That is a good way to think about it. “Virtually anything could be considered ‘injurious’, even the most basic/popular nonliving things in everyone’s life, so why don’t we just take out the smallest minority of pet keepers?” 
1 Like
Smallest minority? Read that bill again. As it currently reads the only animals on the whitelist are cats, dogs, and agricultural livestock. No pet rabbits, gerbils, hampsters, guinea pigs, rats, mice, sugar gliders, fish (salt or fresh), insects, arthropods, birds, snakes, lizards, turtles, tortises, geckos, or anything else. Not even pet rocks are on the list. A “whitelist”, by existing creates a “blacklist”. They are placing all kept, which is to say non-wild animals in human care into a binary solution set. The way the bill is written means if an animal is not A then it is B, there is no C. It is a poorly written amendment. Like a ninth grader’s wishlist. Whoever wrote this for the sponsor did not do a good job. When an amendment is this broadly written it draws too much fire and is certain to be challenged. This is like putting out a house fire by dropping a comet from orbit. It will work, but you’re going to make a huge mess. First thing is every pet owner who has to/wants to move becomes a felon for smuggling animals illegally, second thing is you just gave illegal smuggling of animals for sale a huge boost in pay and made alot of folks on the state borders alot of money. Don’t think so? Ever heard of Prohibition, moonshiners, the origins of NASCAR? Look it up.
4 Likes
Amen! People need to start writing laws that are more precise so it doesn’t leave huge areas of unknown.
1 Like
Can’t remember who said it or the exact quote, but it was something like “every time they pass a new law, they make a new criminal”.
Just seems like the way this one is written, it will create criminals by accident out of perfectly law abiding pet owners.
2 Likes
By accident?
Nah, it’s intentional, IMO.
3 Likes