• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Inquiry Why All The Hate Toward Reptiles By Mack?

MrTPlush said:
Go read the comments on Facebook. They are not full "no pets" because they support people going to shelters and getting an animal. If they didn't support pets at all wouldn't they yell at those people speaking to them? Now the fact the euthanize(or supposedly do) many animals that come in their door is a totally different concern. Bottom line their view on others going and adopting animals is OK to some degree. Now getting one from a pet store...absolutely not.

I hate PETA just as much as you all. Not because I think their views on topics are bad, but because of how they feel it should be fixed. I totally agree punching sheep is bad, but abolishing the wool industry that is just ridiculous.

I am not going to judge their video because I wasn't there and don't know if it is real or what parts of it are real. I don't think it is entirely fake...but I also realize it is reasonable to believe they were only showing bad things...possibly even staging some parts(like the dehydrated bearded dragon).

I am a bit surprised so much can be assumed here, but if we tried to do it in another BOI thread it would be unacceptable.
Click to expand...
You are seriously misinformed and I feel sorry for you. Peta wants to force a vegan society, they want all domestic animals extinct, they want to take away pets and farm animals, no human animal interaction period and that's what these videos do, divide and conquer, make cat and dog people hate exotics so they ban them. Then go after the cat and dog people.

Please educate yourself before spilling such misinformation. I didn't even read all of your comment, seeing "peta isn't a "no pet" group just shows its full of ignorance, do your research please.
 
Misinformation? What was the misinformation?

I said they are not full "No Pets". It is a true statement. They support people rescuing animals and adopting them. They actually also support pet stores that do not sell animals. Seriously...right there on their Facebook. Right there in the top comments on the video. Clearly they support pets to some degree. Go check it out...or just falsely attack me calling me ignorant. That works too.:rofl: Thanks for the laugh though.
 
MrTPlush said:
Misinformation? What was the misinformation?

I said they are not full "No Pets". It is a true statement. They support people rescuing animals and adopting them. They actually also support pet stores that do not sell animals. Seriously...right there on their Facebook. Right there in the top comments on the video. Clearly they support pets to some degree. Go check it out...or just falsely attack me calling me ignorant. That works too.:rofl: Thanks for the laugh though.
Click to expand...

What exactly is a "pet store" that doesn't sell pets?
 
MrTPlush said:
Misinformation? What was the misinformation?

I said they are not full "No Pets". It is a true statement. They support people rescuing animals and adopting them. They actually also support pet stores that do not sell animals. Seriously...right there on their Facebook. Right there in the top comments on the video. Clearly they support pets to some degree. Go check it out...or just falsely attack me calling me ignorant. That works too.:rofl: Thanks for the laugh though.
Click to expand...
If they support rescue and adoption why do they kill 97% of the HEALTHY ADOPTABLE cats and dogs they get their hands on? The others are sent to kill shelters where they're then killed. You can't be that uneducated on this.. they even STOLE a dog off someone's porch and killed it before closing! Tell me how that is supporting rescue and adoption.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
ElexisOrtiz said:
If they support rescue and adoption why do they kill 97% of the HEALTHY ADOPTABLE cats and dogs they get their hands on? The others are sent to kill shelters where they're then killed. You can't be that uneducated on this.. they even STOLE a dog off someone's porch and killed it before closing! Tell me how that is supporting rescue and adoption.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They support it by saying it on Facebook to people...obviously in some ways that support is questionable. Regardless telling people to go to rescues etc. means they support them. I don't see where they told people to come to PETA to adopt.

I get what you are saying, but you are ignoring the fact they do encourage people to adopt/rescue vs. going to pet stores. If they were anti pets of any kind they wouldn't say stuff like that.
 
MrTPlush said:
They support it by saying it on Facebook to people...obviously in some ways that support is questionable. Regardless telling people to go to rescues etc. means they support them. I don't see where they told people to come to PETA to adopt.

I get what you are saying, but you are ignoring the fact they do encourage people to adopt/rescue vs. going to pet stores. If they were anti pets of any kind they wouldn't say stuff like that.
Click to expand...
They "support" it to make people keep donating. Ugh I'm done with this. You just refuse to see the truth.
 
ElexisOrtiz said:
They "support" it to make people keep donating. Ugh I'm done with this. You just refuse to see the truth.
Click to expand...

Oh no I completely see what you saying. I have acknowledged it. I just see this thread letting RBM off the hook when that may not be right. It seems everyone is upset PETA is attacking their hobby...which is understandable, I don't like it either. At the same time maybe PETA, as horrible as they are, might have brought up a legitimate issue. I think the topic should be more open minded until more details about the legitimacy of the video is released. I have little doubt PETA was unethical in the making of the video, but what about RBM? If they did something wrong they should be held accountable for it too.
 
MrTPlush said:
Oh no I completely see what you saying. I have acknowledged it. I just see this thread letting RBM off the hook when that may not be right. It seems everyone is upset PETA is attacking their hobby...which is understandable, I don't like it either. At the same time maybe PETA, as horrible as they are, might have brought up a legitimate issue. I think the topic should be more open minded until more details about the legitimacy of the video is released. I have little doubt PETA was unethical in the making of the video, but what about RBM? If they did something wrong they should be held accountable for it too.
Click to expand...

THAT is the point of contention! IF they have done something wrong they should be held accountable! None of us currently have enough information to say one way or another if they have done anything wrong? Yet you "just see this thread as letting RBM off the hook"...?
What, exactly (that you can PROVE), have they done that they deserve to be "on the hook"?

As has already been stated by others: Until we know for certain that the video is in some way legitimate, and not just another instant of PETA "Crying-Wolf", then you might just want to put away the torches and pitchforks...

~Beau
 
Exactly no one really knows. So no one should say, "It is PETA I don't believe their video at all."

There could be legitimate reality to their video. None of us were there so everyone should be open minded. Though a lot want to write it off because the video came from PETA. I would love for the video to be 100% staged, but there isn't anything at this point for me to go either way on the topic. I have not had any pitchfork in this fight either. I did say whoever is responsible for treating the animals like this needs to be held accountable. Whether that is RBM, PETA, or a mixture of both.
 
MrTPlush said:
They support it by saying it on Facebook to people...obviously in some ways that support is questionable. Regardless telling people to go to rescues etc. means they support them. I don't see where they told people to come to PETA to adopt.

I get what you are saying, but you are ignoring the fact they do encourage people to adopt/rescue vs. going to pet stores. If they were anti pets of any kind they wouldn't say stuff like that.
Click to expand...

That is not the only conclusion to your conditional assertion. Sorry to play into Godwin's Law, but the Rhineland comes first. The game that could be played may involve realistic and systematic erosion so as to make a transition less prone to overwhelming resistance. The idea being furthered is piecemeal change so as to not hit a threshold of large-scale public intolerance until so much change has taken place that the final move has insignificant opponents by volume.

A strong adversary may move and exert influence in relatively few steps, but a smart adversary can best a strong one with time and more steps. Careful whittling. Strategy to circumvent strength. Slow conversion. Slow erosion. Finally subversion.

Such an underlying theme might not appear that obvious, but the point of the strategy's nature would be to avoid appearing obvious until new norms have been established as familiar and more or less comfortable enough to extend the last bit without nearly as much outcry.

I do not think it bodes well to mistake an anglerfish's lure for a reasonable meal.
 
MrTPlush said:
Oh no I completely see what you saying. I have acknowledged it. I just see this thread letting RBM off the hook when that may not be right. It seems everyone is upset PETA is attacking their hobby...which is understandable, I don't like it either. At the same time maybe PETA, as horrible as they are, might have brought up a legitimate issue. I think the topic should be more open minded until more details about the legitimacy of the video is released. I have little doubt PETA was unethical in the making of the video, but what about RBM? If they did something wrong they should be held accountable for it too.
Click to expand...

Absolutely to the emboldened. I think some of us just want to be sure case-makers are impartial when performing the evaluation.
 
With due respect to all contributing, if RBM is guilty of abuse, neglect and the horrid images on that video, then yes, RBM might want to reassess their care, feeding and habitat issues.
If they can't properly house, feed and care for the animals they bring in for the purpose of breeding and reselling, then they will fail in due time, as we have seen others fail.

If RBM is over their heads, then yes, restructure and reduce. It happens. Take care of it, RBM!

If they also hired undercover PETA agents, they might want to do a tad more due diligence in their background checks before they hire. Just saying ...

On the other hand, PETA is not an agency to be trusted. I don't trust PETA, do you?

Until more credible details are disclosed, it's all up in the air. Period.
 
I must be honest .. in some ways ... PETA has already scored a victory ... they have separated and divided a community ... the reptile community .. just look at these posts and all the allegations and insinuations towards each other. I for one will wait till further details come forth before passing judgement on anyone. There are always at least two sides to every story ... and the truth may well fall somewhere in between ... but until I see and read all the evidence provided by all sides ... I shall hold judgment.
 
Divided? I don't think that is what I would say. Sure people are questioning what RBM has possibly done, but I am assuming most of us didn't like wholesalers as it was. Nor do I think people who do shop with wholesalers will stop over the video.

All they did was freak out a bunch of crazy animal lovers on Facebook. Seems like a pretty sane conversation here.
 
MrTPlush said:
Oh no I completely see what you saying. I have acknowledged it. I just see this thread letting RBM off the hook when that may not be right. It seems everyone is upset PETA is attacking their hobby...which is understandable, I don't like it either. At the same time maybe PETA, as horrible as they are, might have brought up a legitimate issue. I think the topic should be more open minded until more details about the legitimacy of the video is released. I have little doubt PETA was unethical in the making of the video, but what about RBM? If they did something wrong they should be held accountable for it too.
Click to expand...

I think you comported yourself admirably, and you made a valid point. Usually when she's in an argument, there are two sides: Her Being Right, and everything else. She's passionate, and that's admirable, but you're kicking a brick wall trying for nuance in your discussion with her at this point.
 
I don't like Peta but I'm glad they went after John mack...it was reptiles by mack that got together with pijac and supported sb310...John mack went behind the backs of the other reptile breeders in Ohio and supported regulations for all the reptiles that he doesn't sell....John mack sold out his own people in ohio....his own industry....

sb310 has claimed the lives of many exotic animals that were being properly cared for...the state has taken many exotic animals from their homes..sb310 has also ended a lot of business for breeders and hobbyists....

John mack didn't care about the big cat owners or the people that had bears or wolves...or even the big snake breeders and croc owners....that's why he supported bans and regulations that are impossible to meet for the people that had the big scary exotics.....

Turns out reptiles by mack is the one that needed regulations
 
Peta employees apply for a job caring for animals, then the very animals they were in charge are are videoed being neglected. Does anyone else not see the obvious culprit here is peta? Time to bust out the animal cruelty charges against them plus a civil suit.
 
snakesareawesome said:
Peta employees apply for a job caring for animals, then the very animals they were in charge are are videoed being neglected. Does anyone else not see the obvious culprit here is peta? Time to bust out the animal cruelty charges against them plus a civil suit.
Click to expand...

PETA has a broad membership consisting of a great many individual people. Some of the very best humankind has to offer and perhaps some of the worst as well. I have known some in these two distant categories as well as plenty in between. Were this a top-down initiative, then it is possible that more radical members could have been cherry-picked for a more abusive-leaning role post-infiltration. It is also possible that members were cherry-picked for their prowess at observational capture and documentation. Maybe a mix. Maybe no heavy selection criteria were involved at all beyond the criterion of enthusiasm/duty/whatever-one-wants-to-call-it. Just as I would not want to rush to judgment on the video evidence as it relates to the initially accused party, I would also want to give a fair shake to the people on the ground in the other party. Trying to keep that pendulum pointing straight down until more information comes to light by a less personally invested evaluation team, I suppose one could say. It is okay to allow fairness to go both ways.
 
Back
Top