But, reading the paper from Dr. Jacobson, there is no way to prove that the rest animals do not have IBD. They must all be considered positive since there is photographic (and now deleted) video evidence of the rest of the collection being in room contact with the positive animal. There is no test to prove the animals are negative (and that's been repeated many times). It's a slippery slope because there are so many unknowns about the disease. For example, if there is one necropsy indicating an animal in a collection died of the disease, you must assume there are others at least carrying it without showing any signs.
We must be careful here. It is fine, and probably an excellent course of action to consider her tainted, and not do any business with her based on what Courtney has shown here...
as individuals. In other words we are all free to make whatever decisions we please, as we are always free to do so.
Here is where I disagree with many people though...and that is philosphically. We cannot just abandon all sense of reason and declare her guilty and blackball her because we
think she might be. We have to
prove she is guilty first. We cannot simply abandon those ideals and principals because it is too difficult, too energy sapping, too time consuming or even just plain not possible to prove guilt.
More and more our society is rewarding activist judges and politicians who act outside the scope of their powers, because it feels good. The original scope of the Federal government held almost no power or influence or individual Americans, but today you can't even fart on a subway without risking prosecution(or more likely a civil suit). That mentality starts with people like us in places like this abandoning the spirit of Innocent Until Proven Guilty because we feel impotent otherwise. Because we think, at this point in time, in this case, that the ends justifies the means.
Look at it this way, more people disslike herpetoculture than practice it, but we get to thumb our noses at them because (for now) it is perfectly legal to keep reptiles. The government cannot take away your animals just because it thinks it would be a good idea. It has to
prove it is necesary first. We must afford the same courtesy to Ashley no matter how much it sucks. Keep in mind that it is not irresponsible keepers like Ashely that are threatening our rights and freedoms, but the activist martyr complexed "I am a victim" mentality that is gaining credibility in this country. Some of the posts in this thread are written in a scarey similar manner to things other people have said in other instances that began our decent into a police state that we are currently riding.
I understand your point as far as court goes. Only two people have come forward having mite infested snakes, and that (I think) was resolved at one point. Rachel W. is sending hers back, I believe, and Elizabeth V. is keeping hers for further testing. I'm interested to see what Elizabeth finds.
I was mainly making that point in order to illustrate the fact that nothing concrete has been proven thus far. We need a diagnosis to say IBD is a fact here, and unless and until we get that, there is no actual proof.
I'm also not necessarily saying she needs to have her face plastered on billboards. At least someone might recognize her to refuse a sale or not buy anything from her in person. However, I'm pretty sure that by now, a lot of the major players the TX circuit at least know of her.
Absolutely, everyone should choose to do business with her, or not, as they see fit. I have no problems with anyone who would refuse to deal with her OR with anyone who does deal with her. Well within the rights of the individual. I might add I also would refuse to deal with her and those who do. The billboard point was an exageration, but not too dissimilar to some things people were saying seriously. Also I might add that even if you do put the billboard up, you can look straight from that photo to Ashely hersself and not recognize her, even if she is not trying to hide her identity.
Also, even if Elizabeth's test negative that's not a guarantee that they don't have it. Elizabeth could persue Ashley for the costs of testing, and vet visits, which would total more than a refund for the initial cost of the snakes if a series of tests are done over time. That was discussed way back in the thread, but I haven't seen Elizabeth post here in a while so I don't know her course of action regarding this.
Unfortunately you are correct, just because a negative test is attained does not clear the collection. But neither does it condemn it, and that is an important aspect that has for the most part been completely ignored here. In fact for the most part it has been argued as though that point does not exist, or is simply not important.
I do think that Elizabeth should pursue testing costs, perhaps if she is clever enough she can convince a small claims judge that Ashely forced her into needing that testing, that although it was her choice (I think?) to keep the animals, they had already (allegedly) infected the rest of her collection so the more test samples the better. I do not know what it costs to file where Elizabeth lives, but here is like $22, well worth the gamble.
