Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plattsmouth, NE
Well, most of us aren't ready to give up without a fight, and don't have so dark a view of things as you seem to.
As for who's responsible for what, HSUS, The Nature Conservancy, and Defenders of Wildlife were huge supporters of the effort to see these species listed, and they put their $$ into it, as well as their advertising. What they did definitely played a role in allow Salazar and the FWS to do what THEY did.
Again, this is about the MONEY. Because adding these animals to the Lacey Act accomplishes nothing to help the Everglades, and nothing to help the snakes. It doesn't have anything to do with how naughty or nice the reptile trade has been. There are exotic species from all over the globe in the Everglades, and in terms of damage, the snakes don't even make it into the top 100. Feral cats are doing more damage there than the Burms could hope to.
So, don't make this about something it's not. This is not the 'just reward' for bad practices in the reptile industry--it's about politicians and greed, and picking on the most vulnerable for personal gain.
Most folks in the reptile industry feel that reasonable licensing and microchipping for dangerous animals is justifiable, but most of the species being targeted for bans aren't dangerous. There is no cause to take away the rights of responsible people to keep the animals they love, and participate in the hobby that they love. We can and we should fight any and all bans on the keeping of pets.
What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that banning the ownership of cats and dogs would be fine, because so many are abused, neglected, and homeless. Is that REALLY what you wanted to say?
Problems aren't fixed by driving pet ownership underground into the black market.