In QLD our laws are just that. We do not own our reptiles. The government owns our reptiles, and i would still like to get a group together to get the box keepers banned. I look at my animals as family. Now there is no chance of EPA taking my family away. & it would be stupid of them to try. But others i have seen. I would call it. Not even looking after. Very sad & something needs to happen. Mik
@birdgrl6 Trying to show the difference between keeping and owning. i would keep or care for, not posses or 'own'a living creature. Think of reptiles as children in your care not as a toy.
@billflowers It's not like reptile owners don't have a say in it as well. We can also fight for our rights, but it seems that we are greatly outnumbered.
@billflowers I am not one who is against live feeding. But do you really think that some videos on youtube are going to get banned? That doesn't seem too likely.
@SilverDragon5432266 Youtube does not care, I'm talking about the effect it will have on public opinion. The more reptile keepers look bad, tougher rules will come in and some reptiles might be banned in some states.
Laws are made on public emotions more than science.
@SilverDragon5432266 By showing live feeding on youtube the live feeding reptile keepers are inciting animal activist to push for a ban. if it is not justified in anyway it just looks cruel, and most live feeding videos are set to heavy metal music and is shown as entertainment.
So live feeding, bad keeping which is cruel to snakes and snake escapes is what will cause a ban.
The ban will come because a few keepers are dickheads and will made all keepers look bad.
@billflowers Of corse I have a relationship with them! When did I say that I didn't? Are you trying to say that you're not one of those annoying activists who are trying to get reptiles banned? Yes I respect life. But I will do what it takes to care for my reptiles.
@SilverDragon5432266 I've kept reptiles for more than 20 years. I see great value in people living along side of snakes, it gives people a greater understanding of snakes and they become advocates to protect them.
If you watch this video I'm talking about ownership and the word 'own'.
'Own' should be replaced by 'keep'
You say you do what it takes to care for your reptiles then you are a keeper not an owner. You own toys you care for or keep animals.
Couldn't agree with you more Bill. I think we tend to use the word 'own' just out of habit a lot, since it has become such a common phrase, but we still, we really don't 'own' a pet or any living creature. I also think it is kind of mean to captivate more species, because they die the day man dies off. I feel however that it is very much our duty to take care of and find as many caring homes for the animals already domesticated.
yes u own the children untillthere 16! u control them, they obey, they must obey untill there 16. it the law. so maybe once my wter dragon is 5 years old i will let him out on his own ifhe pays rent lol. PET = SLAVE period. i agree kinda with what ur saying but i have accepted the fact that its my slave not my pet i do take great care of my slave
yes u own the children untillthere 16! u control them, they obey, they must obey untill there 16. it the law. so maybe once my wter dragon is 5 years old i will let him out on his own ifhe pays rent lol. PET = SLAVE period. i agree kinda with what ur saying but i have accepted the fact that its my slave not my pet
okay so what you're trying to say is that your pet is your slave, right? It's your slave when you are the one devoting your time to keeping it alive, keeping it in a nice enclosure, and hand feeding it. Yeah, you sound that you're a class A person. you have a lot of common sense.... haha, not
@MaxxHerps your average "class A" citizen is a slave to the government. im not a class a citizen sorry . u need to stop and think real hard.nice enclosure? have u seen the jungle they live in? then they get down graded to my enlcosure? now if you where a free person living in a housethen u got turned into a slave and downgraded to a closet or a barn floor to sleep on thats equivalent to me taking my lizards from a jungle sticking them in a 4x8 box , in my opinion.
Okay, so now you're saying you are abusing the animals? Animal abuse is a crime. YOU need to think real hard about what you say, cuz you're digging yourself a big hole. Also, by saying you are not a "slave" to the government, you are coming across as you try to be a "rebel". If you haven't noticed, the U.S. is a free country, not a communist country. So, nobody is a "slave" to the government in the U.S. Like i said before, think before you say something.
@MaxxHerps you live in a bubble then wake up . do u know what s going on in the world or the clowns that run ur country ? my conditions are far from classified as animal abuse. just because the government doesnt classify it as "animal abuse " doesnt mean it is. did u watch this video . thats the fukn point hes trying to get accross i thoght?! just because u can own a reptile doesnt make it right. are u a fuckn idiot or u just wanna argue?
@milldabeast519- Read my comment again.... I was saying YOU make it sound like it's animal abuse. You are sitting here telling people that a pet is a slave. But, then you go and try and tell the point of this video. Do YOU even understand? If you do, work on your literary skills so peopl can actually understand what in the hell you're trying to get across. Calling me a fucking idiot? Yeah, I was wrong... you're a class A dumbass.
@MaxxHerps yes they are our slaves and yes its legal to have slaves/pets there the same thing kid ur fuckn dumb. u live in america and ur a slave.give ur president the peace prize then lt him invade ppl! u eat what the government tells u . ur poisoned to there regulations. and everything u do revolves areound there rules. what the fuk is the deffinition of slave? people have forgot. or is it the fact that i have accepted and have no problem owning a slave/pet not getting through ur thick skull?
@milldabeast519- Okay dumbass, I'm getting sick of your little shit about living in the U.S. We are virtually free in this country, they don't tell us how many kids we can have, how much we can make for a living, where to live, and we have the freedom of speech. You are throwing the word "slave" around like it's an okay thing, that we can have "slaves". That our pets are our "slaves". It's not okay. You appearantly don't understand the definition of slave, pets to beckon to our every call.
@MaxxHerps freedom of speech is all u have left. right arent laws.your 15? what do u know about the real world really.hahaha (Law) a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property (my lizard)2. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) a person who is forced to work for another against his will(his work is entertaining me)
@MaxxHerps 3. a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence(im the other person)4.a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay(his low pay would be the low quality mass production of insects that pet stores produce vs the high quality nutritous one in the wild. just like the food they feed people. why do u think there health supplements stores. because geneticaly modifying foods also causes them to loose most of there nutritous values. msg me in a decade kid
@MaxxHerps plus the entertainment i get from them is worth more then the effort i put into them. if they where more work and i didnt enjoy them why wouldi have them. just like a slave. if its gona cost me more money 2 feed him and hes got a gimp leg why keep him. but if his labour is worth more the the effort it takes to keep him alive.
okay thats cool ill agree with that i mean i love my snakes, they could leave anytime if they wanted. and ill tell u what imma gonna do, this summer im gonna take each of my snakes out in the yard set them on the ground and if they slither right off i will let them. and if they dont then thats that.
i've felt the same way my whole life!! BUT i love animals so much that i've always surrounded myself with them. and i also feel like, there's nothing you can do...i mean, think about how many animals there are now do to pet trade, the majority of these animals would not be able to survive in the wild if released and would over populate an area anyways. but if it is not a domesticated animal, i understand why a person should not possess one...but it's how this world is.
you definitely have a point there, but if your child is taken away from you, do you consider them kidnapped? or stolen like you bought and "own" them? not trying to start anything, i just have my opinion.
Nice thought. I happen to disagree. Is that leather you're wearing? If so, it's pretty likely that they were owned in life before you own their skin in death.
I love your philosophy and ideas behind herpetology. You are very frank and I think herpers young and old should listen to what you have to say and follow it. Keep posting my friend; these people need to hear this.
Humans have been on this planet for a few thousand years and have reduced it to an un-tollerable state that in human minds they have no choice to own it and think they own the creatures on it. But we actually own humans, we make them give us food, water, warmth, and attention. Now who is smarter?
I totally agree. It is our right as a non human to expect quality care while we are giving humans such joy. You would not invite a friend to live with you but deny them food, water, warmth, and attention. At any given moment, returned to our natural environment, our given instincts with kick in and we would survive. How could we not be so smart as to survive, We have been on this planet for an enternity and it has treated us well.
Agree! I've been thinking this for years. We are their carers, not their owners. But for me to be a carer of an animal, I feel I need a good, legitimate reason (education purposes for example) and to have the appropriate time and resources. Otherwise I think it's plain disrespectful to the animal.
Bill that is the most powerfull video I have yet to see on youtube! This is a hard hitter for the reptile comunity and it is so true! No one OWN'S a living thing, dure one could take care of it but no one ones a living creature! Thanks for the video,,, you continue to amaze me!!
Very good points, I have to agree, It's the same way as you care for the local wildlife in your area, you care for them by leaving food out and water, and providing homes, just the same as you do pets, however they decided what to do you cannot tell them what they must do as they live on the earth alongside us we should not rule over anything on this earth..
i personally say i HAVE a reptile. Its impossible to own anything that's living. All living things have free will, if i owned my snake then i could control everything that it does. Since it is impossible to do this then i cant own it, i can have and care for it. Its like you can have a dvd, but you still don't own the movie that's on that dvd
nice perspective, most people own to impress. To love is to let go i believe. Its really a double bladed sword and theres no true way to describe it. very interesting though. very debatable too. nice way to stir up thought =]
Regarding interspecies relationships, the only rule regarding ownership must be might is right. A cow does not consent to be butchered. A bear does not ask a fish whether it wants to be eaten. Furthermore, by caging a beast a human assumes a right of ownership. You are a caretaker to a caged beast in the same way a prison guard is a caretaker to a caged person. The animal is confined to a space, habitat, diet, and feeding time you have designated for it. The relationship is master-slave.
You always think up an interesting angle, don't you?
You are right, I think of it as might is wrong but insists upom being right. As a zoo keeper i see the might of humans is to destroy habitat and being a zoo keeper is to rebel against humans to save speices. but that is zoos today, in the past zoos were one of the worst offenders. Animals in good zoos have their on habitat, feed often when they want to and are allow to hide from humans.
the few times I had a "real" JOB I felt less freedom.
I'm not sure what you mean by "insists upon being right", but "might is right" is only the law of nature governing interspecies relationships. It is perfectly rational for one animal to exploit another animal if it is profitable for the exploiter. If cows were carniverous, found humans delicious, and had the means, we would be bred as food. If chimps found humans amusing and had the means, we would be in zoos. It is only natural that the lion who feels empathy for canelope will die.
yes you're right again. humans exploit animals because we are animals, just like the lion. often only thinking of where that next meal is going to come from...
B U T
humans can imagine into the future, a handful of humans can see that we are destroying that which sustains us for short term profit. Some things in nature work together, the croc doesn't kill the bird that eats it's mites.
A cattle owner doesn't slaughter all of his cattle. A fishery owner doesn't catch all of his fish. A tree farmer doesn't cut down all of his trees. A king doesn't tax too heavily so as to maintain the value of his estate. All of these are actions performed by humans with consideration for the future. Whether they have found the golden mean is up for interpretation, but negative externalities can be internalized or reduced in the context of a proper incentive system. Humans only act rationally.
Here in Tasmania tree farming cannot keep up with demand of pulp mill, so since white people got here they have been cutting down the forest. Yes some people consider to future, but competion from other pulp mills forces them to think about short term profits.
Business also works by survival of the fitest, as does religion, art and culture.
Animals only think of the next meal, humans are animals.
How a logging company operates depends upon whether the land they use is owned or leased by the government. If leased, then it is only rational for Joe the logging executive to cut the whole forest down and leave the place a barren wasteland. If Joe the logging executive owns the land, then it is only profitable for Joe to ensure that his property continues to yield income. Joe won't leave his property a barren wasteland for the same reason a pig farmer won't slaughter every one of his pigs.
What if Joe has to keep up with another country that has no limits on how many trees are taken and so slips the goverment some cash under the table and cuts more than he should?
I don't understand. If the land is for lease there is no reason for Joe to slip the government some cash under the table. The transaction is perfectly legal. My point is only that Joe will do what is best for Joe, and if the government leases land it is only rational of Joe to destroy it. If the government sells land it is only rational of Joe to take care of it. You can't blame Joe for doing what's best for Joe, and it makes even less sense to blame all of humanity for the actions of a few.
I still don't understand. There is no potential for corruption in this hypothetical scenario. If the land is available for lease then Joe will simply make the legal transaction. There is no reason to be conspicuos about it. It's like going into a gas station and whispering to the clerk, "I'll give you a dollar for this pack of gum." Assuming people are selfish, the only logical solution to deforestation is for the government to sell rather than lease some of its land.
If deforestation is a problem to be avoided, then the only logical solution short of abolishing industry is for the government to sell some of its land. My point is that the problem you bring up isn't a necessary consequence of industry. It is government mismanagement of natural resources that leads to the destruction of the natural environment.
Regarding human destruction of the natural environment, a brilliant economist and environmentalist by the name of Walter Block explores issues ranging from tree farming, to fishing, to pollution, to oil spills, and everything inbetween. I think I remember watching an interview of him on youtube if you want to search his name and get an interesting perspective on these matters.
"Animals in good zoos have their on habitat, feed often when they want to and are allow to hide from humans.."
A nice cage is still a cage. A slave can accept a meal from its master and still be a slave. The animals are confined, and if they try to leave they are subdued and again imprisoned. This is, by any meaningful definition of the word, ownership.
Humans imprision themselves, confine themselves to small boxes, most are slaves to a master. We call that master the boss, we call slavery a job. the best part of the day is owned by someone else and then you have to crawl back into your box for the night.
In the case of the human male, he has work in burning sun and cold rains. better for him if he was in a modern zoo.
Has Emma Goldman risen from the grave? Obviously the difference between a cage and a house is that one is confinement and the other is chosen. You can live in a house, or choose not to. Your living conditions are decided by you. Every aspect of a prisoner's living conditions are decided upon by others. Also, life is a series of self sustaining activity. Productive action (jobs) is necessary for survival. If they are forced jobs, it is slavery. If they are chosen jobs, it is voluntary.
Port Arthur in Tasmania didn't have walls, convicts suffered prison because to wander off into the bush meant death by freezing or hunger. Work of some kind is necessary for survival.
But another point I was making is that humans build their own cages, houses. Animals often need to find shelter and sometimes build a nest, Humans spend most of their lives selling their freedom to others to pay off something much bigger than they need for survival.
First of all, houses and cages are very different. Prisoners don't shop for cages, or put down payments on cages, or even choose cages. Humans sell their time and energy for houses by choice. Humans make a decision to buy a house, and that decision is a choice that has been made freely. There's a difference between selling your freedom, the ability to choose how to spend your life, time, and energy, and selling your time and energy.
This only proves a person can lack the means. It has nothing to do with living conditions being forced on a person by other people. This person is still a sovereign being and not owned by anyone, whereas an imprisoned animal is owned.
Second of all, for most humans survival isn't the only motivating factor for action. Survival isn't what motivates me to watch a movie or read a book. Humans value comfortability, good tasting food, privacy, amusement, friendship, love, happiness, etc., and these things motivate humans to act along with survival. This is all besides the fact the majority of humans live in little clay huts, drink contaminated water, and work their asses off just to get by.
bill has chosen to create an idiosyncratic definition of the word 'own' but he does define his distinction which makes his point valid. i just have to do a little translation.
what matters, then, is how the owner deals with his property- he develops it, perhaps, according to its nature; he may disregard its nature and destroy it too.
that is his right.
nature always provides the ultimate feedback and judgement.
So if I understand, Bill is not objecting to species ownership in general, but rather appealing to all masters' sentiments for benevolence towards their subdued animals in captivity?
great point but what about cattle farmers or pig farmers? They make money from their animals and couldn't if they didn't 'own' them to start off with...
It is great seeing someone identify the difference between caring for a pet and think they own the pet. You don't get a pet like a reptile that most people don't have to show off to your firends, you get a reptile because you have a passion for them.
I completely agree. I especially identify with the idea of parents owning their children. But that segues into a long ass rant about my parents and why I've been in therapy and on meds for years.
Jeez at first I was really mad because you had a tiger snake but then I saw the rest of the video and you have a great point I saw I own a snake all the time with out thinking about it, I will think next time though ha.
i see what you are talking about and i agree completely mate, you can only really own an inanimate object, the snake is its own independant being, you just provide its care etc
You and Herper666 were the first to pop into my head as keepers, I've kept reptiles for more than 20 years and I'm impressed by the way you keep your reptiles.
brilliant video Bill I totally see where your coming from and never thoght bout the terminology like that before... but your right, people don't own animals, they take care of them.
After watching this video, I became dissilusioned about owning my own trouser snake... so I took it to the Parks & Wildlife office for advice, and they told me to just release it back in the same bush where I found it!
Well if the bush is a friendly habitat with subterranean shelter it may do well and surface from time to time and you may sometimes still catch a glimpse of him, but if you get it in the wrong bush it may fall prey to some predatory creature, die a cruel death, maybe even just lose to will to live and you will regret it for the rest of your life.
Very well stated Bill. We are all creatures of our maker and have our own individual lives each one a blessing and nobody or anything owns another. I am complimented by having snakes to love and care for and they enrich my life and me as an individual because we grow together. 5*s
Nice to see ya Bill. So damn true what you say. I "own " a dog. I bought him, got him fixed, pay his med bills, feed and care for him. But none of that means I own him. He is his own being , he just so happens to love us right back ;)
hey big bill, i want to tell you about my neighbor, Bob. He is a real interesting fellow. Has strange habits, not like mine. So, I decided to catch him, in a net; then i locked him up in my basement. I take real good care of Bob. He asked me the other day, "who do i think you are, my owner?" I said no Bob, I don't own you i like watching you and i am taking care of you from now on. Well, Bob is not too happy, except when i send him a pepperoni pizza. Bill, should I set Bob free?
You sir, are my hero.
Vincentvondoom 1 week ago
In QLD our laws are just that. We do not own our reptiles. The government owns our reptiles, and i would still like to get a group together to get the box keepers banned. I look at my animals as family. Now there is no chance of EPA taking my family away. & it would be stupid of them to try. But others i have seen. I would call it. Not even looking after. Very sad & something needs to happen. Mik
HunterReptileRooms 2 weeks ago
Wait... You said you had two snakes...
birdgrl6 3 months ago
@birdgrl6 Trying to show the difference between keeping and owning. i would keep or care for, not posses or 'own'a living creature. Think of reptiles as children in your care not as a toy.
billflowers 3 months ago
@billflowers I wish more people had this mind-set!
Vincentvondoom 1 week ago
@DracaDragon Someones lost their mind... Why are you talking like your not human? Your just humiliating yourself.
SilverDragon5432266 7 months ago
@billflowers It's not like reptile owners don't have a say in it as well. We can also fight for our rights, but it seems that we are greatly outnumbered.
SilverDragon5432266 7 months ago
@billflowers I am not one who is against live feeding. But do you really think that some videos on youtube are going to get banned? That doesn't seem too likely.
SilverDragon5432266 7 months ago
@SilverDragon5432266 Youtube does not care, I'm talking about the effect it will have on public opinion. The more reptile keepers look bad, tougher rules will come in and some reptiles might be banned in some states.
Laws are made on public emotions more than science.
billflowers 7 months ago
@billflowers Try to get them banned?
SilverDragon5432266 7 months ago
@SilverDragon5432266 By showing live feeding on youtube the live feeding reptile keepers are inciting animal activist to push for a ban. if it is not justified in anyway it just looks cruel, and most live feeding videos are set to heavy metal music and is shown as entertainment.
So live feeding, bad keeping which is cruel to snakes and snake escapes is what will cause a ban.
The ban will come because a few keepers are dickheads and will made all keepers look bad.
billflowers 7 months ago
@billflowers I suppose that makes sense. I figured that you're just one of those people who are trying to get them banned.
SilverDragon5432266 7 months ago
@SilverDragon5432266 I think the live feeders will do that.
billflowers 7 months ago
@billflowers Of corse I have a relationship with them! When did I say that I didn't? Are you trying to say that you're not one of those annoying activists who are trying to get reptiles banned? Yes I respect life. But I will do what it takes to care for my reptiles.
SilverDragon5432266 7 months ago
@SilverDragon5432266 I've kept reptiles for more than 20 years. I see great value in people living along side of snakes, it gives people a greater understanding of snakes and they become advocates to protect them.
If you watch this video I'm talking about ownership and the word 'own'.
'Own' should be replaced by 'keep'
You say you do what it takes to care for your reptiles then you are a keeper not an owner. You own toys you care for or keep animals.
billflowers 7 months ago
FUCK YOU. I WILL OWN A REPTILE UNTIL I DIE.
SilverDragon5432266 7 months ago
@SilverDragon5432266 So you don't have a relationship with your reptiles? you don't respect life? you just own them like a toy or a pair of socks?
billflowers 7 months ago
Couldn't agree with you more Bill. I think we tend to use the word 'own' just out of habit a lot, since it has become such a common phrase, but we still, we really don't 'own' a pet or any living creature. I also think it is kind of mean to captivate more species, because they die the day man dies off. I feel however that it is very much our duty to take care of and find as many caring homes for the animals already domesticated.
ValkyereHowie 11 months ago
yes u own the children untillthere 16! u control them, they obey, they must obey untill there 16. it the law. so maybe once my wter dragon is 5 years old i will let him out on his own ifhe pays rent lol. PET = SLAVE period. i agree kinda with what ur saying but i have accepted the fact that its my slave not my pet i do take great care of my slave
milldabeast519 11 months ago
yes u own the children untillthere 16! u control them, they obey, they must obey untill there 16. it the law. so maybe once my wter dragon is 5 years old i will let him out on his own ifhe pays rent lol. PET = SLAVE period. i agree kinda with what ur saying but i have accepted the fact that its my slave not my pet
milldabeast519 11 months ago
@milldabeast519
okay so what you're trying to say is that your pet is your slave, right? It's your slave when you are the one devoting your time to keeping it alive, keeping it in a nice enclosure, and hand feeding it. Yeah, you sound that you're a class A person. you have a lot of common sense.... haha, not
MaxxHerps 11 months ago
@MaxxHerps your average "class A" citizen is a slave to the government. im not a class a citizen sorry . u need to stop and think real hard.nice enclosure? have u seen the jungle they live in? then they get down graded to my enlcosure? now if you where a free person living in a housethen u got turned into a slave and downgraded to a closet or a barn floor to sleep on thats equivalent to me taking my lizards from a jungle sticking them in a 4x8 box , in my opinion.
milldabeast519 11 months ago
@milldabeast519
Okay, so now you're saying you are abusing the animals? Animal abuse is a crime. YOU need to think real hard about what you say, cuz you're digging yourself a big hole. Also, by saying you are not a "slave" to the government, you are coming across as you try to be a "rebel". If you haven't noticed, the U.S. is a free country, not a communist country. So, nobody is a "slave" to the government in the U.S. Like i said before, think before you say something.
MaxxHerps 11 months ago
@MaxxHerps you live in a bubble then wake up . do u know what s going on in the world or the clowns that run ur country ? my conditions are far from classified as animal abuse. just because the government doesnt classify it as "animal abuse " doesnt mean it is. did u watch this video . thats the fukn point hes trying to get accross i thoght?! just because u can own a reptile doesnt make it right. are u a fuckn idiot or u just wanna argue?
milldabeast519 11 months ago
@milldabeast519- Read my comment again.... I was saying YOU make it sound like it's animal abuse. You are sitting here telling people that a pet is a slave. But, then you go and try and tell the point of this video. Do YOU even understand? If you do, work on your literary skills so peopl can actually understand what in the hell you're trying to get across. Calling me a fucking idiot? Yeah, I was wrong... you're a class A dumbass.
MaxxHerps 11 months ago
@MaxxHerps yes they are our slaves and yes its legal to have slaves/pets there the same thing kid ur fuckn dumb. u live in america and ur a slave.give ur president the peace prize then lt him invade ppl! u eat what the government tells u . ur poisoned to there regulations. and everything u do revolves areound there rules. what the fuk is the deffinition of slave? people have forgot. or is it the fact that i have accepted and have no problem owning a slave/pet not getting through ur thick skull?
milldabeast519 11 months ago
@milldabeast519- Okay dumbass, I'm getting sick of your little shit about living in the U.S. We are virtually free in this country, they don't tell us how many kids we can have, how much we can make for a living, where to live, and we have the freedom of speech. You are throwing the word "slave" around like it's an okay thing, that we can have "slaves". That our pets are our "slaves". It's not okay. You appearantly don't understand the definition of slave, pets to beckon to our every call.
MaxxHerps 11 months ago
@MaxxHerps freedom of speech is all u have left. right arent laws.your 15? what do u know about the real world really.hahaha (Law) a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property (my lizard)2. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) a person who is forced to work for another against his will(his work is entertaining me)
milldabeast519 11 months ago
@MaxxHerps 3. a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence(im the other person)4.a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay(his low pay would be the low quality mass production of insects that pet stores produce vs the high quality nutritous one in the wild. just like the food they feed people. why do u think there health supplements stores. because geneticaly modifying foods also causes them to loose most of there nutritous values. msg me in a decade kid
milldabeast519 11 months ago
@MaxxHerps plus the entertainment i get from them is worth more then the effort i put into them. if they where more work and i didnt enjoy them why wouldi have them. just like a slave. if its gona cost me more money 2 feed him and hes got a gimp leg why keep him. but if his labour is worth more the the effort it takes to keep him alive.
milldabeast519 11 months ago
okay thats cool ill agree with that i mean i love my snakes, they could leave anytime if they wanted. and ill tell u what imma gonna do, this summer im gonna take each of my snakes out in the yard set them on the ground and if they slither right off i will let them. and if they dont then thats that.
amazonfreak11 1 year ago
Thats a pile of tree hugging hippie crap. I bought my snake. I own my snake.
duckiesmayrule 1 year ago
i think hes right i dont own any snakes but i look after 4 :)
mar1j4ne 1 year ago
I really love this man! no homo...
Dwergideon 1 year ago
i've felt the same way my whole life!! BUT i love animals so much that i've always surrounded myself with them. and i also feel like, there's nothing you can do...i mean, think about how many animals there are now do to pet trade, the majority of these animals would not be able to survive in the wild if released and would over populate an area anyways. but if it is not a domesticated animal, i understand why a person should not possess one...but it's how this world is.
Tarzan07330 1 year ago
When a snake is in my house, which I bought...I own it.
When someone comes in my house to take it away, it's stolen from me, thus I own it.
Infidelamsterdam 1 year ago
@Infidelamsterdam
you definitely have a point there, but if your child is taken away from you, do you consider them kidnapped? or stolen like you bought and "own" them? not trying to start anything, i just have my opinion.
MaxxHerps 11 months ago
Nice thought. I happen to disagree. Is that leather you're wearing? If so, it's pretty likely that they were owned in life before you own their skin in death.
pea6 1 year ago
btw, all these haters are making me laugh, the obviously did not watch the video.
revoltkid123 1 year ago
you are one smart man i tell you what.
revoltkid123 1 year ago
you stink, i have a bearded dragon and hes fine
Beardeddragon1008 1 year ago
@Beardeddragon1008 you didnt watch the whole video did you?
revoltkid123 1 year ago
fuck you you hippie cunt go suck a snake you fucking old ass fucking dick sucker dick hope u die soon
supermike19961991 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supermike19961991 you didnt watch the whole video did you?
revoltkid123 1 year ago
I love your philosophy and ideas behind herpetology. You are very frank and I think herpers young and old should listen to what you have to say and follow it. Keep posting my friend; these people need to hear this.
jedicoral 1 year ago
Humans have been on this planet for a few thousand years and have reduced it to an un-tollerable state that in human minds they have no choice to own it and think they own the creatures on it. But we actually own humans, we make them give us food, water, warmth, and attention. Now who is smarter?
DracaDragon 2 years ago
I totally agree. It is our right as a non human to expect quality care while we are giving humans such joy. You would not invite a friend to live with you but deny them food, water, warmth, and attention. At any given moment, returned to our natural environment, our given instincts with kick in and we would survive. How could we not be so smart as to survive, We have been on this planet for an enternity and it has treated us well.
DracaDragon 2 years ago
i like this idea. good work my philosophical freind
tomwilson88 2 years ago
Agree! I've been thinking this for years. We are their carers, not their owners. But for me to be a carer of an animal, I feel I need a good, legitimate reason (education purposes for example) and to have the appropriate time and resources. Otherwise I think it's plain disrespectful to the animal.
1sunbear 2 years ago
Comment removed
KingMarduk9279 2 years ago
hmmm. i guess you dont own animals. you just look after and feed them. great point definintly subscribing.
herps4life007 2 years ago
Bill that is the most powerfull video I have yet to see on youtube! This is a hard hitter for the reptile comunity and it is so true! No one OWN'S a living thing, dure one could take care of it but no one ones a living creature! Thanks for the video,,, you continue to amaze me!!
Your dear friend,
Orly
Pimporly 2 years ago
oh i get you take care oh a anmal you take care of it cause it is a liveing thing
starwarslizzard7904 2 years ago
Very good points, I have to agree, It's the same way as you care for the local wildlife in your area, you care for them by leaving food out and water, and providing homes, just the same as you do pets, however they decided what to do you cannot tell them what they must do as they live on the earth alongside us we should not rule over anything on this earth..
HordeFTL 2 years ago
that is completely true man
cob4lyf04 2 years ago
i personally say i HAVE a reptile. Its impossible to own anything that's living. All living things have free will, if i owned my snake then i could control everything that it does. Since it is impossible to do this then i cant own it, i can have and care for it. Its like you can have a dvd, but you still don't own the movie that's on that dvd
Blackdragn4321 2 years ago
Well said
Katalani 2 years ago
nice perspective, most people own to impress. To love is to let go i believe. Its really a double bladed sword and theres no true way to describe it. very interesting though. very debatable too. nice way to stir up thought =]
JonsReptiles 2 years ago
actually makes alot of sense
herpfreakuk 2 years ago
YES
Clobberbob55 2 years ago
really good point bill 5*
devon2372009 2 years ago
Regarding interspecies relationships, the only rule regarding ownership must be might is right. A cow does not consent to be butchered. A bear does not ask a fish whether it wants to be eaten. Furthermore, by caging a beast a human assumes a right of ownership. You are a caretaker to a caged beast in the same way a prison guard is a caretaker to a caged person. The animal is confined to a space, habitat, diet, and feeding time you have designated for it. The relationship is master-slave.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
You always think up an interesting angle, don't you?
You are right, I think of it as might is wrong but insists upom being right. As a zoo keeper i see the might of humans is to destroy habitat and being a zoo keeper is to rebel against humans to save speices. but that is zoos today, in the past zoos were one of the worst offenders. Animals in good zoos have their on habitat, feed often when they want to and are allow to hide from humans.
the few times I had a "real" JOB I felt less freedom.
billflowers 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "insists upon being right", but "might is right" is only the law of nature governing interspecies relationships. It is perfectly rational for one animal to exploit another animal if it is profitable for the exploiter. If cows were carniverous, found humans delicious, and had the means, we would be bred as food. If chimps found humans amusing and had the means, we would be in zoos. It is only natural that the lion who feels empathy for canelope will die.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
yes you're right again. humans exploit animals because we are animals, just like the lion. often only thinking of where that next meal is going to come from...
B U T
humans can imagine into the future, a handful of humans can see that we are destroying that which sustains us for short term profit. Some things in nature work together, the croc doesn't kill the bird that eats it's mites.
But most humans would.
billflowers 2 years ago
A cattle owner doesn't slaughter all of his cattle. A fishery owner doesn't catch all of his fish. A tree farmer doesn't cut down all of his trees. A king doesn't tax too heavily so as to maintain the value of his estate. All of these are actions performed by humans with consideration for the future. Whether they have found the golden mean is up for interpretation, but negative externalities can be internalized or reduced in the context of a proper incentive system. Humans only act rationally.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Here in Tasmania tree farming cannot keep up with demand of pulp mill, so since white people got here they have been cutting down the forest. Yes some people consider to future, but competion from other pulp mills forces them to think about short term profits.
Business also works by survival of the fitest, as does religion, art and culture.
Animals only think of the next meal, humans are animals.
billflowers 2 years ago
How a logging company operates depends upon whether the land they use is owned or leased by the government. If leased, then it is only rational for Joe the logging executive to cut the whole forest down and leave the place a barren wasteland. If Joe the logging executive owns the land, then it is only profitable for Joe to ensure that his property continues to yield income. Joe won't leave his property a barren wasteland for the same reason a pig farmer won't slaughter every one of his pigs.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
What if Joe has to keep up with another country that has no limits on how many trees are taken and so slips the goverment some cash under the table and cuts more than he should?
billflowers 2 years ago
I don't understand. If the land is for lease there is no reason for Joe to slip the government some cash under the table. The transaction is perfectly legal. My point is only that Joe will do what is best for Joe, and if the government leases land it is only rational of Joe to destroy it. If the government sells land it is only rational of Joe to take care of it. You can't blame Joe for doing what's best for Joe, and it makes even less sense to blame all of humanity for the actions of a few.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
joe slips a bribe for the goverment to bend the rules in his favour.
I'm don't blaming all of humanity, it is a case of the needs of the one out wiegh the needs of the many.
Joe doesn't give a shit about whats going to happen in another 50 years cause he won't be here.
billflowers 2 years ago
I still don't understand. There is no potential for corruption in this hypothetical scenario. If the land is available for lease then Joe will simply make the legal transaction. There is no reason to be conspicuos about it. It's like going into a gas station and whispering to the clerk, "I'll give you a dollar for this pack of gum." Assuming people are selfish, the only logical solution to deforestation is for the government to sell rather than lease some of its land.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
If deforestation is a problem to be avoided, then the only logical solution short of abolishing industry is for the government to sell some of its land. My point is that the problem you bring up isn't a necessary consequence of industry. It is government mismanagement of natural resources that leads to the destruction of the natural environment.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
And possibly over population on planet earth creating a demad on resources which are limited.
billflowers 2 years ago
There's a difference between demand and quantity demanded. Prices ration consumption so when supply dwindles there is an automatic living adjustment.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Regarding human destruction of the natural environment, a brilliant economist and environmentalist by the name of Walter Block explores issues ranging from tree farming, to fishing, to pollution, to oil spills, and everything inbetween. I think I remember watching an interview of him on youtube if you want to search his name and get an interesting perspective on these matters.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
"Animals in good zoos have their on habitat, feed often when they want to and are allow to hide from humans.."
A nice cage is still a cage. A slave can accept a meal from its master and still be a slave. The animals are confined, and if they try to leave they are subdued and again imprisoned. This is, by any meaningful definition of the word, ownership.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Humans imprision themselves, confine themselves to small boxes, most are slaves to a master. We call that master the boss, we call slavery a job. the best part of the day is owned by someone else and then you have to crawl back into your box for the night.
In the case of the human male, he has work in burning sun and cold rains. better for him if he was in a modern zoo.
billflowers 2 years ago
Has Emma Goldman risen from the grave? Obviously the difference between a cage and a house is that one is confinement and the other is chosen. You can live in a house, or choose not to. Your living conditions are decided by you. Every aspect of a prisoner's living conditions are decided upon by others. Also, life is a series of self sustaining activity. Productive action (jobs) is necessary for survival. If they are forced jobs, it is slavery. If they are chosen jobs, it is voluntary.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Port Arthur in Tasmania didn't have walls, convicts suffered prison because to wander off into the bush meant death by freezing or hunger. Work of some kind is necessary for survival.
But another point I was making is that humans build their own cages, houses. Animals often need to find shelter and sometimes build a nest, Humans spend most of their lives selling their freedom to others to pay off something much bigger than they need for survival.
billflowers 2 years ago
First of all, houses and cages are very different. Prisoners don't shop for cages, or put down payments on cages, or even choose cages. Humans sell their time and energy for houses by choice. Humans make a decision to buy a house, and that decision is a choice that has been made freely. There's a difference between selling your freedom, the ability to choose how to spend your life, time, and energy, and selling your time and energy.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
you only really have choice if you have money. low income means being stuck with what you can afford.
billflowers 2 years ago
This only proves a person can lack the means. It has nothing to do with living conditions being forced on a person by other people. This person is still a sovereign being and not owned by anyone, whereas an imprisoned animal is owned.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
A man can be in jail and believe he is not owned and man can live in a scumy flat and feel completely owned.
billflowers 2 years ago
Second of all, for most humans survival isn't the only motivating factor for action. Survival isn't what motivates me to watch a movie or read a book. Humans value comfortability, good tasting food, privacy, amusement, friendship, love, happiness, etc., and these things motivate humans to act along with survival. This is all besides the fact the majority of humans live in little clay huts, drink contaminated water, and work their asses off just to get by.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
This is "bread and curcus" stuff.
keeps us happy with the way things are.
billflowers 2 years ago
My point is only that humans are behaving both freely and rationally when they choose to pursue ends unrelated to mere survival.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Us zoo keepers call this enclosure enrichment, If you can keep the animal interested or amused the exhibit doesn't try to escape.
billflowers 2 years ago
wow my brain hurts from reading you and i vote nones comments , you both made some awesome points.
devon2372009 2 years ago
Speaking of zoos, I plan on taking Esther to the St. Louis zoo if we get around to it. It's really a very nice zoo.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
cool!
billflowers 2 years ago
i understand both of you perfectly.
bill has chosen to create an idiosyncratic definition of the word 'own' but he does define his distinction which makes his point valid. i just have to do a little translation.
what matters, then, is how the owner deals with his property- he develops it, perhaps, according to its nature; he may disregard its nature and destroy it too.
that is his right.
nature always provides the ultimate feedback and judgement.
kaffir2 2 years ago
bill's argument also deligitimises any laws governing the behaviour of anybody on the grounds that nobody can own anybody.
so he's ultimately respecting rights and ownership even while using the one word unconventionally.
kaffir2 2 years ago
granting sympathy to creatures with no rights is much less of a crime than denying rights to those creatures who must claim them to survive.
kaffir2 2 years ago
there is simply no scarcity of love in bill's heart. he has no need to restrict the supply. he can afford to be generous.
kaffir2 2 years ago
So if I understand, Bill is not objecting to species ownership in general, but rather appealing to all masters' sentiments for benevolence towards their subdued animals in captivity?
IVoteNone 2 years ago
that may be a little ponderous...
simplified almost to the point of distortion, might be
"love your pet'
what i take from him is t'o provide what the animal needs for a full life according to his nature'. subjugation is not required.
the premise of ownership, as we understand it, is implicit in his argument. he's just advocating a quality relationship.
our pets seem to have more than they can conveniently use, for example. they live with us instead of in africa is all.
kaffir2 2 years ago
great point but what about cattle farmers or pig farmers? They make money from their animals and couldn't if they didn't 'own' them to start off with...
aaaaa, brain melt.....
izaneers 2 years ago
not sure, have to think about it, my background is the zoo industry.
billflowers 2 years ago
indeed Bill
the only snakes I keep are to mend, then release when well. thats why I joined reptile rescue - for them, not me.
ArgusTasmania 2 years ago
good point i have thought that way for a long time about the animals i care for.
citthrasher517 2 years ago
You are so right, every animal has the right to rule themselves
Wastedwildlifeclub2 2 years ago
totally true bill, personally i am sick of millions of people asking me how many snakes i "own", i answer saying 0 but i look after 17!
TheBoaConstrictor 2 years ago
That is completely true!
It is great seeing someone identify the difference between caring for a pet and think they own the pet. You don't get a pet like a reptile that most people don't have to show off to your firends, you get a reptile because you have a passion for them.
Great Video!
jaaxz 2 years ago
I completely agree. I especially identify with the idea of parents owning their children. But that segues into a long ass rant about my parents and why I've been in therapy and on meds for years.
maarakailet1 2 years ago
You are a great man my friend,and I agree with you completely.Not one living thing can ever be owned by another.Great videos,I'm subscribing to you.
RpLaIcHzEiT 2 years ago
Very good video my friend.
garyorner 2 years ago
Mr. Flowers ... You do strike again on a important point, man !
It's not my language, but I do understand what You want to say about differences between "own" and "take care".
K2K3Y 2 years ago
Jeez at first I was really mad because you had a tiger snake but then I saw the rest of the video and you have a great point I saw I own a snake all the time with out thinking about it, I will think next time though ha.
CornSnake102 2 years ago
Excellent point there, Bill.
SAsgarters 2 years ago
I agree, thats kinda how ive always felt about it
Tokay18 2 years ago
thanks Bill, that was appreciated mate :D
i see what you are talking about and i agree completely mate, you can only really own an inanimate object, the snake is its own independant being, you just provide its care etc
ErikPaterson 2 years ago
You and Herper666 were the first to pop into my head as keepers, I've kept reptiles for more than 20 years and I'm impressed by the way you keep your reptiles.
billflowers 2 years ago
cheers mate, i do appreciate it!
at first i was confused, didn't sound like you haha
ErikPaterson 2 years ago
brilliant video Bill I totally see where your coming from and never thoght bout the terminology like that before... but your right, people don't own animals, they take care of them.
Herper666 2 years ago
After watching this video, I became dissilusioned about owning my own trouser snake... so I took it to the Parks & Wildlife office for advice, and they told me to just release it back in the same bush where I found it!
offplanetfilms 2 years ago
Well if the bush is a friendly habitat with subterranean shelter it may do well and surface from time to time and you may sometimes still catch a glimpse of him, but if you get it in the wrong bush it may fall prey to some predatory creature, die a cruel death, maybe even just lose to will to live and you will regret it for the rest of your life.
billflowers 2 years ago
Very well stated Bill. We are all creatures of our maker and have our own individual lives each one a blessing and nobody or anything owns another. I am complimented by having snakes to love and care for and they enrich my life and me as an individual because we grow together. 5*s
1softkiss 2 years ago
I 100% agree with ya there mate
MusicalCamel 2 years ago
I own my snake. If I didn't want it I would throw it out the window and it would probably die, so it's fate lies in my hands.
cjoe94 2 years ago
Nice to see ya Bill. So damn true what you say. I "own " a dog. I bought him, got him fixed, pay his med bills, feed and care for him. But none of that means I own him. He is his own being , he just so happens to love us right back ;)
art4artsake66 2 years ago
Well said Bill Cheers.
pollenman99 2 years ago
is so trueh we do not own I love your intro is so like you *****5
ingridgott 2 years ago
Awesome video, Bill.
It's good to hear from you.
5/5
FreeSpirits 2 years ago
i'm not letting my wife watch this. she'll be like..."Bill says you don't OWN me, I'm FREE!!!"
smetlogik 2 years ago
you got that right!!!
despeleta 2 years ago
well said.
xKatz90 2 years ago
hey big bill, i want to tell you about my neighbor, Bob. He is a real interesting fellow. Has strange habits, not like mine. So, I decided to catch him, in a net; then i locked him up in my basement. I take real good care of Bob. He asked me the other day, "who do i think you are, my owner?" I said no Bob, I don't own you i like watching you and i am taking care of you from now on. Well, Bob is not too happy, except when i send him a pepperoni pizza. Bill, should I set Bob free?
floydstinkyboy 2 years ago
Bill was all dressed up today ;-)
TheOioink 2 years ago
Find Bob a sexy mate and you wont have any problems
billflowers 2 years ago
no, you caught him now you take good care of him.
pus in most states its illegal to release captured animals after 5 days.
magana559 2 years ago
Good video. ;0) I don't really feel I own my snake anyways, he keeps me on my toes on feeding day. (He's super aggressive).
SomewhereInTheGray 2 years ago
Very well said !
haloman180 2 years ago
i agree, but one of my snakes just pwned a rat about 15 minutes ago.
shanethebarroomhero 2 years ago
lol
despeleta 2 years ago
Well said Mr Flowers.
I have looked after a few domestic cats and I believe they owned me..!
Interesting camera method there, almost self steady cam, and nice little treat at the end.
leokimvideo 2 years ago
my cat owns me..isnt it lucky? :)
TheOioink 2 years ago