining
whether said reptiles are a venomous reptile, large constricting snake or
crocodilian subject to this Article. If the North Carolina State Museum of
Natural Sciences or its designated representative finds that said reptile is a
venomous reptile, large constricting snake or crocodilian subject to this
Article, the Department of Natural Resources or its designated representative
shall be empowered to determine final disposition of said reptiles in a
manner consistent with the safety of the public; but if the Museum or its
designated representative find that the reptile is not a venomous reptile,
large constricting snake or crocodilian subject to this Article and either no
criminal warrants or indictments are initiated in connection with the reptile
within 10 days of initial seizure, or a court of law determines that such
reptile is not being owned, possessed, used, transported or trafficked in
violation of this Article, then it shall be the duty of such officers to return
said reptiles to the person from whom they were seized within five days.


this is the part that bothers me

In any case in which any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer
has probable cause under the law to believe that any of the provisions of this
Article have been violated, it shall be the duty of such officer and he is
hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to immediately investigate such
violation or impending violation and to forthwith seize the reptile or reptiles.

violation or impending violation. if im reading this right they can take your animals for a violation or impending violation. and you can read that they are to take the animals to someone else who is qualified to identify the animals. so the people in charge and enforcing the rules openly admit to not be able to identify the animals they are regulating.

so probable cause. someone calls them and says you keeping snakes illegally. they have to investigate. they get to you house look in a window and see a snake in a cage and right there is you probable cause for a violation or impending violation and now they take your snake that they admittedly cant identify to someone that can identify it to find out if you broke any laws. thats a great system

so to give you an idea of how bad of an idea this part is. it says the officer are to take the snake to find out if its venomous because they dont know. what if they get bit. then what. whats the protocol for getting bit by a venomous snake you cant identify.