Local breeder screwed over by neighbors!

I wrote a huge response to everyone, but don't deem it necessary to post at this time.

* Know that I have been allowed to apply and receive an exotic permit
* I have attempted to portray the best possible keeping as an "example" of proper animal ownership
* I have worked directly with USARK to handle this situation
* I do own several animals in the range of 5-15k, but this is PRIVATE collection for a reason :). NOT all my animals are 12k, don't believe everything you read.
* It is not a private community, but a township
* I have a secondary approved permit through the county as well (meaning 2 total exotic animal permits)
* I have drafted an emergency contingency plan regarding exotics, that is being utilized as an example by FEMA division of natural resource and state DVMs in time of emergency.

* Know that I have done my best, and if you feel anyone or yourself can do better. Please step forward and grab the torch, if not... I appreciate the response, but please try and remain positive as this type of situation is my LIFE... not just a story. I try to handle all situations with tact, we will leave that discussion at that.

*Last but not least is the discussion of law.... for those saying I broke the "law".... well in essence, I broke an "ordinance", which can be termed law if not SELECTIVELY enforced. So I leave you with this and good thoughts.

A LAW is not subjective nor is it SELECTIVE.... if a law is SELECTIVE... it is not law... but a BREACH OF THE "RULE OF LAW" thus tyrannical in nature.

I am happy as to the current outcome and the new found awareness across the country regarding regulations. My personal opinion is I have been an asset to the industry given the circumstances and my whole goal is education not intimidation.

~Cheers.

*Last point! (wife always said I have to have the last word haha, bless her).

I am the FIRST PERSON in CWH history to apply for an Exotic Animal Permit.... also the first to be APPROVED... :cool:

Mighty oak trees start with a little seed... as I have said in several of my interviews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DooLittle

Seems I've heard this before. It is the internet, and opinions are like bum holes. Everyone has one. Not everyone is going to think the same, or have the same opinion as you. You have to have tough enough skin, to take the people that agree with you, as well as the ones that don't, when you post something on the internet... Easy enough, don't post it, or don't whine about it when everyone doesn't agree.

---

It's good advice. I guess I was mostly disappointed in the lack of support for a herp owner that I personally admire. He has done a lot of good for the community, and I have never seen more positive press regarding reptiles than I have in his case. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I was just disappointed in the opinions that some people chose to voice. I'm always disappointed when I see the herp community harshly judge good people that have made mistakes.

Thomas has turned this mistake into an amazing opportunity to educate the public and our local law enforcement about these animals. I am grateful for everything he has done, and for the excellent example of a responsible pet owner and citizen that he sets.

People may argue that he should have known the law before moving there, but those same people might be surprised at the little laws they break on a daily basis without even knowing it. The government has things set up like this for a reason; so that they can punish good people whenever the need arises.

Most of us will be lucky enough to never be persecuted for our misunderstanding of or ignorance of the law. Thomas was not so lucky, but he has approached this in a productive way that has given the herp community some positive publicity that it definitely needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meowmeowkazoo

It's good advice. I guess I was mostly disappointed in the lack of support for a herp owner that I personally admire.

---

I don't think it was lack of support, I think it was that he needed to own up to the situation (which he did) and it shouldn't just be a pity party because he didn't do his homework. I'm glad everything worked out so great and it even sounds like he is raising the bar on what is permitted.

And to quote the TOS:

Quote:

---

8. No posts promoting illegal behavior will be tolerated, including but not limited to warez/pirating of copyrighted material, illegal drug or alcohol usage, and illegal ownership or trafficking of species.

---

Why should there have BEEN support of someone that by the first posting and articles, was a hobbyest who had illegal animals and then was mad they weren't given a permit? No one knew that he had THOUGHT he checked all the regulations, no one knew the details or even who he was(not that it matters).

If someone posts on here that they live in NYC and have a giant with no permit and gee, the cops told them they have to get rid of it and that's just UNFAIR and the city was screwing them over, they would get very little support. This looked like a similar case.

After all the details of the case unfold over the course of weeks, suddenly we have a different picture of a responsible owner who checked for state and county regulations, who took superb care of his animals(which we knew from the first article), who thought they were doing everything responsibly UNTIL the authorities found out that he was in error, that he needed a permit and busted him. AND we have a owner who as soon as he was told he needed a permit, he applied for that permit to be in compliance.

I think the only thing that would irk me is this insistence that somehow because most people who own animals that technically would fall under the same regulations are NOT hit by the cops, that somehow that makes it wrong for him to be hit.

When I drive to work, sometimes I might inch over the speed limit(cough cough) a little bit. If I get stopped and given a ticket, running some sort of big crusade that LOTS of other drivers also speed and are not given tickets doesn't advance anything positive. Just because not every driver that speeds is given a ticket does not automatically make it unfair that I got a ticket.

I can admire that he wants to work and change the regulations/laws and I do. I also admire that he's working hard both for his animals and for everyone else's animals. I'm very very glad they gave him his permit so that his headache can be over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meowmeowkazoo

People may argue that he should have known the law before moving there, but those same people might be surprised at the little laws they break on a daily basis without even knowing it.

---

Poignant, but irrelevant.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any change of substance to the laws of this nation that's ever happened without breaking that law first.

Here is the support for the good gentleman People DO NOT know how many laws they break daily and it is true the laws are selectively enforced. Someone did not like the flowers my mother planted and complained to the police, who took a report and we had to chop down the flowers there was no hoa and we owned the house . We were not liked because of my brother being handicapped. The way some laws are read parakeets and canaries are exotics but the little old lady is not ticketed or threatened. Not to mention guppies and all the fish varieties. Just pray they (your neighbors and the police) do not target you. :please:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Why should there have BEEN support of someone that by the first posting and articles, was a hobbyest who had illegal animals and then was mad they weren't given a permit? No one knew that he had THOUGHT he checked all the regulations, no one knew the details or even who he was(not that it matters).

If someone posts on here that they live in NYC and have a giant with no permit and gee, the cops told them they have to get rid of it and that's just UNFAIR and the city was screwing them over, they would get very little support. This looked like a similar case.

After all the details of the case unfold over the course of weeks, suddenly we have a different picture of a responsible owner who checked for state and county regulations, who took superb care of his animals(which we knew from the first article), who thought they were doing everything responsibly UNTIL the authorities found out that he was in error, that he needed a permit and busted him. AND we have a owner who as soon as he was told he needed a permit, he applied for that permit to be in compliance.

I think the only thing that would irk me is this insistence that somehow because most people who own animals that technically would fall under the same regulations are NOT hit by the cops, that somehow that makes it wrong for him to be hit.

When I drive to work, sometimes I might inch over the speed limit(cough cough) a little bit. If I get stopped and given a ticket, running some sort of big crusade that LOTS of other drivers also speed and are not given tickets doesn't advance anything positive. Just because not every driver that speeds is given a ticket does not automatically make it unfair that I got a ticket.

I can admire that he wants to work and change the regulations/laws and I do. I also admire that he's working hard both for his animals and for everyone else's animals. I'm very very glad they gave him his permit so that his headache can be over.

---

What was unfair and brought up by the city attorney was that I was not warned and allowed to apply for a permit. I was refused a permit application 4 separate times and told I could not apply. The city attorney stepped forward and himself said that was unjust. Any CWH citizen over the age of 18 HAS THE RIGHT, per their ordinance to apply.... whether it is accepted is another case.

I was flat out denied an application for 4 consecutive attempts to obtain. Only after the meeting was it deemed legitimate to give me said permit. I reiterate as well, I am the FIRST CWH citizen to ever apply and receive said permit. It was stated that the authorities "thought I was growing "something" else".... ie: Marijuana.

Regulation of personal property not affecting the general public or city is a level of government control I do not agree with.... Relate it to firearms and the battle going on there. Or take the word snake and replace with the word pottery... How can I legitimately break and ordinance/law via lack of permit, when there was no permit even available until after I was cited for not having one? It's like writing someone a speeding ticket, before they unlock that car door and put it in drive. Bit of quandary :).

But that's not what you keep saying. You didn't say "They should have given me a warning" you said it was unjust because other people break the law(by owning 'exotics') and so it's unjust to give you grief unless they give everyone grief.

It sounds like it was a huge mess, as local politics usually are. But how could there have been no permit available if the law was on the books(thus you broke it, you listed the ordinance)? Even if they had to write a permit up, it still existed if the ordinance said "You can apply for a permit".

It's not like writing a ticket before the person gets in the car. Did the ordinance exist when you moved into that place? According to what you were saying before, it did exist. You might not have known about it, but it existed.

It's more unfair when people pass a NEW ordinance and don't allow any "grandfathered" pets that existed before the law came into being. In florida when they made several species illegal, they SAID originally that if you owned it before the law, you were fine, grandfathered in. Then after it passed, they said you had to APPLY for that special permit to keep your pets. You just had to hope that they issued the permits to you. NOW(after a certain amount of time had passed), getting a permit is near impossible, and you can't get a new pet.

BUT... many many people who have had their pets for decades, happily keeping them in their homes, responsibly, now are in violation, because the State never advertised that the laws would be changing. They aren't "hobbyists" or breeders, and aren't on websites that shout these changes for weeks. In fact, I would guess that at least 90% of the public that I talk to don't know that those species are illegal to own unless you have those permits already.