So, I was reading a World Atlas book...

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by bcr226

Obviously you've never testified before a committee on the Federal or state level. Yeah, they bring up all sorts of stuff that has been debunked. If it forwards their agenda, they'll use it. A perfect example is the 43 children die a day from guns in the US. That was debunked back in 1992 but the anti gun side still use it as if it were cast in stone.

You'll get asked questions like this..

So, what background do you have that makes you an expert in this field to say that this accepted text is incorrect?

You say you collect these animals, do you have a degree in husbandry relating to these specific breeds that would show a level of competence that can be taken seriously by this committee?

We understand that you collect these animals but why should we believe what you are saying is accurate? Your collecting these animals could very well overrule the fact that these creatures are dangerous and need to be regulated.

That is the kind of stuff you hear. Ever read the transcripts of the committee hearings on the Lacey Act? You might want to because there were several things that were brought up to get it passed that are absolutely untrue. But they used it.

But of course, I've only got over 20 years of experience dealing with political committees. I'm sure you know better than I on the subject.

If you took a moment you would realize I would never have to deal with anything on a State or Federal level. We don't do our exotics on such a broad scale even though I wish we would.

We recently attended a meeting on a municipal level and we got the wheels turning to keep the laws from outright banning exotics. All it took was the right words and background information of our own with facts. Now it will be like the surrounding areas.

So in conclusion,

My limited political experience - 1

Your vast political experience - 0

[Danimal]

Misinformation and untruths are only misleading and untrue if there is failure to prove your point in a way that creates an environment where those things cannot exist. And when it is addressed in this way successfully, every time the questionable information is taken up as a weapon it only succeeds in weakening the foundation of the argument in which it seeks to prop up.

There were a few things that jumped out at me when I read this exchange. Apples and oranges first. Michael it appears that you are attempting to compare 2 situations that are similar but not the same. Your view is too narrow. Aaron was clear that he was not operating at the same level you were talking about. Unless I am reading it wrong, the answer to your question lies in your own post.

Originally Posted by bcr226

I can't say that on the subject of snakes. Can you? Yes, I have a collection of snakes but it's a hobby for my family, not a career. I'm dealing with one of our state Senators right now on the matter of snakes. He doesn't believe that there is a $15 million+ industry in my state for exotic pets. He wants proof that a ban will have a significant impact on the revenue of the state. He believes all pythons and boas will eat our children and choke us to death in our sleep. He doesn't believe me and won't because frankly, in the herp world, I'm an absolute nobody. He doesn't care if my argument is right or wrong. He has documentation to back his stance. Probably from books that are decades old...

20 years of dealing with committees is irrelevant at this point because you have no expert testimony, real or perceived and they quickly disarmed you. You know this, you know how they work. Yet you would walk into this knowing the outcome? Imagine being confronted with this article , that so offends you, in committee as a piece of evidence. Now imagine the impact on their position when you produce an adult snake as your evidence for your position that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Now who is disarmed. That didn't take a degree to figure out.
You could also lend your experience to someone who has the credentials that they would be looking for, another weapon taken away.
**I am not trying to pile on you Michael, just offering a different perspective.

Generally speaking in my opinion.
We have to, as a community, come together and present a unified front of information, education and oversight to assuage the fears of the opposition. They are not completely wrong, invasive species, for instance, is a real concern. We have people who would address this by saying, thinking and/or implying that those people are stupid. The chance of that happening are slim to none and it should be a non issue. This kind of infantile rational will undermine our position, it is as ignorant as the other.

There is a lot of ignorance to be addressed and guess what? That's our problem, not theirs. We can say 'they don't get it' and 'they are stupid' but if we allow that ignorance to spread we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

[bcr226]

Originally Posted by Danimal

Misinformation and untruths are only misleading and untrue if there is failure to prove your point in a way that creates an environment where those things cannot exist. And when it is addressed in this way successfully, every time the questionable information is taken up as a weapon it only succeeds in weakening the foundation of the argument in which it seeks to prop up.

There were a few things that jumped out at me when I read this exchange. Apples and oranges first. Michael it appears that you are attempting to compare 2 situations that are similar but not the same. Your view is too narrow. Aaron was clear that he was not operating at the same level you were talking about. Unless I am reading it wrong, the answer to your question lies in your own post.



20 years of dealing with committees is irrelevant at this point because you have no expert testimony, real or perceived and they quickly disarmed you. You know this, you know how they work. Yet you would walk into this knowing the outcome? Imagine being confronted with this article , that so offends you, in committee as a piece of evidence. Now imagine the impact on their position when you produce an adult snake as your evidence for your position that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Now who is disarmed. That didn't take a degree to figure out.
You could also lend your experience to someone who has the credentials that they would be looking for, another weapon taken away.
**I am not trying to pile on you Michael, just offering a different perspective.

Generally speaking in my opinion.
We have to, as a community, come together and present a unified front of information, education and oversight to assuage the fears of the opposition. They are not completely wrong, invasive species, for instance, is a real concern. We have people who would address this by saying, thinking and/or implying that those people are stupid. The chance of that happening are slim to none and it should be a non issue. This kind of infantile rational will undermine our position, it is as ignorant as the other.

There is a lot of ignorance to be addressed and guess what? That's our problem, not theirs. We can say 'they don't get it' and 'they are stupid' but if we allow that ignorance to spread we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Which brings me back to my original point. We need to spread correct knowledge and any references no matter the age that is incorrect needs to be shared and prepared for.

This is one of those references. Yes, it's 30 years old but it's still something we have to be prepared to fight. Dismissing it out of hand is a huge mistake.

[Danimal]

I believe your heart is in the right place and your passion is admirable however the notion that information like that is what puts us at risk is absurd. I wasn't suggesting it be ignored, but I will say that it poses no real threat. We should only hope that is the kind of information that is held up against us, it's so easily to refuted.