Inquiry is usark scamming the reptile industry

[DaveyFig]

Ritchie, you brought up something that made me think about this situation a little differently, even though it is actually the opposite of what you said.

An exposure to firearms is similar to exposure to reptiles in that teaching the ignorant about how to properly handle each can prevent mistakes that could potentially be dangerous.

That is where the similarities end though. As written an exposure to reptiles that is "unsafe" could be considered a crime, but what is unsafe?

A firearm can be exposed in such a way as to educate where its dangers is limited completely. Not having ammunition or locking the trigger for example can disable its danger. Having a safety on the weapon allows for the user to have a loaded functioning weapon that will only fire when they choose to do so.

I feel that exposing people to snakes is very important for education, and allowing them to freely hold snakes allows them to become more comfortable with them. By holding a snake's head so that it cannot strike, the snake is put in a stressful position, making it more likely to defend itself when released. Now, I understand that every snake has a mouth, and the potential to bite, but restricting exposure when education will lead to less people doing educational shows. I know I wont be allowing kids to even hold rosy boas if there is a possibility that I will be found guilty of a crime for just allowing them to hold it. The likelihood of it biting is slim, but what if it does? Who determines how dangerous the bite is, or how unsafe the exposure was? I also wont be willing to let potential customers hold snakes before purchase, as I would be exposing them "unsafely".

A firearm doesn't get stressed, can't be baited into striking, and will not have a natural instinct to respond differently in different situations and around different smells.

 

[HerpVenue]

FL eased up because of who help write their new legislation and it wasnt andrew wyatt.

the reason they start getting specific in their proposed bans is because attempts to have large bans have failed in the so they try to do smaller bans and we are falling for it.

first sentence - someone is writing legislation and as long as it is not Andrew you are okay with it.

second sentence - they are writing legislation and you are not okay with it.

dude. it isn't my reading coprehension. It is your writing.

 

[rodneynboalich]

"venomous big snakes" or "venomous, big snakes"

Again "venomous big snakes" or "venomous, big snakes"

Also have you done research on their "big backers"? I believe they have some big backers who specialize in "big snakes"


I just realized something. I just realized what this whole thing is about.

You are against Andrew Wyatt and USARK because you are a Wilkins Crony.

like I have told you in the past. Do some real research. Find some real facts. Understand the language you are pretending to read. Find someone else besides Wilkins. Then come back here and present real, valid, arguements.

this has nothing to do with terry. i was speaking out against usark and andrew long before i even knew who terry was. i only started talking to him when i found out i wasnt the only one feeling the way i do about usark.

clearly your a wyatt crony. your attacking me when everyone else is being civil.

you act like im just attacking andrew wyatt. ive asked usark to come on here and talk. why dont i. if you read through the post you will see im not the only person that has concerns with what they are doing.

 

[rodneynboalich]

first sentence - someone is writing legislation and as long as it is not Andrew you are okay with it.

second sentence - they are writing legislation and you are not okay with it.

dude. it isn't my reading coprehension. It is your writing.

the people that worked on FL legislation actually live in FL so i think they have the right to work on legislation in their own state. i also think usark should have a voice in state legislation if they truly represent the industry and first and for most ask the the breeders and hobbyist of said state before they come in with their own legislation.

 

[HerpVenue]

the people that worked on FL legislation actually live in FL so i think they have the right to work on legislation in their own state.

So if florida legislators propose an all out ban you are okay with it?


Personally I would rather have the NC state model legislation as opposed to an outright ban.

Oh wait we have discussed this before. the model legislation is not even brought forth unless there was an IMPENDING OUTRIGHT BAN. It is an option presented in lieu of an outright ban.

Lets you and me say the same things over and over. This is fun.

 

[rodneynboalich]

So the courts twist words.
And you want to make it so that they can't twist words.
And you will have to write the legislation.

So my options are USARK with SAFE keeping and handling procedures
VS
You and Wilkins with keeping and handling procedures that are spelled out for me so there is no room for interpretation.

One guy tells me to keep it safe.
vs
You telling me what I can and can't do.

dude i dont know where you got any of that really i dont i wasnt making any claim for me or terry or anything i really dont know how you came to that conclusion at all. i was talking about how the model legislation would be interpreted and used against you in court

 

[rodneynboalich]

Ritchie, you brought up something that made me think about this situation a little differently, even though it is actually the opposite of what you said.

An exposure to firearms is similar to exposure to reptiles in that teaching the ignorant about how to properly handle each can prevent mistakes that could potentially be dangerous.

That is where the similarities end though. As written an exposure to reptiles that is "unsafe" could be considered a crime, but what is unsafe?

A firearm can be exposed in such a way as to educate where its dangers is limited completely. Not having ammunition or locking the trigger for example can disable its danger. Having a safety on the weapon allows for the user to have a loaded functioning weapon that will only fire when they choose to do so.

I feel that exposing people to snakes is very important for education, and allowing them to freely hold snakes allows them to become more comfortable with them. By holding a snake's head so that it cannot strike, the snake is put in a stressful position, making it more likely to defend itself when released. Now, I understand that every snake has a mouth, and the potential to bite, but restricting exposure when education will lead to less people doing educational shows. I know I wont be allowing kids to even hold rosy boas if there is a possibility that I will be found guilty of a crime for just allowing them to hold it. The likelihood of it biting is slim, but what if it does? Who determines how dangerous the bite is, or how unsafe the exposure was? I also wont be willing to let potential customers hold snakes before purchase, as I would be exposing them "unsafely".

A firearm doesn't get stressed, can't be baited into striking, and will not have a natural instinct to respond differently in different situations and around different smells.

great post. this is what im talking about. where are the lines drawn. and who decides. keep in mind that these rules only apply to the listed animals and as soon as someone else gets hurt by an animal not listed it will get listed

 

[HerpVenue]

dude i dont know where you got any of that really i dont i wasnt making any claim for me or terry or anything i really dont know how you came to that conclusion at all. i was talking about how the model legislation would be interpreted and used against you in court

One step at a time.
The model legilsation would be interpreted against me in court.
got it.
okay follow along. I am typing as slow as I can.

How do you propose on stopping an all out ban? Shoot everyone? Recall all the legislators? Talk to the legislators? Educate the legislators?

here is what usark does. They try to educate the legilators. They try to convince the legilators. And when all else fails and an all out ban is imminent. They propose the model legislation.

What do you suggest on doing to stop such legislation?

 

[rodneynboalich]

One step at a time.
The model legilsation would be interpreted against me in court.
got it.
okay follow along. I am typing as slow as I can.

How do you propose on stopping an all out ban? Shoot everyone? Recall all the legislators? Talk to the legislators? Educate the legislators?

here is what usark does. They try to educate the legilators. They try to convince the legilators. And when all else fails and an all out ban is imminent. They propose the model legislation.

What do you suggest on doing to stop such legislation?

i see you dont want to respond to daves questions

dude if your getting sued you do not want the prosecutor to have any extra rhetorical leeway in law interpretation. i dont know why you would think thats a good idea.

the best way to fight all of these is in a court room. this trying to please the masses with regulations will get us nowhere. in a court room reason and logic dose matter. it dosnt matter on fox news and the like. the number one thing we have on are side is the fact that there really isnt any issues when it comes to our animals. in the media you really cant discredit hsus and their so called experts but in a court of law its very easy to do. see for a law to get passed it has to good through a lot of committees and subcommittees and thats where we need to be fighting them. you can have hearings with these committees and thats your best bet to defeat bans.

the problem is usark is in with pijac and they set up meeting right away in ohio after zanesvile and pijac has a long history for support regulations and we can see from andrew wyatts model legislation so dose he.

im not against everything they do. i think they go a great job of getting people together

 

[edf01]

Ok, i read what you have posted, and have some opinions.

usark wants to allow law enforcement to come into your house and take your private property( your animals) on a impending violation. the same people that it inherently states cant even identify your animals has the right to take them.

From what I understand- it is already ok for animal control and such- which i am sure animal control is some form of law enforcement- to look into your house if they have a reason- they dont need USARk to be able to do that. I may not be keen on all the actual specs, but if they feel they have a cause to check out your place, they will knock on your door. The first knock on the door- you do not have to let them in w/o a search warrent, however, they will be back with a search warrent, and then you have to let them in.

Its illegal to keep venomous snakes in Pottstown. If word got out I had a copperhead ( Which I dont- just using an example) and the police or animal control wants to check out my house- they eventually will have a warrent to check my house. This is already in act, not something USARK is suddenly pushing. The cops and such can't just barge in- pushing you aside right away, but if they want and feel they have the proof to search your home, they will get that warrent and see for themselves. And if you are breaking the law- if i had a copperhead in my house- and they find it, its gonna be taken because it is not legal and i was breaking the law.


As far as some of the aspects in USARKS legislation-
If someone has a retic across the street and was not housing it in a safe secure cage- as much as i love snakes- i really wouldnt want them to own it. People who do not house th esnakes properly are not respecting the animal nor other people. I am sure if I had my boa still and kept it with just a blanket tied over its too small cage that it obvioulsy could get out of, I am sure my neighboors, who have a small dog- wouldnt want me to have it. I have a right to keep my snakes, but I also have the RESPONSIBILITY to ensure its safety as well as the neighbors small pets. My neighbors have the right to not have their dog eaten by my snake- and having escape proof enclosures ensures this.

I dont see anything wrong with the laws in PA, but given a choice of total ban or legislation demanding proper caging on the snakes- i'd pick the proper caging. I think everybody NEEDS to have proper caging for big snakes, bps, corn snakes, hamsters or anything. Heck- even dogs. If your dog has to be crated when you are out- it better be safe for that dog. Or if you have a dog that could be aggressive to strangers- that fence better hold him in.

I see your point about where will it stop if we allow new legislation- however, certain events have pushed this wanted ban on effect- and i don't see how refusing to change will not be a better option then letting our state representatives just go with a ban instead of letting them know of other options.


How USARK spends their money-

if they are having to go somewhere not local to help defend our rights, I have no problem with their hotel rooms being comped. My mom goes away on business trips- and she dont have to pay for her room. Why should they? About th elegislation- already said what i feel- i'd rather safe protocals were in place instead of just bans, but its gonna cost money to do this. Isn't that what the donations are for? for them to help us find another way other then outright ban?

and the idea that i should thank my lucky stars for usark to get legislation passed is a jokethe only rules we have here in PA is if you want to legally breed and sell reptiles you get your license and that system has worked fine.

Yeah, so far so good- but what if they get the pressure from what is happening in other states to do something more about it? Would you prefer USARK helps the state of PA to put in some legislation about owning them snakes or would you prefer USARK do nothing, and they just get outright banned? Things are changing, and to think nothing is going to change in Pa ever is pretty blind- I am not gonna burry my head in the sand b/c of how things are in PA currently and be blinded by a possible future.

 

[GK Cresteds]

Can we get a screenshot or something for USARK's financials?

 

[HerpVenue]

i see you dont want to respond to daves questions.

Fine I will respond. Who gets to define safe and unsafe? Well I don't want it to be Wilkins or Rodney or the like. At this point I am more of an authority on safe and unsafe handling of reptiles than probably anyone in my legislature. So if they question me, they better bring some real experts.

dude if your getting sued you do not want the prosecutor to have any extra rhetorical leeway in law interpretation. i dont know why you would think thats a good idea.

If I was getting sued, why would there be a prosecutor? I think your knowledge of our criminal and civil court systems are lacking.

the best way to fight all of these is in a court room

So you want to fight these in a court room? would that be Civil or criminal court?

see for a law to get passed it has to good through a lot of committees and subcommittees and thats where we need to be fighting them. you can have hearings with these committees and thats your best bet to defeat bans.

I agree one hundred percent. We should have someone testifying on our behalf on these hearings


Oh wait. Isn't that what UARK already does?
http://www.usark.org/uploads/CA Fish&Game Testimony.pdf
http://www.usark.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=118
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...t-on-industry-killing-fws-rule-129775853.html

 

[hhmoore]

Its illegal to keep venomous snakes in Pottstown. If word got out I had a copperhead ( Which I dont- just using an example) and the police or animal control wants to check out my house- they eventually will have a warrent to check my house. This is already in act, not something USARK is suddenly pushing. The cops and such can't just barge in- pushing you aside right away, but if they want and feel they have the proof to search your home, they will get that warrent and see for themselves. And if you are breaking the law- if i had a copperhead in my house- and they find it, its gonna be taken because it is not legal and i was breaking the law.

The thing is if they think you have a copperhead - even if you don't - and they are granted access, their actions may not be limited to taking a copperhead. In all likelihood, if you have a northern watersnake or an eastern milksnake (or anything else with a passing likeness to a copperhead), your animals would be confiscated.....note that I didn't say "the copperhead" or "the snake that looked like a copperhead". There have been numerous examples over the years where law enforcement comes in for one reason & ends up taking all the animals PENDING INVESTIGATION. Now, odds are that they don't have the facilities or knowledge to properly care for them - and they may, or may not, get them placed with an able keeper - but are they liable for monetary losses you suffer as a result of their action?

I have a right to keep my snakes, but I also have the RESPONSIBILITY to ensure its safety as well as the neighbors small pets. My neighbors have the right to not have their dog eaten by my snake- and having escape proof enclosures ensures this.

This is an interesting one...I wonder how many legal types would consider keeping snakes a right. I understand where you are coming from...but I don't think the statement holds any more water than Rodney's assertion that he has the right to use vulgar language on this site.

I see your point about where will it stop if we allow new legislation- however, certain events have pushed this wanted ban on effect- and i don't see how refusing to change will not be a better option then letting our state representatives just go with a ban instead of letting them know of other options.

Law is a growing thing. The whole concept of legislation for public safety has gotten way out of hand; and, as a nation, we are grossly over-legislated...and once there is existing legislation, it seems like such a small thing to just tweak it to fix this or that problem. Of course, as a people (this is not reptile specific), we aren't smart enough to regulate ourselves.....so it can be argued that somebody has to do it

 

[paulWTAMU]

.I wonder how many legal types would consider keeping snakes a right

None. I mean, USARK or whoever can employ lawyers that'll argue for it, but legally speaking? it's not a right. That doesn't mean we cna't fight for it, and argue laws against it are pointless; not all actions are a "right" even if there's no good reason to ban them.

 

[paulWTAMU]

if they are having to go somewhere not local to help defend our rights, I have no problem with their hotel rooms being comped. My mom goes away on business trips- and she dont have to pay for her room.

True; but 12,000/ in hotel rooms? Holy crap, that's a lot of nice hotels. I'm not terribly familiar with hotel rates in DC but that's making me rethink the size of any donations I may make to USARK. it's an average of 35/day in a hotel--at least in my part of the world you can get a decent hotel for like 50 bucks a night. I don't expect them to stay in Motel 6 but I'm really kind of curious about that amount.

I like the idea of USARK; I think they've done a fair amount of good. But I have to admit to some concern about the financials. They're not a screaming red flag at this point to me, but definetly warrant some further inspection.

 

[JCCS]

In a large city, especially one like DC, anything outside of a "no tell motel" is gonna be $100 plus. $12k isn't that bad as I know how much time Andrew spends on the road. I also know Andrew well enough that I seriously doubt he's staying in the lap of luxury.

Chris

 

[gsrept]

How do we compare guns to snakes. it takes an action from a person to pull a trigger to make a gun fire. A snake is always wild even if they are captive bred and raised they are all unpredictable. no one can predict a snake bite they are random at best.

Although I believe people have the right to own reptiles I think when you get into venemous there should be a way to verify the peson has a clue to what they are doing with husbandry and the proper safe handeling. I do not think you should be able to walk into a public show and have no credentials and purchase a cobra for $150. I ask in this case who is held responsable for putting not only the individual that bought the snake but the general public?

 

[Taking Up Serpents]

i would like to hears peoples opinions on this. after looking at their 2010 financial report and seeing that $12,000 was spent on hotels and $150,000 lobbying i think they are not what they say they are.

Other than this you are repeating yourself from the 10 page back and forth you had before your temporary ban. No point in restarting that despite your attempting to do so here on the BOI.
So what do you expect them to do, sleep in their car(s) or travel on their own dime? The reason they have been so effective is because of the amount spent on lobbying.
Try looking up your buddy Terry Wilkin's group and where donations he received went. Or try doing the same think USARK has done on your dime.
This is totally frivolous and asinine. It's no secret you despise the ARK Rodney and you have a personal issue with it. You are no friend to the Reptile Nation and you make that evident at every post.
Perhaps I should start a BOI thread myself.
I'll call it
"Has Rodney Boalich' smear campaign taken advantage of Fauna privileges?"

 

[HerpVenue]

I once had no clue who Wilkins was.
Some dude told me that I am clueless for supporting Andrew and USARK.
He stated Terry Wilkins has done more for this hobby than Andrew ever did.
So I did a little research.

The results showed quite the opposite to me.
I am proud to have Andrew and the Barkers and other members of the community representing me in front of legislators and committees.

Terry and his group? Not so much.

I would probably give more weight to the OPs statements. If they wre coherently written. And if they did not reak of Terry Wilkins.

Come to think of it..... Where is Terry Wilkins? What has he done for our industry?

 

[GK Cresteds]

I once had no clue who Wilkins was.
Some dude told me that I am clueless for supporting Andrew and USARK.
He stated Terry Wilkins has done more for this hobby than Andrew ever did.
So I did a little research.

The results showed quite the opposite to me.
I am proud to have Andrew and the Barkers and other members of the community representing me in front of legislators and committees.

Terry and his group? Not so much.

I would probably give more weight to the OPs statements. If they wre coherently written. And if they did not reak of Terry Wilkins.

Come to think of it..... Where is Terry Wilkins? What has he done for our industry?

You've done the research apparently, so why don't you just tell us.