I am about as pro-gun as any person can be so I consider it appalling that people in the UK have been stripped of their right to protect their life and property.  Criminals don’t abide by laws so the gun-carrying thief breaking into somebody’s home in the UK must feel pretty confident about his chances; he knows that the odds are in his favor that any opposition he encounters is going to be unarmed.  If a UK citizen owned a gun in defiance of the law and used it against the thief he would be in as much (or more) trouble as the robber.  In the UK, they would both be considered criminals.  I find this to be very, very sad:  defend your family and your property and become a criminal for doing so.  Rest assured that if that same guy broke into my house here in Virginia he would have a six-pack of Coke can sized exit wounds in his back.

But how did guns become illegal in the UK?  Was it done in one fell swoop?  Nope.  It was done in stages, a tactic often used to disarm (literally in this case) the opposing voices.  Despite my pro-gun position I didn’t sit down to write about gun control.  I continue to be concerned with the fate of reptile ownership in the United States.  But the history of gun control in the UK serves as a excellent timeline that illustrates our likely fate unless we get our act together in very short order.  Here’s how things went down in the UK:

• 1988 -  In the wake of the “Hungerford Massacre” the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 was passed.  This law made it illegal to own semi-automatic rifles, pump-action rifles and military weapons that shoot explosives.  The law also implemented registration requirements and a requirement for “secure storage” of allowed shotguns.  Handguns (pistols) were not impacted at all by this law.
• 1997 – In the wake of the “Dublane Massacre” ownership of almost all handguns was banned.  One of the key selling points of the law was that a very limited number of people would be impacted (fewer than 1 in 1,000).
• 2006 – The Violent Crime Reduction Act was passed and this made it illegal to buy/sell air weapons by mail order.  This includes things like Airsoft guns.  Yep, in the UK it is even illegal to own a fake gun because it looks too much like a real gun.  Hilarious.  Tragic.  Sad.

The path from there to here was implemented through a simple concept:  divide and conquer.  In the late 1980′s UK pistol owners were apathetic about the proposed ban on rifles because it didn’t affect them.  “Why should I care if they ban shotguns?”, they said.  “I only keep pistols and bolt-action rifles.”  In an act of self-preservation they stayed silent, letting their rifle-owning neighbors have their rights extracted through the legislative process.  Those same people who thought they were safe found their rights removed less than a decade later.  The politicians who pushed this law through the UK’s legal system were smart to leave pistol owners out of the fight in 1988.  Attacking the whole gun-owning population of the UK would have been tantamount to the Humane Society of the United States trying to make pet dogs illegal in the wake of an escaped Nile Monitor killing someone’s Terrier.  Patient and resolute the anti-gun movement capitalized on high-profile tragedies to further their agenda.  Baby steps.  Little-by-little they got it done.  And look at the UK now…

Now let’s turn our attention to things here in the USA.  Large constrictors are under attack.  Most of us know that.  And many bearded dragon breeders, ball python breeders, corn snake breeders and leopard gecko breeders could care less.  Why?  Because they don’t keep large constrictors, of course.  That should sound eerily similar to the same apathetic mindset held by UK pistol owners back in 1988.  And look what happened to them less than a decade later.  Every time there is an isolated incident in the exotic animal community the anti-pet movement gains a little more traction to push through another limiting piece of legislation.  Whether it is done state-by-state, the Lacey Act or through the federal law making process, they are as patient and as resolute as the anti-gun zealots in the UK were.

I know how the end of reptile ownership is going to happen.  If we continue on our current path it will mirror what happened in the UK.  The voices of opposition in the UK screamed, “you can’t legislate a madman”, meaning that a ban on firearms would not stop the next massacre from happening.  If someone wants to get a gun and go on a shooting spree it will happen.  No law is going to prevent that.  My screams as a reptile owner have been of a similar vein.  I oppose any legal limitations on the rights of responsible pet owners.  No matter how responsible a pet owner I am there will always be someone out there who is not.  That person will do something stupid and my rights will be removed as a result.

But why?  Why do the actions of a few lead to restrictions on the many?  The answer is simple:  Legislation is a bludgeon tool.  It lacks finesse.  Laws have not, can not and will not deal with subtlety and nuance.  They are a widely cast net that frequently catches huge numbers of unintended victims.  I have already heard it said.  “Our inspectors are not trained tell the difference between a Burmese python and a Boa Constrictor so the most simple course of action is to ban them both.”  If that’s the case then how would a local law enforcement official tell the difference between a blood python and a burmese python?  Simple: He can’t.  Well, we better ban blood pythons too …just to be safe.  And when the time comes to ban ball pythons you can rest assured that Angolan pythons will be thrown out with them.  They look too similar.  And so it will happen; our compartmentalized herpetocultural community will fall in small group after small group.  And each group will remain silent as the others are attacked.  It will probably take the next decade or two to happen but the writing is on the wall.  The anti-pet movement is more than ready to wait us out and I have not seen evidence of the community having the stomach for a long fight.

Is there an alternative to legislation?  Yes!  It’s called self-regulation.  And this is where there is a fundamental divide within society.  Proponents of large government believe that it is the government’s responsibility to take action to provide for and protect its citizens.  Supporters of small government believe that protection is indeed the government’s responsibility but ‘providing’ is the realm of private industry and government should stay out of it.  The government should not regulate the commercial interaction between provider and consumer.  In a system of self-regulation the industry controls itself from within; it’s a commercial ecosystem that has its balance upset when the dirty fingers of legislation are inserted.  Whether we are talking about banking, exotic animals or pharmaceuticals the concept is the same; the industry regulates itself and acts in a responsible manner, no government intervention needed.  In the end the consumer is the real regulator because it is only where there is mutual benefit in a transaction that the transaction can take place.  Even though I would rather not pay $130/month for my iPhone I still do because I find value in the trade.  If my iPhone bill were to double to $260 I would no longer see the value and I would discontinue my service.  The provider is always going to push the edge of course; they are a for-profit entity and will always work to get as much as they possibly can without pushing me past the limits of my perceived value.  In this delicate balance between consumer and provider we don’t need the government to come in and control mobile phone price plans.  Doing so screws up the natural balance of commerce.

When an industry fails to self-regulate it provides a powerful foothold for the supporters of government regulation (banking and health care come to mind here).  And that is where we are today in the reptile world.  There is no shortage of idiocy in the reptile trade.  Someone out there is not securely keeping their reticulated python or rhino viper.  Another guy is selling Burmese pythons and eyelash vipers to 14-year old kids at a trade show.  And let’s not forget the guy who is keeping hundreds of snakes in horrible filth with no food, water or climate control.  None of these people are you, right?  Of course not.  It always seems to be someone else that is screwing things up for the hobby.  The problem is that the consumer:provider mechanism for self-regulation is seemingly absent.  The only thing an individual can do is take care of his/her own business; keep their animals secure, well-fed, watered and in a suitable climate.  They cannot control what another keeper is doing.  This appears to suggest that government regulation is a viable solution, doesn’t it?  Without changing what we do as a community, the answer, unfortunately is ‘yes’.  The ability to own a reptile in the United States will not survive if we stay on our current path.

But how do we self-regulate?  This is a tough question.  As a person purchasing a green anaconda I know what my responsibilities are.  But what about the seller?  It would seem like a no-brainer to say that a person would not sell a baby anaconda to a minor but that has been proved wrong more than once.  Should the seller take steps to make sure the person buying is fully prepared to responsibly undertake the long-term ownership of the animal?  Is that realistic?  No, it’s not.  The retail community doesn’t support it.  If I put somebody through a gauntlet of questions before selling them a green anaconda at a trade show they are just going to go to another table and buy it from the wholesaler who picked up a 20-lot of them earlier that day and could care about nothing other than their method of payment.  The long-term impact:  I am not economically viable and another person owns a green anaconda that is doomed to get sick and die …but not before it escapes a few times because he thinks that putting a book on the screen top of his aquarium is going to keep the snake from pushing its way out.  Because the community is unable to regulate itself it is primed and ready for government intervention.

Reptile community self-regulation seems viable only if there is widespread individual self-regulation and this illustrates the “you can’t regulate a madman” problem.  The reptile community is too large and too diverse in both number and intelligence for there to be any realistic chance to self-regulate.  Aside from “lock in a sock” forms of keeper-on-keeper physical violence I don’t know what the answer is.  But I do know that if things don’t change we are going to start losing our rights at an ever-increasing rate.  And the only people we can truly blame when its over will be ourselves.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

The HSUS, PETA, Defenders of Wildlife and other radical animal extremist organizations like them are large, well-funded, well-organized and, most of all, driven by a common goal that is kept on track through its leaders.  Most of them have been around for a long time and have had plenty of opportunity to create a solid base from which to operate.  Their leadership consists of affable personalities who focus exclusively on their agenda.  As much as I dislike his message, Wayne Pacelle is doing a lot of things right to further his organization’s agenda.  Don’t get me wrong, though.  I despise his ideas.  His organization is one of the worst things to ever happen to animals and their responsible owners.  But he believes them and he is focused on seeing them become a reality.  While his beliefs are dangerous to every responsible pet owner it is his ability to get others to also believe that makes him the threat that he is.  It’s his leadership and the orchestration of the teams of people behind him that makes him dangerous to pet owners of every kind.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the advocates of responsible pet ownership are woefully inadequate by comparison.  The leaders of the organization’s that trumpet our causes are largely invisible and unknown to a world that needs to hear them.  The longer we go without comparable focus, cohesion and leadership the closer the country will move toward HSUS’ goal of ending pet ownership for everyone.

The HSUS expertly uses lies and misinformation to extract almost $200 million each year from a misled American public.  Their benevolent sounding name is the cornerstone of their fantastic lie and they have a sympathetic media and most of the Democratic party on their side.  If a single pet-ownership advocacy group has 15,000 members who give $50/year they will still only have $750,000 in revenue.  Who would you like to bet on?  An organization running on a shoestring budget with a react-only game-plan or the financially successful and laser-focused machine with educated and articulate leaders orchestrating the attack from multiple fronts?  It’s not really a competition, is it?

The target of interest for both sides of this fight is the pet.  Animal extremists want to ‘protect’ animals by putting an end to pet ownership.  They believe that the very best way to protect animals is for them to not exist as pets.  Extremists attack the exceptions to the majority of us who properly care for and respect our animals.  They use the sensational as ammunition to push their agenda and feel justified in limiting the rights of everybody in order to address the irresponsible few.  They twist facts, perpetuate irrational fear and wordsmith information in order to lead people to false conclusions.  And they are good at it.  In contrast, pet owners just want to be left alone to enjoy their pets.  This means that most pet owners have not sufficiently developed a fighter’s mentality.  They are standing unwillingly in the ring, hands down, being punched repeatedly in the face by the animal extremism juggernaut.  And they take it, punch after punch, reeling with each blow.  Without money, leadership, better organization, and well-marshalled volunteerism, the eventual fate of the pet owner seems obvious.

To all the responsible pet ownership groups out there:  Do a better job of leveraging your support base.  Don’t just ask them for their money; ask them for their time and their skill.  There is an army of responsible pet owners out there.

And to all the responsible pet owners out there:  Pick a group to support.  Reach out to them.  Give them money if you want to; no doubt they need it.  But you also need tell them your skill and let them know you want to help support the rights of pet owners with more than just money.  For now, be willing to give your time freely, in support of the cause.  It is quite probable that your payment  will never be money.  It will come in the form of your right, and your kid’s right, to keep the pet of your choosing.  That’s worth a lot more than money, don’t you think?

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

At the time of her email, Casymay’s included link to Petfinder.com, a national registry whose purpose is to re-home animals currently residing in shelters, contained a whopping 34 pythons, six of which were listed as being in Canada.  Both amused and annoyed by her email, and without knowing anything else about the sender,  I sent the following curt response:

Casey didn’t reply back.  Should human procreation be put on hold until all the world’s orphaned kids get homes?  Would Casey subscribe to that suggestion, too?  In order to see if I could learn a little more about the person who disproved of my actions I decided to do a quick Google search for Casie’s email address.  That search led me to another page where her profile suggests that she is 14 years old.  This realization changed the paradigm with which I had viewed her question.  Young people, many of whom have parents that have unknowingly let them watch too much thinly-veiled animal and environmental extremism in the form of Dora the Explorer and Go, Diego, Go, are filled with a legitimate yet often misguided desire to help animals.  I am confident that this young woman’s intentions are pure; why would someone buy an animal when perfectly good one’s are available for adoption and, better still, why would someone intentionally make more when the same conditions remain true?  Those seem like honest questions and legitimate concerns.  And with many more orders of magnitude these questions are also portable to dogs and cats.

Nobody can argue that there are animals in this world that are abused, abandoned and irresponsibly cast aside.  One good thing about them is that they get people’s attention.  But that’s also a bad thing for the majority of animals that are on the other side.  You know, the one’s that have caring and considerate owners who give their companions the very best in care.  They provide excellent nutrition, a warm and comfortable place to sleep, companionship and prompt and regular medical care.  But those animals are so incredibly uninteresting.  Video of my dog sleeping happily next to me on the sofa isn’t going to help the Humane Society of the United States get any donations.  It also makes for a very boring storyline for Diego and Dora.  The evening news reporting on the secure, healthy and otherwise happy black throat monitor living over on Scenic Avenue isn’t very interesting either.  You see, there’s no money and no story in the animals that are well cared for.  No sound bite, nothing to tweet about and nothing to go viral on YouTube.  Instead we dig for and find the 34 pythons that have lost their homes for who knows what reason and focus on them.  Their plight is evidence enough for young Casie that a breeder like me is in the wrong; that I am the one who is perpetuating the abandonment of more pythons later down the line.  Casie seems to be suggesting that the best solution is to bring captive breeding to a halt because a tiny minority have not received proper care.  I do not share her opinion.

To rescue from a shelter or to buy from a breeder, that seems to be a recurring topic of discussion in the pet world.  I have a friend whose opinions, perspectives and insights on this topic are often different than mine.  She sees the world through the eyes of someone who works in a shelter and has repeatedly seen the tragic end-result of animals, mostly dogs and cats, that are dumped by incapable or otherwise irresponsible owners.  She regularly sees, first-hand, how some people obtain and dispose of living things with callous whimsy.  The animals dumped on the doorstep of her shelter are victims and the perpetrators simply drive away, hands washed of an inconvenience that has a heartbeat.  Those experiences have steeled the resolve she has on her opinions and I know that there is nothing I can ever say that will change her mind.  In a recent exchange of emails she and I had another friendly debate/discussion on buying dogs versus rescuing dogs.  She was uninspired by my reasons for leaning toward a respectable dog breeder rather than a rescue for my next dog.  One of her arguments was that “puppies suck”.  She suggested that a one year old rescue would likely be house trained, past the chewing stage, able to be left alone, have its shots, etc.  And you know what?  She is 100% accurate in all of those things and when looked at from such a pragmatic point of view I might buy into her assertion.  But using the same empirical logic I know another thing that sucks when young:  human children.  They pee and poop on themselves for the first two years or so.  They vomit with some consistency and at incredibly inopportune times.  They can’t talk and, even after months of interaction, can’t communicate their wants with any consistency.  They make loud noises, don’t sleep through the night, cost a ton of money and disrupt virtually every other aspect of your existence.  As a parent, the logical approach is to say screw it and avoid taking the ‘puppy route’ when expanding the family; we should all rescue 18-year old college students who have full scholarships at Virginia Tech.  They won’t cost as much and, despite their tendency to abuse alcohol on the weekends, are almost certainly potty-trained.  Someone else has already taught them the basics and their vaccinations are sure to be up-to-date.

I hope that sounds as silly to you as it does to me.  Almost every parent on this planet knows that there is no way they would ever trade a day of their child’s youth.  Despite sometimes being dirty, stinky, and inconvenient, they are incredibly rewarding.  But it’s not the dirty diaper that makes it so wonderful; it’s the relationship that is formed in the process.  And it’s that relationship that makes everything else so worth it and so wonderful.  And for me, having the puppy equivalent of that relationship with the exact breed and provenance I want is my prerogative.  The rescue animal may work for many people but it does not work for all people.  I respect my neighbors decision to adopt a dog from the local shelter and do not cast derision upon him for doing so.  So why does it happen in reverse?  Why do animal rights advocates throw scornful glances my way for buying rather than adopting?  There are many reasons, I suppose.  But one of them is not as plain to see.  There is a pervasive idea growing in our society that suggests that the less fortunate and otherwise downtrodden are not just worthy of the capacity of the more fortunate; they deserve it.  Those who ‘have’ should be compelled to give what they have to those who do not.  If you have more money you should pay more taxes.  If you come in first place you should share your glory with those who came in 2nd, 3rd and, increasingly, even last.  Nobody should be allowed to be better than anybody else because that’s not fair.  You should work harder so you can give more to others.  You shouldn’t get the puppy (or snake) you want when there are other animals who need your capacity.  You should give up your desire to have your needs satisfied in order to satisfy the needs of someone (or something) less fortunate.  “I really want a Weimaraner puppy,” you say.  “But I can’t get what I want when there are mix-breed puppies at the shelter who need homes.  Their need for a home is greater than my need for the breed that makes me happy.”  Under this illusion, the so-called ‘greater good’ trumps any need of any individual.  This notion, which is both a centerpiece and a rallying cry of the liberal mentality, is so perverted and wrong to me that I struggle to think that another person could arrive at the conclusion.  But reason is not automatic and logic is not always appropriately applied.   I do not subscribe to the notion that the “greater good”  supersedes my needs as an individual.  I believe that I need to take care of and be responsible for myself and my family.  I do not live a life where the benefit of others comes before the benefit of my family.  I know there are many who will disagree with me but I’m impervious.  If you do disagree with me do you know what I am to you?  I’m one less person with their hand out, asking you to freely give me the product of your efforts.   And these ideas are far from new.  The first time I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand I was floored to see that she was writing about the same issues in the 1950′s.

Whether it’s dogs or snakes I support the rights of the breeder to create a ‘product’ that is demanded by the buyer.  So long as there is a market for snakes I will produce and sell them.  Moreso, I support the decision of each buyer (or adopter, as the case may be).  If you want to buy an animal because it is the exact animal you want, do it and feel good about it.  If adopting/rescuing makes you happy, rock on!  But do not think negatively of someone who chooses differently than you.

So here is why I breed (and why I do not):

• I breed snakes because I find them beautiful and enigmatic.
• I breed snakes to financially benefit me and my family.  I do not breed snakes in order to benefit others.
• I breed snakes because I believe in an individual’s ability to choose the animal, regardless of what it is or where it came from, that makes them happy.
• I breed because there is a demand for the animals I have the capacity to produce.
• I breed the animals I choose because they satisfy a need I have.  People who see value in the animals I produce and who have a need, will buy one.  Nobody is compelled to buy from me just as nobody is (and never should be) compelled to pick an animal from a shelter.
• I do not abstain from breeding because someone out there has abandoned their snake.
• I do not abstain from breeding because some people do not practice good husbandry.  I breed because most people do.  I do not tailor my actions to address the shortcomings of the lowest common denominator.

I do not encourage people to adopt simply because an animal has a need.  I encourage people to buy or adopt in direct accordance with their own needs.  If purchasing an animal meets your specific need, open your wallet (or purse).  If adopting does the same, drive to the shelter.  But do not give up on your needs simply because someone else appears to be more needy than you.  And while it may make you feel good inside there is no absolution in sacrificing yourself to the want and needs of others.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

I am not too unlike you, I suspect.  I have received the emails, read the blogs, followed the forum threads and participated in the related chatter.  Been there.  Done that.  And yes, I even got a t-shirt.

Like many of you I have repeatedly railed against the unrelenting stream of assaults on reptile ownership.  My passion for my position has, to my knowledge, not swayed a single opponent or politician.  As is so often the case parties on opposite sides of a debate are uninterested in truly listening to and understanding the differing view.  But that makes sense, doesn’t it?  You don’t typically pick a side you know to be wrong and the more involved you become in the campaign to forward your beliefs the less capable you are of changing your stance.  Despite all the rhetoric and supposed evidence presented by each side, nobody is swayed from their original position.  From my perspective proponents of a ban on reptiles are misguided and misinformed fear-mongers suffering from bad cases of self-serving political, environmental and animal extremism.  Those same people look at me as an environmentally insensitive, unscientific animal exploiter who puts the needs of the environment and public health second to my own wish to have unusual pets.  On the surface one might say the only common ground we share is that both sides want reptiles left alone.  Unfortunately, that common ground doesn’t translate into a foothold for agreement as we have incredibly different definitions of what it means to ‘leave reptiles alone’.

Because an agreement springing forth from common ground is not likely to happen both sides have turned heavily to science to further their assertions.  Sadly, this so-called science is based more on personal, organizational and political agendas than factual analysis.  Science, when stirred into the twisted brew of politics, loses its impartiality.  Similar to the frequent abuse of statistics, the numbers representing scientific fact are skewed to support biased-positions.  What individuals deem true is nothing more than “scientific results” that support their original beliefs.  Campaign contributions and party affiliation go a long way toward determining what is regarded as scientific truth.  Opposing ‘science’ is always denounced as fraudulent and misinformed. For every expert you find that will attest to your desired stance you can rest assured that the opposing side will find not less than one to supplant their professional assertions. The sad reality:  the scientist who is right is the one with the most politicians on his side.

It has long been the reptile keeper’s concern that politics will eventually trump real science.  Many people like me who have been keeping and breeding reptiles for decades know very well the conditions in which they will survive and our continued existence offers evidence as to how dangerous they are to “public health”.  Surprisingly, we didn’t need to earn a doctorate in herpetology, epidemiology, immunology, virology or even meteorology to know these things as fact.  But practical experience has always taken a back seat to academia.  And why not?  Professional reptile breeders have no parchment with calligraphy honouring them as such.  We hold no impressive reptilian job title and have no particular herpetocultural alma mater to trumpet.  Our experiences, insights and perspectives are relevant only to our peers and not to the outside world (especially to politicians).  The media, interested only in sound bites, shock value and visceral reactions, does us no favours either.  Almost without fail reptiles are portrayed as sinister creatures, each one calculating and hostile toward humans.  The Discovery channel would have the general public believe that they are being hunted by corn snakes while they sleep.

The reptile community places little faith in politicians and government scientists to perform an honest assessment of the facts.  We live in a world where special interest groups and party affiliations define votes.  Expressions of individual thought and dissent from the party ranks is a sure-fire way to be banished within your own political party and, in the end, to avoid re-election. It has become commonplace for politicians to march in step with the wishes of the leaders of their respective parties; an honest sense of accountability to the constituents they represent (and to The People as a whole) is a vanishing memory. This is a truth recognized by almost everybody on any side of any particular debate.  In all of the recent legislative efforts against ownership of reptiles you can almost draw a line down the center of the party isles.  The Democrats tend to be in favor of “animal rights” legislation while Republicans seem to stand in opposition.  The politics of politics makes if difficult for any Senator or House Delegate to go against their party position without internal repercussion.  Notice how the politicians are not answering to or representing the interests of their constituents?  It’s the other members of their party (and their financial supporters) to whom they show loyalty.  I am the 3,215,978th person to write it:  the system is broken.  And with reptiles on the radar I am once again reminded of and disgusted by how this broken system can cause my loss of liberty.

With the looming decision whether to amend the Lacey Act to include nine (9) different snakes (by their latin name) the reptile community is fighting potential disaster; the elimination of a large and important portion of the reptile trade.  The buzz in the reptile community is that Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has told Fish & Wildlife, whose leadership reports to Mr. Salazar, to add all nine snake species to the Lacey Act regardless of what the science reveals.  The unspoken message to The People:  “Facts are not relevant.  Science is secondary.  The federal government will decide what you can and cannot own.  The personal crusades of political figures, lobby groups and political affiliations are insurmountable trump cards.”  I pray for this to be false but the behavior of our government of late does not give me hope.  If true, my distended disenfranchisement with our federal government will likely burst and become something more malevolent.  My disappointment in the bureaucratic machine, once a matter of casual disdain, will become something dark and seething.

Through all of this we, the reptile keepers of America, have felt emotions like denial, anger and even depression.  It has occurred to me that the range of emotions many of us are feeling (and have felt) are similar to those of people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness or experience a catastrophic loss in their lives.  The often debated Kübler-Ross model of how humans handle grief says there are five (5) stages people go through when handling a traumatic and tragic event in their lives.  They are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Denial

I have been there for the denial. I have both lived it and observed it in others. For years I thought that reptiles were too small a concern to attract the attention of politicians and animal extremists. I was wrong.  Pet owners and breeders like me used to say that they will never be able to ban these animals.  In the early days we misunderstood the vigilance of our opponents.  Denial should be long gone. The world the reptile keeper lives in today is a never-ending barrage on multiple fronts. We are attacked through the courts, through the legislature and through state and federal agencies. If one assault fails to make sufficient headway they simply come at us from another angle. We are reeling, always defending, and as we tire of the omnipresent initiatives to remove our rights we become even easier to to attack the next time. Using current strategies I seriously doubt the reptile community has the mettle to sustain the fight.  For the most part the community has coalesced (in principle only) but it is still almost always on the defensive.  The side that spends all of its time defending is destined to lose.  The principle of ‘live and let live’ does not apply here.  The people who think they know better than you how your life should be lived are never going to stop trying to control you.

Our attackers do not need a kill-shot; they are perfectly content to grind away at the rights of reptile owners.  They will do it slowly, one species at a time, if they have to. Which of the following scenarios seems most likely to you?:

• A complete ban the ownership of reptiles in the United States today or;
• A long-term strategy to gradually eliminate the ownership of certain types of snakes (with most/all being the long-term goal), the installation of complex and expensive permit systems that discourages many from attempting ownership, and laws that greatly reduce the numbers of animals a breeder can keep (thereby reducing production and profitability) as well as laws that put increasing levels of liability on reptile sellers.  The evidence of this type of approach is already visible.  One need only examine the laws passed against Tennessee dog breeders in 2009.

Consider some aspects of the game of football as an analogy; the team that can effectively run the ball, getting 4+ yards each play will wear the defense down.  Time and fatigue will cause the defenders to fail and the score will eventually become insurmountably lopsided.  And, from time-to-time, the side on the offensive will go deep on a play-action pass (2009′s H.R. 669, for example).  Anyone who watches sports knows that it is hard to score when you’re always on the defensive.

So yes, denial is long gone.  The increased popularity of reptiles has landed them squarely on the radar of the anti-pet movement.

Setting aside the obviously diverse opinions the country has on the outcome of the 2010 mid-term elections we should all be able to agree that it is was positive for responsible pet owners.  Now that the Democratic party (who is most in favor of legislation that eliminates the rights of pet owners) is no longer in control of the House of Representatives you can expect to see the HSUS and other organizations to redirect their efforts away from Congress.  You should expect them to return with greater frequency to the courts and city/state governments to push their agenda.  They never left these venues but you can expect them to re-double their efforts now that they have lost their captive audience at the federal level.  Unfortunately, this does not stop the current efforts to amend the Lacey Act.  That train still speeds out of control.

Anger

Being angry is easy when other people try to take away your rights, especially when they try to do it by presenting lies and falsehood as truth.  While anger is energizing it is not conducive to clarity of thought.  In moments of anger we cannot think clearly and we are prone to irrational and inappropriate actions.  The HSUS, through a calm and relentless onslaught of lies, is counting on many things to further their agenda, including their opponents to lose their cool and get angry.  Angry people are easier to control and even easier to make look foolish.  Angry people can be poked and prodded to provoke the reactions that support their opponent’s stance.

Being angry is fine.  But in this type of fight it’s not OK to let it control your actions.  Our anger needs to be used to strengthen our resolve and to keep us energized.

Bargaining

When your position feels shaky you begin to negotiate.  This is often true even when you believe your position to be correct and just.  Somebody once said that the only real guarantee in a compromise is that both sides will leave dissatisfied.  And when the HSUS is dissatisfied they will find a new way to attack pet ownership.  It’s part of their strategy.  Take a little bit every time and eventually they will have taken a lot.  The barrage of efforts to limit, constrain and eliminate reptile ownership has been unrelenting since January 2008 when a Democratic President took office.  With the House, the Senate and the Oval Office all in-step it unlocked the animal extremist flood gates and the reptile community has been reeling ever since.  In January 2008 the reptile community suddenly found itself face-to-face with a government whose majority was supportive of animal and environmental extremism.  The anti-pet groups came out in full-force and showed us their prowess for working the political system.  Standing in the shadow of such opposition can shake your resolve.  Feeling that defeat is a real possibility people sometimes begin to bargain, to negotiate.

I heard the discussions all through the reptile world.  “We’ve got to give them something!” was an all-too-frequent chorus.  Give them Burmese pythons and they’ll leave us alone.  No, actually, they won’t.  It sickened my stomach every time someone said something so short-sighted.  In the battle for large snake ownership some people and groups were open to the idea of a ban on Burmese pythons.  In an astonishingly short amount of time the community went from lamenting the plight of the Burmese python to fighting for African Rock pythons and Reticulated pythons as well.  Today, less than two years later, we are faced with losing nine species in the pet trade including boa constrictor. And listing boa constrictor by such a generic scientific name is nothing short of horrifying as there are a ton of subspecies that will be guilty by association.

I have never supported and will never support a bargain that eliminates any reptile species from the trade.  I will not give up retics, burms, anacondas, scrubs or boas …and I don’t even own any of them!  As far as I’m concerned those animals are part of our reptile-keeping culture and I fully support their responsible ownership.  I can not and do not support any political philosophy that legislates to the lowest common denominator of a society or sub-group of society.  Legislating all reptile ownership in order to remedy the actions of a few who make bad choices is an asinine way of leading people.  I’ll stop there as I sense that I am digressing into a political tirade.

Depression

Endurance requires training.  Along the way you become tired and worn down.  With no end in sight to this fight for pet owners rights you see nothing but an endless road ahead.  Faced with that reality it’s easy to see how depression can set in.

“Can’t this all just go away?”, you ask.  Sorry, no.  Right or wrong, the rights of pet owners are intricately entangled in larger issues such as global warming, energy, foreign trade, animal rights, interstate commerce, and separation of power between the states and the federal government.  In some ways, reptiles are nothing more than a pawn in those larger games of chess.  Victories that limit the ownership and transport of reptiles in the name of protecting the environment are little more than tick marks in the column for or against even more environmental legislation.  It is a solid measure of hubris to think that the issue of reptiles is important enough to warrant this much attention.

When depression sets in you lose your passion.  As more and more us lose our passion for the fight we are coming closer and closer to the end of the reptile trade.

Acceptance

At last:  minus one.

I, and hundreds of thousands like me, will never accept an agenda tantamount to a cancer.  The Humane Society of the United States is a malignant lesion, a growth of sickness and malevolence in our society.  Their message is decaying and vicious.  It preys on the apathetic minds of well-intentioned individuals.  People who love animals as I do are presented with an onslaught of lies and misinformation that sour them to the true nature of pet ownership in our society.  These misinformed individuals, in an effort to help the animals they love, give their money to an organization that actually hates them.  Love dogs?  Me, too.  The HSUS thinks they love them, too.  But the HSUS loves dogs the way that a psychotically  jealous and abusive husband loves his wife.  He loves her so much that he feels justified in killing her rather than letting anyone else have and hold her.  “I love you so much I am going to kill you!  I have to do it.  It’s the only way I can protect you from the others!”, he says.  “Psycho!  Monster!”, you scream at his confession.  The HSUS is the same type of abusive monster.  But to the bewilderment of millions, people send them money when they present their lie-tainted agenda.  With the honest sincerity of a silver-tongued sociopath they hypnotise you with their lies.  Snap out of it!  It is time to stop believing in and financially supporting their hate.

It is because I see the HSUS for what they are that I will never stop fighting against them.  I will vote for candidates that disagree with HSUS’ agenda.  I will educate my friends, my family and my co-workers on the nature of their lies and I will campaign for votes to put politicians in office who see as I do.

Vigilance, poise and intelligence are our most valuable assets in this fight.  This assault is not going to end any time soon.  As long as the HSUS (and other like them) is still in business there is not a pet owner or animal business in this country that is safe.  I do not accept a life without the animals I choose.  I will not allow my liberty to be taken from me.

The plight of the reptile industry is a caricature of our nation as a whole.  The federal government, guided by the invisible strings of special interest groups, is seeking to remove the rights of responsible Americans because there is a small subset that can’t follow common-sense rules.  Rather than holding the few accountable, all are made to suffer.  The many suffer at the hands of the few and the rules are designed and enforced to the lowest common denominators of our society (gun control laws, social security & health care come to mind).  Tearing down the responsible to address the needs of the irresponsible is a path that leads nowhere other than failure.

As I finish writing all of this I fear I may be screaming at the deaf.  Reptile folk listen and nod.  They even occasionally applaud.  But I doubt most will act.  The well water is muddy; we have gone to it too many times and too often.  Evidence supporting this assertion can be found in popular Internet forums.  Visit your favorite forum and look at the Laws and Regulations section.  Find the posts that deal with impending legislation/regulation and make note of how many times it has been read.  Now visit one of the sections that deals with lighter topics and see how often otherwise inane discussions are read and commented upon.  Posts where people ask if their latest craigslist acquisition is a morph can have a thousand hits and hundreds of responses.  Post a picture of a never before produced designer morph and you can get a few thousand views in a few short days.  But post information about the fate of the community itself  and people’s hyperlinks don’t change color.  Many of us are too busy “polishing the brass on the titanic” to give attention to what’s really important.

This is not a fight you have to fight as an individual.  But you do have to participate.  It’s a painful reality but it comes with the territory in today’s landscape of pet ownership.  We all have to be prepared to give our voice, our pen, our money and our vote to support our rights as responsible pet owners.  PIJAC and USARK are the two best allies the reptile owner has.  If you can’t or won’t financially contribute to one, consider the other.  If you don’t give them money, give them your voice.  If they ask you to make a phone call or write a letter, do it.  It takes such a small amount of time.  If you don’t you have knowingly ceded the fight and passed through into Acceptance.

Regards,

Colin Weaver

A few days after my daughter’s first birthday my wife and I decided to give her a peanut butter cracker.  We had waited the required amount of time recommended by the pediatrician and it was time for her to learn about another wonderful part of being alive.  About 9 or 10 hours later when we left the emergency room we knew that peanuts and my beloved peanut butter would no longer be welcome in our home.  After taking a bite of a peanut butter cracker our daughter had gone into anaphylactic shock.

In the two years since that scary day we have learned from allergists that she is allergic to several different types of nuts;  peanuts, cashews, almonds, the list goes on.  They also told us that she is not likely to outgrow the allergy as some children seem to do.  C’mon.  Really?  Seriously?  Cashews are better than peanuts!!!  My daughter is never going to get to eat warm cashews.  That’s criminal.

And she will also never enjoy a peanut butter cup…

Imagine a life without peanut butter cups.  Barring advances in medicine my daughter is faced with that reality.  It’s not something she was able to decide for herself, of course.  How and why she is allergic to peanuts is a question I doubt she will ever have answered.  But that’s life and we all know about the fairness it lacks.

All of this peanut pondering started the other night when I saw a commercial for Reese’s peanut butter cups.  It was a reminder of my daughter’s situation and, as is so often the case, I found myself translating that situation into issues facing the reptile community.  Peanut butter cups have been denied to my daughter by circumstances that were beyond her control.  But what about snakes?  What is her future with reptiles?

Just last week she told me that she wanted to go “snakey finding with [me]” and that she would “help me find Kaa.”  Kaa, for those of you who were never young, is the snake from Jungle Book. Reptile-loving dad’s out there will immediately recognize the coolness of such a shared moment with your child.  Her statement created interesting emotions for me.  At three, my daughter is beginning to develop an appreciation for reptiles.  She is at the very beginning of a life which promises the opportunity to one day allow her to own the pet of her own choosing.  I like the idea that she will one day include reptiles as part of her life but I respect her right to decide not to.  What’s more important to me than her choice of pet is her choice to have a pet.  It is a decision that will be hers to make.  But more and more each day I fear that my daughter is at the beginning of a life where people will eventually take  that right away from her.  As her father I can’t let that happen.

My need to fight for my daughter’s right to  have the choice to one day be a responsible pet owner got me thinking about the “grassroots” efforts of the reptile community to fight all of this proposed legislation.  Over the past few years there have seen several different pieces of proposed legislation, some federal and some state.  One delegate in the House of Representatives described the grassroots response of the reptile community to HR 669 as a “buzz saw”, meaning we got their attention and our voice was loudly heard.  Through each piece of proposed legislation (the federal one’s in particular) the community has become more aware and more organized.  But are we also losing some steam?  For my daughter’s sake, I hope not.  Each time the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) launches its next assault we see our email in-boxes and the Internet forums light up with calls to action.  Each time we are told “now is the time to act” and “this is the biggest threat the reptile community has ever faced”.  We are asked to band together once again and call Senators and House delegates, to write letter and send emails.  Unfortunately, the battle cry, “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more”, will not invoke a reaction forever.

How many times can we go to the well and conjure a concerted reaction from the reptile community?  How long before we lose interest in the fight?  There is a finite number of times that people are going to be willing to get involved.  Most of us are, after all, just pet owners.  You just want to share your life with an animal that brings you joy.  Being a pet owner isn’t supposed to require you to be a political activist.  But more and more each day that is the way things seem to be heading.  The assault on the rights of pet owners of all types is unrelenting, multi-faceted and hidden under the veil of false animal love.  Nobody is going to fight for the rights of pet owners except pet owners.  We can’t afford to lose sight of that.

We have all been thrown curves in life.  My daughter picked the short straw when it comes to being allergic to a long list of nuts.  The burden our family has to bear is that we must spend the rest of our lives being vigilant, doing everything we can to avoid accidental exposure to peanuts.  That job wasn’t clearly defined in the job description of being a parent.  I guess it falls into the category called “other duties as assigned” that we so often see in today’s job descriptions.  And so it also goes for pet owners; our decision to own a pet means we are accepting a responsibility to also fight for that right for ourselves and for our children.

Dig deep, snake lover.  Dig deep.  The fight is never going to end …until the day YOU stop fighting.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

I recently received a letter from the office of my representative in the US House of Representatives.  The letter reiterates what one of his staffers told me during a face-to-face meeting when I went to his office in Washington DC.  While I characterize Mr. Forbes as a delegate who is “on the side” of responsible pet owners I think his opportunity for opposition has been limited.  This is, of course, unfortunate.  What is more unfortunate is that the limitation stems from one of S373 and HR2811′s biggest sources of resistance: USARK.

In Mr. Forbes letter he points out that which we already know: an agreement has been reached between USARK and the HSUS to limit the scope of HR2811 to Burmese and African Rock pythons.  That agreement unanimously passed the House Judiciary Committee on 7/29/09.  I was at that hearing, I watched it happen.  USARK, in what they believed was an effort to save all pythons, offered Burms and Afrocks in the spirit of “we’ve got to give them something.”  In reality USARK’s compromise didn’t give supporters of the bill nearly as much as it took away from its opponents.  On July 28th Mr. Forbes was opposed to HR2811.  By the time the afternoon of the 29th rolled around he had little choice but to support it.  Why?  How can he oppose a bill that has been agreed upon by both sides of the issue?  He can’t.  It would be politically silly and a waste of time to do so.  This was the exact sentiment shared with me by one of his staffers during our meeting.   USARK’s decision to agree to a limited scope for HR2811 effectively ensures its passage when sent to the House floor for a vote.  I can see delegates saying, “HSUS likes it and the snake people like it, too?  All right then!  Let’s vote on this thing and go grab a burger.”  What is there to debate?  It appears that everybody is happy.  Except me.  I’m not happy.

If S373 passes the impending full Senate vote and HR2811 passes a House vote the absolute best we can hope for when the two bills are reconciled is the elimination of Burmese and African Rock pythons.  It won’t be any time soon that I forgive anybody who is responsible for that.

It’s a horrifying proposition but plausible to think that one of the best things that could happen at this point is that the HSUS gets one of their Democrat House delegates to introduce a new amendment to HR2811 that makes it mirror the current verbiage of S373 (e.g. all 9 animals in the USGS report).  At least that way the venomoid-rendered opposition in the House can have a renewed reason to oppose the bill.  How else are they supposed to argue against it?  That’s not really the kind of gamble I’d like to take but…

Colin Weaver

Many reptiles owners who are concerned about HR2811 and S373 may not realize it but these bills are positioned almost 100% along party lines.  Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are in favor of it.  Republicans oppose it.  Republicans do not oppose these bills because they love pythons.  They oppose the bills because they seek to bypass normal processes that have been in place for a long number of years, a point USARK has been trying to make.

The fundamental nature of the Democratic party is to seize the liberty of individuals in order to provide for the perceived benefit of the masses.  According to Democrats, the impacts on individuals are secondary to the needs of the many.  The way that state-minded Democrats (state as in “statism”) endeavor to do this by taking steps to give government more and more control over the lives of individuals.  Easy examples include Social Security, the current health care debacle and the huge ownership stake government has recently taken in both the automotive and financial services industry.  Bailouts were given and control was taken to protect the masses.  The result:  a larger government with reach yet further into the lives of individuals.

Fellow snake owner, you are now poised to be on the receiving end of that same seizure of liberty so often employed by the Democratic party.  They want to take away your right to own the snake of your choosing for the betterment of the masses.  It is a decidedly Democrat thing to do.  What makes it worse is that all of you know that the reasons offered for why your rights are about to be seized are not even based on facts.

Remember this the next time you go to the polls and have to choose Republican or Democrat.  Many people in this country are single-issue voters.  In our last round of elections many chose to vote Democrat solely because it wasn’t “voting for Bush”.  The result of those elections are that we now have a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, a Democrat-controlled Senate and a Socialist, er, Democrat President.  The Humane Society of the United States swooped into action as soon as that criteria was met (Democrats all-around).  The result to the reptile community is the pain we are all feeling today.  Never forget that.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

P.S. – Mid-term elections are about a year away.  If we can survive this round we can fix our problems (the reptile problem, that is) at the ballot box next year.

Note:  I opened this up to discussion on the ball-pythons.net forum but they moved it to their “Quarantine Room” that is not visible to the general public.  I guess it was more direct and to the point than what they like on their site.  It’s their site, their call.  Someone on that site suggested that I was unfairly trying to make this into a partisan issue.  Uh, I’m not trying to make it a partisan issue, IT IS A PARTISAN ISSUE.  This isn’t a secret.  Pretty much across the board Democrats appear to be lined up to vote in favor of it and Republicans will oppose it.  That is a fact and not a politically motivated attack on the democratic party.  It is what it is.

• In June 2008 HR6311 was introduced by a Democrat.  This bill had the same aims as HR669.  Despite being introduced in a democrat-controlled House, HR6311 never even made it out of committee.  Nobody fought too hard for (or against) this bill because George Bush was in office and he would have vetoed it.
• On January 26th, 2009, less than a week after Obama was sworn into office and the Democrat hat-trick was complete, HR669 was introduced by a Democrat.  The reptile community had its first unified and loud reaction.  The House sub-committee backed off in response.
• On June 10, 2009, HR2811 was introduced by a Democrat.  This bill seeks to perform an end-around on the legislative process by adding large constrictors to the Lacey Act.
• On February 3, 2009, barely 2 weeks after Obama’s inaguration, S373 was introduced by a Democrat.  This is the Senate version of HR2811.  This bill also seeks to perform the same end-around on the legislative process by adding large constrictors to the Lacey Act.

There are two themes at work in the timeline above:  1)  There have been repeated efforts to take away the rights of pet owners and 2) they have always been introduced by HSUS-sympathetic Democrats.

A photo of an alligator exploding out of the belly of a Burmese python…

The militant congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz epitomized the overuse of this fantastical photo during her rude questioning of USARK’s Andrew Wyatt at a Congressional hearing on H.R. 2811. In Congress it is generally frowned upon to say things like, “Talk to the hand. I ain’t tryin’ to hear it.” Her position as a congresswoman is supposed to constrain her outbursts so the best she could do was to repeatedly hold up the infamous picture to punctuate her close-minded tirade. As a representative of the rational people of her district in Florida she is completely invalid; a danger to anybody who endeavors to participate in a careful contemplation of facts.

A tanned snake skin unfurled by Senator Bill Nelson during a session in the Senate…

In July of 2009 Senator Bill Nelson unrolled the skin of a 16ft Burmese python to a round of oooh’s, aaah’s and gasps from those in attendance. The Senator did not precede his dramatic presentation by saying, “This skin is almost twice as long as the animal that used to own it. Tanned skins are always significantly longer than the original animal.” Why would he need to say such things? Everybody know this, right? For him to diminish the dramatic effect of such a gesture would have been presumptuous about the intellect of his audience. Leave people to draw their own conclusions; it’s better that way. Now is a good time for me to point out that I am often being facetious when I write.

A child killed by a Burmese python…

The logistics of this tragedy have experienced Burmese python keepers around the country scratching their heads. People who keep large snakes are well aware of how they behave and the description of the wounds and the manner of the attack are so incredibly contrary to the actual behavior of these animals that every Burmese python keeper I know is saying, “It just dosen’t make sense. Burms don’t do that.” Maybe it’s wishful thinking on behalf of snake owners (myself included); we don’t want it to be true. But the confusion remains; the way this snakes is alleged to have killed this child is as unusual as the event itself. But guess what? None of my pondering matters. The Burmese python has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Facts are not relevant. It won’t matter if the police come out tomorrow and say that the boyfriend accidentally killed the child and then staged the scene to make it look like the snake did it. The child is dead and the python has been assigned blame. The result is simple: large constrictors are now in the category of things that are a “threat to human safety”.

A ream of paper in the form of a report from the USGS…

Several men of science have come out in opposition of this piece of literature and it appears that they are being written off as reptile-loving quacks. This particular writing of mine is not the forum for me to offer a contradiction to the USGS’ slanted report. You know what matters about this report? It is thick. Very thick. 300 pages, give or take. I am confident it has been printed and placed in a 3-ring binder by many congressional staffers. How many have actually read it? Very few, I’m sure. How many have read it and then sought professional advice as to the validity of its content? Fewer still. It’s 300 pages, after all, and there are more pressing matters in the country. Heck, I haven’t even read every word of it. This is the reason for the so-called Executive Summary. Distill this content into something small, please. Twenty pages? No, still too big. Senators and Congressmen are busy people. Let’s get this down to something smaller. A few sound bites would be nice. Perhaps a picture or two. It’s odd, …I just read a similar distillation of Sleeping Beauty to my daughter tonight as she went to bed. In ten lavishly illustrated pages the entire story of Aurora was told and at no point was an admission made that many relevant facts were being omitted. I am left to wonder if members of the House and Senate are aware that they are being read bedtime stories …stories re-written by special interest groups (HSUS and Nature Conservancy) that are full of canned and baseless drama. But the best stories are the ones that have a villian and an innocent child, are they not? Fairy tales. But the python is not a beautiful princess. No prince is riding to its aid. This time Maleficent may actually win…

Colin Weaver

The reptile community could really use a good public relations campaign right about now.  I recommend you stop waiting for our industry’s “leadership” to make things right.  You need to find a way to do something yourself.  If you own a large constrictor why don’t you take a moment to mail (no, not email) some photos and perhaps a video to members of Congress showing them how your snake is not menacing and how you take care to be a responsible snake owner.  Legislating to the lowest common denominator is no way to run a country.  The only thing being paraded in front of our representatives are the negative husbandry examples.  I know there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of responsible owners of large constrictors.  What an awesome impact it would be if even 40% of us sent in personal testimonials about our pets.  If you’re not motivated you better get there; your rights are on the line.  If you are motivated, double it.  I do not want to wake up one day and not have the right to own the reptile of my choosing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZwTFWyI4Ho

P.S. – I seriously doubt politicians watch youtube so don’t post videos there thinking they are going to make it to the eyes of a government representative.  I’ll throw a few bucks down and wager that the overwhelming majority of politicians don’t even check their own email.  Kick it old school and send in a personal letter.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

If you are a pet lover it is vitally important that you watch this.  After you do, please encourage every person you know who also calls themselves a pet lover to watch it.  If they can’t watch it, tell them about it.  The specific message you need to deliver to every person you is this:  “Never donate a single penny to the HSUS again.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8M0_WZ8IRc

This video about the deceptive practices of the HSUS can also be seen here.