Inquiry is usark scamming the reptile industry

[rodneynboalich]

with both of you

Rodney, I have not posted on any of your threads before and I am not sure why I am now, as you will not comprehend anything I say.

I live in NC. I am for the most part happy with the laws as written. I don't think just anyone should own venomous snakes. No, wait... sure let any idiot who has $80 buy a gabby, so when he/she gets bitten & there is no anti-venom, we will be with one less idiot. But then what about the snake? It was only doing what it knows. What happens when it gets out of the house after it has bitten its owner? Or wait for someone to find it & kill it? It isn't the snakes fault, it is the fault of the "owner".

I believe education is the way to go. I have taught many kids in my community that snakes and other exotics are great pets when handled responsibly. That is the whole point of USARK.

I still don't really understand what your issue is with ARK. Can you maybe state your issue in 2 sentences? Not a long rambling, convoluted paragraph that doesn't explain anything.

why do you tell me i wont understand anything you say and then ask me to answer you. nice way to start.

1 i believe in total freedom. i believe government dosnt have the right to come and tell us they need to protect us from ourselves in all aspects of our lives. whether its suicide or owning a pet snake. we have the right to put ourselves in harms way. so i agree that some people shouldnt own a gaboon ,but with that said, thats no reason for the government to come in and make laws saying no one can. if someone acts irresponsibly and someone gets hurt we already the court system to deal with the matter. that manner of thinking, that society has to give up its rights as a whole so it mite be protected from a few irresponsible people is idiotic. 1 laws dont keep stupid people for doing stupid things. and 2 if someones actions cause harm in anyway they are already liable in court to begin with. so you dont need a law banning something (like snakes) as long as you have means for justice, which we do.


as for my issues with usark

1 usarks and their owner/president/ceo andrew wyatt, is self appointed as far as i know. there was no vote by the reptile industry to make him the voice of, or the authority on the reptile industry as a whole. we did not pick him. so when he decides to write legislation for other peoples states with without asking the people in those states he is out of line. he was not given the ok to go ahead and do such things, he just went out and did them.

so when i get an email from usark saying (USARK rejects the designation of "Dangerous" to describe to any reptile. We understand that there are occupational risks involved in the captive husbandry of the largest examples of five large snake species, and venomous reptiles. It is the position of USARK that only experienced and serious keepers should work with these animals. However, it is important to consider that there is no evidence to suggest that these risks are any greater than those associated with working with other traditional types of livestock or pets - indeed, the measurable risk is significantly less. USARK has developed model legislation that can be enacted at the state level to ensure that keepers working with certain reptiles adhere to strict caging standards, safety protocols, escape prevention plans, registration and micro-chipping.) and im the largest retic producer in the state of PA, how do you think i would react. there are no real laws here. we can have venomous at some show we can everything but native species, and here comes andrew wyatt saying he wrote model legislation for my state and he didnt even think to ask anyone in my state about it first.

2 the money and where its coming from i feel could be a conflict of interest for representing the industry as a whole.

their largest contributor is zoomeds, and what do they sell. pet store junk. but in case you dont agree with me that they sell pet store junk, heres a link to some sweet hot rocks they have for sale, because we all use those dont we. http://www.zoomed.com/db/products/E...iO3M6MToiMCI7czo4OiJTZWFyY2hfeSI7czoxOiIwIjt9

so i really dont think the largest contributor has the industries best interest in mind. and it really dosnt make a difference to them if they ban venomous big snakes and crocs since will still have plenty of people to buy their crap that for the most part only pet store people buy.

3 model legislation and the negative impact it will have on the specific animals it deals with. even if model legislation isnt a ban, which i think it is when you look at the possible long term affects, it will push people away from those listed animals and will kill prices. look what has happen to the boa and burms markets as a result of proposed bans. model legislation will push people away form listed animals to not listed animals which are the same animals that the people backing usark, are selling and dont forget zoomed, their largest backer has all the hot rocks and terrariums your ball python will ever need.

4 how vague the laws in the model legislation are writing. they are so open for interpretation that they could be sued against you in court in a lot of ways and the people interpreting the laws will be the same people that are suing you, the state. which if there wasnt a bunch of law on the books for the state to use against you yu would be as liable to the state and you would, for the most part only be getting sued by whoever was harm by your actions or negligence.

and with that said most of you in NC have told me that the laws really havnt changed anything and if thats the case, and everyone keeps telling me ' we need to police ourselves " so if the laws havnt changed anything then what have they accomplished.

if all they have done is make idiots more liable in court, then they really havnt made the general public any safer(which they wernt in danger to begin with) or improved they industries standards at all. all they have done is created an illusion of responsibility.

aside from pandering to the masses with model legislation what has usark really done to improve the way the industry is run and what added responsibility has usark pushed for within the industry.

how many emails have you seen from usark saying we need to police our shows or police forums or police classifieds. and i understand we they dont do that.

i tried to tell webslave if he wanted to create a medium for sales with in the industry that maybe he should police it a little more. i used the example of big daddy wholesale. who was well known for being a total scumbag and a liar and a thief, yet his adds were allowed to run her and else where. and all i was told was you ban someone for ripping people off and lying and being bad for the indusrty because you could end up in a libel cause in court.

keep in mind its a private site and you can ban anyone you want and you dont have to give a reason.

and no this isnt a pot shot or a bitchslap to webslave. its just what he said.

so if usark really wants the industry to police itself then it needs to start pushing the industry to do so.

it needs to send out emails asking show and classified owners to be a little more selective on who they allow to sale at their shows and on their classifieds. thats how we police ourselves, not by writing model legislation for other peoples states, to be enforced be the same people that wanted to ban or animals to begin with.

 

[reticguy76]

what i am gathering from this thread, is that usark is labeled as a lobbying or potential lobbying group. as a member and reading up on them and what all they do, they are a lobbying grouup. however, does that make them scammers and a bad orginization ?? not necessarily. there are worthwhile lobbying groups (which are few and far between these days, way less than years past) and they are money hungry, self absorbed lobbyiests and lobbying groups (which makes up most of it today). the average member or contributor does not know what goes on behind closed doors when andrew and usark "big wigs" are in their meetings and such. it comes down to, you either have to trust them with your contributing money and believe that are truly representing you as a reptile keeper and lover, or you dont trust them and that they are acually on the other side of the fence spending our money dishonestly and illegally.
i personally have not seen enough pure true evidence that they are doing the latter. some things and such have raised suspicion a couple times for me, but overall i think they are pro reptile keeping and hobby and represent us pretty well and honestly

 

[Cat_72]

we have the right to put ourselves in harms way. so i agree that some people shouldnt own a gaboon ,but with that said, thats no reason for the government to come in and make laws saying no one can. if someone acts irresponsibly and someone gets hurt we already the court system to deal with the matter. that manner of thinking, that society has to give up its rights as a whole so it mite be protected from a few irresponsible people is idiotic. 1 laws dont keep stupid people for doing stupid things. and 2 if someones actions cause harm in anyway they are already liable in court to begin with. so you dont need a law banning something (like snakes) as long as you have means for justice, which we do.

So in other words...when Terry's gator mauls some 3 year old, her parents should be just fine with that, as long as they later get "justice" in the courts. What exactly would "justice" be for that?

 

[reticguy76]

the problem also is that usark and any other reptile organizations that may be out there worthy or not, will not beat big government control. if the government wants to control whether we keep reptiles freely or not, they will (among so much other stuff they are trying to control in our lives, but thats neither here or there right now)
we, as individuals with personal and inalienable rights given to us from birth have to fight "the system" as well and not solely rely on an organization (or two or three or whatever) to fight for us

 

[reticguy76]

why are her parents letting her hold a gator with an unwrapped mouth, that is poor parenting. again, personal responsibility. i own large retics, i will never let my kids mess with them or even go in the snake room without me, nor do i let them interact with the big ones, until i am comfortable with them being of proper age/size/maturity.
i gurantee, if im dumb enough to let my daughter hold a gator like that, im probably too dumb to sue if anything happens

 

[rodneynboalich]

So in other words...when Terry's gator mauls some 3 year old, her parents should be just fine with that, as long as they later get "justice" in the courts. What exactly would "justice" be for that?

yes thats exactly what im saying. what do you think that the kids parents didnt not she was holding a gator.

as for what exactly would justice be for that. i suppose whatever the courts see fit.

what is your answer to this question. what would you prefer. model legislation that states no one can hold a gator to ensure no one ever gets hurt

 

[reticguy76]

in my eyes, it has nothing to do with the keeper. if i go to a pet store, and i see 4 kids holding a gator or gaboon viper or whatever that is potentially dangerous, particularly to a small child, just because the pet store people say "its ok, this animal is calm and wont bite or do anything to anybody", as responsible and common sense people and parents, we have to say, this isnt a good situation and not do it. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. cant stress that enough. there are gonna be idiots out there that do that, we have to be the responsible ones and smarter ones and know what is good and bad, right and wrong. if something happens to that girl, as horrible as it would/could be, i would blame the idiotic parents for putting the girl in a situation like that. if the parents say no, she wont get mauled for sure

 

[Cat_72]

why are her parents letting her hold a gator with an unwrapped mouth, that is poor parenting. again, personal responsibility. i own large retics, i will never let my kids mess with them or even go in the snake room without me, nor do i let them interact with the big ones, until i am comfortable with them being of proper age/size/maturity.
i gurantee, if im dumb enough to let my daughter hold a gator like that, im probably too dumb to sue if anything happens

Actually, I agree with what you said - to some extent. Yup, the parents of that girl are probably not the brightest, and believed Terry when he said that it wouldn't bite her. However, this gator is allowed to roam freely at all times. What about the person who brings their small child into the store...the child takes 5 steps away from you as you are looking at an item....unknown to you, that loose gator just happens to be around the corner...the child reaches for something, and BAM.

See, YOU have the responsibilty that Terry does not...you don't let your child interact with the "big ones". It's a totally different scenario when Terry knows how dangerous the animal could be, and doesn't care, nor take any precautions to prevent an accident like this from happening.

 

[Mistyck]

yes thats exactly what im saying. what do you think that the kids parents didnt not she was holding a gator.

as for what exactly would justice be for that. i suppose whatever the courts see fit.

what is your answer to this question. what would you prefer. model legislation that states no one can hold a gator to ensure no one ever gets hurt

You know, the more I read your posts, the dumber I feel. You sound like you are an illiterate nincompoop. It hurts my head to read this thread because of how you type. Everyone else makes sense when they type, but you can't bother to use complete sentences, proper grammar, or even punctuation correctly?

You sound like you're so full of hot air, that it just comes gushing out without you thinking beforehand. I don't know if you're deliberately trying to sound stupid, but it's working.

If you're saying that you want to be the front-man for the industry, then PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, try to sound like you know what the hell you're talking about. Because as it is, you sound like a child; hell even my 4 year old can make more sense than you do sometimes. So before you put yourself out there as the speaker for this industry, try to educate yourself more. Heaven knows that we have enough idiots (yes I said idiots) in this industry, that make us look bad, we don't need one out there saying that he is the speaker for us. Heaven knows that we don't need any more bad press out there.

 

[Cat_72]

yes thats exactly what im saying. what do you think that the kids parents didnt not she was holding a gator.

as for what exactly would justice be for that. i suppose whatever the courts see fit.

what is your answer to this question. what would you prefer. model legislation that states no one can hold a gator to ensure no one ever gets hurt

So...at best, a small child being scarred for life losing a limb, at worst her life...and you think that "whatever the courts see fit" is going to make up for her/their loss?? So the guy gets a big fine, or even some jail time...that makes up for parents losing a child?

As I agreed with the previous poster, in THAT particular case, the parents were JUST as at fault as Terry. That does NOT exclude Terry from being stupid and irresponsible.

As for what I would prefer...I would prefer that no one would be stupid enough to let a gator roam freely around a store. But obviously, that's not the case...so yeah, I would support legislation that says no one can let a dangerous animal such as a gator roam freely. I never said anything about "no one ever being able to hold a gator". That's where the COMPROMISE comes in...the model legislation is meant to be somewhere in the middle, saying that if it is done, it must be done SAFELY.

 

[reticguy76]

well, maybe im tooting my own horn, or im brighter than most or something, but i research and check out any pet stores first before i take my or recommend any kids into there. if i walk in to my local repitle shop(s) and i see a roaming gator with no tape, i dont go in, nor do i take my kids in there. otherwise, if i dont scout anything, i am risking my kids health/life, and taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. i have 5 reptile shops that i frequent to see what new stuff they have in or if i need feeders in a pinch and whatnot, and there is one that used to have free roaming big ass rhino iguanas roaming. i checked it out, first by myself, which is how i found that out, and therefore, i dont take my kids in there

 

[rodneynboalich]

That is what my research showed me.

yet rodney here likes to claim it is because Terry is not a media hound. Funny thing is all that negative stuff was in the media.

What about the one where he claimed the animals were not tagged because they were not his. He blamed it on his little girl saying they were her pets. or What about the picture of a little girl on his website holding a crocodile . It was almost as big as her. how freaking careless is that? That is NOT responsible. the reptile's mouth is NOT secured. Unless it has some magic invisible rope.

Do I want someone like this representing me? As aforementioned, he is too busy fighting local ordinances and negative attention that he brought forth in his direction as a result of his own actions. Do I want someone with a penchant for breaking city ordinances in Ohio to represent me in Arizona?

No thanks. I will continue to support USARK.

this ones for web slave

this guy herpvenue has been a pain in my side throughout this thread and thats fine i can deal with it.

but i would like to point out that through out this thread he has not been real concerned with talking about issues. hes more concerned with attacking me. he has acted like some voice of reason against me and he believes he is a voice of reason on here and throughout many other threads.

i just ran a search of his name in the boi and 8 pages of threads can up. thats a lot. that the same amount that came up when i ran your name. the problem here is this guy thinks he knows what he is talking about and he cant even identify an alligator. and this is the boi's voice of reason in reptile related issues. and you stick up for him so dose april. its a total joke.

 

[reticguy76]

there has to be some laws and some regulations with most things in life, to have some control. i agree, there should be a law (if there is not already) that a public store cannot have a free roaming gator in the store, as its a public safety issue. the public goes in and out of the store. now, if that was his own personal house, and he does that, that should be fine legally (not morally and ethically) and if a child goes over there and something happens, that rests entirely on the parents. i think with the store issue, if something were to happen, its both parents and store (owner) at fault and both should pay dearly (although, the parents would pay much more, and for much longer)

 

[DaveyFig]

i just ran a search of his name in the boi and 8 pages of threads can up. thats a lot. that the same amount that came up when i ran your name.

Just for fun, do a search on "reptiles", "snakes" or "Rodney" and see how many pages you get. Hint: they have something in common.

 

[rodneynboalich]

this is a little off topic but here is an email from the hsus legislation fund that i just got. i recommend yu all join their emailing list so you can keep up on what they are doing.

if you notice they give a list of names that scored 100% for being pro animal legislation. these will probably be the names you see pushing for regulation in the months to come

Hot Off the Press: 112th Congress Midterm Humane Scorecard

Posted: 13 Jan 2012 09:37 AM PST

Last month I provided a look at our 2011 congressional year in review for animals, and noted many of the achievements and setbacks during the first half of the 112th Congress. We made progress for animal protection on a number of fronts, especially increased funding to crack down on puppy mills and horse soring despite a very tough budget climate, and laid the groundwork for important policies to be considered in 2012.

2011 Humane ScorecardI’m pleased to announce today that the Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2011 Humane Scorecard, where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during last year. We rated legislators based on their voting behavior on measures such as agribusiness subsidies, lethal predator control, and the Endangered Species Act; their cosponsorship of priority bills on puppy mills, horse slaughter, animal fighting, and chimps in research; their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection. All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we’re counting enjoy strong bipartisan support; in the House, each of the four now has more than 150 cosponsors.

The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold lawmakers accountable is central to our work. The HSUS historically and in recent years HSLF have been publishing the Humane Scorecard since the 103rd Congress (which covered 1993-1994), so this annual congressional snapshot has been available for nearly two decades. Additionally, The HSUS has just published its report card on the Obama administration, measuring the performance of the federal regulatory agencies on animal welfare issues, and giving the administration a subpar grade of C-minus for 2011.

When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps clarify how the animal protection movement is doing geographically, by party affiliation, and in other categories. It helps us chart our course for animals by seeing where we have been effective, and where we need to improve. And much more needs to be done, as we have just begun 2012 and are pushing animal protection policy issues forward in the second half of the 112th Congress.

Here are a few of the most important statistics from 2011:

A bipartisan group of 30 Senators and 97 Representatives covering 38 states, three U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia led as prime sponsors of pro-animal legislation and/or scored a perfect 100—nearly one-third of the Senate and one-quarter of the House.
The average Senate score was a 41, with Senate Democrats averaging 58, Senate Republicans averaging 22, and Senate Independents averaging 100.
The average House score was a 42, with House Democrats averaging 70, and House Republicans averaging 19.
Fifteen Senators scored 100 or 100+.
Eleven Senators scored zero.
Sixty-five Representatives scored 100 or 100+.
One hundred ten Representatives scored zero.
The New England region led the pack with an average Senate score of 83 and an average House score of 69, followed closely by the Mid-Atlantic region with a Senate score of 62 and a House score of 67, and the West with a Senate score of 60 and a House score of 55.
The Rocky Mountains and the Southeast were at the bottom with average Senate scores of 28 and 26, respectively, and average House scores of 22 and 26.
California, Connecticut, and Vermont were the only states with an average Senate score of 100.
Georgia and Kansas were the only states in which both Senators scored zero.
Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont were the only states with an average House score above 80, and of them, only Rhode Island had an average House score of 100.
Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming were the only states with an average House score below 10.

I’d like to give special thanks to the following three Senators and 26 Representatives who scored the highest possible 100+, meaning they had a perfect score on animal protection and also provided key leadership on a particular issue or issues:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.)
Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.)
Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.)
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.)
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.)
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Ed Towns (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.)
Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.)
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)
Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.)
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)
Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.)

I hope you will use the Humane Scorecard as a guide, and communicate with your lawmakers about their grades for 2011. If they scored high marks, please thank them for their support of animal protection. If they did poorly, please tell them you’re watching and you hope they’ll do better in 2012. Let all your federal legislators know that you and other constituents care about the humane treatment of animals, and want to see common-sense policies enacted to protect these creatures from cruelty and abuse.

 

[Cat_72]

well, maybe im tooting my own horn, or im brighter than most or something, but i research and check out any pet stores first before i take my or recommend any kids into there. if i walk in to my local repitle shop(s) and i see a roaming gator with no tape, i dont go in, nor do i take my kids in there. otherwise, if i dont scout anything, i am risking my kids health/life, and taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. i have 5 reptile shops that i frequent to see what new stuff they have in or if i need feeders in a pinch and whatnot, and there is one that used to have free roaming big ass rhino iguanas roaming. i checked it out, first by myself, which is how i found that out, and therefore, i dont take my kids in there

Even if "scouting out" every store that you go into before taking your kids in there were a practical idea (kudos to you for doing so, however!)...what about the one time when you walk in and DON'T see a gator, and take your kids in then? Personally, I don't believe that I should have to go ask the store owner if there is anything running loose that will eat my kids before I take them thru the door.

That said...the actual point to all of this is that Rodney seems to think that someone who DOES let a gator run free in his store is someone who would be a great choice of people to represent us as a whole against people who WANT to ban out animals entirely. Do you, as the responsible parent and reptile keeper that you are, believe that is a good idea?

 

[rodneynboalich]

Just for fun, do a search on "reptiles", "snakes" or "Rodney" and see how many pages you get. Hint: they have something in common.

in the boi its 4 thread. herpvenue has 8 pages of threads not 8 threads

 

[Cat_72]

there has to be some laws and some regulations with most things in life, to have some control. i agree, there should be a law (if there is not already) that a public store cannot have a free roaming gator in the store, as its a public safety issue. the public goes in and out of the store. now, if that was his own personal house, and he does that, that should be fine legally (not morally and ethically) and if a child goes over there and something happens, that rests entirely on the parents. i think with the store issue, if something were to happen, its both parents and store (owner) at fault and both should pay dearly (although, the parents would pay much more, and for much longer)

You posted this as I was typing my reply to your last post...

This, I understand. I think it is a fine line, though, about the parents responsibility in another person's home...I think it would depend somewhat on the circumstances, and if they were even made aware of the danger beforehand.

We ARE getting a bit of topic here tho I guess...I just think that Rodney's idea that an idiot who DOES let a gator run loose around his store just goes to show how far from reality his ideas are.

 

[rodneynboalich]

Actually, I agree with what you said - to some extent. Yup, the parents of that girl are probably not the brightest, and believed Terry when he said that it wouldn't bite her. However, this gator is allowed to roam freely at all times. What about the person who brings their small child into the store...the child takes 5 steps away from you as you are looking at an item....unknown to you, that loose gator just happens to be around the corner...the child reaches for something, and BAM.

See, YOU have the responsibilty that Terry does not...you don't let your child interact with the "big ones". It's a totally different scenario when Terry knows how dangerous the animal could be, and doesn't care, nor take any precautions to prevent an accident like this from happening.

thats quit a back story on thats gators life

 

[Cat_72]

We ARE getting a bit of topic here tho I guess...I just think that Rodney's idea that an idiot who DOES let a gator run loose around his store just goes to show how far from reality his ideas are.

Eh, that should read Rodney's idea that an idiot who DOES let a gator run loose around his store IS OUR IDEAL REPRESENTATIVE just goes to show how far from reality his ideas are". Sorry.