read this

[PetNut]

HSUS is the Enemy!
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the Enemy of the Reptile Nation! They prey on the uneducated. They use their money to gain favor in Washington, DC. They pluck at the heartstrings of the animal loving American public. Their message is misleading. They count on their name creating confusion and implying that they have something to do with local Humane Societies. They do not take care of puppies and kittens. They have nothing to do with your local Humane Society. They are the most powerful Animal Rights (AR) group on the planet. Their agenda is to end ALL animal ownership and use. They oppose hunting, fishing, livestock farming, bio-medical research and pets... including traditional pets. They raise money by targeting students and senior citizens with photographs of abused animals and implying that the money they raise goes to the care of these animals. HSUS DOES NOT TAKE CARE OF ANIMALS! 90% of the funds they raise go toward salaries, administration and lobbying for the AR agenda of ending ALL animal ownership and use. HSUS is extremely well funded and is dedicated to destroying the Reptile Nation. They hope to use the current interest in invasive species and the Burmese Python as a tool to destroy our community. They do not operate using facts or science. They are spreading misinformation, wild exaggerations and emotionally charged rhetoric in an effort to use current legislative proposals to end the trade in reptiles. Do not let them succeed. Help USARK to expose them for what they are... AR EXTREMISTS! HSUS is the Mortal Enemy of the Reptile Nation!
Click here to donate $10 with dollar for dollar matching from Zoo Med
http://usark.org/donate.php
Click here to Join The Reptile Nation with dollar for dollar matching from Zoo Med
http://www.usark.org/join.php

HSUS is the Number 1 Enemy of the Reptile Nation. They are DANGEROUS EXTREMISTS that will stop at nothing to destroy us. The Following is HSUS Propaganda:

http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/wildlife/fwc_hsus_pythons_081009.pdf

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/hsus_calls_for_state_and_federal_action_on_large_c onstrictors_081009.html

The HSUS Calls for Comprehensive State and Federal Action on Large Constrictor Snakes


August 10, 2009


Today, The Humane Society of the United States, the nation's largest animal protection organization, applauded the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for considering a prohibition on possession and sales of all reptiles of concern as pets. This regulatory action would complement pending federal legislation, also supported by The HSUS, to prohibit importation and interstate trade in certain constrictor snakes for the pet trade.
In a letter to the FWC, The HSUS highlighted the recent tragic death of a Florida toddler and proliferation of Burmese pythons in the Everglades as reasons to take swift action to stop the influx of large constrictor snakes, prevent the spread of Burmese pythons and prevent the introduction of other species. The HSUS also urged the FWC to take a proactive and comprehensive approach and not just focus on a limited number of species, so that the problem is not simply shifted to other dangerous reptiles, such as anacondas. Once they become established, removing invasive species is expensive and sometimes impossible.
"We urge the FWC to look to take broader, proactive measures this year to stop the importation into the state, breeding, sale and acquisition of all reptiles of concern, including all anacondas, before another child is injured or killed, and another invasive species becomes established in the wild," wrote Jennifer Hobgood, Florida state director for The HSUS. "If we do not address these problems now, we will have failed just as policy makers failed in not banning the trade in Burmese pythons a decade or two decades ago."
States generally regulate which animals can be possessed and sold within their borders, while the federal government oversees international and interstate trade, making both state and federal action necessary. The HSUS supports legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate (S. 373) by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 2811) by Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., to prohibit importation and interstate commerce in certain constrictor snakes. In addition, The HSUS supports legislation expected to be introduced in the Florida legislature to ban the import, sales and acquisitions of all reptiles of concern.
The HSUS emphasizes that these measures must address all large constrictor snakes. If restrictions are placed only on a few species, the trade will shift to other species. This trend is already evident. The number of Burmese pythons imported into the United States dropped from about 14,000 in 2002 to 1,500 in 2006. The trade moved to captive bred animals and imports of other species. Imports of reticulated pythons increased from about 5,000 to 13,000 and anacondas increased from about 1,200 to 11,000 over this period.
Facts
Florida lists Burmese/Indian pythons, African rock pythons, amethystine pythons, reticulated pythons, green anacondas and Nile monitor lizards as "reptiles of concern," which currently require a permit and microchip to keep as pets.
Including all reptiles of concern is essential, and any action should include all anacondas, not just green anacondas, which are currently the only anaconda species listed as a reptile of concern. Yellow anacondas can also grow beyond 10 feet long and threaten people and wildlife.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee amended and approved H.R. 2811 on July 29. As introduced, the bill would have covered a range of python species. The committee amended the bill to cover only the subspecies Burmese pythons and species African rock pythons. The bill now moves to the full House for consideration.
A hunt for Burmese pythons in Florida is unlikely to make a dent in the problem because of the snakes' remarkable reproductive capacity and ability to blend into the environment.
-30-
Follow The HSUS on Twitter.
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization — backed by 11 million Americans, or one of every 28. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education, and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty — On the web at humanesociety.org.

[nanamouse]

I couldn't get the HSUS links to load on this computer, I assume you have documentation to back up your acusations?

[Hypancistrus]

The HSUS stands firmly against reptiles as pets. They do not believe they should be kept as pets and have been co-signors on most of the recent anti-reptile legislation. It's not accusation, it's fact.

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/wildlife_trade/live_reptile_trade/

"For public health, conservation, and humane reasons, The HSUS recommends that the general public forgo pet reptiles."

Here is the press release in which the HSUS backed the python ban recently proposed to the senate (SR 373):

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/hsus_calls_for_state_and_federal_action_on_large_c onstrictors_081009.html

For more information on the hidden agenda of HSUS and other supposed "pet friendly groups," please see Kathy Love's article on their impact and stance on the reptile trade.

http://www.cornutopia.com/Corn%20Utopia%20on%20the%20Web/-%20LURKING%20ENEMY%20Cornutopia%20corn%20snakes%20 cornsnakes.htm

[CKelly976]

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about 74,000 people each year get salmonellosis from reptiles and amphibians, which means 6% of Salmonella cases in the United States can be linked to these animals.

For the sake of human health, the CDC recommends that reptiles be kept out of households that include children and people with compromised immune systems, and that children and immunocompromised people avoid all contact with reptiles and items the animals have touched. Direct contact with a reptile is not necessary to become sick; Salmonella bacteria can live for days on surfaces.

Because of the health risk, it is illegal to sell small turtles (those with a shell length of less than 4 inches) as pets in the United States. The CDC estimates that this ban prevents an additional 100,000 cases of salmonellosis among children each year."


anyone who has the basic ability to read and comprehend would know better than to believe that nonsense.

Their numbers don't make any sense.

[PetNut]

Questions and Answers about Wild and Exotic Animals as Pets
This is straight from the HSUS website so it must be 100 % factual.


Ron Ornstein
1. Should Individuals Keep Wild or Exotic Animals as Pets?

No. Wild and exotic (non-native) animals are unsuitable for home rearing and handling. They have complex needs that are difficult to meet. Most individuals have neither the finances nor the experience to care for them properly. It has been estimated that 90% are dead within the first two years of captivity. Many wild animals forced into a domestic situation cause injury to humans, especially children. Others, if released into the environment, can cause irreversible and costly damage to our ecosystem.

2. When Is Captivity Justified?

Wild animals should only be kept in captivity by professional zoological facilities. The only individuals who should be allowed to have wild animals are licensed wildlife rehabilitators and certain breeders. In both cases, they should demonstrate a thorough knowledge of their field and an ability to care for the animal humanely.

3. Why Are Public Health and Safety Concerns?

Every year, privately owned wild animals seriously injure or kill humans. Pet snakes have suffocated babies; raccoons have killed children; and lions have mauled their owners. Individuals legitimately concerned about wild animals being kept in their neighborhoods regularly seek assistance in dealing with this problem.

Animals in traveling acts also present considerable danger to the public. One particularly notorious act involved a wrestling bear that, though muzzled and declawed, managed to bite off fingers and break bones.

Furthermore, wild and exotic animals carry a number of diseases that are transmissible to humans, including rabies, tuberculosis, hepatitis, tularemia, leptospirosis, salmonella, and ringworm, and other parasites.

4. How Does the Exotic Wild Animal Trade Cause Environmental Damage?

Wild animals often escape; others are abandoned by their owners. If they survive and become established in an environment where they do not belong, they compete with the resident animals for the limited resources of the area, in some cases completely overtaking and displacing the native animals, much to the detriment of the ecosystem. A classic example is the introduction of the Indian mongoose into Hawaii to eradicate rats in the sugar cane fields. The mongoose soon turned to feasting on other crops and on other animals, thereby pushing a number of native species to near-extinction.

These wild animals also bring diseases to which domestic or native wild animals have no immunity, such as deadly Newcastle disease, rabies, and brucellosis.

5. What Does the Future Hold for a Wild or Exotic Animal in Captivity?

Most owners are ignorant of a wild animal's needs. Their local veterinarian can neither properly diagnose nor effectively treat health problems. The animal's behavior is usually misunderstood and often radically altered in captivity as a result of inappropriate care; in order to domesticate the animal, the owner resorts to such "corrective measures" as defanging, declawing, and castration. When at last the owner decides to get rid of the animal, it is usually impossible to find her a new home. Obviously, other individuals are no better equipped than the original owner to care for her; reputable zoos, for a variety of reasons, generally do not accept such animals, and facilities that will take them must be regarded with suspicion. The few sanctuaries that exist are often stretched to the breaking point, and local animal shelters are ill-equipped to handle anything other than the occasional raccoon.

6. Doesn't the Federal Animal Welfare Act Protect Wild and Exotic Animals Owned as Pets?

The Animal Welfare Act, even if fully enforced, only provides protection to those animals in the custody of U.S. Department of Agriculture permit holders, i.e., research facilities, dealers, exhibitors, and operators of auctions. Thus, this law provides no protection for wild animals kept strictly as pets. Some states have laws that either forbid or regulate the ownership of wild animals, but they are in the distinct minority.

7. Who Would Be Adversely Affected by a Ban on Possession of Wild and Exotic Animals?

Most legislation would only affect those persons, businesses, or groups who want to sell or keep wild animals and those who wish to exploit animals for "entertainment" purposes; the legislation would not attempt to regulate laboratory activities or government-sponsored field studies. Legitimate possession of wild animals would continue with the welfare of the animals safeguarded. Such bills are not intended to criminalize purely unintentional or momentary captures of wild animals (e.g., a child picking up a toad in the woods). The specific intent required for possessory crimes, precautions written into the legislative history, and prosecutorial discretion are all safeguards against absurd applications of the statute.

8. How Much Can It Cost a Government to Have Such a Law?

A better question might be, "How much can it cost not to have one?" A government, state or local, does not have to incur much, if any, cost to enact and enforce this type of law. It can, however, incur great expense if it fails to control the private ownership of wild and exotic animals in some way. Local communities with such ordinances report that costs involved are negligible.

9. Do Any States Have This Kind of Law?

Yes. Georgia and California, for example, have two of the more comprehensive laws in the country. The Georgia statue relies on a strict permit system which, in operation, resembles a ban in that the private ownership of virtually all wild animals as pets does not qualify for a permit.

Relatively few state laws already on the books apply to all wild animals; many prohibit or restrict the private ownership of wild animals native to that state through their hunting and trapping regulations, or they involve just one or two species such as skunks, raccoons, or venomous snakes. A few, unfortunately, have the same shortcoming as some local laws; i.e., they either totally ignore or at best address only adequately the humane considerations of such ownership. Some of the newer ones, however, seem more conscious of this aspect of the problem. Few states make any provision for performing animals and other traveling exhibits or roadside menageries.

10. Would the Pet Industry Support This Type of Legislation?

Usually not. Remember, the pet industry is composed of people running businesses whose goal is to make a profit. They have shown little concern over the source of their animals or who will care for them after they are purchased. Dealing in exotic wild animals as pets is a big business.

[CKelly976]

those actually seem logical. people shouldn't have bears, lions, raccoons, skunks etc.

and really, their numbers aren't that off, my brother went through two iguanas before one of them lived, because really, a tank and some fresh veggies isn't a natural habitat. I can't argue with the points being made by what you just posted.

Right now as I look up at my Beardies tank I love the little guy to death, he's a real character butI also know that a few months ago he almost died. Because the petstore/breeders I got him from gave me completely incorrect information from the diet to the proper lighting...and they BREED them. I enjoy giving him baths, feeding him baby food (which is a trip to watch) mixing his little salad and watching him "hunt" the crickets but, really, thats my own enjoyment and what about all those beardies that breeder sent home with people giving them the same info he gave me?

I'm not saying I don't see why some would outrage at something like that but really, I completely understand it at the same time. And, all the responses made from your post made total sense and were logical. People shouldn't decide to make random animals pets and people are stupid and self serving, theres no reason why we should be allowed to just walk into the woods and grab up a skunk for our new pal, or house animals that we cannot actually give what they need because they're cute. its not fair to them.