[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 10:57:09 11/17/06 Fri
Subject: I, of course, concur. In my new home state, I did first inquire ...
In reply to:
S. K. Dixon
's message, "OK, You're done, but I'm not!" on 08:20:43 11/17/06 Fri
(I, of course, concur. In my new home state, I did first inquire ...) about the legality issue. I was informed that the reason behind the prohibition was the USDA does not have a flying squirrel approved vaccine for rabies, and thus, residents are prohibited from keeping flyers as companions (regardless as to whether they are from long-time domesticated stock, or not ...). I did then ask if state residents are prohibited from keeping mice, rats, gerbils, hamsters, rabbits, yaddayaddayadda, and was told, 'No, even tho there is no USDA approved rabies vaccine for use in these species, these are exempt from the prohibition because they have been 'traditionally' kept companion animals.' When I advised that I could easily establish that flying squirrels have been kept as companions since colonial days, and have even been kept as companion animals IN THE WHITEHOUSE, I was met with the email equivalent of a bureaucratic blank stare.
Unfortunately for all humanity, bureaucrats have far more pressing things to consider, in today's world, than reconsidering legislation that prohibits the keeping of a companion flyer. So, there is little sense in drawing attention to the issue by trying to get some legislator to propose an amendment to the existing law. Instead, in my case, I take a 'don't ask, don't tell' attitude, and occasionally regret for a number of reasons that I didn't move futher south, when I left my LI home (where flyers didn't come under any restrictive laws, other than the laws prohibiting cruelty to animals, in general). Florida -- Texas -- for heaven's sake, even NEW JERSEY -- these states permit companion flyers. My current home state, and its surrounding neighbours, prohibit flyers. But you can kill one, using a snap-trap, if it's a nuisance to you. sigh.
It's amazing and depressing to me that the very states that permit the trapping and killing of flyers that invade the home prohibit the keeping of companion flyers. It's an absurd world. But such is one of the 'lesser' of the world's absurdities, IMHO ....
>Connie, I totally agree with your anger at the law
>that puts good, loving, caring people in a position of
>having a flying squirrel illegally! And I am grateful
>every day that I am not in that position! My
>statement simply gives folk, like Squiggy's Mom, an
>answer to nosey folk's questions about this critter
>she is buying items for or transporting on her body,
>etc. Sometimes if you give out too much info it can
>get you in a sticky situation. Ask my good friend
>Gail S. about that! Her heart was nearly broken. In
>Florida I am legal; when I travel to NC (through GA,
>SC, and NC), I am often asked what's in my cages (when
>I stop for gas, etc. I open up the back gate to check
>on everyone and pass out treats for travelers!) and my
>reply is always "Oh, a few domestic birds and some
>furry friends". If more questions come, those furry
>friends are sugar gliders. If I had to call them rats
>in order to keep them, I would!
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |