Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dec .20 /09 news article S373

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dec .20 /09 news article S373

    Ownership of Boas & Pythons Threatened by Senate Bill

    Not a bad story .

  • #2
    Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373

    Not bad at all, well worth a quick few minute read.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373

      thanks very much for posting that,that was very interesting,and cool to know he also owns and breeds snakes.....Mike

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373

        No, not bad at all. It takes a different perspective that I think non snake owners can relate to. Good find. Thanks for sharing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373

          This is not a good news story as the most important facts are incorrect.

          It will NOT be illegal to own or sell these animals. Only to transport or ship them across state lines.

          Also, there is no written documentation to support the claim that owners have released any Burmese pythons into the wild. Most people are just accepting it as fact because Bill Nelson has said so. The science and best theories support the notion that Hurricane Andrew is the cause of the MAJORITY of the Burms in the Everglades National Park (ENP).

          We all need to work together to make as many people aware of the facts surrounding this legislation as possible. Misconceptions about the intent of the bill will cause us as a group, to focus our attention and efforts on a problem that does not yet exist. For instance, why call your Senators office and ask them to "not ban the ownership of boas and pythons" when that's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make it a felony to transport them across state lines. We need to be completely ON TARGET with our messaging for maximum effect.

          All in all, I'm happy that someone published a piece on this legislation, and especially happy that it was a doctor who keeps these animals. I'm not happy that thousands upon thousands will read it, and believe that S373 seeks to ban the ownership of these animals.

          jb

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373

            Good article. Thanks for sharing.
            http://www.iherp.com/topshelfmorphs

            http://www.facebook.com/boidsohio

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373

              Is that the "Bill" Kirby? either way it is a great article

              Chris

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373

                Originally posted by Jonathan Brady View Post
                This is not a good news story as the most important facts are incorrect.

                It will NOT be illegal to own or sell these animals. Only to transport or ship them across state lines.

                Also, there is no written documentation to support the claim that owners have released any Burmese pythons into the wild. Most people are just accepting it as fact because Bill Nelson has said so. The science and best theories support the notion that Hurricane Andrew is the cause of the MAJORITY of the Burms in the Everglades National Park (ENP).

                We all need to work together to make as many people aware of the facts surrounding this legislation as possible. Misconceptions about the intent of the bill will cause us as a group, to focus our attention and efforts on a problem that does not yet exist. For instance, why call your Senators office and ask them to "not ban the ownership of boas and pythons" when that's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make it a felony to transport them across state lines. We need to be completely ON TARGET with our messaging for maximum effect.

                All in all, I'm happy that someone published a piece on this legislation, and especially happy that it was a doctor who keeps these animals. I'm not happy that thousands upon thousands will read it, and believe that S373 seeks to ban the ownership of these animals.

                jb
                you beat me to it, jon! well-put...

                it's articles like this that HSUS can use to "quench our fears" and those of our senators who may consider voting no on the bill...

                "oh it's ok... we're not BANNING them at all! you can still keep your pets. you can even continue to buy them, as long as it's in the state you're in. so it's ok if this bill passes..."

                and that's exactly what they're telling the senators, too...

                "don't worry about them, they're over-reacting... they just think this bill will take away their pets. that's not what this bill is about, so you can still support it."

                misinformation is what this bill is all about. it is what lead to this bill, and it is what will kill us if it is allowed to spread.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373

                  Originally posted by Ez4pro View Post
                  Is that the "Bill" Kirby? either way it is a great article

                  Chris
                  Yes that in Fact is Bill Kirby

                  Dr.William Kirby

                  P.S.
                  I'm just so surprised Bill wrote such an inaccurate piece

                  Maybe using over exaggerated slightly fudged facts like the other side could have its benefits
                  Last edited by Boa Amarali; 12-20-2009, 05:42 PM.

                  Lar M
                  Boas By Klevitz

                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373


                    Doh what was Bill thinking.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Dec .20 /09 news article S373

                      We can't afford to have any misinformation in our arguments for two reasons.

                      First is the reason Chris went into and second is we lose credibility. Most of our argument is based on deception...from the OTHER side! If we are perceived as being deceptive ourselves we lose the moral high ground. We expect them (lawmakers) to deal in the "facts". If they do that then there is no way for them to pass this legislation. If even one point in our argument is not a "fact" then how are they to believe any of it?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X