Wayne Pacelle is a real piece of work.

Not really much more to say on the matter.

In general or did something happen?

In general, and because of the NPR piece he did this morning with Andrew Wyatt.

Would you mind elaborating or perhaps posting a link to the NPR piece? Thanks.

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=300063

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/20...al-industry-us

Didn't anyone else listen to the show today?

I swear I wanted to put a muzzle on Zuzana at one point.

Originally Posted by TheFragginDragon

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=300063

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/20...al-industry-us

Didn't anyone else listen to the show today?

I swear I wanted to put a muzzle on Zuzana at one point.

I only just heard of it.

Zuzana was the only that actually put exotic pet ownership in an appropriate light. The lumping of all exotics under one title is the HSUS's game. They're the ones that are calling to end the exotic pet trade, not REXANO (Zuzana's group). If you listened to the entire hour you would have seen the "panel discussion" was biased in favor of HSUS. You would have also seen that Andrew took every bait that Wayne threw out to him, and Andrew missed some golden opportunities to pick holes in Wayne's arguments. You would have also seen that Andrew stumbled throughout the process. Nothing against Andrew, but he lost this debate. He went after the entire organization (HSUS) instead of looking at the arguments. He blew it. They were against him to begin with, but the little opportunity he had was wasted. Zuzana actually made valid points about responsible exotic (which includes cornsnakes, leopard geckos, retics, and lions) pet ownership.

HSUS and their allies see all non domestic animals as exotics. Their bans aim for ending the exotic pet trade. So for people to say the big cat people don't have anything to do with leopard gecko keepers is a fallacy. They're just as involved. HSUS isn't content with banning large predatory animals and nothing else. It is no different than us sitting back and saying they banned only four snakes that I don't even keep so who cares? The answer is we should all care. Instead of sitting in our little reptile keeper world we need to join with the other groups and let Washington know we're more than just a bunch of angry giant snake keepers. We're snake owners, lizard owners, aquarium owners, large mammal owners, dairy farmers, poultry farmers, etc. ALL of which are seen as enemies to HSUS.

In short the NPR broadcast was a joke. Zuzana had good points but was silenced by the biased host. Wayne was allowed most the time to speak his garbage. Wayne was articulate. He has done this before. He had experience. Andrew was unprepared. He poorly expressed himself, and he lost this debate. He missed a few opportunities to really poke holes in Wayne's statements. Zuzana did well. She said her piece. Kept to the point. And both the host and Wayne felt it necessary to interrupt her. Unexpectedly I think she did more for even reptile hobbyists than Andrew did.

I have actually gone through the entire transcript and added critique and comments. If people want to see it I'll make it public. The show was a joke and I think it did nothing positive for our hobby. Nothing against Andrew or USARK, but let's call a spade a spade. HSUS won the NPR debate.

I agree that Wayne dominated the hour, but Zuzana helped him do this. She really proved his point when she said she had to submit plans of her facility and bring emergency responders in for special training. Lets face it, some exotic animals have the capability of killing you, but others do not. Imagine the $$ signs that were going through peoples' heads when she reaffirmed that first responders need special training because of these animals. Andrew missed a lot of opportunities and did not seem prepared, but the host obviously had her bias. Lets face it, 95% of reptiles need no special training to handle while a lot of other exotics do. I do not believe that any of these animals should be banned, but some defined rules need to be setup for "real" dangerous animals (i.e. animals capable of killing a human easily and are inclined to do so). If there are 500 pet tigers in the country, and 2 kill somebody, that means that .4% of pet tigers kill someone. If there are 78,200,000 dogs in the US, and 50 of them kill someone, then .0000006% of dogs kill people.

On that note, 0% of most reptiles kill people.

Originally Posted by salottimc

On that note, 0% of most reptiles kill people.

While perhaps true, it is not a helpful statistic when dealing with the general public who realize that some people ARE killed by some reptiles. I see what you are saying, but again it is the public we are dealing with and they read the sensationalized accounts in newspapers, not the much larger quantity of everyday, unremarkable interactions most keepers have with the reptiles they keep.

Originally Posted by jmugleston

one through the entire transcript and added critique and comments.

I would be interested in seeing your comments and critique, and appreciate that you took the time to do that.

I'm sorry, but a lion and a cornsnake are not the same thing. I heard the broadcast live and it irritated me to no end. Everyone except Andrew, that is. I'm not against responsible ownership of lions either, I just hate when they act like a bearded dragon is just as dangerous as an elephant.