I have to agree with Mason. Why on earth would that be the angle they take? It IS economic based it is NOT conservation and research based. The lawyer that recommended that route should be fired. This article doesn't go into it, but I'm curious to hear the elevator pitch on why the ban is disruptive to research and conservation efforts.
Meanwhile "we need more pet owners to speak up!" has been the message we are getting from USARK. Which is it, do you want pet owners to speak up or do you want 5 random university grad students who happen to do their thesis on constrictor snakes to speak up? Am I reading or interpreting this wrong?
Reply With Quote